2026-02-17 / Debate: Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill - Second Reading and Committee Stage 2026-02-17
## Summary
Hon. (Dr.) Najith Indika spoke in support of the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill, tracing the origins of MPs' pensions to 1977 and outlining subsequent amendments that progressively expanded entitlements to include widows, spouses, children, and even concurrent MP-spouses, arguing this expansion contributed to a culture of personal gain over public service. He contended that introducing pensions did not reduce corruption, as the Opposition Leader suggested it would, but instead coincided with increasing political privilege that he linked to the country's 2022 fiscal crisis. The speaker situates the Bill within his party's pre-election policy commitments, which included capping ministries at 25, abolishing perks for retired Presidents and their spouses, and ending MPs' pensions after five years. He dismissed claims that the legislation targets specific individuals and argued that politics should be treated as temporary public service, with former MPs returning to prior professions rather than relying on lifetime political entitlements.
Today, the Parliamentary Pensions (Repeal) Bill is before us. To understand why this pension is being abolished, we must know the background. Until 1977, MPs had no pension. Being an MP was regarded as a noble public service. In 1977, Act No. 1 introduced a parliamentary pension. Thereafter, amendments followed: in 1979 (extending to National List MPs), in 1982 (to provide for widows and backdating to pre-1977—including to those in service since 1946), in 1985 (to spouses and even children), and in 1990, progressively expanding entitlements. Notably, a 1985 provision allowed a spouse to continue receiving an MP’s pension even if that spouse was subsequently elected as an MP—effectively enabling inheritance across generations.
Beyond pensions, after 1977 political perks and privileges escalated—multiple vehicles, security, ministerial fleets, posts with additional vehicles—creating a destructive political culture. Instead of serving the people, personal gain became the focus, culminating in the country’s bankruptcy in 2022. The Leader of the Opposition said pensions reduce corruption—did corruption decrease after pensions were introduced? The experience shows the opposite.
Our policy platform, presented even before the presidential election, pledged: limit the number of ministries to 25; restrict official residences; abolish pensions and special perks for retired Presidents and their spouses; and abolish MPs’ pensions after five years. This is a principled reform, not spite. Claims that this targets a few who left the JVP or any other party are absurd; laws are not made for a handful.
As MP Dayasiri Jayasekara asked, what will MPs do after 52? Politics is public service. If one is not reappointed after five years, one can return to their previous profession. There is no need to remain an MP or Minister for life. Many of us came here from real jobs; we can return to them. We support this reform to restore politics as genuine public service and to effect a broader cultural change needed to rebuild the country over the next 10–15 years.
Those who cannot accept this reform need not contest. Parties can nominate candidates willing to serve without a pension. Many young people are ready to engage in politics as public service. This Bill is an important step in transforming our political culture. Thank you.