KAY-MARIE FLETCH­ER

Se­nior Re­porter

kay-marie.fletch­er@guardian.co.tt

Al­though Op­po­si­tion Leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar and her MPs stand to ben­e­fit from the Salaries Re­view Com­mis­sion (SRC)’s pro­posed salary in­creas­es for politi­cians, the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress is re­ject­ing the pay hike.

Two Op­po­si­tion MPs are de­mand­ing Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley and Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert break their si­lence on the Gov­ern­ment’s stance on the SRC re­port. Mak­ing their po­si­tions clear yes­ter­day, Princes Town MP Bar­ry Padarath and Cou­va South MP Rudranath In­dars­ingh shunned the pro­posed pay hike, es­pe­cial­ly for Dr Row­ley.

The SRC has rec­om­mend­ed that the Prime Min­is­ter’s salary be in­creased by $28,167 over what it cur­rent­ly is. The prime min­is­ter’s salary is cur­rent­ly $59,680, which was set in 2013 and would rise in two lay­ers, in­creas­ing from Oc­to­ber 1, 2020, to Sep­tem­ber 30, 2023, to $80,000, and then from Oc­to­ber 1, 2023, on­ward to $87,847.

The re­port laid in Par­lia­ment on No­vem­ber 15 al­so rec­om­mend­ed in­creas­es for the Pres­i­dent, the Chief Jus­tice, the Chief Sec­re­tary of the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly, the Op­po­si­tion Leader, MPs, mem­bers of the Ju­di­cia­ry, the Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er, and oth­er se­nior pub­lic ser­vants.

Padarath told Guardian Me­dia, “We hold on to the view that the leader of the Op­po­si­tion ex­pressed a few months ago that politi­cians shouldn’t ben­e­fit from any SRC rec­om­men­da­tions for in­creas­es. For politi­cians, we re­ject it!

“Why is the Gov­ern­ment so silent on the SRC re­port? What is your po­si­tion? Are you go­ing to ac­cept or are you go­ing to re­ject the Salaries Re­view Com­mis­sion re­port?”

Go­ing a step fur­ther to ex­plain why it has been re­ject­ed by the Op­po­si­tion, In­dars­ingh said now was not the right time.

Dur­ing an Op­po­si­tion me­dia brief­ing at UNC’s head­quar­ters in Ch­agua­nas yes­ter­day, In­dars­ingh said, “Giv­en the hard­ship, giv­en what is cur­rent­ly pre­vail­ing in the pub­lic do­main and so on, this is not the time.”

To­day marks ten days since the re­port was laid in Par­lia­ment, but the Gov­ern­ment’s stance re­mains un­known.

Dr Row­ley and Im­bert are yet to re­spond to ques­tions sent by Guardian Me­dia yes­ter­day.

Ef­forts to con­tact Act­ing Prime Min­is­ter Stu­art Young and Leader of Gov­ern­ment Busi­ness Camille Robin­son-Reg­is on the mat­ter were al­so un­suc­cess­ful up to late yes­ter­day.

But ac­cord­ing to Padarath, their si­lence speaks vol­umes.

Padarath added, “The rea­son why they con­tin­ue to re­main so silent is that they know their polling is show­ing them, and their pub­lic re­la­tions han­dlers are telling them that their de­ceit and their cor­rup­tion is fu­elling their greed for back pay and high­er salary rates in this coun­try, while you are telling pub­lic ser­vants to hold strain un­til 2027.”

The SRC re­port comes amid an out­cry among sev­er­al unions for pub­lic ser­vants to re­ceive wage in­creas­es as well. In­dars­ingh told Guardian Me­dia, Row­ley must an­swer to these work­ers.

He said, “It is the du­ty of the PM and the cab­i­net to tell the cit­i­zens and work­ers what is their po­si­tion on the re­port. We made it clear to­day that the PM must tell the work­ers at NIB, Port, T&TEC, WASA, NP, and pub­lic ser­vants whether they should want their mon­ey to sleep out. Whether they will ac­cept the re­port and pay the back pay be­fore Christ­mas or the gen­er­al elec­tion ... The work­ing and mid­dle class­es alone can­not hold strain and ban their bel­lies and tight­en their belts.”

The pro­posed in­creas­es com­ing out of the SRC re­port could cost tax­pay­ers over $150 mil­lion in back pay. If the re­port is im­ple­ment­ed, the PM will be en­ti­tled to re­ceive $1.1 mil­lion in back pay. Not too far be­hind, Per­sad-Bisses­sar will be en­ti­tled to $960,700 in back pay.

Guardian Me­dia al­so reached out to Per­sad-Bisses­sar for com­ment but re­ceived no re­sponse up to late yes­ter­day. But the MPs said the ball is in the Gov­ern­ment’s court to say whether the re­port will move for­ward.