There is the subject matter of governance of the country that only a few are minded to discuss. This shortcoming strikes at the core of why there continues to be a precipitous decline in law and order in Barbados. As the old people say, if the head is bad, the body is useless.
The Westminster system, inherited from our colonial past, assumes that a few good elected and appointed individuals will hold themselves accountable. Yet, there is enough evidence in the post-independence period to conclude that our elected and appointed officials have fallen short of the requirements of the Westminster system – a system that relies heavily on conventions mind you. This salient point brings into focus a prerequisite that our few elected and appointed officials must value: an unwavering commitment to public service.
When have two important committees of Parliament – the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) or the Committee of Privileges -functioned efficiently in Barbados? It is worth reminding ourselves that these two committees are regarded as critical in our system of government to safeguard the integrity, transparency, and independence of Parliament. Do a majority of citizens even care?
Emblazoned on page 5 of today’s leading daily newspaper is the story titled PRC: Prime Minister Underpaid. For those living under a rock for the last couple of years, the Parliamentary Reform Committee (PRC) was established by the government in 2023 “to recommend reforms for improving parliamentary democracy and governance.” The members of the PRC were Ambassador H. Elizabeth Thompson, Professor Velma Newton, Dr. William Chandler Jr., Dr. Richard Ishmael, Senator Gregory Nicholls, and Senator Monique Taitt.
The blogmaster has no issue with adequately remunerating public officials. In fact, if we benchmark against Singapore’s approach, such a system was adopted because it is thought necessary “to attract top talent, maintain integrity, and meet the very high expectations placed on political leadership.” In Barbados, however, we must admit that we are currently attracting individuals to public office who would struggle in the private sector to maintain a decent standard of living. Is it a surprise the late Prime Minister Owen Arthur labeled the performance of parliament as ‘porakey’?
Almost 60 years of independence, and a Black-controlled Parliament continues to struggle with implementing transparency legislation to demonstrate its commitment to holding elected and appointed officials accountable. How many times have we had to endure pejorative comments delivered by members of the Caribbean Court of Justice targeting our judiciary? Our regulatory bodies, such as the FSC and FTC, are mired in a perpetual state of stasis. The Offices of the Ombudsman, Public Counsel, and Employment Tribunal-to name only three-operate in title only, not in function.
So yes, to whom much is given, much is expected. This is the rationale that should inform how we reform the governance system. Are we there yet?
See Nation article:
PRC: Prime Minister underpaid
The Parliamentary Reform Commission (PRC) has recommended significant changes to the compensation, pension and postservice benefits of the Prime Minister, arguing that the office is underpaid, overburdened and treated inconsistently when compared with other constitutional office holders such as the President and the Chief Justice.
In its report, the Commission said the Prime Minister’s current compensation is not commensurate with the level of responsibility, complexity, public expectation and long working hours required by the office, nor does it compare favourably with remuneration packages offered to prime ministers in countries at similar stages of development.
Central to the PRC’s recommendations is a proposal that former prime ministers should retire on their final salary as their pension, with no qualifying period, bringing the office into alignment with the pension arrangements of the President and Chief Justice.
“The Prime Minister is the only one of the three constitutional office holders who does not retire with his salary as his pension,” the Commission noted, adding that the disparity should be corrected.
The PRC also recommended that all out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the Prime Minister while in office should be fully covered by the State, and that prime ministers should be included in a proposed contributory health insurance scheme for parliamentarians, which would extend into retirement.
For former prime ministers, the Commission proposed a package of post-service benefits, including: medical support where insurance coverage is inadequate; security enhancements to private residences through monitored CCTV systems; provision of a state-owned vehicle, replaced every seven years; access to a uniformed police orderly on official and ceremonial occasions; and the appointment of a research assistant, in partnership with the University of the West Indies, to preserve and document their contributions to national history.
Specialised responsibilities
While the Prime Minister’s compensation featured prominently, the Commission said its recommendations were part of a broader restructuring of parliamentary remuneration, recognising eight distinct categories of parliamentarians across both Houses.
The PRC endorsed the principle that parliamentarians should be paid for the work they do and recommended additional compensation for MPs and Senators who carry dual or specialised responsibilities, including ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairs and parliamentary leaders.
The Commission called for the formal establishment of the roles of Leader of Government Business and Leader of Opposition Business in both the House of Assembly and the Senate, noting that while these positions function in practice, they lack legislative recognition.
Given the responsibility for managing legislative business, party discipline and cross-floor negotiations, the PRC recommended that these roles attract additional remuneration.
The PRC identified what it described as a longstanding anomaly in the compensation of the Deputy President of the Senate who performs the combined roles of presiding officer and Chair of Committees but receives only a small stipend. It recommended correcting this incongruity by increasing the compensation for the office.
The Commission also found the monthly stipend paid to Senators, excluding the President, to be inadequate, particularly in light of the expertise, time commitment and financial sacrifices required of many who serve.
The Commission reaffirmed the importance of the Leader of the Opposition in maintaining a functioning democracy and recommended enhanced support for the office, including: a travelling allowance set at 50 per cent of that paid to Ministers; official transportation and security on state and ceremonial occasions; and broader institutional support consistent with the responsibilities of the role.
While the majority of the Commission stopped short of recommending specific salary increases, citing the need for a dedicated Salaries Review Committee, they proposed specific increases, including: a $1 000 monthly increase for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister; a 20 per cent stipend for Leaders of Government Business; increases of $750 to $1 000 per month for MPs; and a $1 500 monthly increase for Senators. ( NS)
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.