2026-02-17 / Debate: Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading and Committee Stage 2026-02-17
## Summary
The speaker traces the history of Sri Lanka's parliamentary pension scheme, noting that since its introduction in 1977, the Act was amended multiple times (1979, 1982, 1985, and 1999), each time broadening eligibility — from constituency members to National List members, then to widows and widowers, and ultimately, under the 1985 Amendment No. 33, allowing spouses already receiving a pension to retain it even upon being elected as MPs themselves.
The speaker argues that this progressive expansion of parliamentary privileges reflects a broader decline in political culture, and presents the Bill under debate as a corrective measure aimed at transforming the standard of public representation rather than merely reforming pension entitlements. She dismisses criticism that the debate has been reduced to trivial matters such as party funds, asserting that the Bill's purpose is to cultivate accountable, people-centred representatives. The speaker also attributes the public sentiment that "all 225 are bad" to the conduct of previous governments that drove the country to economic bankruptcy, rejecting any suggestion that responsibility for that perception lies with the current administration.
Another important matter is this: What should we examine under this pension? Since the Act was introduced in 1977, it was amended several times — in 1979, 1982, 1985 and again in 1999. With each amendment the parliamentary pension scheme was broadened. The class of persons entitled to it kept expanding. At first, it applied only to Members elected by constituency. Thereafter, it was extended to National List Members. Then it was extended to widows and widowers of Members, and even further.
Hon. Deputy Chairperson of Committees, to see how far this went, look at the 1985 Amendment, No. 33. It provided that a spouse entitled to a pension on account of a Member would continue to be entitled even if that spouse was elected as a Member of Parliament. This shows how the entitlement was expanded step by step. This is how politics in our country evolved — year after year, decade after decade — sliding into decline. We bring this Bill precisely to change that state of affairs.
Some have reduced this discussion to a very trivial level — talking about party funds and other side issues. Our aim is larger. Not to look at the pension book, but to build a standard-bearing public servant and people’s representative — one who is dedicated to the aspirations of the people and to public service. That is the purpose of presenting this Bill.
What opinion did the public have about politicians? It is often said today, “All 225 are bad.” That sentiment did not arise because of us; it arose from the way your governments governed. Because the country was driven to bankruptcy and people suffered to the point of taking to the streets, people came to reject “all 225”. Do not try to lay that blame at our door.
When politicians govern against the public interest, the people will reject them. We have a responsibility to build a new kind of politician — one accountable to the people and among the people. Privileges are mocked only when representatives act against the people — not because they lack police escorts, large vehicles or pensions. A people’s representative is not someone who comes to collect perks. People respect those who earn their trust.