Dear Editor,
Reference is made to two responses – ‘US former presidents benefits cannot be compared to those in Guyana‘ by Eric Moseley (SN, May 15) and ‘What was the principle the government applied when it came up with the former presidents’ benefits package?’ by Lurlene Nestor (SN, May 11) – in response to my missive (SN, May 9) on US presidential expenses.
Both respondents formed erroneous, misleading, unsubstantiated conclusions not supported by the information I provided on the generous pension benefits given to former American presidents. I re-read my letter and could not see how the two correspondents could come to the conclusion that I am defending Guyana‘s former presidents’ benefits act. On the contrary, I stated we can’t afford it.
Contrary to what Ms Nestor penned, I never offered a position on the issue of a pension for Guyana’s ex-president other than to state it should be based on affordability (socio-economics) to which should also be added socio-politics given the divided nature of the society. I never offered a defence or justification for the pension benefits act.
Also, I did not make any comparison between pensions and benefits granted under the Guyana act (as I do not know what benefits Mr Jagdeo is entitled to) and those benefits received by ex-American presidents.
I simply provided information on recent benefits received by former American presidents and suggested that the Guyana government should not pay for expenses for ex-presidents if they are earning high incomes. I do not know if Mr Jagdeo is earning an income as he does not report to me and we are not friends so that I would know his business or whereabouts.
Mr Moseley claims the numbers I provided on benefits obtained by US presidents are not accurate. As I stated, the expense amounts were not mine and were obtained from the NY Post (May 8).
I do not think pension benefits should be based on the population size of the country. Australia, Singapore, Dubai, etc, are smaller than the US but their leaders earn higher salaries. India is much larger than the US but the pension and salary are much smaller. The pension benefits should be based on affordability and standard of living.
Contrary to what Ms Nestor penned, no mention was made of benefits received by Dr Jagdeo and their appropriateness for a small poor nation like Guyana.
Contrary to her conclusion, I do not have any political affinity with the PPP/C and the issue is inconsequential to me. But neither Ms Nestor nor Mr Moseley is addressing the issue dispassionately.
Instead, they, like their PNC colleagues, are playing politics with the issue. They ought to know that the Act cannot be changed without support from the government and its assent by President Ramotar. The matter should be addressed in a non-partisan way to be successful without the parties appearing to gain political mileage from it.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
