Court of Appeal rules on pension rights of retired Members of Parliament

Court — DayakDaily.com file pic. // Photo: Pixabay

By Dorcas Ting

KUCHING, Jan 30: The Court of Appeal, in the case of Datuk Haji Idris Haji Bujang and Datuk Seri Kamarudin Ambok versus the Chief Administrator of the Malaysian Parliament, the Chief Director of Public Service, and the Government of Malaysia, delivered a significant ruling concerning the pension rights of retired former members of the Senate.

The appellants, former members of the upper house of Parliament, had retired before the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment) Act 2015 came into effect, which notably increased the salaries of serving members. The crux of their argument was that their pensions should reflect the augmented salaries of current members.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justice Dato’ Lee Swee Seng, Dato’ Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, and Dato’ Azizul Azmi Adnan, revisited Section 3 and Section 8 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980, specifically the entitlement to pension, gratuity, and benefits outlined in the First Schedule.

The First Schedule had been amended in 1981, granting the Prime Minister the power to make amendments.

In 2015, the First Schedule was further amended by the 2015 Order, altering paragraph 20 to disallow adjustments to pensions based on salary increments for current members.

Instead, pensioners would receive a fixed annual increment of 2 pct. This change was made retroactive to Jan 1, 2014.

However, the Court of Appeal, overturning the Kuala Lumpur High Court decision, determined that the 2015 Order did not have retrospective effect. It held that the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 did not permit subsidiary legislation to be retrospective.

The court emphasised that pension entitlements under the Act were enforceable in court, differentiating them from pensionable officers under the Pensions Act 1980.

The ruling asserted that the appellants had a pre-existing right to a pension proportional to the then-current salaries of serving parliamentarians, and the 2015 Order could not retroactively modify this right.

In contrast, the 2015 Amendment Act, with parliamentary powers to legislate retrospectively, had a retroactive effect. This meant that the increase in salaries for current members resulted in a corresponding increase in the pension entitlement of the appellants as of Jan 1, 2015.

The decision concluded by allowing the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order, and directing each party to bear their own costs.

The implications of this ruling may extend to other retired members of the Parliament, emphasising the nuanced interplay between legislative amendments and pension entitlements.

Counsels Krishna Dallumah, Indran Kumaraguru, Shankar Ram Asnani and Nasuha Badrul Din appeared for the Appellants.

Senior Federal Counsel Rahazlan Affandi bin Abdul Rahim, Senior Federal Counsel Liew Horng Bin and Federal Counsel Nurul Muhaimin Mohd Azman from the Attorney General’s Chambers appeared for the respondents. — DayakDaily