President Peter Mutharika in his own words below talks about the salary strikes, what the government is trying to do and appeals for public support and understanding.
We have, as a country, embarked on a number of initiatives that are intended to transform our country. These are aimed at improving its socio-economic status and principally to accelerate our fight against endemic poverty. As you are aware, there is a general disappointment around the country that our socio-economic performance during the first 50 years of our independence was unsatisfactory. In the event, the general consensus inter alia was to demand for a transformation of the public service which is the key instrument for economic development, and the rehabilitation of other institutions. Only then, it is being argued, do we stand a chance of creating conditions for achieving a better economic performance. This view was so prevalent that during political campaigns for elections, this subject dominated debates to demonstrate its importance.
The Democratic Progressive Party, in its manifesto, adopted public service and public finance management reforms as priority programs of the needed transformation programme of action and wage harmonization in the public service is made the cornerstone of the public service reforms. Wage harmonization is not only necessary to revitalize the service but it is considered an important means of curbing the propensity for fraud in the Service. Equally important is the fact that it restores the principle of “equal pay for equal work” in the public service as was the case up to 1998 before a multiplicity of salary scales emerged.
The wage harmonisation policy therefore is not only needed to ensure the needed enhancement of the effectiveness and efficient of the public service but it is also intended to curb the potential for financial frauds and eradicate laissez faire attitudes that have thrived in public service particularly during the past two decades. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” in the form harmonization must be a core element of the transformation process and must be implemented. For it simply does not make sense that a newly recruited doctor in the mainstream Civil Service should receive a starting salary that is equal to the salary of a driver in the Anti-Corruption Bureau or in Human Rights organisation.
Nor does it make sense that a Budget Director or the Accountant General for example should receive just about half the salary of his counterparts in the Judiciary or in the National Assembly. We are unlikely to get the best from such people and we have created an environment that is conducive to fraud which progressively led to a disregard for public money as we saw during the cashgate days. It is in view of this that the Government has decided that as part of the needed transformation, salary scales in the public service be harmonized as they were between 1964-1998.
Let me deviate and give you the background to the present controversies that have engulfed our country. In order to achieve harmonization, the government decided that, within the budgetary limit of an average wage bill increase of 24.4 percent, the mainstream Civil Service should have a higher increment that would permit their salary scale to be notionally higher than other salary scales in the public service except for the Anti-Corruption Bureau that remains the highest. We then allowed other scales to increase up to the new mainstream Civil Service salary scale. But because their scales were originally higher than that of the Civil Service, it followed that their increment were smaller.
The gist of the strikes and other controversies is that those who had privileged salary scales want to continue to earn more than their mainstream Civil Service colleagues. In short they demand equal salary increments that would maintain their superiority over the mainstream Civil Service. To do this, of course means, that we would have to find extra money from somewhere. There is just no money for us to increase their salary scales. Recently the IMF programme that we have signed is premised on expenditure and therefore wage containment.
If we break this agreement with the IMF, the chances of reducing inflation and interest rates and returning to normality will have vanished. Bwanas and Donnas you can see that between wage containment demanded by the IMF and finding means to perpetuate privileges for a few people, the country must choose wage containment.
However, I am aware that there is need to resolve the controversies so that the country can resume normality. For this reason, I am prepared to continue to negotiate with those who feel aggrieved. But these negotiations must be within the legal framework. We are prepared to prevent the prevalence of anarchy that is being fueled by a few disgruntled power hungry politicians within and outside the country. We have the means, within the law, to deal with such elements of people.
Lastly, I wish to appeal to you Bwanas and Donnas to be understanding as we pass through these turbulent times.
When deciding to implement such a policy, we knew that groups within the public service that are privileged to enjoy higher salary scales would fight against this policy. I must confess that I equally expected that the sense of fairness and decency would prevail quickly. Unfortunately, unscrupulous politicians within and outside have taken advantage of the situation to perpetuate the controversy and extend it to other sectors inside and outside the public sector.
I wish to appeal to the public to support the Government in this matter that is ultimately intended to enhance our economic performance and accelerate the eradication of poverty in our country as I have explained.
