Govt snubs critics, introduces Hamilton Green pension package

Despite mounting criticism, Government officially introduced a legislative package aimed at giving former Prime Minister Hamilton Green a pension package in keeping with that office which he held from 1985 to 1992.

Finance Minister Winston Jordan
Finance Minister Winston Jordan

The Bill was introduced by Finance Minister Winston Jordan and read for the first time by Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs. According to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Hamilton Green Pension Bill, it seeks to provide a pension, benefits and other facilities to enable him to live in keeping with the high office he occupied.
The Bill will pave the way for an Act “to provide a pension, benefits and other facilities to Hamilton Green, Prime Minister from 1985 to 1992, to enable him to live in keeping with the high office he occupied”.

hamilton-green-1
Former Prime Minister Hamilton Green

The proposed legislation outlines that the Prime Minister Hamilton Green Pension Act 2016 shall come into operation on December 1, 2016.
The Bill inherently and explicitly states that the pension that Green is receiving since retirement shall be discontinued with effect November 30, 2016, in order to facilitate the larger package being catered for in the Bill.
According to the proposed provisions in the Bill, “Notwithstanding anything in the Pensions (President, Parliamentary and Special Offices) Act, Prime Minister Hamilton Green shall be paid a pension in accordance with Section 4 of the said Act based on the salary paid to the Prime Minister, as though he actually earned the said salary, taking into consideration his record of service as a legislator.”
Another of the provisions in the Bill is that the former President (Benefits and Other Facilities) Act 2015 shall, subject to such modifications as may be necessary, apply to Prime Minster Hamilton Green and for that purpose wherever the word “President” occurs it shall be substituted by the words “Prime Minister.”
According to the proposed legislative package, “Prime Minister Hamilton Green shall continue to receive any other benefits and facilities provided for in any other law.”
There has been a mounting and steady stream of criticism with regards the package for Green which some have labelled as a vulgar rape of the treasury.
Transparency International Guyana Inc (TIGI) is the latest to have come out in condemnation, saying the country is simply too poor to bankroll politicians, party stalwarts.
TIGI in a strongly worded missive, contends that the Bill is “vulgar, politically partisan and reeks of cronyism” and has no basis for justification.
TIGI maintains that the sheer extravagance of the provisions of the Bill specifically for Green who is a longstanding PNC politician is an insult to all hardworking nurses, teachers, Police, and public servants who are denied a substantial increase in their salaries.
The transparency body said since the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) coalition assumed office, it has been “unashamed and apologetic about lining the pockets of politicians and friends of the party.”
During a recent press conference, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo had also criticised the Government’s move to introduce the Bill. He had pointed out that Government must show the special contributions Green made to the nation to authenticate a Prime Minister’s pension.
Jagdeo had also argued that it was extremely duplicitous that the very politicians who previously cried about the “raping of the Treasury” to fund pensions, salaries and benefits of past Government officials are now moving to Parliament to grant Green a special package.
Additionally, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) has also labelled the Bill “obnoxious” and expounded that the only justification for the Bill is cronyism.
The GHRA also outlined that to date, Green, a former Mayor of Georgetown, never apologised for the humiliation, hardship and violence to which Guyanese were subjected to during his harrowing term of office, adding that had Dr Jagan in 1992 not ‘drawn a veil’ over the past in the interests of social peace, Green would have found himself facing the courts.