The government last evening used its parliamentary majority to pass a bill to legislate benefits for former presidents, despite opposition concern over its scope.
The Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009 had a thorny passage through the house, where both the PNCR-1G and the AFC insisted that there be caps put on the entitlements that would be available through the legislation. On a call for a division before the final reading of the bill, it received 32 government votes in its favour and 25 opposition votes against. While the two opposition parties said they did not object to the principle behind the legislation, they withheld support for it in the absence of specific details about the benefits. GAP-ROAR was the sole opposition party to give support to the bill, although the party’s MP Everall Franklin did indicate some reservations and warned the government to be ready to defend it when labour leaders come seeking benefits for the working people.
Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh, who piloted the bill through its final stages, led the government benches on the bill, explaining that it is in keeping with the government’s commitment to openness and transparency and declared that all Guyanese committed to ensuring former presidents are “treated with appropriate respect” would support the bill. At the end of the debate, which saw several caustic exchanges that led Speaker Ralph Ramkarran to call for order, he said he was disappointed that it was as “rancorous” as it turned out to be.
Underscoring a point that would become the mantra for the government speakers, Singh emphasised that it was a “statute-based approach” to enshrine benefits and facilities that have thus far been provided for through custom and practice at the discretion of both the current and previous administrations. He noted that it was in vein that the Office of the Spouse of the President Bill was introduced (which was also passed at yesterday’s sitting, albeit with support of all the parties).
Additionally, the government yesterday tabled the Leader of the Opposition (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009, seeking to put into law access to certain benefits and other facilities to be enjoyed by the office holder.
In the days leading up to the debate, the benefits proposed for former presidents had been the subject of a public relations war between the government and the main opposition. The PNCR-1G, in a full page ad in the national newspapers condemned the bill as an attempt by President Bharrat Jagdeo to secure “luxurious living at the expense of taxpayers” through legislation. However, the PPP/C administration launched a campaign to defend the legislation, while accusing the main opposition of double standards and duplicity.
Singh said that while the opposition sought to claim that the issue was about principle rather than any individual, the ads attacked the person of the President, whom they dubbed shameless and selfish.
PNCR-1G MP and shadow finance minister Winston Murray told the Assembly that the main opposition endorsed the principle that the bill sought to enshrine but wanted specifics and he called on the government to send it to a special select committee in order to secure consensus. “If you want a statute-based approach, you should specify the benefits,” he argued.
Murray said that the party believed a bill of such nature should be devoid of controversy, while noting the need for the highest offices in the land to be treated with great dignity. He added that while the party might disagree with the approach of the head of state, it has never questioned the deep commitment of any of the holders of the office to building the nation.
Indeed, he agreed that the previous approach had the disadvantage of exposing the former office holders to the direction of the administration and supported ensuring rights by statute, arguing that it was on the same basis that the party would support the Leader of the Opposition’s benefits bill. At the same time, Murray urged that the benefits and provisions offered under the bill be detailed with greater specificity, complaining that it lacked exact meaning in a number of instances. “We believe that these things should have a cap,” he said, mentioning that the working people are often told that they cannot have increases and have to settle for pittances. “Why must we ensure in law open-ended benefits?”
Among the benefits and facilities proposed by the bill is payment of utilities at the place of residence in Guyana; the services of personal and household staff, including an attendant and a gardener; services of clerical and technical staff, if requested; full-time personal security and services of the Presidential Guard Service at the place of residence; the provision of motor vehicles owned and maintained by the State; toll free road transportation in Guyana; an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of two first class return airfares provided on the same basis as that granted to serving members of the judiciary; and a tax exemption status identical to that enjoyed by a serving President.
While Singh said the benefits outlined in the bill were based on what has been offered to former presidents and in some instances what has been requested, Murray expressed concern about the open-endedness inherent in the bill, pointing out that it did not give any specific numbers. In this regard, he objected to clause 3 of the bill, which states that the minister may make regulations for giving effect to its provisions. He questioned also whether similar amenities were indeed given to late former presidents Arthur Chung or Desmond Hoyte, citing the provisions for an unspecified number of vehicles and the services of the presidential guard. “We certainly didn’t give him anything like this,” he said, referring to Chung. “Maybe we were too mean… but that doesn’t mean we should go overboard now and try to give away the public purse.”
Murray also registered his concern about the proviso for tax exemptions on par with serving presidents, noting that they receive tax-free incomes.
Meanwhile, AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan declared that with the bill the PPP/C was betraying the legacy of late former President Cheddi Jagan, saying the founders of the party had urged against extravagance. “It makes me feel the ‘PPP’ is now ‘Perks, Privilege and Power,’” he said, “I won’t tell you what the ‘C’ is for-corruption is all over the place.”
He also argued for the bill to include caps, questioning how it could be considered accountable and transparent when it leaves major discretion positive to former presidents and negative to tax payers.
According to him, the bill is scandalous to the extreme, coming as it does when the country is surrounded by financial crisis and all across the Caribbean, leaders are considering pay cuts. And our PPP stalwarts are gonna say yeah to this bill,” he said, although observing that none of the government’s chosen speakers on the bill were members of the governing party. Ramjattan also questioned the haste to pass the bill, noting that it was suspicious on the heels of an announcement by the president that he was uninterested in serving a third term contrary to speculation.
In giving his support to the bill, Franklin said he believed former presidents should be made as comfortable as possible so that they have no need to seek other employment and could remain assets to the governance of the country. He added that a monetary value cannot be put to the service of presidents and urged that the bill not be seen as being intended for any specific person but rather for looking after all former presidents. However, he also said that the government ought to consider provisions for removing benefits in instances where former presidents are criminally charged or impeached as well as a stipulation that residency be a requirement to access the benefits.
Labour Minister Manzoor Nadir, Foreign Affairs Minister Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, PPP/C MP Odinga Lumumba and PNCR MPs Aubrey Norton and Lance Carberry also spoke on the bill.
Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009 provides by statute access to amenities and benefits by the holder of the office, having regard to the services and dignity attached to the office. According to the bill, the holder of the office shall be entitled at government expense to a rent-free furnished office accommodation; medical attention, including medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for himself and the dependent members of his family; full time security service at his official place of residence; the services of a secretary or an executive secretary, a chauffeur, a gardener and a domestic servant; and vacation allowance as is applicable to a minister.
Carberry, who conducted discussions for drafting of the legislation, pointed out that in stark contrast to the former presidents’ bill, it specifies the benefits that would be provided.
