Dear Editor,
With reference to the letter ‘The Leader of the Opposition does not have a special retirement package,’ (SN, January 11) by B Beniprashad Rayman, PNCR Executive Member, please permit me to put this ostensibly contentious issue in proper perspective.
In the SN editorial, ‘Benefits for former presidents,’ (May 4, 2009), the writer focused extensively on the merits and demerits of the controversial bill for former presidents, and noted that “the out-of-the blue bill…came nestled amid several companion bills… such as the one settling benefits for Mrs. Hoyte, one for an Office of the Spouse of the President (which would certainly have been of use to the President’s former wife, Ms Singh) and another to settle benefits for the Opposition Leader. Clearly the main attraction was the presidential bill while the others comprised the supporting cast.”
When Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, piloted the Opposition Leader’s benefits bill through Parliament, he observed it actually had its origins in two strands of development: 1) the engagements between the President and the Opposition Leader and, more particularly, 2) as it related to the establishment of the constitutional office of the Leader of the Opposition. There were extensive engagements by both leaders and their emissaries to ensure certain understandings relating to the establishment of the office and its resourcing were reached. (‘House passes opposition leader benefits bill,’ SN, April 9, 2010).
It turned out that the emissaries were Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon (for the President) and Mr Lance Carberry (for the Opposition Leader), and their negotiations for the establishing of non-statutory benefits for the Opposition Leader, which were approved by Cabinet, lasted right up until the end of 2005. (‘PNCR slams proposed presidential benefits,’ SN, April 29, 2009).
Now, here are the details of the Opposition Leader’s benefits while functioning in his constitutional office: the holder of the office shall be entitled at government expense to 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 and at his office to be provided by the Guyana Police Force; the services of a research assistant, an executive assistant/secretary, a clerical/office assistant, a chauffeur, a personal security officer, a gardener and two domestic servants; and salary, vacation allowance and parliamentary benefits equivalent to those of a cabinet minister.
Please note: the Opposition Leader actually enjoyed these non-statutory benefits after 2005 and right up until Thursday, April 8, 2010, when Parliament, in the absence of the Opposition Leader, voted to switch his non-statutory benefits to statutory. (‘House passes Opposition Leader benefits bill,’ SN, April 9, 2010).
So where did I get the impression or information of the Opposition Leader receiving a generous retirement benefits package? Recall I referenced the SN editorial above in which the writer mentioned the Opposition Leader benefits bill was one of several accompanying the former presidents’ benefits bill. Well, on Thursday, April 30, 2009, after rancorous parliamentary debate, the former presidents’ benefits bill became law, but not the Opposition Leader’s benefits bill. A quick aside: anyone seeking itemized details of the former presidents’ benefits bill that became law can find these under the caption, ‘PNCR slams proposed presidential benefits,’ SN, April 29, 2009, where a quick perusal will reveal that the president’s statutory retirement package is not vastly different from his current remunerative package, and is said to be reflective of the dignity of the office he holds.
Anyway, angry at government, the PNC took out full-page ads in Stabroek News and Kaieteur News calling on Guyanese to oppose the former presidents’ benefits bill, which it denounced as assuring “luxurious living at the expense of taxpayers” for the rest of the president’s natural life. (‘PNCR slams proposed presidential benefits,’ SN, April 29, 2009).
One year after the former presidents’ benefits bill became law, the Opposition Leader’s benefits bill became law, but what was instructive was that the Opposition Leader’s non-statutory benefits appeared to have been at the discretion of the president and government for almost five years before becoming law, and it was also during this period of a docile and ineffective PNC as the main parliamentary opposition that we witnessed the most egregious acts of financial irregularity, cronyism and heavy-handedness in the government.
If we closely analyze the apparent quid pro quo picture painted in the foregoing paragraph, we can also see the Opposition Leader’s non-statutory benefits in existence for almost five years before becoming legal as a precedent that says his statutory retirement benefits are a done deal. Bottom line: Not all political decisions in Guyana require passage of law to be in effect. Another reason is that no legislative body, featuring government and opposition members, would approve a statutory remunerative/benefits package for the constitutional office-holder of the Opposition Leader, but not also approve a statutory retirement package for him or her; especially after passing a new retirement package for the head of state/government.
But most importantly, given the obviously ‘productive working relationship’ the Opposition Leader has with the President since Desmond Hoyte passed, all the Opposition Leader has to do now is exactly what he has done during the almost five years he received non-statutory benefits at the discretion of the President and government and, based on how the political game is played, he will see his retirement benefits.
To all who asked, I don’t think this President deserves the benefits his retirement package contains given his performance in office, but since the office itself does carry a certain level of dignity then its retiring holder deserves to enjoy a level of benefits commensurate with the office, and definitely reflective of the economic conditions in the country. Likewise the office of the Opposition Leader, which is a constitutional one, carries its own level of dignity and whenever Opposition Leaders retire, they must, like the President, get a retirement package deal commensurate with their office, and definitely reflective of the economic conditions in the country. Let the Opposition Leader’s supporters continue to argue their defence, but I want them to also note the AFC’s Raphael Trotman’s observations that the office of the Opposition Leader, being a constitutional one, is meant to take care of all of the opposition, but in all the negotiations, none of the other opposition parties were asked their opinion. He added there should also be an affixed office of the leader of the opposition to which all opposition parties can have access from time to time. (‘House passes Opposition Leader benefits bill,’ SN, April 9, 2010).
Editor, I don’t begrudge the President or Opposition Leader getting current or retirement benefits commensurate with their tasks and performance, but almost 45 years after political independence, I think it is past time we had a once-and-for-all statutory coverage for on-the-job salaries/benefits and retirement benefits for presidents, prime ministers, cabinet members and parliamentarians and stop the appearance of playing politics with their remunerative and retirement benefits.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
New York
