RSVGPF and Pension Reform

EDITOR: The issue of pension reform is serious business that should not be taken lightly. Over two decades ago when I decided to join the Royal St. Vincent and the Grenadines Police Force (RSVGPF), I was told that upon retirement at age 55, I would be eligible for pension.

Based on this premise I decided to join the organisation knowing that I would be able to sustain myself and perhaps my grandchildren after such retirement. Upon becoming a member of the Police Force I realized that there was a special arrangement in place, in that, a police who worked up to ten years, was eligible for gratuity and after 20 years, were pensionable. This incentive worked well for members, which, I believe, motivated them to stay in the organisation for such periods and to serve the country faithfully and well.

My particular concern is that one day, this entitlement to pension, having worked so hard for all these years, and sacrificed so much, may be no more. We must ensure that this does not happen and we must protect what we worked hard for. Politicians receive a pension after nine years, while we would work 20 to 35 years and only receive the crumbs. While I agree that pension reform is necessary, I am of the view that proper consultations must be done at every level.

The new Minister of Finance stated that tough decisions have to be made, but will be done through consultations with the unions and other stakeholders. I welcome this route, although the process seems longwinded. In an article published by IWitness News on February 5, 2018, it was reported that during the budget consultations last year, that included Prime Minister Gonsalves, Finance Minister Camillo Gonsalves and representative of the Trade Unions, suggestions were made that a class war could break out in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) over the matter of pension reform.

The Prime Minister went on to suggest some extreme measures the government can take, such as hiring public servants and police officers on contracts without state pension benefits if a favourable compromise cannot be reached.

Well can you imagine if you are a knowledgeable, hard worker, that the Commissioner may not favour, what will become of you on renewal of such a contract? Can you imagine the standard and discipline of the force on such a system? What professional career can one get on such a system?

In the Prime Minister’s budget address of 2013 he indicated that the scheme’s dependency ratio is projected to quadruple (increase by four). In 2010, 100 active contributors supported 17 pensioners, and by 2060 to 2070, 100 active contributors will have to support about 64 pensioners.

While 2060 may seem far away and may not affect many of us directly, we must consider the young working class who are our future. This to me is frightening and must be taken seriously in our deliberation on the issue of pension reform. I have always urged my colleagues, when it comes to pension reform, that we must be steadfast and ready to deal with it front on.

The Prime Minister is on record stating that he was sorry that Sir James wasn’t strong enough to resist his demands while in opposition on the issue of pension reform which he is faced with today as Prime Minister. It tells us therefore that politicians will tell us what we want to hear, but not necessarily what the facts are. I therefore urge us all to come together as a people leaving your politics aside to deal with this critical issue.Brenton Smith