On Thursday we drew peoples attention to the fact that the Fiji Times had published a letter from an admirer of FNPF management, when they had to date declined to publish letters from pensioners.
It is possible that the FT editor has had a change of heart since a letter that did not endorse FNPF actions was published in Fridays columns of the Fiji Times and another today, Saturday 27 August.
It the interest of fairness, and for those of you who may have not seen the letters we copy them here:
Yes to changes
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A LOT has been said about the proposed FNPF pension reforms.
While many critics have been vocal about their objection of these reforms, FNPF has remained adamant the changes need to be made. I am in complete agreement with the fund that changes ought to be made for the good of the fund and its future members.
The stark reality of the situation is that then only 11 per cent of pensioners will be affected by the changes. The majority of current pensioners would not be affected at all.
A look into the FNPF Act under Section 63 clearly shows that the FNPF Board is allowed to make changes to the pension rates. Given this provision, then one will conclude that FNPF has been quite considerate in allowing members the chance to put in our views before they make any changes instead of just invoking their powers.
I say go for it FNPF, make those changes. We want to save the ship while it is still floating rather than try to bail out a sinking one.
Friday, 26th August 2011
Selina Fotu was quite adamant in her letter (FT 25/08) encouraging FNPF to force the pension reforms through because it only affects 11 per cent of pensioners.
She may not be aware that the supposed mess created by FNPF itself in not making the necessary reviews a long time ago was not the fault of these 11 per cent of pensioners.
She makes it sound so simple that a review of the pension rate of the 11 per cent of pensioners would solve the problems of FNPF. Ms Fotu is of the view that the 11 per cent group of pensioners must make the sacrifices on behalf of all the members of FNPF.
In other words she is making the point that the 11 per cent of pensioners made up of successful people who made the necessary sacrifices in their lives to further their careers and so increase their FNPF contributions as stipulated by law, must be victimised because they are being paid higher pensions.
What a vindictive and shallow viewpoint!
Whilst there is a real need for a review of FNPF pension scheme, it has to be done properly and within the law.
TO quote the FNPF lawyer at the “hearing”, “Who is this Selina Fotu”?
What gives the upper echelon of the FNPF the right to misappropriate the FNPF funds, to continually make bad investments and not be held accountable by the shareholders of the FNPF; to allow them to be discriminatory towards 11 per cent of the shareholders; to break legal and binding contracts with the 11 per cent of the shareholders because these shareholders were diligent, worked hard and contributed a little extra to their retirement fund, vis-a-vis that their retirement fund would pay them a little better in their twilight years.
Selina, I really don’t think you would be so accepting if you were one of the 11 per cent and your retirement pension was cut by 64 per cent.
In any case all members of the FNPF should be up in arms about these reforms. If they can discriminate against 11 per cent now, what in the future will stop the upper echelon from affecting the whole 100 per cent of members?