Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Nov 06, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
There is no need for anyone to read the legislation that the opposition is proposing to cap the benefits that are being paid, under law, to former Presidents.
It is a disgrace that this is what our parliament is being reduced to. Instead of making use of the limited legislative time available to discuss more important matters, the parliamentary opposition seems obsessed with keeping campaign promises that cannot really be kept.
They are spending an inordinate time in futile exercises, instead of using that time more valuably to discuss more serious concerns, such as the airport project and the proposed Marriot Hotel.
The Former Presidents’ Benefits cannot be cut. These benefits as detailed in our laws have created certain legitimate expectations and as a result of action which has already been taken to satisfy those expectations, moment, certain rights to “property” have accrued. These “rights” are protected under our constitution and cannot be abrogated by any law.
The opposition ought to know this. They ought to know that their decision to go ahead with this law to cap the benefits of former presidents is only of symbolic importance. Its only effect will be to demonstrate that the opposition tried to do something about a campaign promise.
The government will not agree to this legislation and since it is not a moral or politically non-contentious issue amongst the political parties, it should by convention not be qualified as a Members’ Bill. But it will most likely be entertained and passed.
But it will not come into law because for that to happen there has to be presidential assent and this will almost certainly be denied on the grounds that the proposed legislation is repugnant of the constitution. The proposed legislation also cannot cap benefits which have already been approved and for which the beneficiary has a legitimate expectation. As such, the proposed legislation will never be passed into law and is, as mentioned before, of mere symbolic importance, showing that the opposition did something.
They did not need to do anything. A president is entitled to a pension and former presidents are entitled by law to a pension. In the case of recognized law in Guyana, former presidents are paid a pension that is a designated fraction of their salaries.
They are not paid three million dollars per month and those who throw this number out have never explained how they arrived at this as the sum total of the benefits paid to former presidents.
There are apparently clauses that allow for the salaries of former presidents to be a percentage of sitting presidents. This has been criticized as allowing a former president to, in the future, earn as a pension more than what he or she would have earned while in office.
There is however nothing improper or irregular about this because as is the case with all public pensioners, whenever increases are granted to public servants, the pensioners also benefit by an increase in their pension. There are also persons who would, today, have been receiving a pittance as NIS pension had there not been a minimum pension.
If pensions were solely tied to what one earned while in office, some social security pensioners in this country, would receive a sum that would not be worth the bus fare to go and collect it.
A pension is not a gratuity. It is an earned right and should not be subject to arbitrary adjustment. It does not matter that a former president is of working age. To earn a pension does not mean that one has to be of retirement age. A person may qualify in a company for receipt of pension benefits after working for say ten years. If they retire, after then, whether it is before the normal age of retirement or not, they are entitled to some benefits because they would have earned pension benefits.
The idea therefore that a former president should not be entitled to certain benefits if he finds other work is a laughable proposition. If we were to adopt this proposition, we would have a situation where a president who decides to go and work would not receive certain benefits but another former president who can work but decides that he or she does not want to work would receive the benefits.
Pension benefits cannot be based on what someone does after he or she leaves the job. That decision is the person’s personal choice and should not affect earned rights.
But if those who will support the legislation feel that someone who is capable of still working should not receive pension benefits, then by all means amend the constitution to abolish term limits so that the former presidents can return to work. If the argument is that pensions should not be paid to those who can still work and have not reached the normal age of retirement as other public officials, then by all means allow those former presidents who are constrained by term limits to return to work as presidents.
Perhaps instead of bothering about the equitableness of former president’s pension and benefits, greater attention should be paid to pensions and benefits of parliamentarians.
There is also what is known as a pension for members of parliament and it needs to be asked how does a member of the House qualify for such a pension. Is the member required to reach retirement age to qualify or can someone qualify after serving a few years? And what if the parliamentarian is involved in other work, should that parliamentarian still receive his or her pension?
It would be interesting if it is revealed just how a parliamentarian qualifies for a pension, the value of that pension and whether there is a designated age of retirement.
Then the public will better decide which should be capped, pensions to parliamentarians or pension benefits to former presidents.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]