THE BILL approved by the Council of Ministers on Tuesday goes a long way towards ending the scandalous pension privileges enjoyed by retired state officials. Nobody would be entitled to multiple pensions for serving in different posts as had been the practice, nor would a retired official who was appointed to a public post be entitled to carry on receiving his or her pension payments.
It is quite astonishing that these provisions had been actually enshrined in law without anyone ever questioning their rationality, let alone their fairness. This was legalised theft of the state, arranged by self-serving officials with the help of their friends in the legislature. What was the logic of a civil servant, appointed to a public post, being credited with 10 pensionable years of service? The new bill scraps this provision as well, but it would be very interesting to know who had thought up these outrageous rules?
To be fair the bill does try to rationalise the lawful stealing from the state, which were the pensions of state officials, but it could have gone further. Why for instance would an official be entitled to a pension payment, not higher than half his highest salary? Surely the pension should be determined by the money the beneficiary had contributed to the pension fund.
This would also create a precedent for all civil servants who receive pensions, not based on total contributions but on their last salary – another legalised form of theft from the state. Hopefully the issue would be tackled when President Christofias eventually gets round to reforming the state pension system. Staying on this issue, why are people who had served as government ministers for a minimum of two years, entitled to big state pension as well? They should receive a pension that reflected their period of service not the full whack once they had served just two years.
The finance ministry did a good job in rationalising an insane system – delaying pension payments until the age of 63 and imposing fixed retirement bonuses were good provisions – but it could have done a little more. This was the ideal opportunity to look at the pensions paid to deputies as well. Deputies’ pensions also qualify as legalised theft of the state. In the calculation of the pension payments of deputies, the tax-free expenses allowance is calculated as is the allowance paid for secretarial services. Why has this glaring financial scandal not been addressed by the government bill?
The government could argue that the legislature would never have passed the bill if the deputies’ financial interests had been touched. On the other hand, if state pensions are to be put on a sound and rational basis, the extortionate pensions paid to deputies must be re-examined as well.
