The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament has unanimously advised President Dr Mohamed Muizzu to reconsider the proposed 10% salary reduction for employees in independent institutions and the judiciary. The committee’s decision was based on the argument that legal amendments must first be made before implementing such salary cuts, ensuring consistency in pay structures across similar posts.
PNC MP Mohamed Mamdhooh, who submitted the motion, explained that salary reductions without the necessary legislative changes would be neither fair nor just. He also suggested alternative cost-cutting measures, such as merging independent institutions like the Media Council and the Broadcasting Commission to streamline operations.
President Muizzu had announced the salary cuts in October last year as part of a two-year economic reform effort to reduce state expenditure. The plan included a 10% reduction in salaries across state-owned enterprises, political posts, the judiciary, and independent institutions. The President also committed to forgoing 50% of his own salary, reducing it to MVR 50,000. Additionally, the Privatization and Corporatization Board imposed a salary cap for company executives, limiting their total salary and allowances to MVR 90,000 for two years.
While the committee’s primary concern was the legal feasibility of the salary cuts, the decision also raises a broader debate about the effectiveness and consequences of such reductions.
Beyond the Legal Argument: Why Slashing Salaries Could Backfire
While the Public Accounts Committee focused on the legality of the pay cuts, there are deeper structural issues that make cutting salaries for independent institutions and the judiciary a risky move.
- Judicial Independence and Corruption Risks
Around the world, strong judicial systems are built on financial independence. Low salaries for judges and key officials in independent institutions can make them more vulnerable to outside influence and corruption. Singapore, a country often cited for its clean governance, pays its public servants highly to attract top talent and reduce the temptation of unethical practices. The Maldives, already struggling with corruption concerns, risks worsening the problem if salaries for key officials are significantly reduced. - Brain Drain and Loss of Expertise
Independent institutions rely on skilled professionals who could easily transition to private sector jobs or international organisations if government salaries become less competitive. Cutting salaries without offering alternative incentives could lead to a talent drain, weakening key oversight bodies and reducing their effectiveness in holding the government accountable. - Short-Term Fix, Long-Term Damage
While salary cuts might provide some immediate budget relief, they do not address deeper structural inefficiencies in public spending. A more sustainable approach would involve better fiscal discipline, tackling wasteful expenditure, and improving revenue collection, rather than targeting salaries that help maintain institutional strength. - Unintended Consequences for Governance
Cutting salaries across the judiciary and independent institutions could lead to operational inefficiencies. If key officials start resigning or working with reduced morale, delays in court rulings, regulatory approvals, and investigations could follow. This would not only weaken the institutions themselves but also impact businesses, investors, and ordinary citizens relying on a functioning system.
While cost-cutting in government is often necessary, salary reductions in critical institutions should be carefully considered. If the aim is true fiscal responsibility, structural reforms—such as improving procurement processes, reducing unnecessary political appointees, and investing in long-term revenue generation—are more sustainable solutions.
