RECENTLY in the press, Christopher Ram poured cold water on the efforts of the Government to make a lumpsum budgetary allocation to the NIS to make a one-off payment to pensionable contributors who would’ve been otherwise disqualified due to the lack of requisite 750 contributions, as per law.

Ram dismissed this effort as “a cruel reality check.” He denominated the proposed cash grant into dollars per day based on the average life expectancy of the Guyanese population, this is not only a puerile exercise, but it is in itself disingenuous.

Ram comes across as a nitpicking quibbler who attempts to find fault in everything that does not originate with him or is it that he is a perpetual preprogrammed government critic, or perhaps he has a stake in one of the ill-conceived political parties about to flash in the pan for the 2025 elections.

Ram does not show an appreciation for the lengths NIS has gone and usually goes to ensure they have an accurate record of each contribution. Ram does not offer a single alternative solution for consideration or implementation, suggesting to observers that he is nothing but a grumbler.

NIS came on stream since 1979 and under successive governments, the legal qualifying mark has always been 750 contributions. This means that those with less, even if it’s one contribution less, will be ineligible for pension. Mr. Ram is a financial expert, and he should know better than most of us that NIS operates, in many respects, using similar principles as standard commercial insurance companies. However, one respect in which they are fundamentally dissimilar is that NIS’s risk pool is not underwritten. Instead, these contributions form a National Insurance Fund (NIF) which is invested in assisting with the sustainability of the scheme, a system which guides, and is guided by the rules that operationalise the scheme. This means that NIS cannot modify its own payment rules to fall outside the existing statute. For this reason, current pension qualifying rules existed untouched for decades.

NIS may indeed be ripe for some reform, but reforms are driven by the needs of people, and this must be tempered to create balance between the size (or growth) of the NIF and the rate of potential depletion via payouts. The government has reported that during its recent encounters with people in their communities, there was a deluge of request for lumpsum payout for those who have paid into the scheme for many years but did not and could not qualify for recurrent pension payouts. It completely eludes Ram that the government has also committed to a comprehensive review and reform of NIS. In the meantime, the government has chosen to respond to an immediate need that exists at this moment. Ram should know that this payout in 2025 does not preclude the government from revisiting and upgrading or making future grants as resources become available or as meaningful data and suggestions are made over time.

I wish to end this section by offering a simple suggestion for government’s reform efforts. The retirement age should be increased to sixty to give people more contributing years to the NIS and to sure up the NIF base. Further, anyone with 10 years’ worth of contributions (about 500) should be eligible for pension calculated on a prorated basis as a proportion of 750.

Now, a quick comment on the failure to reconstitute the APNU+AFC coalition arrangement. From the outset, I verily believe that this is not the last curtain call on this matter, as there are several persons (in and out of the political structure) still working hard, behind the scenes, to make a coalition happen.

The failure so far, however, has been precipitated by three phenomena.

First, Aubrey Norton is hugely unpopular among the opposition’s own supporters and his leadership does not inspire confidence in the electorate. The AFC thinks it could exploit this and make a play for the presidential slot. This prospect was dead-on arrival, because Norton and his most trusted lieutenants are not converts to the idea that AFC brings significant political stock to the table. In fact, they view the AFC as nothing but political leachers and free riders.

The second aspect further compounds the first by AFC’s belief in a dual middle class, the established middle class and the associate middle class. The established middle class was created through a previous generational fraternity of Afro-Mulattoes whose offspring feel they have inherited certain privileges, including the right to lead. Norton is a mere associate, without those privileges. So, AFC’s hesitation to accept Norton’s candidacy is not by chance; it is part of a deeply wired mental apprehension grounded in class dynamics.

Third, the PNC spent a lot of time and effort quietly macerating the AFC. For reasons still inexplicable, the AFC did not pursue a sensible path of self-preservation. The natural corollary is that the PNC does not believe that the AFC, in its emaciated state, has the negotiating levers it purports. So, many of the demands of the AFC are dismissed as being lofty and out of hand.

That said, both the PNC and the AFC will be dipping from the same support pool, and the PNC will be the biggest losers in an individual contest. Because Norton cannot inspire his own base, many may defect to the PPP, AFC and other smaller parties, while some others will simply stay home. Barring any cataclysmic political event and judging from the current political trajectory, the PNC will enter the post-electoral parliament with severely depleted political stock.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.