The issue of inequity in the remuneration packages recommended for the senior officers of the State, mainly the President, the Prime Minister and Ministers of Government, projected at levels up to 20-25 per cent, when compared to the four per cent granted by the Government to public servants, has already been interpreted as political advantage-taking of taxpayers and unconcern for workers.
To the unions and other objectors, it matters not that the proposed increases are those advocated by the Salaries Review Commission (SRC), an independent constitutional body without the power to force acceptance and implementation of its recommendations.
The fact for the union leaders and indeed all other principled objectors, will be focused on whether or not the Government accepts the recommendations for implementation. For certain, the unions and other objectors will see the timing of the release of the SRC report, coming after the Government made settlements with public service unions, as being calculated to say: “Well you got yours; now it’s our turn to take ours.”
At the base of what the unions have already said and are planning to say more on today, are a few factors which are built-into the politics of the day. One, the belief that the politicians are in it for themselves; two, that there is a major disparity in the minimal increases given to public servants, and the heavy hike in salaries for the President, Government and the Opposition.
In the instance of the latter, at least one official of the Parliamentary Opposition has signalled a position against the proposed increases being accepted. As with politics, the Opposition has a free hand to oppose, but will nevertheless be entitled to receive increased salaries and allowances, if deemed so by the Government in office.
From a reading of the SRC report, there is no setting out of the conditions of the economy to make such increased salary payments: the ability of the State to afford additional costs; the legitimacy of the office holders to be deserving of the proposed increases; even, an argument of what kind of value the proposed increases will bring to the State, all important criteria for salary increases to be awarded, but not required to be listed in its proposals.
In addition to all of those issues and surely many more, the expectation must be that if Government decides it will accept the SRC recommendations, it will have to travel the full distance to effectively argue from the Parliament, and with hard data, its justification to accept or reject the proposals.
What is being advocated here is the need for a pattern of responsible and accountable governance to be firmly put in place; in this instance, in the justificaton for hefty increases for Parliamentarians' salaries soon after public servants were denied similar treatment due to the country's economic standing.
Likewise, if Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley and his Government are of the view such salary increases cannot be justified and afforded at this time, he must make the case to reject.
The business of the nation must go beyond political manipulation, to expecting that important decisions with far-reaching consequences are based on solid substantiation.
The Prime Minister’s argument will also have to go beyond the affordability to the moral and ethical grounds.