Dear Editor,
The decision to pay Hamilton Green a pension for services between 1985 and 1992 equivalent to what the current Prime Minister would earn on retirement, is discriminatory when compared to the pittance of 50% on the minimum public service scale paid to those pensioners who gave over 33 years of faithful service within the public service, inclusive of the same period.
His twenty million per year as reported in one newspaper is equivalent to the payment of sixty-seven pensioners yearly, at an income of $25,000.00 per month. How can we rationalize one man being paid a pension of $20,000,000.00 a year while the other retirees have to live on $300,000.00 per year? Most of these pensioners would have held senior positions in the public service, yet they were paid 50% on the minimum scale.
In view of the criteria used to pay Mr Green a livable pension, can the Finance Minister now decide to pay all retirees two thirds of the minimum scale in keeping with the Pension Act, or alternatively pay 50% on the scale, as currently obtained, under which public servants retired during that period. The same should apply to those retired UG lecturers who assisted in shaping the lives of many young people.
This group of pensioners would gradually be phased out through death, but in the meanwhile any increase in income can assist in the payment of medical bills as a result of attrition.
Yours faithfully,
D Sookdeo
