Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara, Attorney-at-Law
2026-02-17
## Summary Hon. Dayasiri Jayasekara demanded that the government first table the Chitrasiri Committee Report in Parliament before proceeding with its proposal to abolish MPs' pensions, noting the report was submitted to the President in December 2024 but has not been made available to Members. He argued that the pension system has historical roots dating to the post-parliamentary hardship of figures such as C.W.W. Kannangara, and that abolishing it retrospectively would unjustly harm approximately 300 former MPs, 116 widows, and disabled dependants who rely on pensions averaging Rs. 18,000–20,000, with the total cost representing only around 0.0001–0.0002% of government revenue. He also challenged the governing party's credibility on the issue by tabling a JVP financial statement showing that the party had directed MPs' and former MPs' pension funds into its own party accounts, and called for any new legislation to apply prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Hon. Deputy Chairperson, thank you. I first make a special request. Only one Cabinet Minister is here; a few State Ministers as well.
I must speak about the Chitrasiri Committee Report—appointed to recommend on the salaries and entitlements of MPs, former Ministers and former Presidents. It was handed to the President on 2024‑12‑02. Your proposal to abolish MPs’ pensions is based on that report. Therefore, the government must first table the Chitrasiri Committee Report in Parliament. When I asked, they said they would, but it has not been provided. That is my first point.
Second, this is not a sudden idea. In every Parliament, MPs perform their duties with great sacrifice. A public servant with pensionable service works perhaps eight hours and gets overtime; MPs work 16–17 hours in constituencies—part organiser, part law‑maker, part public servant. This system began with C.W.W. Kannangara—regarded as the father of free education—who left a successful legal career for politics. After he left Parliament around 1960, he fell gravely ill and wrote to then Speaker R.S. Pelpola in 1961 seeking immediate relief of Rs. 10,000. Mr. Dahanayake brought that proposal, later adding Rs. 15,000, then a Rs. 500 allowance to former Members of the State Council. Thus the pension idea evolved.
On 1976‑12‑21, a debate—recorded in Hansard, which I have—discussed this in detail. Please read it.
You have now demeaned MPs—those in this and previous Parliaments. In the 1950s too, Mr. Bandaranaike removed a Cabinet Minister over corruption allegations. If there are the corrupt, enforce the law and remove them; the people too can keep them out. But what you have done is to shove all MPs to the ground in contempt.
Though Hon. Handunnetti is not here, he said MPs should only have what ordinary people have. Yet you are taking official residences and vehicles; the houses we occupied for many years did not have air‑conditioning—now under your government they are being air‑conditioned and tiled; notices were issued to fix backyards too; curtains provided; party‑furnished sofas and chairs; even gas cookers provided. You do these things quietly. We ask not for luxuries, but for reasonable facilities. Today the MP’s salary is Rs. 54,000; the pension—about a third, Rs. 18,000–20,000—is what many depend on. Around 300 former MPs live at home with no other income; about 116 widows; four disabled children—supported by these pensions. If 70–80 are corrupt, arrest them. But do not tar everyone—it is grossly unfair.
You also deduct MPs’ and provincial and local members’ salaries to your party fund. I table the “JVP Statement of Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31.12.2015.” It shows MPs’ and councillors’ salaries and even MPs’ pensions—about Rs. 3,290,000—taken into the party fund. Even the small sums of innocent former MPs were taken. Is this your “pure” politics? No other party did that—they let members keep it. Bring your Bill—fine—we will support. But pay existing former MPs their pensions.
Placed in the Library.
We ask one thing: implement this prospectively, not retrospectively to punish the past. There are former MPs who cannot even buy medicine—do not ignore them.
Thank you for the extra three minutes, Hon. Deputy Chairperson.
In this process, what are you doing? An MP’s salary is Rs. 54,000—the same as junior public servants—augmented by allowances because the base is low. The Constitution says an MP should be paid equal to a Supreme Court Judge. We could have moved to increase the base, but since people suffer, we did not. However, at least provide proper facilities. You now provide cabs and unlawful ministerial and provincial vehicles to MPs—we have the lists and can table them.
[Expunged on the order of the Chair.]
Around Rs. 4.6 million was spent on MPs’ pensions in 2023 out of total revenue of Rs. 3,048,822 million—that is 0.0001548%. In 2022, Rs. 4.5 million out of Rs. 1,979,184 million—0.0002058%. It is a tiny fraction.
We propose a contributory pension fund for MPs—as many countries have—or a lump‑sum payment after five or ten years of parliamentary service.
Placed in the Library.
You have many professors, doctors and professionals on your side. Where will they go after five years? Do not make this mistake. Implement it prospectively. Let us give up our own future pension, but do not cut off the innocent former MPs.
Thank you.