This mystifying political mess with senior citizens’ pensions could not have come at a worse time.
The sudden withdrawal of the Miscellaneous (Senior Citizens’ Pension and Public Assistance) Bill 2024 in which a savings “exceeding $25,000” would have disqualified senior citizens from getting a pension raises two related issues:
• The shocking twists and turns of the government’s policy and legislative process.
• Who will be held publicly accountable and sanctioned?
The population is still trying to de-construct Attorney General Reginald Armour’s confusing explanation as to how the “$25,000 savings” was “mistakenly” inserted in the bill that got laid in Parliament’s order paper on December 9.
“I take full responsibility,” sheepishly declared an obviously embarrassed Armour on December 18.
But this came after pelting the conscientious Social Development Minister Donna Cox and acting Attorney General Camille Robinson-Regis under the political bus.
Cox for carrying out what she was legally given and Robinson-Regis for accepting what she legally found in the AG’s office.
What initially seems to have bothered Minister Cox were “false claims” by applicants and recommenders. In her media interview, she dutifully said: "What we have found is that there are many people with a lot of money who transfer all their business out of their hands to collect a pension.”
She added: “The pension is not for abuse because it is taxpayers’ money.” So why withdraw? Why not just quickly amend? The government should use Cox’s tax wisdom more widely.
Penalties proposed for false applications and corrupt recommenders were a $300,000 fine and three years in jail. Apart from loopholes in such social-welfare legislation, evidence to prosecute would be a challenge, especially for determining residence. Cox explained the bill will “not impact” current pensioners. However, the AG’s “withdrawal” has a serious impact on her.
The twisted events, as the AG tried to explain last week began when “the note first came to Cabinet in March, 2023.” Cox had dutifully and publicly defended the “$25,000 savings” clause on December 17. The bill’s withdrawal now, unfortunately, makes Cox look a bit hard-hearted and Robinson-Regis as politically insensitive to pensioners. Talking about collateral damage! The PNM Cabinet may well see Armour as their sacrificial hero for courageously putting himself under the troubled political bus.
Anyhow, up to December 9, where was the legal oversight? Armour said: “I was out of the country on November 21 when the bill came to the attention of Parliament.”
The Prime Minister said he too “wasn’t there,” that there was “miscommunication.”
Could a bill really go to Parliament without the AG seeing it? And who is this mysterious “public servant” now squeezed under the bus for allegedly inserting the hot potato “$25,000 savings” clause during the Legislative Review Committee discussions?
Certainly, the committee’s minutes should reveal this. Or would Dr Rowley appoint a committee to inquire into the truth
