Bill to amend former President’s benefits unthinkable – Teixeira

–smacks of vindictiveness, personal vendetta, observers say

The opposition’s bill to amend former President Bharrat Jagdeo’s medical benefits is unthinkable and lacks moral decency, according to government’s chief whip, Gail Teixeira.
Teixeira’s comments came after A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) parliamentarian Carl Greenidge, tabled a bill titled “Former Presidents Benefits and Other Facilities Amendment Bill 2012 – No 25/ 2012”, at a sitting of the National Assembly on the 17th December.
“Greenidge brought a motion to cap the former President’s pension and benefits, and that motion was approved by the majority to be sent to the special select committee.
Many observers, including senior politicians and prominent community members, have said that the move to amend the former president’s benefits was vindictive and aimed as a personal vendetta against Jagdeo.
Teixeira said since the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/ C) came into government in 1992, all former Presidents, Prime Ministers and leaders of the opposition have been treated with “great courtesy”, especially when it comes to their medical conditions. She noted that the government had never restricted its spending to cover the expenses of other leaders.
“Number 25 and 29 are exactly the same; when they talk about the medical benefits of the former presidents.
It says that the former president and his spouse and a natural child are entitled to a maximum of $200,000 per annum; this is unthinkable and it breaches what is the common sense of decency and respect we held for persons of high offices in this country,” she added.
No act is retroactive
“Bills whether they are passed/ assented are not retroactive…. No bill is retroactive and if this bill is a means to attack former President Jagdeo or to fulfill an elections promise that the APNU will be able to remove the benefits that he is entitled to and that they are fooling the Guyanese people because no bill, no act is retroactive,” she noted.
Back in August, APNU had said that while it did not have a problem with the President’s pension per se, it is the other benefits that appear to be limitless in a country with limited resources.
The bill had followed the adopting of a motion to have a parliamentary committee examine the President’s benefits and other facilities with a view to revising the superannuation packages related to office holders entitled to pension and benefits under the Parliamentary Holders and Special Offices Act, and for the repeal of the “Former Presidents’ Pension and Other Facilities Act”.