Dear Editor,
I leap in agreement with Lincoln Lewis in his letter ‘A pension must reflect a reasonable percentage of income not the full income’ (SN, November 23).
The points raised by him are well grounded, and have sturdy legs to stand on. Mr Lewis frankly states that, “The former Presidents Benefits Act is flawed … The law is self-serving … “the bill tabled in the National Assembly addressing primarily the pension of Hamilton Green … cannot stand the test of scrutiny in its present form.” Even as a layman it is so clear to see. A pension as I always thought it to be, was exactly as Mr Lewis described it, “meant to provide income at a percentage of what one would have earned during the work period of his/her life”. How on earth then can it be at the very same remuneration of one actively employed?
There is need for us to be concerned that former presidents and PMs will be receiving pensions at the same rate as the current ones. I remember reading where it was reported that former PM Hamilton Green’s $20 million dollars per year would be equivalent to the payment of 67 pensioners per year, at a rate of $25,000 per month each. By any measure this is somewhat vulgar and scandalous. As a simple everyday person not venturing into the intricacies involved, it still boggles my mind to understand this astronomical disparity; on what grounds, on what basis did they arrive at this princely sum, or what kind of formula was employed? Is it merely just by virtue of the title ‘Prime Minister’, the office held?
But I also understand that the good gentleman, former PM and Mayor has about two or three other pensions though much less substantial. And further, I think Mr Green really stretches the issue in his attempt to justify his pension package by informing us that had it not been for the largesse of his wife and daughters, living would have been real tough. Come on, really? We need a jar of salt for this one to go down. In any event the salary and allowances received as PM were well above those of other ministers ‒ we know about super salaries for ministers. I, like so many others, am not against the man having what is due to him, and I have to say that I do admire Mr Lewis’s objectivity when he reminded us not to lose sight of principle by focusing on personalities, for it does undermine productive discourse ‒ so true. But we have to admit that there surely are times when there are exceptions and one has to exercise reservations.
Yes, pensions have to do with public office and not persons, but I would personally take the position that some, by the very nature of the function they performed should be treated differently. There are the cases of despotic and oppressive regimes like a Hitler’s Germany, Botha’s apartheid South Africa, and Pinochet’s Chile, in which there were human rights violations and crimes against humanity. Just what kind of pension can be considered as proper and deserving?
I couldn’t agree more with Mr Lewis when he so fittingly noted that we remain a donkey cart economy and our elected leaders must live in accordance with the economic reality. Unfortunately, the weight we carry are those leaders we have who crave to live like gods at the expense of the downtrodden, and have the temerity to say to your face “Why not”!
Yours faithfully,
Frank Fyffe
