• SLPP Gen. Secy. claims no knowledge of how individual MPs would react 

The main Parliamentary Opposition, the SJB, is yet to decide its position on the proposed repeal of Parliamentary pensions, with the Party saying that the matter will be discussed at its Parliamentary group meeting before a final decision is taken.

Speaking to The Daily Morning, SJB General Secretary and Parliamentarian, Ranjith Madduma Bandara said: "The SJB Parliamentary group will discuss this and take a final decision."

When contacted, the Opposition’s SLPP General Secretary, attorney Sagara Kariyawasam said the Party believes that certain benefits should be provided to MPs, stressing that effective governance depends on the participation of elected representatives. “As a Party, we are of the view that certain benefits should be given because governance is the most important thing in the country. If MPs don’t receive anything, why would they come and take part in governance? That is our view." However, he said they also admit the current NPP Government has an obligation to repeal Parliamentary pensions as it was a key promise made by the NPP ahead of the elections. "The public now expects the Government to follow through on that pledge. What people expect is happening, they should do it. Then, the people themselves will understand that what the Government did was not right." However, he said that he is unable to comment on how MPs representing the SLPP would react when the Bill is taken up in the Parliament.

Attempts to contact several Illankai Arasu Tamil Katchi MPs proved futile.

Early last year, New Democratic Front MP Ravi Karunanayake presented a Private Member’s Motion in the Parliament, proposing the abolition of the pension scheme for MPs. Speaking in Parliament at that time, he said that public trust in elected representatives was severely undermined, partly due to perceptions of unfair privileges enjoyed by politicians.

However, the Collective of Retired MPs has urged political party leaders and MPs to amend the proposed legislation to abolish Parliamentary pensions, warning that a blanket repeal would severely affect former MPs who previously served in the State sector. In a letter addressed to party leaders and MPs, the Collective's Chairperson, former MP Ranaweera Pathirana, and Secretary, former MP Pemasiri Manage, noted that many elected MPs had resigned from the Government service in order to enter the Parliament. As a result, it said that several of them had forfeited their entitlement to Government pensions. "Some of these former public servants who later became MPs had completed less than 10 years of State service and are therefore not entitled to any Government pension, while others qualify only for a very small pension based on their years of service. Parliamentary pensions have, in many cases, been the primary means through which these former MPs supported their families." The Collective warned the complete removal of Parliamentary pensions would hence place such individuals in severe financial difficulty and could lead to the breakdown of their family lives. They further pointed out that most MPs who transitioned from the Government service are now over the age of 55 or 60, making it unrealistic for them to seek alternative employment or start new businesses at this stage of their lives.

In this context, the Collective has requested that legislative amendments be introduced to safeguard the pension rights of MPs who previously served in the State sector, before the Bill is passed into law. They also called on the Parliament to ensure that any law abolishing Parliamentary pensions is not applied retrospectively, noting that this had been a recommendation made by a committee chaired by a Supreme Court (SC) Judge which looked into the matter. 

These views come ahead of the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill, which is scheduled to be taken up for debate in the Parliament on 17 February from 11.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The SC has determined that no provision in the proposed Bill is inconsistent with the Constitution, and that it can be enacted by the Parliament with a simple majority.