THE REVELATIONS about the multiple pensions collected by former deputies, ministers and civil servants have justifiably caused a lot of public anger and resentment. It is a scandalously unjust arrangement, passed secretly in 1988 by the very people who would benefit from it – politicians and top-ranked civil servants.
This is lawful scrounging from the state by the people whose job is supposed to be the protection of the interests of the taxpayer. And in all those years the law has been in force not a single beneficiary of this legalized leeching from the state had the decency to stand up and say a word against it. Their personal interest dictated that they kept this outrageous scheme a carefully-guarded secret so they could keep on collecting obscene amounts of money as pensions. There are people, who in a year of hard work are not paid as much as some of the privileged few collect in monthly pensions.
Concerned about the public outcry, the government sent a circular to workers at the Social Insurance Department, with access to the pensions’ database, informing them that giving out such information was a criminal offence. The circular claimed that divulging this information was a violation of a person’s right to privacy, but is it? What about the right of the taxpayer to know how his money is being spent by the state, given the big budget deficit and government plans for new taxes next month?
We have a right to know how our money is being spent and instead of threatening staff, the government should publish a list of the monthly pensions collected by politicians and civil servants. Only thieves operate in secrecy and as all the multi-pensioners are honest folk doing nothing illegal they should have no objection to the state publishing their monthly payments by the state.
This is too much to expect, as the government is already trying to protect the multiple pension earners. A draft law aimed at righting this wrong will not touch the privileges of those already collecting several pensions, on the grounds that it would be unconstitutional for the new law to have retroactive effect. But the law would not be asking the privileged pensioners to return all the state funds they have collected – it would only stop them from collecting several state pensions from now on. Why is it unconstitutional for the state to rationalise its pension payments?
These are cheap excuses aimed at protecting the old privileges. The new law must stop multiple pensions now, and if any of the recipients feel hard done by they have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court to question its constitutionality.
