Dear Editor,
Stabroek News reported that the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Robert Persaud, described the presidential pension issue as “extraneous” and not a “serious” one (November 8). I wish to suggest 5 reasons to the Minister and campaign manager of the PPP/C why, contrary to his belief, the lavish presidential pension package voted into law by the PPP/C is one of vital importance to all Guyanese.
First, it is about legality. Certainty in a law is a hallmark of legality and the rule of law. Persons are entitled to know their rights, duties and obligations, and all acts of governmental power which affect such matters must be formulated with clarity and precision. That the presidential package deeply impacts on the public purse is beyond question, and in such circumstances it is surely the right of taxpayers, who have to fund it, to know the scope of the benefits and the corresponding obligations it imposes. In this regard the law in question is deficient and quite unique among comparable countries where respect for the rule of law prevails. It provides open-ended benefits to a retired president including the services of an unspecified number of personal and household staff, an unspecified number of clerical and technical staff, free medical treatment for him and all his dependants at unspecified facilities, unquantified security services of a personal nature, unquantified security services at his place of residence, an unspecified number of motor vehicles to be maintained by the state (does this mean petrol too?), and an annual vacation allowance equivalent to the cost of 2 first-class return airfares. All these unlimited benefits make it impossible to compute the financial cost of this law, which makes it the antithesis of legality.
Second, it is about fiscal affordability. This law provides a tax-free pension along with a long list of open-ended benefits. The cost is impossible to predict, because it is not even limited by words such as ‘reasonable’ or ‘necessary’ – its extent is entirely dependent on the decency of the beneficiary. Thus if a beneficiary demands 4 luxury cars, 25 personal staff, 25 clerical staff, medical check-ups at Harley Street outside of his vacation time and so on, there appears to be nothing in the Act that would enable a government to refuse. How can the second poorest nation in the Western hemisphere afford this?
Third, it is about sustainability. What happens when the former presidents start to add up, and there are several surviving beneficiaries? And what if each requests benefits that compute to several million US dollars per month? How will the Guyana economy support that?
Fourth, it is about equity. While President Jagdeo has secured for himself and successors a pension and unlimited benefits, old age pensioners receive $7,500 per month. I am unclear what such the latter sum could cover. It would not cover house rent. It would not cover drugs (given that pensioners are more likely to have health challenges and therefore the need for regular medication). I don’t know if it would cover food that has to be cooked, because gas prices alone would eat up a substantial portion of that figure. I don’t know if it would cover electricity, highly unlikely at current rates. And none of this takes into account necessities like transportation, clothing and other utilities. The point is that while the presidential package is at least commensurate with what the head of state of a developed country would get, old age pensioners are at a starvation level. And it is this privileging of one person while many suffer is what seems to be deeply inequitable.
Fifth, it is about morality. I leave this for last, because to my mind it presents the strongest argument against this law. On the campaign trail we are hearing the PPP deny the “moral” right of others to be in office. I’d like them to consider this: what moral right does anyone who voted for this package have to hold public office? A career in government should be a higher calling, where public officers serve and uplift the people. In Guyana, there is a high rate of unemployment, many subsist on handouts from abroad, others flock the embassies and continue to leave in droves, even to destinations like the Caribbean where they face xenophobia and resentment… all of which point to the deep impoverishment of people in this country.
Yet, the presidential package passed into law by the PPP/C demonstrates that party’s concern – not with the people they are meant to govern – but with their own pockets.
This presidential package and one’s view on it go to the heart of suitability for public office, and as such I can think of no more serious issue to voters at this time.
Yours faithfully,
Arif Bulkan
