.jpg)
GOVERNMENT Members of Parliament at yesterday’s sitting of the National Assembly deemed the Former Presidents (Benefit and Other Facilities) Bill as being vindictive. The Bill No. 29 of 2012, which was read for the second time by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) MP, Carl Greenidge, seeks to repeal the former bill of 2009.
Greenidge stated that the Bill seeks to remedy the deficiencies of the previous bill and is based on an assumption that the Constitution itself provides a pension for the president. He said that the former president’s pension is generous enough to require no supplementary benefits.
However, according to Minister of Housing and Water and acting Minister of Tourism, Irfaan Ali, the Bill seeks to strip any former president of his/her dignity, constitutional rights and natural rights.
“The honourable member has ulterior motives. The honourable member was vindictively drafting this Bill. The honourable member was seeking to remove the dignity and pride associated with the Office of the President when he drafted this Bill,” Ali stated.
In addition, he said the bill acts as a de-motivation to young, qualified, substantial members of society who may aim at becoming president.
“We have to be very careful that when we draft bills and when we draft legislation it does not work as a disincentive and it does not trample upon the constitutional rights of any individual, more so, former presidents,” Minister Ali asserted.
The minister went on to point out various deficiencies of the Bill. He questioned how the opposition arrived at the amount of $5,000 provided for in Section 3 (a) of the Bill for expenses incurred for water, electricity and telephone services.
In addition, Section 3 (c) of the Bill states that the former president is entitled to the services of clerical and technical staff for state-related tasks which may be officially assigned but does not extend to include any political assignments.
“I believe that the former president has equal rights as any Guyanese to have a political view and I want the honourable member to explain to me, how does he define the political task and how is it different from a state task,” he questioned.
Moreover, Section 3 (d) of the Bill states that medical benefits for the family members of the former president applies only to “natural” children.
According to Ali, the inherent, silent intention of this Bill is not only to strip the former president but to disgrace him.
He stressed that to restrict benefits to only natural children of the former president and spouse is tantamount to outright discrimination and blatant disregard for the provisions, the intention and focus of the Adoption of Children Act, which he said makes provision under section 17 for the rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities of the natural parents or guardians of the child to be vested in-exclusively as if the child had been born in lawful wedlock.
“It is this government that sought to create modern legislation to protect the rights of every child and we cannot allow the rights to be taken away,” he said.
Ali also emphasised that the provision is not in conformity with the Status of Children Act 2010, which makes provision for very child to be regarded as equal.
The minister further pointed to Section 3 (e) of the Bill which provides full-time personal security services for the former president not exceeding two persons.
He remarked that this is vindictive, since former presidents Desmond Hoyte and Arthur Chung and their spouses enjoyed security at varied degrees and levels provided by the State and issued on the advice of the Commissioner of Police.
“We cannot determine in this House a security matter; we cannot determine the extent of threat in terms of the former president’s security. We cannot determine what level of intervention is required for his/her security. That is a matter exclusively in the hands of the competent personnel of the Guyana Police Force,” Ali asserted.
Minister Ali further pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition is provided for under the Leader of the Opposition Benefits and Other Facilities Bill 2010, which includes rent-free furnished office accommodation; medical attention, including medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for himself and dependent members of his family.
Furthermore, Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh said that the Bill is designed to feed a manufactured political controversy.
He noted that during the course of the last elections, members of the opposition, as part of their political campaign, deliberately distorted the facts as they relate to the former president’s pension.
According to him, the opposition members ascribed arbitrary and inflated values solely for the purposes of scoring cheap political points.
“That is the reality of this matter, so this Bill is intended to perpetrate this political controversy. It is intended to feed this controversy,” he posited.
However, Dr. Singh related that the formula for setting the pension of a former president was not done one or two years prior to the election, but rather it was written into the law by the Presidents Pension Act dating back to 2004.
He also mentioned that the government decided that they would codify into the law, the benefits of the leader of the opposition, the benefits and the entitlements of the office of the spouse of the president, and the benefits of a former president.
Meanwhile, APNU MP, Dr. Rupert Roopnarine, though a member of the opposition and a supporter of the Former Presidents Bill No. 29/2012, said that there are some sections of the bill on which he would agree with the government’s side, particularly as it relates to Section 3 (d) which deals with the medical benefits for children of the former president.
