Why the prime minister’s salary freeze needs a second look

THE EDITOR, Madam:

In 2023, when Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness declined the salary increase assigned to his office, many Jamaicans – myself included – saw it as a powerful gesture of solidarity. At a time when families were struggling and the country was still emerging from economic strain, the decision felt right. It sent a message that leadership was willing to share in the sacrifice.

But as the years have passed, it has become clear that this symbolic act, however admirable, has created consequences that were never intended.

Most Jamaicans are unaware that the pension of a former Prime Minister is tied directly to the salary of the sitting Prime Minister. When the salary is frozen, the pensions of former leaders remain frozen as well. This affects individuals who have served the nation for decades and who rely on those pensions in their later years. And while there are no surviving widows of former Prime Ministers today, the formula still governs the future pensions of their spouses. A freeze today becomes a freeze tomorrow.

We must also acknowledge the reality of political life in Jamaica: constituency support often comes directly from the pockets of our elected representatives. School fees, medical emergencies, funeral assistance, community projects –these are not abstract line items in a budget. They are real needs, and Jamaicans frequently turn to their MPs for help. For a Prime Minister, the demands are even greater.

By declining the salary increase, the Prime Minister limited his own ability to meet these needs at a time when communities continue to rely heavily on him. The gesture was noble, but the practical effects have been significant.

Leadership is not only about sacrifice; it is also about sustainability. A decision that was appropriate in a moment of national hardship may not be appropriate indefinitely. Circumstances change. Responsibilities grow. And the needs of the people do not diminish simply because a symbolic gesture was made years ago.

It is time for Jamaica to have an honest conversation about the unintended consequences of the Prime Minister’s salary freeze. Revisiting the decision is not about personal enrichment. It is about fairness to former leaders, support for future spouses, and ensuring that the Prime Minister has the means to continue assisting the communities that depend on him.

Symbolism has its place, but so does practicality. The country is in a different moment now, and responsible leadership requires the courage to adjust when a well-meaning decision begins to create more harm than good.

MARY ALEXANDER