When people confuse favours with rights

Nov 23, 2008 Features / Columnists

---

Anyone who works on attaining the age of retirement would qualify for certain benefits by way of a pension and gratuity. This has been standard practice from time immemorial and it continues to this day because such payments are guaranteed. They have been earned.

The issue of pensions and gratuity represents compensation for work done over the years and these benefits are computed by a formula based on the fact that the individual would have been saving through deductions and certain government contributions throughout his working life.

The reasons for delays in certain payments have already been stated but people keep accusing the government of withholding such payments because they always want to blame the government for something.

The most recent criticisms grew out of the United States of America by a man who has never shown any appreciation for anything that the government has done.

Rickford Burke suddenly latches on to something that is really a non-issue but the speed with which this thing is spreading is worthy of note.

It suggests that people simply want to hear the slightest bit of rumour before they seek to propagate it as gospel. At the centre of this latest criticism is Mrs Joyce Hoyte, the wife of the late President Desmond Hoyte.

When Mr Hoyte demitted office in 1992 he would have qualified for a presidential pension but he continued as a Member of Parliament, which is another paid constitutional position.

He therefore could not be paid two sets of money in that he could not be paid the pension of a former president and paid as a Member of Parliament.

When he died, his wife continued to receive half of the pension that Mr Hoyte received as a parliamentarian. In 2006, she received the increase paid as a result of the passage of legislation to increase the payment of Parliamentarians and Ministers of Government.

Former President Janet Jagan received her pension by virtue of being a president and it is this that Burke has sought to make an issue. He gets two self-seeking politicians who are now linked to the Alliance for Change to make an issue of this fact.

These politicians voted for the increase to be paid to them and at the time in 2006 they would have seen the various beneficiaries of that increase.

They would have known, too, that legislation cannot be made retroactive so the issue about Mrs Hoyte not being paid a portion of her husband’s presidential pension could not have arisen.

But they had sought to politicize the issue and quite dishonestly, argue that Mrs Jagan was receiving a portion of her husband’s presidential pension.

Every opportunity is sought to make the government look bad but every political leader knows that the critics would always be there, even those critics who people had to take to court for their benefits.

In the past some people worked and because of a conflict with the government, were refused their benefits in what could only be described as political spite.

It was because of the actions of the very critics that caused Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang to hand down a ruling that makes pensions and gratuity rights of the worker.

Mr Chang ruled that a benefit already earned could not be denied. That ruling is the law of the land and this government has never gone against it.

Many people who were denied by the People’s National Congress got redress when this government came into office.

To its credit, the People’s National Congress did not get involved in this latest move to blame the government because the party is aware of the law and what prevails.

Some members actually asked the government to be charitable and to do something about benefits to Mrs Hoyte.

But even if they had not approached President Bharrat Jagdeo for an executive order this would have been done and it has been done. Mrs Hoyte is to collect her monies retroactively.

It is apposite to note that when it suits them the critics seek to pressure the government into bending the law or to act outside of the law.

They did when they were convinced that a private citizen should get a free vehicle from the government, knowing that had this been done then every private citizen could have made similar requests and could have been rightly angry had the request been denied.

One thing that the critics need to know is that sometimes their actions could cause the anticipated beneficiary to suffer because should the government act, then it could be construed as a sign of weakness. No government likes to be pushed.

And again one question arises. Where were these critics when Forbes Burnham and the People’s National Congress were trampling on their rights?

---

---