PERHAPS BEFORE the end of this week, Finance Minister, Dr. Omar Davies, will announce the level of salary increases to be received by Members of Parliament and of the executive branch of government. We expect that the pay increases will be in keeping with what has been approved for members of the public bureaucracy under the agreement between the Government and public sector unions.
Given the public sector MoU, this expected continued relationship between the pay of MPs and ministers with that of civil servants would hardly be frowned on. Nonetheless, we believe it unfortunate that members of the legislature have not moved with the alacrity, and courage, not only to de-link their salaries from those of civil servants, but to embrace significantly the options that were offered by the review committee, which was led by Mr. Oliver Clarke.
There is, though, still some hope given the shamefaced retreat by the House late last year from the position taken by a special parliamentary group that reviewed the Clarke report and its decision to send the findings for further review. More than six months have passed since that position was adopted. It is time, we think, for the public to hear what has been agreed. This time, we hope, MPs will do the right thing and will not be again embarrassed into an undignified backtrack.
Let's be clear. We do not believe that MPs and ministers are overpaid or even adequately paid. So we support the proposal for the establishment of a salary review body to set a new base pay and to recommend annual increments.
However, we believe that increments should be based on
measurable performance, so as to provide the Parliament and members of the executive with incentives to pursue good and worthwhile policies that do not undermine people's standard of living.
In that regard, we agree with, and urge the parliamentary group, to adopt the proposal of the salary committee, that pay hikes for MPs should be half of the rate of inflation in Jamaica, but subject to a cap of the average inflation rate of the United States, Britain, Japan and Germany. In this way, all MPs would be punished for a bad job by the executive and parliamentarians would therefore have more reason to speak up when patently bad decisions are proffered.
We agree too with the proposal that the parliamentary pork barrel, the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP) should be abandoned and the cash used to finance increases in salaries to MPs, including non-partisan constituency offices and research assistants. If we pay MPs more we should reasonably expect transparency on their part. The private disclosure of assets and liabilities to the Integrity Commission can't be good enough. MPs should publicly have to disclose how much, and from where, they earned income not paid by the State. When a society grants the enormous powers of public office to people who actively seek them, the contract is more than implied that the job comes with the requirement of transparency.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
