THE EDITOR, Sir:
I AM one of those who support the indexation of the Prime Minister's salary for pension benefits, although I am unhappy about the way it was done - "putting the cart before the horse."
While I agree with Jacqui Lloyd, as reported in The Gleaner of Friday, December 2, that former Heads of Government should be in a position to retire in comfort, I cannot support her view that there should be no comparison with the position of other public servants.
Both are public servants whose pensions are paid out of the public purse. Indeed, many were advisors to Prime Ministers during their public service. Should they not also be able to retire in comfort? Additionally, they have to work for 33 1/3 years to earn their pension, while a Prime Minister may do so even if he served one term of office.
'MAGNIFICENT' PENSION?
I know of a Permanent Secretary who retired some 40 years ago on a salary of J$10 - $12,000 per annum - yes, per annum. Can you imagine what a 'magnificent' pension he must have been enjoying over the many years of his retirement? Talk about retiring in comfort! His contemporary would be retiring at a salary of millions of dollars and paid pension on that basis.
The Government Pensioners' Association has for years requested the Minister of Finance to index the salaries of pensioners for purposes of calculating pensions but the answer has always been "No funds." The association even suggested a 50 per cent indexation but the answer remained "No funds." It is only fair to say, however, that over the years the Government has been making "temporary supplement" payments on the basic pension entitlement.
I doubt whether government pensioners will be receiving an increase on the supplement this year. The Memorandum of Understanding would appear to be a useful tool to say "No" or to make a "pipe water" offering. I hope I am wrong.
I am, etc.,
GEORGE KIRKALDY C.D.
Harmony Court
Kingston 8
