Ali Sabry’s Crocodile Tears Over Parliamentary Pensions
Former Minister Ali Sabry has accused the National People’s Power (NPP) government of creating a situation where only wealthy individuals can engage in politics, following the government’s decision to abolish pension entitlements for former Members of Parliament.
He strongly criticised the decision, stating that it was not taken out of any genuine economic necessity, but was instead a purely political move aimed at appeasing public anger. According to Sabry, the decision has no real economic objective and is driven by the desire to gain short-term political advantage by exploiting public resentment.
Ali Sabry further argued that for some former parliamentarians, the pension was the only means of maintaining a dignified life, and that abolishing it does not punish corruption, but instead penalises those who did not accumulate wealth while in office.
He added that rather than a complete abolition, a more reasonable approach would have been to make pensions optional, subject to application and review, thereby balancing fairness with accountability.
Why Ali Sabry’s Outrage Rings Hollow
Ali Sabry’s sudden concern for the “dignity” of former parliamentarians would be more persuasive if it did not come wrapped in personal privilege, political amnesia, and selective morality.
Sabry argues that abolishing parliamentary pensions will create a political culture where only the rich can enter politics. Yet he himself is married into one of Sri Lanka’s well-known jewellery-owning business families, with significant inherited wealth through dowry. He is not a struggling retiree dependent on a state pension to survive.
More importantly, Ali Sabry is a President’s Counsel, one of the highest professional distinctions in Sri Lanka’s legal profession. If parliamentary pensions are truly essential for his post-political survival, a legitimate question arises:
Is the legal profession no longer lucrative for a senior counsel of his standing?
Has Ali Sabry lost his clients?
If not, why does a former Cabinet Minister and senior lawyer require a state-funded pension financed by taxpayers who earn a fraction of his income?
A Lawyer Who Defends Pensions but Defended Worse
Ali Sabry’s credibility on moral governance is further weakened by his political record.
He was:
-
A close legal associate and political ally of Gotabaya Rajapaksa
-
A Cabinet Minister when the government imposed forced cremation of Muslim COVID-19 victims, in direct violation of religious freedom and scientific advice
-
Silent when this policy traumatised his own Muslim community
If Sabry could remain in Cabinet while religious rights were crushed, his sudden alarm over parliamentary pensions appears less about principle and more about personal loss.
Nepotism Without Shame
Sabry’s argument also collapses under the weight of nepotism.
During his time in power, his brother was appointed Chairman of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC)—despite having no experience or professional qualifications relevant to the energy sector.
His brother lasted only a few weeks in the position before trade unions openly declared that he was not competent even to function at the level of a fuel station employee.
If Ali Sabry truly believes that pensions protect dignity, how does he justify handing powerful public offices to family members without merit, while ordinary citizens struggle with fuel queues and economic collapse?
Pensions Are Not a Right—They Are a Privilege
The NPP government’s position is simple and defensible:
Parliament is not a retirement scheme.
A parliamentary pension is not:
-
A contributory scheme
-
A social security benefit
-
A welfare entitlement
It is a self-awarded privilege, created by politicians for politicians, in a country where:
-
Retired farmers receive nothing
-
Estate workers grow old without security
-
Public servants must complete decades of service for modest pensions
To claim that abolishing such pensions “punishes the honest” is to ignore the structural injustice embedded in the system itself.
The Real Fear: Loss of Entitlement
Ali Sabry frames the issue as an attack on democracy. In reality, it is an attack on political entitlement.
The NPP’s reform does not bar anyone from politics. It simply states that:
-
Public service should not guarantee lifelong financial rewards
-
Politics should be a temporary duty, not a career investment
-
Power should not come with post-retirement insurance paid by the poor
Those who enter politics for service will still come.
Those who enter for pensions may reconsider—and that, perhaps, is the real discomfort.
Ali Sabry is not speaking for the marginalised.
He is speaking for a political class accustomed to cushioning itself against the consequences of governance failure.
For a wealthy President’s Counsel, former Cabinet Minister, and beneficiary of elite networks, to warn Sri Lanka about “elite-only politics” is not irony—it is audacity.
The NPP’s pension reform is not about vengeance.
It is about drawing a clear line between public duty and private entitlement—a line that politicians like Ali Sabry were comfortable erasing when it suited them.