In denying reports he is a double-dipper receiving both his pension as a former prime minister and pay as an MP, Hubert Ingraham last week made some interesting comments that should cause every taxpayer to sit back and re-evaluate the claim that Bahamian politicians are servants of the people.
Only in politics are “servants” so generously rewarded for both work they do on the job and the work they don’t do after they have retired, often while still young enough to continue feathering their financial nests in the workforce. That’s certainly true here in The Bahamas.
But what Mr. Ingraham had to say on the matter gave new meaning to the word “astonishing.” At a political rally in Freeport, the former prime minister said he had declined his MP’s salary because it would have been “morally wrong to accept it.”
Prime Minister Perry Christie has used Mr. Ingraham’s pension as justification
for budgeting $500,000 to pay Lady Marguerite Pindling a retroactive pension for her husband. Mr. Christie said the sum, relating to the five years prior to 1997, was due Sir Lynden under the Prime Minister’s Pension Act, which was passed in June of 1997. Why is the government making payments retroactively to Sir Lynden’s widow for the five years prior to passage of the legislation sanctioning such payments, and when Sir Lynden was then receiving his pay as an MP and Leader of the Opposition? Something has to be drastically wrong with that line of reasoning.
“If, as the PLP says, my predecessor in office should be paid his pension for a period of five years commencing on Aug. 19, 1992, prior to the passage of the Prime Minister’s Pension Act in June, 1997, then should he have been paid $50,000 a year as an MP and Leader of the Opposition?” Mr. Ingraham said.
“Morally, I don’t think that would be right and that is why I do not receive any remuneration as an MP οΎ– after all, I am being paid my full prime minister’s and MP’s salary as a pension.”
Mr. Ingraham further claimed that Mr. Christie spoke with him subsequent to the 2002 general election, which brought the PLP back to power, about a request to apply the act retroactively, and he gave Mr. Christie his views on the matter.
“Neither of us was of the opinion that any monies was payable,” Mr. Ingraham said.
So why the change of heart? That’s a question only Mr. Christie and his advisers can answer. Perhaps he could appoint a commission to investigate this glaring case of illogic.
No one can deny the contributions made by Sir Lynden from the early 1950s. But we feel he was adequately rewarded during the 25 years he was prime minister, and beyond. Making substantial retroactive payments to his widow under the current economic circumstances is indefensible in our view.
Editorial, The Nassau Guardian
