EDITORIAL - Sgt Wilson and MPs' pay

The Police Federation and other public-sector employees have quite legitimate points of argument over how the Golding administration imposed a freeze on their wages two years ago, particularly in the absence of time-lines by the Government for honouring its outstanding obligations.

Indeed, this newspaper believes it to be imperative that the administration clarify when, and how precisely, it will cover the debt that the courts have left no doubt is a contractual liability of the state.

But the administration's failure in this regard ought not to be conflated with the Government's paying of outstanding travelling allowances to parliamentarians to conspire a garbled narrative. That, unfortunately, is the effect of recent comments by the Police Federation's chairman, Sergeant Raymond Wilson.

"Our members are outraged by the turn of events," Sergeant Wilson told this newspaper. "As such, an all-island branch meeting (of the federation) has been called to deal with the matter."

The source of the outrage by Mr Wilson and his fellow police officers is the J$32.2 million that current and former members of parliament (MPs) will receive for motor-vehicle upkeep and reimbursement for travel for a period going back to April 2006.

Issue of principle

Parliamentarians were the only group who did not receive these general allowances before the wage freeze came into effect in 2009, covering salary hikes for the 2008-2010 financial years. Indeed, other public-sector employees are receiving their adjusted allowances as a portion of outstanding amounts, as opposed to hikes in basic salary. Otherwise, the pay of parliamentarians, like that of other public-sector employees, has been frozen, and in the case of government legislators, reduced by 10 per cent.

Moreover, the $32 million in allowances that has now been paid to MPs is a tiny sum in the context of the billions of dollars the Government owes, although the amount would hardly matter if a fundamental issue of principle was in play.

Opportunity for debate

That notwithstanding, the opportunity opened by Mr Wilson's intervention for another go at debating how Jamaica remunerates parliamentarians should not be allowed to go to waste. The matter was reprised recently by Senator Williams, the junior minister in the finance ministry with responsibility for public-sector wages.

Compensation for parliamentarians is always a hot-button issue, guaranteed to ignite quarrels every time their pay is raised. Legislators, therefore, move with trepidation in adjusting their salaries, despite the various formulas that have been proposed over the years.

Their fudge has produced unsatisfactory outcomes that contribute to some of the less-than-quality talent who offer themselves as the people's representatives, and to the perception that some of the people who sit in the legislature are venal and corrupt.

Of course, paying MP better provides no guarantee of decency and integrity on the part of members of the House or Senate, or those who make it to the executive. However, a decent wage is more likely to be a disincentive to graft than not.

At the very least, the matter of what we expect from our legislators, and how they should be compensated for this, should be debated. The Clarke Committee report on the subject nearly a decade ago provides a useful platform from which to start.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.