Delroy Chuck RECENT ADJUSTMENT in the salaries of parliamentarians brought to public attention the issue of a reasonable remuneration for political representation. Persons who spoke publicly were certainly of the view that parliamentarians were not deserving of any better pay, much less the significant increase given. Who determines, or should determine, the salary and benefits of parliamentarians, and for councillors?
When I read The Gleaner's report that parliamentary salary had increased by 16 per cent, from approximately $1.9 million to 2.2 million, I recognised that something was amiss. I know that up to June, 2002, my basic pay was $90,586.58 per month, or $1.087 million per year, and in spite of a slight adjustment in July and August, I knew the increase was much more substantial than was reported. I felt I owed the public an explanation and appreciated the need to correct the error. My integrity was on the line. Hitherto, I had informed my constituents that, inclusive of other benefits and less statutory deductions, I took home approximately $75,000 per month, which would be inconsistent with $1.9 million per year.
When I saw my salary for November, the basic pay had increased to $183,887.58, and inclusive of benefits and less deductions, the take-home pay had moved to approximately $150,000. I admit to being pleasantly shocked, as I was not aware of any pending increase nor was I aware of any agreement for increased parliamentary salary. My understanding is that significant increases and adjustments were secretly promised and agreed for civil servants, and as parliamentary salaries are automatically adjusted, then that accounts for the increase to parliamentarians. Interestingly, the increase and adjustment were promised for the better part of two years but became effective on the 1st October 2002, no doubt to avoid the political fallout.
I find the secret increase in salaries to be political stealth and deceptive of the Jamaican people. Sinisterly, the government kept the proposed increase and actual implementation from the Jamaican people until after the General Election was announced. The increase on the 1st October ensured that civil servants, and parliamentarians, got their increase regardless of which party was in government but, no doubt, to embarrass a JLP government, which would have had the difficulty in finding the money. The question, then, can anyone believe the Opposition was aware, or even agreed to this increase, and failed to make it public? It would have been political dynamite. However, no one should be surprised, as this government perennially practices deception: it promises open and transparent government but does the opposite.
What the Jamaican people have yet to appreciate is the massive amount of back pay due this fiscal year, which is partly responsible for the gross and grave fiscal deficit of over eight per cent. My understanding is that in excess of $10 billion will be paid out shortly, of which parliamentarians who served in the last Parliament are to share $192 million. The Ministers are likely to get the bulk of the back pay, as their salaries are already twice that of other parliamentarians. The real issue the people should really be discussing is not the increase to parliamentarians, who are merely a small subset of the public sector, but how could the government agree to this substantial increase to the public sector when the economy is in such a parlous state?
What is the basis for the salary increase of this magnitude? The government's fiscal management is a total wreck. Its budget is out of sync and cannot be balanced during its present term of office. It borrows to pay salaries. Revenues are down. The private sector is suffocating and, now, this massive increase to the public sector. What moral authority will the government have to deny other sectors - teachers, nurses, doctors, etc. - similar increases?
This government stupidly relies on monetary tools to manage the economy while it spends recklessly and profligately without any regard for good fiscal management. Should the Opposition help? I think the government should be allowed to bury itself in the sinkhole that it is obviously digging for the country. Yes, the Opposition should point out the pitfalls to the country, but isn't that what we were doing less than three months ago? Even if we tried, would the government allow us to hold its hand and take it back to good fiscal and monetary management?
Many argue that the Opposition should return the increase. With an arrogant and self-serving government, to what effect? Would it change anything? Or, would the government side, and many in the public, just laugh and ignore us? In any event, only 11 Opposition MPs got an increase, and what proportion of the increase should be returned? Do we say only 10 per cent can be justified and return the rest, and to whom? If returning the salary would cause the government to suspend the increases and adjustment, and save the country in excess of $10 billion, I would be the first to recommend such a course of action.
But, I know this government has no sense of fiscal management and, in spite of the fiscal deficit, is intent on implementing the increase and adjustment. Personally, I will not take the salary increase. I actually spend much more in my constituency than I receive in salary and benefits, and none of this recent salary increase will be taken or enjoyed by me. I intend to use it to improve and assist my constituency. Perhaps the time is right for the present Parliament to find an appropriate mechanism, which should not include serving politicians, to determine salary and benefits for political representation. I acknowledge politicians deserve better but only if they serve the country better.
Delroy Chuck is an attorney-at-law and Opposition Member of Parliament. He can be contacted by e-mail at delchuck@hotmail.com.
