• Youths, students, pvt. sector workers & citizens are mostly in favour of the curtailment of excessive privileges afforded to ex-Prezs, but urge the provision of a pension and necessary security 

The debate surrounding the privileges granted to former Presidents has gained public attention in recent years, especially in light of the people's struggle (aragalaya) which demanded the resignation of former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and subsequent political shifts. Established by Legislation over three decades ago, these entitlements include pensions, allowances, official residences, and security-related provisions. While some argue that a fair portion of privileges is necessary to honour and protect former Heads of State, others believe that they have become excessive and subject to misuse. 

Amidst public scrutiny and a political discourse, the Government recently appointed a three-member committee to reevaluate these privileges, fueling further discussions on whether they remain justified or should be reduced in light of current economic and social realities.

The Presidents Entitlements Act, No. 4 of 1986, was enacted to provide official residences, allowances, and other benefits to former Presidents and their widows or widowers. Under this Act, every former President and their widow or widower are entitled to live in a residence provided by the Government, free of rent, for their entire lifetime. In cases where a suitable residence is not available, a monthly allowance amounting to one-third of the monthly pension that the former President or their spouse would be entitled to receive will be provided instead. Additionally, the Act grants former Presidents a monthly pension allowance, and a secretarial allowance equivalent to the salary of the Private Secretary to the sitting President. Widows or widowers of former Presidents are also provided with a secretarial allowance, this time equivalent to the salary of a Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister. The Act further states that there shall be provided to every former President and the widow of such former President, official transport and all such other facilities as are for the time being provided to a Cabinet Minister. In the event of the death of a former President, their widow or widower will continue to receive the monthly pension for the rest of their life. This pension will be the same amount that the former President was entitled to at the time of their death or would have been entitled to upon retirement from office.

Last year (in 2023), media reports revealed that former Presidents Gotabaya Rajapaksa (2019-2022), Maithripala Sirisena (2015-2019), Mahinda Rajapaksa (2005-2015), Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga (1994-2005), and the widow of the slain President Ranasinghe Premadasa (1989-1993), Hema Premadasa, collectively receive monthly allowances and retirement benefits totalling Rs. 3.7 million. This amount includes a monthly secretarial allowance of Rs. 100,000, a fuel allowance of Rs. 679,950, and a pension of Rs. 97,500 for Gotabaya Rajapaksa; a secretarial allowance of Rs. 100,000, a fuel allowance of Rs. 679,950, and a pension of Rs. 97,500 for Sirisena; a secretarial allowance of Rs. 50,000, a fuel allowance of Rs. 679,950, and a pension of Rs. 97,500 for Mahinda Rajapaksa; a secretarial allowance of Rs. 100,000, a fuel allowance of Rs. 500,000, and a pension of Rs. 97,500 for Kumaratunga; and a secretarial allowance of Rs. 25,000, a fuel allowance of Rs. 100,000, and a pension of Rs. 65,000 for Hema Premadasa.

Recently, there has been significant discussion on social media platforms regarding the privileges granted to politicians including Parliamentarians, Ministers, and former Presidents, particularly since the time of the people's struggle. This topic resurfaced during the National People's Power (NPP) Party's Presidential Election campaign, where they pledged to abolish these privileges if elected. The Government led by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is now reviewing the benefits granted to politicians, with a three-member committee headed by former Supreme Court Judge, Justice K.T. Chitrasiri was appointed to present recommendations to the Government. However, some misinformation has also spread during this debate, including claims that the Government pays for the water and electricity bills of the official residences of former Presidents, and that they are provided with personal doctors and chefs. In reality, ex-Presidents do not receive such privileges, and they are responsible for covering those expenses themselves.

Speaking to The Daily Morning, a youth who is interested in political affairs, Sahan Madubhashana said that the privileges granted to former Presidents need to be reduced to some extent, but that they should not be eliminated entirely. While it is unnecessary for them to receive residences, vehicles, and other benefits like paid utility bills and fuel allowances, he said that certain provisions such as a pension and security arrangements should unquestionably remain. "Being a Head of State is a tremendous responsibility, regardless of the public opinion. Those who shoulder that responsibility should be entitled to a pension and adequate security arrangements." Noting that almost every public servant is entitled to a pension, he said that it is unquestionably fair that former Presidents, who took on the highest responsibility in the country, receive the same. "This should not just be about former Presidents; there are many unnecessary privileges afforded to the sitting President and other officials. The Government should have a look at them and take the necessary steps to reduce their privileges too."

A youth working in the private sector while pursuing his higher education, Milan Perera said that many politicians are accused of corruption and fraud at present, but that there are also politicians who are not implicated in such misconduct, adding that it would therefore not be fair to deny all politicians fair privileges. He opined that for the well-being of politicians, especially former Heads of State, a pension and security arrangements should be provided, but that no other privileges should be warranted. "I’m not sure whether former Presidents receive benefits like health insurance. If yes, that is wrong; they don’t need such privileges. During their tenure, they carry the responsibility of improving sectors like health and overall development. If they fulfil their duties properly, they should be able to access quality services after leaving office. But, if they fail, they should face the same consequences as the public." He further added that it is reasonable to provide adequate protection to any former President if they were involved in conflict with a war or a terrorist group during their Presidency.

Speaking to The Daily Morning, a resident of Kurunegala, Kelum Dissanayake said that the view propagated by certain parties that politics should become a service of honour is unfair, adding that it is unrealistic given the current social, economic and political landscape. He said that there is no issue with providing former Presidents with a pension, an official residence, and a vehicle as an option is always available for those who don't seek such benefits to decline them. "A Head of State is recognised both locally and internationally. If such a person is asked to go home empty-handed after their term of office is over, it's unfair. I'm totally in favour of the abolishing of the unnecessary privileges granted to them, but, some privileges should be there for them." Commenting on the current system of assigning a large number of security officers for former Presidents, Kelum Dissanayake said that he had read some media reports that certain former Presidents have been assigned more than 200 security officers. He suggested that rather than assigning such an excessive number of security officers, the Government must take steps to conduct a proper threat assessment on politicians including former Presidents, and provide security arrangements for only those who face threats.

Another concerned citizen, Dileepa Welikala said that it is difficult for the public to determine whether the privileges granted to former Presidents are justified or not. He claimed that these benefits were not established to maintain their status, nor were they introduced by any of the former Presidents who are still living. "The Act granting these privileges was passed 38 years ago, and it is unfair to directly blame former Presidents who are still living." Recalling the roles that most living former Presidents played in ending the civil conflict, he said that it would be inappropriate to suddenly revoke their privileges and security. "Ex-Presidents deserve certain privileges, and the NPP-led Government should approach this issue wisely. If former Presidents are stripped of their security and someone against the Government harms them, it could hinder the Government's progress." He criticised certain former Presidents for misusing these privileges, which has led to public unrest. "Only one former President has returned some of the vehicles to the Government, but others have not shown such commitment. If all former Presidents had set such examples, there would not have been a public protest against what has been granted to them." he said, and added that the current Government having appointed a committee to look into the matter makes it clear that they are not ready to completely remove privileges granted to former Presidents.

In response to a recent query by The Daily Morning as to whether the privileges granted to retired MPs and former Presidents will be entirely abolished, the Presidential Secretariat's Legal Director J.M. Wijebandara recently said that while the serving MPs and Presidents should receive some privileges, there is not much need to provide such to retired MPs and former Presidents as they don't fulfil a nationally important duty. "They don't engage in any work that is of national importance. If someone (a former MP or President) says that they perform such a duty, it will be considered, but, the usual scenario is that they don't do anything other than engaging in their personal political affairs."