The Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill is before us today. Let me first address why we are repealing this pension.

¶ 02 Until 1977 there was no pension scheme for Members of Parliament. Being an MP was regarded as an honourable public service. In 1977, the Parliamentary Pensions Act, No. 1 of 1977, introduced an MP pension. Then followed a series of amendments: in 1979, 1982, 1985 and 1990. The 1979 amendment extended pensions to National List MPs; the 1982 amendment provided pensions to widows of MPs, retrospectively covering those who had served since 1946; the 1985 amendment extended benefits to spouses and even allowed a situation where the son of a deceased MP could continue to receive the father’s pension even if the son himself became an MP. Thus, over time, these benefits were broadened in ways that stretched the rationale.

¶ 03 After 1977, political office increasingly accumulated privileges—vehicles, houses, multiple allocations, police escorts, Ministry vehicles, coordination vehicles, party posts with vehicles, and more—contributing to a harmful political culture. This escalation played a part in eroding limits, responsibilities, and, ultimately, led to the 2022 bankruptcy.

¶ 04 Some argue that pensions curb corruption. But did corruption lessen after 1977 when MP pensions and perks increased? Clearly not. The public uprising in 2022 demanded a change in political culture. Our policy platform, prior to the presidential election, explicitly pledged measures such as limiting presidential official residences, abolishing pensions and special privileges for former Presidents and their spouses, capping the number of Ministries at 25, and abolishing MPs’ pensions after five years of service. We asked for a mandate on that basis.

¶ 05 Politics must be restored as public service. Comprehensive reforms are needed to create that ethos; this repeal is one such reform. This is not targeted at a handful of defectors, as some claim. One does not legislate for four or five individuals. This is about a significant shift in political culture, not petty calculations.

¶ 06 As for concerns about what MPs will do after age 52 or after a term—this is public service. If not re-elected after five years, one can return to one’s prior profession. I, too, came here after a regular job and with a pension from that employment. This is our choice.

¶ 07 We believe politics across all parties must be practiced as a form of public service going forward. If some cannot accept doing politics without a pension, they are free not to contest. There are many young people willing to serve voluntarily for the public good. Over the next 10 to 15 years, we need this turn to rebuild the country. This repeal is foundational to that transformation of political culture. Thank you.