“Awarding MPs lifelong pensions is a ‘disgrace’, especially considering the level of output and service they deliver to the people… MPs can receive a lifelong pension after just serving one term, and how this differs greatly when compared to the civil service.” – Ambiga Sreenevasan, lawyer
SRI Lanka’s decision in February 2026 to abolish lifetime pensions for Members of Parliament has recently reignited a debate many countries have long avoided. In Malaysia, where ordinary citizens work longer, save harder and worry about retirement security, the question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: should politicians continue receiving benefits unavailable to the people they serve?
The decision has sent ripples across the region. While some viewed it as a bold act of fiscal responsibility, others saw it as a symbolic attempt to restore public trust in politics after years of economic turmoil and public anger over political privileges.
Regardless of one’s political leaning, the move has forced many countries to confront an uncomfortable question: should elected representatives continue receiving lifelong pensions funded by taxpayers merely for serving a few years in office?
It is a question the MADANI government should not shy away from. For decades, politicians have defended pensions on the grounds that public office requires sacrifice, commitment and service to the nation. There is some merit in that argument. Politics is not an easy profession. Political careers can be short-lived, and public scrutiny is relentless.
Unlike civil servants, politicians face the risk of being voted out every few years. However, public sentiment today is very different from what it was when many of these pension schemes were introduced.
Across the world, citizens are increasingly questioning special privileges enjoyed by political leaders. The reason is simple. Ordinary people are being asked to do more with less. They are expected to work longer before retirement, contribute more to their savings, cope with rising healthcare costs and manage uncertain economic conditions. Against that backdrop, lifetime pensions for politicians appear increasingly difficult to justify.
The issue is not whether politicians deserve to be compensated for their service. The issue is whether they should enjoy retirement benefits that are often more generous than those available to the average citizen.
Consider the reality faced by many of us. Millions depend on Employees Provident Fund savings that are frequently insufficient to sustain us through retirement. A significant number of retirees exhaust their savings within a few years after leaving the workforce; many continue working well into old age to support themselves and their families.
Civil servants, too, are facing increasing discussions about pension reforms because of the growing burden on government finances. Policymakers have warned that pension liabilities are rising steadily and could place enormous pressure on future budgets. If fiscal discipline is expected from ordinary citizens and public servants, should politicians be exempt from similar scrutiny?
This is where the Sri Lankan example becomes significant. The country’s decision was not merely about saving money. It was about sending a message that political office should be viewed as public service rather than a pathway to lifelong financial privilege. Following one of the worst economic crises in its history, Sri Lanka recognised that rebuilding public confidence required leaders to share in the sacrifices demanded of the population.
Malaysia is not facing the same level of crisis. Our economy remains far more stable and resilient. Nevertheless, the principle behind the Sri Lankan reform deserves serious consideration.
Democracy was never intended to be a career guaranteeing lifelong benefits. It was intended to be a system through which citizens temporarily entrust individuals with the responsibility of governing on their behalf. Elected representatives are servants of the people, not members of an exclusive class entitled to privileges unavailable to everyone else.
Some may argue that abolishing pensions could discourage capable individuals from entering politics. This concern is understandable but ultimately unconvincing. Many professionals leave lucrative careers to enter public service despite significant financial sacrifices. Doctors, lawyers, academics and business leaders frequently accept government appointments without expecting lifelong pensions. Their motivation stems from a desire to contribute, influence policy and serve society.
Politics should be no different. Indeed, one could argue that the existence of generous pensions may attract the wrong motivations. Public office should be sought because of a commitment to public service, not because it offers attractive retirement benefits. Removing excessive perks may help ensure that those entering politics do so for the right reasons.
Another argument frequently raised is that parliamentary pensions constitute only a small fraction of government expenditure and therefore do not significantly affect public finances. That may be true. Yet reforms are not always about the amount of money saved. Sometimes they are about fairness, symbolism and public confidence.
Governments often ask citizens to accept difficult policies in the name of fiscal responsibility. Subsidies are rationalised, taxes are adjusted, retirement ages are debated, and public spending is scrutinised. When leaders ask citizens to tighten their belts, they must demonstrate a willingness to do the same. Nothing erodes public trust faster than the perception that sacrifices apply only to ordinary people while political elites continue enjoying protected privileges.
Public trust is one of the most valuable assets any democracy possesses. Once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. The debate over politicians’ pensions is therefore not merely an economic issue. It is fundamentally a question of credibility.
Do citizens believe that their leaders understand the challenges they face? Do they believe political leaders are prepared to share the burdens of reform? Do they believe public office is genuinely about service rather than privilege?
These questions matter far more than the actual size of any pension fund. Malaysia has long prided itself on pursuing gradual and pragmatic reforms. There is no need to rush into drastic changes. However, there is certainly room for a mature national conversation on the future of parliamentary pensions and political benefits.
Several options could be considered. One possibility would be to align politicians’ retirement benefits more closely with the systems available to ordinary workers. Another would be to introduce contributory pension schemes similar to those used in many professions. Benefits could also be linked to years of service rather than automatically granted after relatively short periods in office.
Such reforms would not diminish the dignity of public office. On the contrary, they could strengthen it by reinforcing the principle that political leaders are accountable to the same standards as everyone else. Critics may dismiss these ideas as populist. Yet history shows that institutions remain strong only when they adapt to changing public expectations. What may have been acceptable decades ago is not necessarily acceptable today.
The political landscape has changed dramatically. Citizens are better informed, more connected and increasingly demanding of transparency and accountability. They expect leaders to justify every expenditure, every privilege and every entitlement. That expectation is healthy for democracy.
Of course, the issue is not whether former MPs deserve respect for their contributions. Many have served honourably and made significant sacrifices for the nation. Their service should be recognised and appreciated. But appreciation need not always take the form of lifelong financial obligations borne by taxpayers.
There is a distinction between recognising service and institutionalising privilege. Sri Lanka’s decision has challenged long-held assumptions about what politicians should receive after leaving office. Whether other countries follow suit remains to be seen. But the conversation has begun, and it is one that Malaysia should engage with honestly and thoughtfully.
At a time when governments everywhere are seeking ways to strengthen public trust, demonstrate fiscal responsibility and reconnect with citizens, re-examining political pensions is neither radical nor unreasonable. It is simply part of a broader effort to ensure that those who govern are seen not as a privileged class apart from society, but as citizens serving fellow citizens.
Perhaps that is the most important lesson from Sri Lanka’s decision. Public office should be a calling, not a retirement plan.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at rajlira@gmail.com
