Dear Editor,
Recently His Excellency announced interventions that would attempt to address some of the miseries of contributors that have been plaguing the National Insurance Scheme (NIS), but would these satisfy the other complaints experienced by contributors? In a discussion recently with some concerned citizens, I was asked to make a public appeal for some alleviation of those currently affected and to avoid “problems” in the future.
The first observation made was that visits to the various offices of the NIS seem to indicate some amount of over staffing, and suggest that a manpower audit be conducted, to conclusively determine if the Scheme would benefit from a restructuring, The Scheme should also consider an aggressive campaign to inform contributors of the benefits to which they are entitled and the regulations governing such benefits, e.g. that a person cannot be absent from work, the day before sickness benefit is claimed. With respect to sickness benefits, it is now mandatory for a contributor to have on record a medical condition, before attaining retirement age, to be able to claim for such an ailment after retirement. It is as clear as day that many people, as they age develop conditions from which they require treatment, e.g. diabetes. Shouldn’t the regulations be amended to address this situation?
It was also argued that NIS be transitioned to a digital system to more accurately, efficiently and effectively deal with workers’ issues. Even though NIS has an online platform to have Life Certificates, etc., it is a hassle and time consuming exercise, sometimes in futility to have anyone respond. Forget calling the telephone numbers listed. It’s impossible to get anyone to respond. A problem affecting contributors for decades has been the accurate number of contributions made by workers. This has more often affected workers in the private sector, but workers in the Public/Government sector also have less contributions recorded. I personally know persons who have been employed continuously, all their lives in the public sector and at the time of being eligible for a pension, the number of contributions have deficiencies for many years. Something must be done to correct this injustice.
A NIS Board member commented that some of his colleague members are more often than not absent from meetings, and at least one member, often sleep through meetings. He also said that with the Chairman of the Board, rather than being from the private sector should preferably be a professional, and not aligned. Another complaint is the non-increase of NIS pensions in recent years, even though many such increases have been made to working persons. Surely, the administration must be aware that some retired persons have only their NIS pensions to survive on. A recent announcement indicated that NIS is in a healthy financial condition. The Government, while it should be complimented on its interventions, in my opinion, would not achieve the desired results, by just tinkering with changes, but should consider a complete overhaul of the NIS. Hopefully, those with the authority would take these observations in the spirit in which they are made.
Sincerely,
Harry N Nawbatt
