2026-02-17 / Debate: Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading and Committee Stage 2026-02-17
The speaker presents the Bill to abolish MPs' pensions, grounding it in the ruling party's electoral mandate as reflected in both its parliamentary and presidential manifestos, rather than in the Chitrasiri Report. She challenges the Opposition's objections by noting that their own members, including Hon. Ravi Karunanayake and Hon. Withanage, had previously submitted Private Members' Bills to the same effect, questioning whether they will now vote in favour. She argues that the MPs' pension, introduced by the 1977 Act, created an expectation of personal benefit that was absent among earlier politicians such as C.W.W. Kannangara, who served without such incentives. The speaker contends that abolishing the pension will help restore a culture of public service over personal privilege in parliamentary politics.
Hon. Deputy Chairperson, thank you.
Today we present the Bill to abolish MPs’ pensions. Everyone knows why: we do so based on the people’s mandate—not the Chitrasiri Report. This was discussed with the people before the elections and included in both our parliamentary and presidential manifestos. With a two‑thirds mandate, we are bound to act.
I must also note: last year, Hon. Ravi Karunanayake and Hon. Withanage submitted Private Members’ Bills here to abolish MPs’ pensions. If so, why does the Opposition now object? Their own leaders supported such a move—perhaps thinking we would not act and seeking some popularity. Today, those who tabled them are not even in the Chamber. Will they vote for this?
Many argued that to ensure quality service and reduce corruption, MPs need a pension. But the 1977 Act first created this pension; before 1977, no MP entered politics expecting a pension. C.W.W.W. Kannangara did not champion free education for a pension. That is the important point. Those are the sort of MPs we need—who enter for public service, not privilege. That is why we bring this Bill.
No MP prior to 1977 came into politics expecting a pension; they came to serve. Since then, the pension was introduced. We can all agree that pre‑1977 leaders and MPs still enjoy public respect for their dedication and integrity. Compare them with many who came in the past 40 years—there is a sky‑to‑earth difference. Do not diminish or insult those earlier leaders by making this all about pensions; they neither sought nor expected one. They had only a passion for service. It is thanks to such people that Sri Lanka rose at all—not because of those now arguing here for pensions.