In an invited comment by this newspaper, Dr. Roopnarine advised that he was not a part of the committee which drafted the bill, and stated that some of his colleagues were not as careful as they should have been in drafting it.
Greenidge stated that the Bill seeks to remedy the deficiencies of the previous bill and is based on an assumption that the Constitution itself provides a pension for the president. He said that the former president’s pension is generous enough to require no supplementary benefits.
However, according to Minister of Housing and Water and acting Minister of Tourism, Irfaan Ali, the Bill seeks to strip any former president of his/her dignity, constitutional rights and natural rights.
“The honourable member has ulterior motives. The honourable member was vindictively drafting this Bill. The honourable member was seeking to remove the dignity and pride associated with the Office of the President when he drafted this Bill,” Ali stated.
In addition, he said the bill acts as a de-motivation to young, qualified, substantial members of society who may aim at becoming president.
“We have to be very careful that when we draft bills and when we draft legislation it does not work as a disincentive and it does not trample upon the constitutional rights of any individual, more so, former presidents,” Minister Ali asserted.
The minister went on to point out various deficiencies of the Bill. He questioned how the opposition arrived at the amount of $5,000 provided for in Section 3 (a) of the Bill for expenses incurred for water, electricity and telephone services.
In addition, Section 3 (c) of the Bill states that the former president is entitled to the services of clerical and technical staff for state-related tasks which may be officially assigned but does not extend to include any political assignments.
“I believe that the former president has equal rights as any Guyanese to have a political view and I want the honourable member to explain to me, how does he define the political task and how is it different from a state task,” he questioned.
Moreover, Section 3 (d) of the Bill states that medical benefits for the family members of the former president applies only to “natural” children.
According to Ali, the inherent, silent intention of this Bill is not only to strip the former president but to disgrace him.
He stressed that to restrict benefits to only natural children of the former president and spouse is tantamount to outright discrimination and blatant disregard for the provisions, the intention and focus of the Adoption of Children Act, which he said makes provision under section 17 for the rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities of the natural parents or guardians of the child to be vested in-exclusively as if the child had been born in lawful wedlock.
“It is this government that sought to create modern legislation to protect the rights of every child and we cannot allow the rights to be taken away,” he said.
Ali also emphasised that the provision is not in conformity with the Status of Children Act 2010, which makes provision for very child to be regarded as equal.
The minister further pointed to Section 3 (e) of the Bill which provides full-time personal security services for the former president not exceeding two persons.
He remarked that this is vindictive, since former presidents Desmond Hoyte and Arthur Chung and their spouses enjoyed security at varied degrees and levels provided by the State and issued on the advice of the Commissioner of Police.
“We cannot determine in this House a security matter; we cannot determine the extent of threat in terms of the former president’s security. We cannot determine what level of intervention is required for his/her security. That is a matter exclusively in the hands of the competent personnel of the Guyana Police Force,” Ali asserted.
Minister Ali further pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition is provided for under the Leader of the Opposition Benefits and Other Facilities Bill 2010, which includes rent-free furnished office accommodation; medical attention, including medical treatment or reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for himself and dependent members of his family.
Furthermore, Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh said that the Bill is designed to feed a manufactured political controversy.
He noted that during the course of the last elections, members of the opposition, as part of their political campaign, deliberately distorted the facts as they relate to the former president’s pension.
According to him, the opposition members ascribed arbitrary and inflated values solely for the purposes of scoring cheap political points.
“That is the reality of this matter, so this Bill is intended to perpetrate this political controversy. It is intended to feed this controversy,” he posited.
However, Dr. Singh related that the formula for setting the pension of a former president was not done one or two years prior to the election, but rather it was written into the law by the Presidents Pension Act dating back to 2004.
He also mentioned that the government decided that they would codify into the law, the benefits of the leader of the opposition, the benefits and the entitlements of the office of the spouse of the president, and the benefits of a former president.
Meanwhile, APNU MP, Dr. Rupert Roopnarine, though a member of the opposition and a supporter of the Former Presidents Bill No. 29/2012, said that there are some sections of the bill on which he would agree with the government’s side, particularly as it relates to Section 3 (d) which deals with the medical benefits for children of the former president.
In an invited comment by this newspaper, Dr. Roopnarine advised that he was not a part of the committee which drafted the bill, and stated that some of his colleagues were not as careful as they should have been in drafting it.
