Why change a law that does not need to be changed?

Jun 22, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

There has been a call for the former Home Affairs Minister, Balram Singh Rai, to receive his parliamentary pension. He must be one special man for the laws of the country to be changed to accommodate him and him alone.
I do not believe that changing of the law should be inspired by the need for one man to receive his parliamentary pension. If, on the other hand, it was found that there are many who were unjustly deprived of their parliamentary pensions as a result of the law excluding them, then this is an issue to be considered.
Unless there is a standard minimum pension, as there is with the National Insurance Scheme, a parliamentary pension for someone who served in the 1960’s for a short time would be extremely small. So long as there are justifiable grounds for the payment of a pension, it should be paid no matter how small it is.
Just as changes to the law should not be inspired by the need to ensure that one man receives a parliamentary pension, similarly, changes to the law should not be inspired by the need to deny a former president of his entitlements granted under the law.
The new government will contend that its proposed changes to the Presidents’ Benefits Act is not intended to deny anyone his benefits but merely to cap those benefits. But it is my contention that there is no need for anyone to cap any benefits under the existing law since it is the prerogative of the government to determine what is reasonable from what is not reasonable.
If someone is entitled under a law to security, then it is for the incumbent regime to determine how much security that person should have. There may be certain situations, such as when political tensions may be high, for more security to be provided for a beneficiary, as against that which is provided in normal situations. To cap this particular benefit will create problems. Should the situation in the future justify additional security, then having the provision of security capped will make a legitimate need unlawful.
It also makes a laughing stock of Guyana when benefits have to be capped. When President Obama leaves office there will be no need for any law to say that he should only have two or three bodyguards or cap any of the other benefits he should be entitled to. The government of the United States does not need to specify how many body guards the outgoing President should have. They will make an administrative determination of this based on a security assessment.
Why then go to parliament to cap a benefit? Every sitting of parliament costs money and it is total waste of the time of the parliamentarians for them to have to spend that valuable and costly time to pass legislation to cap any benefits to former Presidents when that same effect can be lawfully achieved through administrative action. If it felt that the former President of Guyana has too much security that is necessary for his protection, then just reduce it administratively. No need to cap anything.
This argument may be countered by the view that the proposed legislation is to guard against the sort of abuses that took place by the previous administration, and also to guard against future abuses. So the premise is that the capping is necessary to prevent what happened in the past and to prevent the same thing happening in the future.
But what if this is a false premise? What if what was presumed to have happened in the past, did not happen at all? Surely this can no longer be the basis for capping the benefits, can it?
When the new government was in opposition, it accused the former President of receiving three million dollars in pension benefits. This came across to the public as three million in pension. But is that so? There was a report in which it was stated that the former President claimed at a press conference that he has not received a cent from the government as pension, since he left. So is it true then that the pension was never either paid or uplifted? And what was the value of the other benefits that were paid to the former President and how do these stack up with, let us say, the benefits to the Leader of the Opposition during the same period.
There are the issues that need to be settled before there is a mad rush to pass legislation to cap benefits. But no one in the media has so far asked the new government what were the total pensions paid to the former president, and what is the monthly cost to the treasury of the other benefits paid during this period.
It is important that these questions are answered. Why cap the benefits if the pensions were not paid or the other benefits were not abused?

---

---