How are legislators expected to maintain their households?

Our law permits legislators to practice as lawyers, and possibly engage in other professions, as long as they do not enter into contracts with government agencies

As evidenced by the publication of the latest list of MPs whose families owned fuel stations, the current government appears to think MPs should not come from families that have business interests

Not only is the government not increasing the salaries of legislators. It is removing some of the subsidies enjoyed by them, for example, by increasing the price of lunch from Rs 45 to Rs 2,000

I recall accounts by friends who participated in the 1971 insurrection on how they were instructed to engage in political organising. They were to live like ascetics. They could, if unavoidable, pay to go to a location to meet the party faithful and engage in educational or recruitment activities. But they could not spend any money on food and accommodation while being there. The costs of transport to the next destination had to be borne by their hosts. Clothing and other essentials had to come from party members.

These practices resonated with the people, perhaps because of the ingrained respect for the Sangha and the laity’s obligations toward them. It is not surprising that even five decades later and now in power, some of those practices live on as ideals in the minds of the decision makers (and have the implicit support of the public).

Official payments to MPs

The basic salary of an MP is Rs. 54,285 a month. In 2019, before rampant inflation drove up all prices and before utility costs were adjusted to cover actual costs, the average household expenditure was Rs. 63,130, according to the government. Now it’s much higher. The salary is insufficient to meet the basic requirements of a household.
Not only is the government not increasing the salaries of legislators. It is removing some of the subsidies enjoyed by them, for example, by increasing the price of lunch from Rs. 45 to Rs. 2,000. So, how do our legislators manage? Many will point to allowances: Rs. 2,500 for attending Parliament on sitting days, or for committees held on non-sitting days, for example. Unless MPs bring their own lunches, most of the sitting allowance will go to paying for lunch (there are no other options on the island on the Diyawanna). There’s the Rs. 100,000 given to maintain an office. Because someone will have to be employed to run the office, it is unlikely that the MP will be able to skim living expenses from that. 
So, it appears clear that the official payments to MPs are inadequate to maintain their households, let alone fund constituency services such as the expected donations to funerals, community events, etc. It then follows that they must be independently wealthy through inheritance or have a continuing income stream from some business or profession. Or be paid by a political party or a benefactor.

How can MPs pay their bills?

There was a time when the people’s representatives at all levels of government were expected to be independently wealthy and were provided only with symbolic compensation for what was a part-time occupation. 
For example, for many decades after independence, Parliament would meet only in the afternoons, keeping the mornings free for court appearances by the many lawyer MPs. Continuing this lawyer preference, Section 94 of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 9 of 2023, specifically permits MPs to be paid to appear as Attorneys-at-Law before a court of law or a statutory tribunal. 
But those old assumptions no longer hold. Being an MP is a fulltime job, and many representatives are not independently wealthy at the outset. The lawyer percentage is decreasing. 
As evidenced by the publication of the latest list of MPs whose families owned fuel stations, the current government appears to think MPs should not come from families that have business interests. As was pointed out in Parliament and elsewhere, many of these businesses were commenced in the 1950s or 60s before some of the persons in the list were born. Is there anything wrong with a fuel station owner or his descendants going into politics? 
Our law permits legislators to practice as lawyers, and possibly engage in other professions, as long as they do not enter into contracts with government agencies. The status of those whose outside income is derived from business is precarious because entry into contracts with the state or public corporations is ambiguously prohibited by Article 91(1)(e). 
Rather than populist sloganeering about reducing the privileges and payments of MPs and publishing lists of businesses owned by family members, what is needed is a systemic solution to the problem of conflicts of interest between an MP’s duties (legislation, oversight, and constituency service) and private income generation. The cleanest solution is a high salary, pegged to that of the judiciary or government lawyers to avoid the problem of MPs deciding their own salaries, along with clear rules governing conflicts of interest. Salaries are of no concern to those whose livelihoods are looked after by a political party, though their enforced dependence on the party should be of concern to those who elected them as representatives. We will have to decide between people’s representatives and those who do the bidding of the party that feeds them.