By Abena Rockcliffe
Certainly, if asked of an APNU member or staunch supporter, he or she can point to several matters about which the coalition can boast a good record; or at least a consistent one. But for a non- partisan Guyanese, an ilk within which I identify, it is a difficult task.
When APNU was in its prime, it made many, many promises. Some say the coalition over-promised. APNU promised to create jobs for young people, save the sugar industry, ensure constitutional reform, stamp out corruption, exact prudent management of the economy and jail corrupt former government officials. Truly, the list goes on, but I have given myself a word limit.
When the party entered Office, optimism reigned. Young people especially were expecting the coming of a “better life.” Instead, the good paying jobs were given to the much, much older folk and young people were encouraged to sell plantain chips. Rice became “private business” and sugar estates were closed. Several new taxes were introduced and the economy was tough. More mistakes made by the coalition can be listed, including the handling of the 50% salary increase for senior ministers. But, word limit. Nevertheless, I must note that issues like constitutional reform and campaign financing are only championed by parties out of office. When APNU was in opposition, constitutional reform was a high priority. The same with PPP.
Just like it promised jobs for young people, APNU promised to cap the benefits given to former presidents. For the latter, it has an unblemished record.
When the Former Presidents (Benefits and other facilities) Act of 2009 was debated and passed, PNCR, the largest force in the APNU, voted against the bill. That piece of legislation catered for a tax-free pension calculated at 7/8 of the sitting President’s salary. PNCR’s main problem was the unlimited nature of the benefits. Full coverage for utilities, full household staff including gardener; coverage for medical attention for not only former presidents but also their dependents and of course security and transportation.
In 2013, Carl Greenidge sponsored a bill to do away with the limitless nature of the 2009 piece of legislation. His bill also introduced conditions under which benefits can be enjoyed by former presidents. Greenidge said that the Bill was premised on “social justice.” Greenidge said then that the quantum of the pension is exceptionally generous, and did not require supplementary benefits; therefore, capping the benefits was not unjust.
That bill of 2013 was passed in the National Assembly by a majority vote of the combined opposition. But the bill was crippled when then President Donald Ramotar refused to assent.
When David Granger took over, the change was finally made and Guyana was given the piece of legislation we have now. I remember reporting for Kaieteur News when Granger said, “I will cut the benefits to which I am entitled…I will be the beneficiary of a fair bill.” And that he did.
Back when they argued against the capping of benefits, PPP MPs said that such an act was stripping former presidents of their dignity. The party is seeking to now return this dignity as Friday’s House sitting saw the first reading of a Bill to once again secure unlimited benefits for former presidents. The new bill restores open-ended taxpayer funding for water, electricity, telephone services, full-time household and technical staff, personal security, and multiple state-maintained motor vehicles. It also guarantees full medical attendance and an annual vacation allowance.
One can easily note that the PPP is also sticking to its position on the issue. It has always argued in favor of unlimited benefits for former presidents. PPP stood firm on the bill but not what the bill represents. The PPP said that APNU did not care about the masses when it was in office. It only looked after government officials, their family and friends with scholarships and other benefits. The PPP said it cares more about the wellbeing of the people of Guyana and is more about service to country as opposed to prestige and benefits.
It is not hard to agree with Greenidge when he said capping the benefits is about social justice. Presidents are very important people. They work hard, sacrifice a lot and are deserving of pensions outside of the ordinary. But arguing for uncapped health benefits for former presidents and all dependents seems a little cruel when the cost of dialysis in Guyana is killing patients, literally. I am sure it will seem cruel to that mother whose son died recently because she could not afford the surgery. Open-ended utility payments, state maintenance of several vehicles, vacation allowance etc, all while having a high pension can seem inconsiderate to Guyanese who are simply fighting for survival.
