APNU column

May 06, 2012 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

 

Where have the rewards of increased growth been placed?
Does the Government find no discomfort in dolling out $3M to one person as pension and benefits every month or $100,000 per day?
The people who must face the high cost of survival in Guyana with their shrinking income must look to this Government for assistance. Many of them are children and persons with disabilities.
The Minister in his presentation also spoke of the Government’s decision to make the Guyanese economy more robust and resilient, to withstand external shocks and less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of domestic single industry upheavals.
While the Government speaks of robustness and resilience it seems they are not aware of the increase of applications for public assistance from persons who have to grapple to withstand the shocks of survival in Guyana.
The continuous increase in the number of applications for Public assistance is reaching alarming levels. Is our Minister oblivious to the number of our people who are suffering? One needs only to look at the figures coming out of the Ministry of Human Service. The number of applicants for Public Assistance has increased tremendously over the last three years.
Year    Applications    Recipients
2009    1,399                    9,186
2010    5,300                    17,800
2011    6,472                   16,400
Yet, the Minister of Finance in sharing the national pie has boldly flaunted in the faces of Guyanese, particularly those in need of assistance, the meager increase of $13.00 per day for or a monthly increase of $400 for them: In reality, the cost of one sweet per day for our vulnerable group.
Age of Retirement
The number of persons seeking Old Age Pension and Public Assistance is alarming and the facts representing longevity cannot be ignored. The World Bank 2009 Report highlighted that the aging index was nearly eight elderly persons to every 100 children in 1970.
By 2002, it had risen to 12 elderly persons, accounting for an annual growth rate of 0.82 percent. In contrast to a decrease of 16.3percent in the number of children aged less than 15 years in 2006, the number of people aged 65 and over increased by 26.3 percent.
Guyana like other countries must, therefore, review our age of retirement and look at the emerging picture of the Elderly group. With the increase in the number of Elderly people, our pension schemes would be unable to support the large number of pensioners who make demands on them.
This discourse on the review of the age of retirement in Guyana has been going on for too long. The typical retirement age is fifty-five years in the public sector and sixty to sixty-five years in the private sector. Yet this does not entitle one, upon retirement, to receive pension from the two main state institutions. Persons must acquire the age of 60 years to receive pension from the National Insurance Scheme and, sixty-five for Old Age Pension. What happens in the interim?
Given the increase in the number of persons living above sixty-five years, the strain on our pension schemes and the inability of families to cope with the cost of taking care of their elderly relatives, it is imperative that the situation be brought to an end and a firm decision is made to increase the retirement age in the Public Service to sixty-five years. Alternatively, there may be need to reduce the age of eligibility for NIS pensions to coincide with the age of retirement.
It is lamentable that nothing has been forthcoming from the Government regarding the Report from the committee, which was put together by the Government for the review and reform of the NIS scheme. There is urgent need for restructuring this pension scheme. In November 2007, the committee produced its final report, which entailed several recommendations.
At that time the PNCR had some reservations over some of the recommendations made particularly one which suggested further raising the age of eligibility.
On March 3, 2008, Ms. Priya  Manickchand, told the National Assembly, “It is presently engaging the attention of Cabinet, where these recommendations that were examined and considered, are going to be looked at, with a view to making the scheme, as the Terms of Reference said, more financially viable and efficacious.”
The retirement age of 55 years indeed places a greater strain on the ability of the NIS to meet its obligations to the large number of persons who are forced into retirement. Apart from support from family members at home or remittances from those abroad, the Elderly depend to a large extent on the NIS for financial support.
The NIS, we have been told for some time now, cannot withstand the pressure to provide benefits for the large number of pensioners in our midst. Despite a Stabroek News Article by Prof. Clive Thomas last April, under the caption, “Downside Risks & the Upside Potentials Facing the Economy”, the Minister’s 69 page presentation made absolutely no mention of the government’s intentions for this institution. According to Prof. Thomas, “ The National Insurance Scheme is at risk of turning to the state for bailouts with which to fund its outstanding liabilities.”
In fact this institution which helps to bridge the gap between ability by pensioners to meet their survival needs and living in poverty did not find favor in the distribution of any of the revenues which the Government raked in the last year. Instead the NIS management is left to face the many complex problems, including but not limited to:
•Resources tied up with the Clico/Standford debacles
•An ageing work force
•Humongous and burdensome financial arrears
•Over abundance of bureaucratic & administrative problems
•High administrative costs (estimated at about 1/6 of its income)
Despite comments by Minister Manickchand, the Government’s reluctance to act on the recommendations put forward for this institution is another blatant disregard for the many pensioners, and workers who by compulsion must continue to have their earnings paid into this scheme.
Is this not another deprivation of the rights of the workers who on retirement expect to receive a pension for their hard years of service only to be faced with another Clico Fiasco if nothing is done in the near future to secure their benefits?
The Government must recognize that many of the past and present contributors to NIS gave a mandate to APNU and AFC on 28 November, 2011 to represent them and address their concerns in the National Assembly. This is, therefore, one of those issues which we will have to undoubtedly address as we review this 2012 Budget.

---

---