Hammie’s Pension Bill

Nov 22, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The Bill that was tabled in the National Assembly yesterday is unashamedly about granting a pension to former Prime Minister of Guyana, Hamilton Green. The Bill makes no pretense about this matter, even going as far as mentioning his name.
The Bill, in this regard, is unprecedented. No Bill, tabled in the National Assembly, has ever sought to be of benefit to one person and one person alone.
The system of parliamentary democracy was intended to ensure limits on absolute rule. It was intended to ensure that governments did not serve just narrow and confined interests but was exercised in the interest of all citizens and not the elite few. The Bill is a frightening reminder that steps must be taken to ensure that our National Assembly does not promote the interests of a few persons.
If the intention of the Bill was to ensure that all Prime Ministers are given a pension, it would have been much more acceptable. The Bill is aimed to ensure that future Prime Ministers also benefit but its primary purpose is to give Hammie a pension.
Hammie deserves a proper pension. He is, after all, a former Prime Minister who served in that capacity for seven years. Guyana owes all those who have served in high office a certain degree of respectability and a dignified life after they would have left office.
The issue of Hammie’s alleged indiscretions in the past are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that he occupied high office in Guyana. No country should treat those who occupy such office shabbily. Hammie deserves a dignified existence. He should not have to become a dependent. This would amount to an indictment against this nation.
The fact that his own government did not provide for a pension for his service is something which needs to be examined in the context of Guyana’s parliamentary system. Unlike a President, a Prime Minister is a member of the National Assembly. As such, any former Prime Minister is likely to receive a parliamentary pension. There was no need, therefore, for a Prime Ministerial pension.
When the APNU+AFC coalition came into power, it set about amending the Former Presidents Benefits Act. One of the amendments was intended to ensure that that a person who becomes, as of that date, a former President and as such entitled to a pension as an ex- President, would have to choose between a pension as a former President or as Leader of the Opposition.
It is suspected that the reason why Donald Ramotar did not become Leader of the Opposition was because in so doing he risked losing his Presidential pension. This clearly does not apply to Bharrat Jagdeo since no law can have retrospective effect.
The amendments passed by APNU+AFC were intended to ensure that a former President chooses between a pension and receiving employment benefits. The same principle should apply in the case of the proposed pension to Hammie.
The logic was that if you have certain sources of income, you were disqualified from receiving a presidential pension. This is what APNU+AFC set about doing. It is now making a complete political somersault. It is saying that it is quite acceptable for a former Prime Minister to receive a parliamentary pension plus receive a special pension as an ex- Prime Minister.
If Hammie is receiving a parliamentary pension, he should not receive a pension as a Prime Minister. A former Prime Minister should have to choose between a parliamentary pension as a Prime Ministerial pension. He or she cannot benefit from both.
A former Prime Minister should not be entitled to a Prime Ministerial pension. He or she should be entitled to a parliamentary pension which should have a clause that would provide compensation for inflation.
If Guyana starts to award special pensions to its former Prime Ministers, a queue will develop. Former Ministers will also want a special pension apart from their healthy parliamentary pensions. And we have a lot of former Ministers in this country.
Hammie deserves something. The better option would have been to pass a law that would have made a provision for a special parliamentary pension for all ex-Prime Ministers rather than passing a Bill specifically to grant Hammie a special Prime Ministerial pension.
(Hammy is the only surviving Prime Minister causing the Bill to be a misnomer)