Calls rise to revoke allowance of former parliamentarians

Social media calls to revoke the allowance issued to former parliament members' by the State has become louder and more prominent.

Parliamentarians who have completed at least one term at the parliament are determined a service allowance by the privileges and Constitutional power conferred to the legislative body.

This regulation stipulates that:

- An individual who has served one term at the parliament must be issued a financial allowance that is 30 percent of a present parliamentarian's salary.

- An individual who has performed two terms at the parliament must be issued a financial allowance that is 45 percent of a parliamentarian's salary.

The Constitution clarifies that this allowance is issued once a lawmaker concludes his term at the parliament and is over 55 years of age. Moreover, this allowance is revoked if the former lawmaker serves a position of the State for as long as they remain in such a position.

If this allowance is being distributed, the receiver will not be issued with any further financial allowances from the State. However, the former members are able to utilize health treatments under the insurance scheme reserved for parliamentarians.

While the upcoming 20th parliamentary term was elected this Sunday, most of the MP-Elects are new faces. Within the ongoing term of the 19th parliament, only 11 out of the 87 members had managed to secure another term as lawmakers.

As such, 76 members of this concluding parliament will also be granted allowance and healthcare benefits under this regulation. While most of these members had served a single term at the parliament, some who had sustained their positions for two or three years are also in the 19th term. In accordance with the regulation, members who have completed one year of service are offered a remuneration of MVR 18,000 while parliamentarian who had served two terms are issued with over MVR 27,000.

Advocators against this on social media state that this is a higher financial burden than what the State is capable of extending at this moment. With the trend of electing a new member for each term, former members have been increasing at an alarming rate. Additionally, the number of parliamentarians have also been growing with each term.

Former parliamentarian of the Dhiggaru Constituency who had contested in the recent parliamentary polls as well, Ahmed Faris Maumoon, stated that there are a couple of reasons why the remuneration extended to former members must be revoked. Listing these factors, he explained that this allowance forces the State to bear a hefty financial burden and also remarked the high discrepancy between civilian earnings and the lawmaker remuneration within this.

Faris had highlighted that the number of people vying for the parliament in order to utilize this payment to their advantage has also surged in numbers.

"It is refreshing that 90 percent of the parliament has been renewed. Multiple people who had held the seats for multiple ages have now been removed. But it is unfortunate that the people who lost the seats still receive the allowance endlessly. Knowing that [they] get healthcare at a standard that wasn't utilized to represent the Constituency. Living in comfort without going to a job, with the monthly payment issued by the State, expanding businesses without touching a loan themselves unlike a normal civilian," one individual wrote on social media.

Another remarked that even if former parliamentarians are granted an allowance, it should not be greater than the stipend of a teacher, doctor, or civil servant.

No political parties nor parliament member has advocated in support of revoking this allowance which prompted people to take to social media to express their concerns. They maintain that the campaign advocating against this will be persistently continued.