The Editor, Sir:
I am concerned about the Prime Minister's proposal to use surplus funds from the National Insurance Fund to finance small business loans to inner-city entrepreneurs.
I must first admit that the idea of providing funds for inner-city entrepreneurs is a very good one. Of this, the prime minister should be proud. My concern, however, is, where the money is to come from and who or which organisation is to administer it.
I must admit that I know very little about the pension fund, how a surplus would arise on such a fund and what this surplus is normally used for. I do not think, however, that I would be wrong to envision the surplus on such a fund being invested with the aim of improving the welfare of its beneficiaries, namely pensioners.
Most vulnerable
From personal experience from one of my church's outreach programmes, I am very aware of the hardship faced by pensioners, especially those whom we refer to as 'shut-ins', that is, those who are confined to bed.
Without the NHF and JADEP, many of our pensioners would not be able to afford prescription drugs and even with these cards, some pensioners are still dependent on family, friends and the church for financial support, as even buying basic food items can be challenging at times. Please note that I deliberately did not mention electricity bills!
It is clear that our pensioners are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Yes, there are some who will fare a lot better than others but, on the whole, the majority have no other source of income but their pension payments. Why target the surplus on a fund which was established to assist vulnerable pensioners of our society?
My concern is further heightened when I remember NetServ; Good Year, St. Thomas, 'Run wid it', NSWMA, the cement crisis and Sandals Whitehouse.
No one and I mean no one has been held responsible for the billions of dollars lost and these are the same people who will oversee the administration of the proposed use of the surplus fund. Can I (or anyone else for that matter) be comfortable with this?
Qualified government employees have been forced to accept meagre increases in wages because of a gargantuan national debt, which is blamed on 'mismanagement' by successive governments dating to as far back as the 1970s.
These workers, therefore, cannot rely on their salaries alone to adequately prepare for retirement.
When it is time to retire, will it then be said that because of 'mismanagement' of successive governments dating back to 2006, the pension payments are now worthless and cannot buy the most basic of basic food items?
I am, etc.,
EVERTON BONNER
Kingston
