Dear Editor,
Voters in Guyana should ask the question how come the President’s pension is now a matter of concern. There was some almost inaudible noise when the National Assembly approved the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009, outlining the particulars of the pension. The noise lost its tempo shortly after the approval, and reawakened a few days ago, circa 23 days before the national election on November 28.
The Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009 is now a statutory imprint of this nation. And, therefore, any serious contender opposed to this law of the land, once it wins executive power, will be enshrined with the prerogative to exorcise this statute. The AFC, probably, fancies itself as a serious contender, notwithstanding that its political behaviour vis-à-vis the presidential pension matter suggests otherwise. Perhaps, if the AFC accedes to political power, a highly unlikely event, it can start repealing all the laws of this land that breed unhappiness in its embryonic political life.
Look, voters want to know what the AFC party platforms are and to compare and contrast them with those of other parties. I know that the PPP/C party platforms clearly miniaturize whatever the AFC proposes to offer this nation. And at this time, the public is unaware of APNU party platforms, days before the national election. Nevertheless, the AFC has an obsession with the presidential pension matter, and it has 23 days to further discuss this stuff. I wrote a piece when the National Assembly approved the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009; I want to share it with you as follows:
“Jamaica enshrined into law compensation for former Prime Ministers and their dependants in 2005, analogous to what Guyana effected through the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009.
“Then, indeed, Opposition Leader of Jamaica Bruce Golding noted: ‘it [was] wrong to have undertaken these payments for 13 years without the legal authority and without the Bill being brought to Parliament for discussion and approval, so it could be regularized. One has to assume that a matter that is as sensitive as that could not have been implemented without it being brought to attention and without the government being aware that you have no legal authority to do it.’ The House of Representatives Bill 2005 approved increased compensation for former prime ministers, their surviving spouses, and children.
“Note the Guyana opposition’s acrimony in the National Assembly during the National Assembly’s passage of this Bill and the aftermath of the Assembly’s approval; with the opposition feebly holding on to a ‘camouflaged’ argument about ‘caps’; ‘caps’ engraved in irrelevance when it comes to constructing statutory funding provisions to former presidents, former prime ministers, and other heads of state, as these funding provisions rarely are fixed sums.
“The Head of the Presidential Secretariat (HPS) reiterated the following observations, inter alia, pertaining to the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009:
● the PNCR was guilty of double standards, as they zealously engaged themselves with government to provide for benefits and facilities to former and current constitutional personnel, while simultaneously accusing the government of being opaque and not accountable;
● the PNCR was guilty of duplicity, as it silently but zealously embraced the application of custom and practice to addressing the provision of benefits and facilities to constitutional personnel, while simultaneously raising a fuss over transparency;
● Prior to the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009, the application of custom and practice and Cabinet decision addressed the provision of facilities and benefits for former presidents and other constitutional personnel;
● the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009 is an attempt to construct statutory provisions for the benefits and facilities that are presently enabled through custom and practice and Cabinet decision;
● Benefits and facilities offered in this Bill to former presidents are similar to those proffered in other countries to their former heads.
“The notion of constructing statutory provisions for benefits and facilities carries widespread acceptance. The US administration in 1958 ratified the Former President Act 1958 to ensure that former presidents, by law and not by custom and practice, receive salaries, free utility services, staff benefits, rental payments, free medical expenses, presidential libraries, lifetime pension, office funding, travel allowances, mailing concessions, secret service facilities, among several other benefits and facilities.
“There are many other examples. The main point is that these benefits and facilities through the Former Presidents (Benefits and Other Facilities) Bill 2009 are now enshrined in law.
“And then, there is the further point about the Opposition’s gross contempt and disregard for the incumbent President, more recently captured in this drama on the benefits and facilities to former presidents. I am referring to the PNCR’s full page advertisement in the newspapers, with the caption ‘Jagdeo – Selfish And Shameless.’ Incidentally, untruths punctuate this advertisement.
“This whole approach on the PNCR’s part reminds me of Nietzsche’s spirit of revenge which carries behaviours paralleling grand strife, uncontrolled ambition, and Machiavellian individuality. Perhaps, we need some kind of transformation from a spirit of revenge to something like Nietzsche’s ‘Übermensch,’ the image of an entity liberated from social and psychological repression. I suspect, under these acrimonious conditions, Nietzsche may recommend Übermensch to the PNCR and its allies.
“And I hope, too, that all the freedom advocates for the media would know that this caption ‘Jagdeo – Selfish And Shameless,’ could only happen where there is freedom of the press.”
And now for the record, the following Table provides information on the US presidential pension, as there are persisting comparisons with Guyana, some erroneous.
Table 1. GSA Allowances for Former Presidents, FY2008 Enacted
Source: Data provided by the Office of the Budget, General Services Administration, on January 24, 2008.
Clearly, US presidential pension financing bears little comparison to Guyana and regional heads of state’s pensions and allowances, etc. I will subsequently add some further observations to the presidential pension matter.
Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir
