Foresight caused the birth of NIS

Sep 30, 2018 Features / Columnists, My Column

---

Forty-nine years ago, Prime Minister Forbes Burnham conceived the idea that there should be a National Insurance Scheme. Whatever sparked the idea I would never know because the thought process was not documented.
I do remember the protest from the political opposition that Burnham was taking money from the poor people. The complaint that Burnham was taxing the masses beyond their capability was taken up. Contribution to the scheme was compulsory.
Back when actual contributions began in October 1969 every contributor was given a card to accommodate his every contribution. At a glance a person could know how many contributions he or she had made.
It was not long before the scheme became a norm but there had to be changes. Inflation saw an increase in contributions by both the employer and the contributor. The complaints continued.
I don’t remember when the cards disappeared. However, the scheme kept the records. There were many people with the same name, differentiated only by their dates of birth but it was up to the staff of the Scheme to get the right contributions placed in the records of the right person. It goes without saying that human error led to mistakes.
By then there were files which were stored in rooms, piles and piles of files.
As time moved on these files had to be transferred to a more convenient form. Computers had arrived and soon entries were made on computers. But there were files that had to be computed. I remember when Chairman of the Board, Dr Roger Luncheon announced that the computerization had begun. But by then some files had deteriorated. The pages had become fragile because Guyana has never been able to properly secure documents.
I remember going to the archives and seeing valuable documents lying on the floor. I saw a letter written by Coffy to the governor of Amsterdam. I saw the first edition of New Nation. There were priceless documents in the archives. At the time it was housed on Main Street. I am certain some of those documents have been lost forever.
It was the same with archival material at what was then known as the Guyana Film Centre. It made films back then. There were many that captured Guyana as it was then but sadly, after 1992, poor storage saw most of them disappearing forever.
Some of the files at the NIS suffered the same fate. But fortunately most were saved. Today, some people who have attained the age of sixty still have problems with their contributions. Some of them are requested to get testimonials to support their claim of employment at certain locations.
What was amazing was that the same scheme that was seen as an unnecessary tax on the people became a cash cow for many. Dr. Luncheon approved loans to businessmen who repaid at a relatively low interest rate.
Indeed, the scheme needed to invest its money if it had to make payments to the aging population and invest it did.
There were those who sought to milk the scheme but a change in government meant that they had to pay back the money they borrowed.
Today, thousands of contributors have something to look forward to now that their active working days are over. Maternity mothers get money for the period they are off the job; injured workers get something to keep them going.
There was a time when cane farmers mutilated themselves to access NIS money. Some capitalised on situation until they were caught and prosecuted.
I am a beneficiary. Whenever I need a pair of spectacles the Scheme helps with some of the cost. Indeed I get a pension, too.
But it is not all well. Scarcely a day goes by without someone complaining about problems with accessing money due to them. It all goes back to the records, some of which have disappeared and some to lazy workers who could not take the time to go through dusty files.
The one good thing is that there is a General Manager who is very accommodating. She insists that everyone gets his entitlement. She has to take into consideration that the scheme is operating at a deficit, helped in part by investments with Clico made by the previous government.
The present administration is replacing the lost money but the scheme is still running at a deficit. Many people do not contribute because they fail to see the long term benefit. Forbes Burnham did but they do not. It is not until old age steps in that they experience regret.
The closure of some sugar estates has also impacted the scheme. There are private enterprises that must make contributions but many do not. The management of the scheme is reluctant to pursue the legal option but one thing is clear, business is not friendly society.

---

---