A pay rise for a part time parliament

MPs should get a pay rise but only when our parliament switches from part to full time.

MPs perform the most important job in the country; making the laws of the land. Therefore they should be on the highest pay scale in the public service. But this should only apply to a full time parliament.

It is irrelevant whether our crop of MPs deserve a pay raise or not.  Many are mediocre products of the current stagnant duopoly.  A few like Evarist Bartolo who has just presented a courageous bill defending the rights of transgender people are are not.   For me  giving a  fair renumeration for parliamentary work  is a question of giving value to public service and democratic representation.

Unfortunately the Maltese tend to give little value to public service in general. It is a general trait. People tend to be shocked by high wages in the public sector but not by similar wages in the private sector. How on earth do we expect people to give up highly paid private sector jobs if we are not ready to offer them the same remuneration when they become public employees? 

People express disgust at MPs getting a raise but do not express the same sentiment against a parliament which meets a couple hours a week and where MPs do not have time to research, hold meetings with civil society and draft their own laws.  We tend to favour a system which promotes mediocrity rather than professionalism. 

The only difference between private and public employees is that the latter are paid from tax payers money. Therefore the salaries and perks of all high ranking public officials should be published on the gov.mt web site. The same applies to private companies paid for their services by the state or by state owned corporations.

Secrecy only serves to augment envy and suspicion. The same applies to the recent increase given to MPs. The government’s position has been aggravated by the timing of the pay rise (at a time of economic uncertainty) and by its lack of transparency.

Giving a pay rise to MPs behind people’s back is not exactly the best way to sell an innately unpopular decision. Even if there was consultation with the opposition (a claim denied by the PL), this does not replace the need to inform the public directly. Why did we have to learn of all this from a simple reply to a PQ by an opposition MP?  This simply confirms the impression that this government has lost the plot.  Not only does it show a lack of political tact.  And by linking  the moderate increase in MPs honoraria to the more massive increase in the salary of cabinet members, the government has given the impression that it was trying to buy the silence of the opposition by offering them a share of the cake. 

Neither am I impressed by opposition MPs individually renouncing the pay rise in an attempt to pander to popular sentiment projecting themselves as some sort of Mother Teresa.  A collective decision to accept or renounce the rise would have been wiser as it will be easier for richer MPs to renounce the pay rise and get some good pr in the process.  Any way I have an aversion to populism in whatever guise it takes.

The same populism can be easily directed against the opposition just demand for a system of state financing for political parties. 

It stands to reason that the current MP salary of €1,600 a month is ridiculous.  We should call a spade a spade. That sum reflects the mentality of a part time parliament where MPs are expected to make money in their private practice rather than from their public position. 

But increasing that sum without reforming the way parliament works also defies logic. MPs should become full time public servants with no private practice on the side.  As long as they remain part time €1,600 is a fair wage for half a day's work.

avatar
Fl-ufficcji tal-Gvern hemm fejn ghamlu palm readers biex ikunu jafu jekk il-haddiema jmorru tard, johorgu jew jitilqu kmieni jkunu jafu u jaqtghulhom mil-paga. Hekk sewwa u tajjeb. Issa la hu sewwa u tajjeb ghall-haddiema huwa sewwa u tajjeb ghall-membri parlamentari wkoll ghax huma ghandhom jaghtu ezempju mhux hafna drabi jekk ikun hemm xi wiehed minnhom jitkellem ikun jitkellem biss mal-ispeaker. Tal-misthija. Is-salarju jonqsilhom ghandu mhux jizdied. Dan ghandu japplika wkoll ghall-pensjoni mhux taghna ikkappjata u lanqas niehdu 2/3 u wara li nkunu hdimna bejn 30-40 sena u taghhom jehduha mhix imnaqqsa u wara li jitilghu biss darbtejn. Din oxxenita ohra tal-membri parlamentari.
avatar
James tkomplix tghid hmerijiet. Jaqaw tkun fil-qamar meta tikteb dawn l-artikli jew tpejjep il-hurrieq. Kif dejjem trid issib il-hazin fil-PL. Qum mir-raqda trid!!!!
avatar
Jason Xuereb
I suggest that one of your journalists be given the task of compiling a database of the hours spent in Parliament by each of our 65 Representatives for the past 2 years. The result may shock some people and may also help to establish a base for the argument for/against the raise.
avatar
Generally speaking I accept the argument that the MP's current pay is low, but the timing of the rise is highly insensitive. Having said that, one feels for poeple like Silvio Parnis and Noel Farrugia (and there could possibly be others) who avae chosen to devote themselves to making themselves available to people in need or to do valuable, unpaid Parliamentary work abroad, and whose sole income income is the Parliamentary allowance.
avatar
Alfred Galea
[Neither am I impressed by opposition MPs individually renouncing the pay rise in an attempt to pander to popular sentiment projecting themselves as some sort of Mother Teresa] I doubt they did it to impress you James.....and I doubt they did it as a sort of Mother Theresa....could it possibly be that they did it because they have a conscience?? Or that they don't want to be seen as hypocrites?? Or maybe if they took it and gave it to the illegal immigrants or some lesbian/gay organisation you would then really be impressed, like you are with Bartolo??
avatar
Finally, someone has said something on this controversy that makes eminent sense. My only comment is that M.P.'s should not be, and should not be considered, as public servants. In the U.K., as a result of the separation of powers, an M.P. tenders his resignation by applying to public office. The separation of powers in Malta should be strengthened, and not weakened, as has happened over the last six years. M.P.'s should be servants of the state and not public servants - a subtle distinction one may argue but one pregnant with constitutional significance, J. Ellis.
avatar
@James: "Neither am I impressed by opposition MPs individually renouncing the pay rise in an attempt to pander to popular sentiment projecting themselves as some sort of Mother Teresa." If the PL had accepted the pay rise. You would have accused them (and rightly so) of hypocrisy and regurgitated the usual PLPN mantra (which is getting a bit old and nonsense since the PN has been in power for 23 of the last 25 years and not of a 50% share as the PLPN slogan would imply).