On amending the Pension Act
published: Saturday | April 30, 2005

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I WISH to enunciate my displeasure at present attempts to amend the Pension Act so ex-Prime Ministers and their former girlfriends turned wives and later widows can receive full pension. What is inherently wrong with the present scenario when ex-prime ministers receive two-thirds of their salary as pension? I must admit that the job of being a Prime Minister is indeed a very taxing one and the life of such a person can be consumed by the demands of such a job. If the present emoluments are approved, it would be a great injustice to pay one civil servant and dependents over $540,000 per month when hundreds of other government workers are not even paid such a figure annually.

Why should someone in retirement need a housing allowance of $216,000 monthly plus a secretarial allowance of $891,000 when a social security allowance is provided? I can see with provisions for personal security, household helper allowance and gardener allowance. Aren't ex-prime ministers and their families invited to numerous parties, given enough perks and benefits like free holidays during and when they leave office? Why should ordinary taxpayers be further saddled with these burdens when the country's budget cannot even cover basic requirements of children's homes, schools, hospitals and the fire service?

The impression given of this proposal is that those at the top will always live at the expense of those at the bottom and this is why ordinary Jamaicans like myself have little faith in the system of governance and politicians. Why not let the two-thirds benefit remain and plough the proposed difference into pension funds for ordinary Jamaicans. Quite frankly, I believe Messrs. Seaga and Patterson are living way above the minimum wage and need nothing more. I bet there will be a bi-partisan agreement on this issue.

I am, etc.,

DUDLEY I.H. MCFARLANE

PO Box 129

Kingston 20