|
MPs’ pay-rise controversy was unnecessary
2006-01-30 07:48:06
By Mangengesa Mdimi, PST
Last week, our honourable Members of Parliament (MPs) at their orientation seminar at Ubungo Plaza in Dar es Salaam, found themselves in a whirlwind bombardment from some members of the public following media reports that the legislators were asking for an outrageous increase in their salaries and allowances.
The way the local media reported the proceedings in the seminar, made the legislators look like a gluttonous lot devoid of even a rudimentary understanding of the weak economic position of the country.
The reports made the MPs look like greedy people interested only in their personal aggrandisement and ’to hell with the development of their constituencies and the people they were elected to serve.’
And yes, the media reports sparked off an unnecessary public debate, which, to a large extent managed to tarnish the image of that august House and the MPs themselves.
Some of the MPs tried to explain the fairness and genuineness of their demands, pointing out that the local media was unfairly poisoning the minds of the public against the legislators, considering that the MPs demand seemed to have come even before the House met in full session for the first time.
Alas! It was too late, because the damage had already been done the minds of the public had already been poisoned and the poor MPs were being lambasted from all corners.
The Speaker of the National Assembly, honourable Samuel Sitta, tried to justify the legislators’ demands (and I think he did a creditable job) explaining that the MPs were in fact discussing a report on MPs’ salaries and other fringe benefits prepared by a Bunge committee formed in 2003 led by William Shelukindo.
So, then the salary increase was one of the items on the agenda for the orientation seminar.
I concur with the Speaker that it was presented at an opportune place and time because the MPs had to know their entitlements commensurate with their status and duties in their constituencies before they settled down for their demanding job of representing the people.
Now, demands for raised salaries is not in itself a strange phenomenon unless the demands go beyond proportions and assume the dimensions similar to those controversial pay rise demands of the doctors towards the end of last year.
And even the doctors’ demands were not outrageous as some people would like to believe, but what annoyed the government, and the general public, was the way the demands were put forward and the doctors’ refusal for dialogue.
I want to emphatically suggest here that the legislators’ pay rise demands are not unusual or outrageous.
No, not at all. In fact I believe that their demands are fair, genuine and timely, and I totally agree with Paul Kimiti that the MPs should not feel ashamed to push forward their realistic demands. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Isn’t it true, as honourable Kimiti said, that the legislators have a tougher and more challenging responsibilities than civil servants some of whom earn much higher salaries than the MPs?
When was the last time the MPs’ pay perks were raised?
I also tend to agree with honourable Ludovick Mwananzila that those who question the legislators’ demands for salary increase do not understand the heavy responsibilities of the MPs.
As far as I understand, Members of Parliament are the most effective agents for development in a particular area or constituency because they are closest to the grass root of people and they are the most effective liaison agents between the government and the people.
They are therefore always on the move between their constituencies and various government offices.
I believe that such MPs need more facilitation financially and service wise than those civil servants sitting in urban centres drawing fat salaries and sometimes astronomical allowances, for that matter.
We are told that the legislators earn a gross salary of 1.2 m/- per month (their net pay should therefore be less than a million shillings).
They also get 100,000/- as sitting allowance and a similar amount as constituency allowance and house allowance.
Further, they are entitled to a car allowance (I don’t know how much is their car allowance) and limited health insurance cover for themselves and their dependants.
As far as I am concerned, this is a hell lot of money for a kijiweni fellow or to most of us low-income earners who tend to wrongly think that anyone getting above our income lives a lavish life.
If 1.2m/- in the context of Dar es Salaam is nothing, as some members of the public seem to suggest, then the same amount is hopelessly worthless to a dedicated MP not in Dar es Salaam but in the villages of his or her constituency.
The bottom line is, however, that no amount of salary can be enough to anyone.
In fact, experience has often shown that the more money one gets, in whatever name or form, the more one wants. It is never enough.
If we can pay the MPs three million shillings, let us do so.
If we can afford to pay them 5m/-, for Gods sake, let us pay them.
But if we can afford 2m/- or even less than what they are getting now, let us not feel ashamed to tell them so.
I insist that it is unfair to brand the MPs pay-rise demands as outrageous and greedy. Ooh!! I wish I were honourable Member of Parliament…
What I do not understand about the MPs’ demands is their suggestion that their salaries should be kept secret.
Of course, I understand the legislators’ apprehension at the hands of the local media who the MPs perceive as mischievous troublemakers.
But that is very reason why the legislators should not run away from the media people, they should work in tandem with the newsmen and women, clearly explaining things out so that the reporters do not ’misquote’ them and cause unwarranted friction between them.
When reporters detect any hesitation on the part of the legislators, they suspect that there is something serious, something unpalatable in the interest of the public that the legislator want to conceal under the carpet.
And why should an MPs’ salary, of all the people, be a secret? The parliament is where everything should be kept as open as possible.
That is why we would want all the MPs to declare their wealth (and, or the extend of their poverty) when they begin their five-year term and at the end of it. That is fair, isn’t it?
As for their request to increase their term of office to seven years from five, I emphatically say a huge ’NO’, because I sincerely believe that would be undemocratic.
If you cannot deliver in five years, you will not be able to deliver in 50 years. So, ’no’ to seven-year-term. Thank you.
|
