|
15% Hike For Politicians? |
|
|
|
Seating Allowance Remains
Members of Parliament and their colleagues in the political establishment are likely to get a 15% hike, just like civil servants. MPs had always called for a better remuneration package but they usually got what the public servants got in terms of percentages.
In spite of a task force to re-look at their conditions of service, it is unlikely that they will be offered much more.
Information reaching The Gazette suggests that the Dibotelo Commission’s recommendation to have the seating allowance discontinued was thrown out. Instead it will also be raised by 15%, we understand.
Although politicians had wanted increments in the region of about 38%, the Dibotelo Commission did not offer much. Sources close to The Gazette revealed that it had “only slightly raised” salaries for all categories.
The Commission had recommended that MPs’ yearly constituency allowances, ranging from P62,652 for specially elected ones to P76,908 for those representing remote areas be hiked by 7.5%. But it appears Government has not heeded this call and may up it by 15% instead. MPs’ hospitality allowance of P6,216 per annum and a communication allowance calculated at the standard rate of P27,420 per year, will also go up by 15%; the Commission had recommended a 7.5% hike for both.
Last week Gaborone Central MP, Dumelang Saleshando said the process of MPs debating their salaries was very untidy. He believes that their salaries should be evaluated by outsiders so that the whole process must be objective.
The Gazette understands that not even Cabinet Ministers were happy with the recommendations of the Commission because it has not suggested improvements to the salaries.
Its terms of reference was to review the existing pay scales of the politicians and make appropriate recommendations to reflect the level of responsibility and accountability for each of the categories.
It was also tasked to review the existing conditions of service and other entitlements, including Allowances and Terminal Benefits for each of the categories with a view to making appropriate recommendations.
The Commission was also asked to present the financial implications of the recommendations.
The government decision could well pose questions as whether there is any need for commissions because their recommendations are rarely accepted.
“A lot of money is spent to pay commissioners; if government can make decisions alone, why appoint commissioners?” asked one government critic.
BY AUBREY LUTE
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
