Rowley’s approach simplistic

Dr Rowley’s statements have naturally been interpreted as an indirect criticism of his political leader, Prime Minister Patrick Manning. Dr Rowley has denied this, saying that his comments were made because of his concerns about Trinidad and Tobago. But, given Dr Rowley’s long political experience, this is a little disingenuous. Just the fact that he raised these issues in the Parliament, instead of behind closed party doors, suggests that Dr Rowley had a political aim in mind.

This does not invalidate his arguments. But it does show that his condemnation of citizens as liking bacchanal is an example of a man ignoring the beam in his own eye. Be that as it may, Dr Rowley’s point about full-time Parliamentarians is worth considering. Given that both the Lower and Upper Houses sit only one afternoon for a week, MPs are paid well — if judged by an hourly rate. But to do their job properly, MPs must do significant preparation — read background documents, talk to people, analyse Bills and so on. Still, this does leave time for MPs to earn other income. So it is quite possible that making MPs full-time with higher salaries, rather than facilitating backbenchers, may actually reduce their total earnings. And, full-time or not, the post of MP has no job security. So, before such a change is even considered, MPs past and present must be asked what they would prefer.

Then there is the issue of ministers. Dr Rowley did not argue that ministerial salaries should be increased, but the point has been made that ministers are actually paid less than some of the persons whose salaries they approve, and that they handle budgets much larger than many private sector CEOs who earn higher salaries. It is also argued that better ministerial salaries would discourage corruption and encourage a higher calibre of persons to offer themselves for office.

All these arguments are superficial. In the first place, the worth of a job is never judged by monetary standards alone. Being a Government Minister carries with it significant perks, not least of which is the status and authority that comes with the position. And, even after these individuals demit office, the listing of "Government Minister" surely looks good on a CV. In the second place, it is misleading to compare private and public sector salaries in this way, since the private sector has built-in sanctions for non-performance. Such sanctions might not be practical in Government, but more transparency is certainly required if higher ministerial pay is to be justified. And, in the third and final place, it is not a given that better salaries will attract more competent persons to public office. Indeed, the opposite may be true — it is those persons willing to make some financial sacrifice who may be better suited in temperament for such a job.

So the issue is a complex one, which needs to be thoroughly debated. But there must be changes, because the core point raised by Dr Rowley is not in contention — citizens definitely aren’t getting their money’s worth from Parliament.