As did the Attorney General when he used the FNFP premise that the average age at death of Fiji Pensioners would be 78 to justify introducing Decree 51 to breach pensioners existing contracts and prevent them appealing to the Courts for justice.
The man, if one can call him that, has no shame, just self aggrandisement.
BSP Life has collated data from a number of organisations which reveals that only 8% of Fiji’s population is aged beyond 60 years.
This is based on the Fiji Bureau of Statistics census report in 2007 which also states that only 17% of the population is aged beyond 50 years.
Only 3% of the population is over 70 years.
BSP Life has also revealed that according to a UN study on Fiji in relation to insurance in 2010, it has been found that people are using insurance as the last resort to cope with risks.
The study further highlights that premature deaths and sickness has a major impact on people’s savings.
BSP Life has also incorporated the Ministry of Health statistics on the impact of non-communicable diseases where it has been highlighted that people who are in their prime and are in senior positions with good salaries are dying when they should be most productive.
Heart disease, diabetes and stroke are the three biggest killer diseases in Fiji.
I am no fan of AG but we are not comparing like with like.
It’s that 3% which you have quoted that have basically taken pension. That 3% of the population means more than 10% of Fnpf members.
The poor do not gave pension as they don’t have Fnpf. The low to middle income basically take everything as lump sum.
The rich who have medical insurance and high balance have taken pension. Why
Because they can survive on it.
Ask chaudary, ros Macdonald how many more times than their balance have they taken from Fnpf. I would say at least 250% more.
Tevita… Some may have gained from the contracts that were entered into, but it cannot be denied that changes were pushed through on the premise that the average life expectancy was 78 years.. which of course it never was..SO IT WAS A BLATANT LIE The right to appeal to a court of law is a basic civil right, that was stolen from the aged across the board.. Including the NON rich who had planned their retirement, the final years of their lives on the pension contract they had signed in good faith.
Chaudhary, McDonald and the FNPF ex Chairman Lionel Yee were exceptions, none of them could be described as aged being pushed into financial hardship..
when did the AG or FNPF say that Fiji’s life expectancy was 78??? Can someone pls direct me to the source.
What was said that some of the some of the fnpf pensioners lived till 78.
are you saying that IMF, World Bank and ILO studies on FNPF was wrong to reduce the annuity rate?
you don’t have to be good in maths to know that if you are getting 20 – 25%, if you live till 60, you will use all your pension and a single day after, you will be eating into others money.
Check the statistics given by the actuaries that the the FNPF employed that were based on the lifespans of Australians you will find the “78”.. As for lies, well Degree 51 protects FNPF from being taken to court and deprives the aged of basic justice..
As for lies told by FNPF… Do a little research… there are a great many… the following letter illustrates just a few…
In case anyone may want to accuse me of being a political person, let me say that I
have never been a member of a political party nor have I attended a political rally or
The intention of this letter is to correct two FNPF myths (they are really untruths to
put it mildly).
The first and main untruth is that return on investments and or interest have been
paid or credited to annuitants’ conversion amounts accounted for in the FNPF
Annual Reports under the title “Pension Buffer Reserve”.
Not a single cent of return on investment or interest has been credited to the Pension
Buffer Reserve (pensioners account). Attached are pages of FNPF Annual Reports
from 1975 (commencement date of the pension scheme) to 2010 (Addendum 1 to 18). There
is no evidence that return on investments or interest has been credited or paid.
It seems that the FNPF management and Board Members have advised and
convinced Government of this untruth resulting in it being incorporated in the Fiji
National Provident Fund Transition Decree 2011 (Decree N0. 51).
Section 4 (1) (c) of Decree 51 states: “accordingly, under the current arrangements,
the Board’s annuity liability for current annuitants cannot continue to be met from
the annuitants’ conversion amounts plus investments returns, and so must be met
by applying a proportion of FNPF member contributions to that purpose (including
by way of reserving against these liabilities).”
The untruth has been perpetuated by reports in the media quoting Aisake Taito e.g.
Fiji Sun article 30 November 2011 page 4 under the title fourth last paragraph of the
pension article (Addendum A) states and I quote: “In the current form, the contributions
from pensioners on their retirement, as well as interest gained from investments,
was far less than what we were giving out to our pensioners each month”.
When the above was revealed to Mr. Taito at the FNPF public meeting in Lautoka
on 2nd December 2011, he did not refute the claim nor did he respond to it then or at
a later date. Evidence was handed to him but he refused to receive it. The evidence
was handed to his assistant sitting at the desk beside the podium.
If FNPF management still insists that returns on investment/interest were made, we
ask that FNPF management provide evidence of this.
Calculations (Addendum B) have indicated that unpaid return on investments or interest to
30 June 2010 at the interest rates paid to members each year since 1975 amount to
$762 million dollars or 21.5% of FNPF Net Asset value of $3,551m and 80% of
General Reserve of $952 million. These calculations have been verified by our
FNPF has the capacity to pay existing pensioners.
Shauna Tomkins’ and Geoff Rashbrooke’s article in Fiji Time article dated 17
December 2011 states that “At 30 June 2011, the amount set aside to support future
pension payments to all pensioners current at that date was $565m.
Funds available to pay contracted pensioners:
Unpaid return on investment/interest $762m
Add Pension Buffer Fund balance as at 30 June 2011 $ 84m
Total owing to pensioners $846m
Deduct transfer from General Reserve on 30 June 2011 $ 23m
Funds available to pay contracted pensioners $823m
Deduct amount required to pay future pension payments to
all contracted pensioners as per Tomkins/Rashbrooke $565m
Excess funds from pensioners available for current members $258m
Messrs Tomkins and Rashbrooke state that approximately $310m would be used
to refund pensioners and $100m for top up payments; a total of $410m. This
means that FNPF will misappropriate $413m ($823 minus $410) of pensioners’
money to correct its solvency requirements or some other purpose.
The second untruth disseminated by FNPF management and its paid consultants is
that current members are subsidizing pensioners. The above calculations indicate
that pensioners do not need to:
o be subsidized by current members and
o take a reduction in their pensions and
o have their pension payments topped up.
Here are examples of these untruths:
1. Quotes from Shauna Tomkins’ and Geoff Rashbrooke’s article in Fiji Time
article dated 17 December 2011:
“……..This has not been the case for 11,000 pensioners whose pensions
are not self funding but rely on around $30m every year to be diverted
from crediting members to paying pensioners”. Not true.
2. Extract from Fiji Sun article dated 30 November 2011: “
a. “Mr. Taito said each year $27 million paid to pensioners came from
contributions by more than 300,000 members who were yet to retire”.
b. It is believed that the subsidy that would have been required from
member contributions to meet the generous pensions would have risen
to $40m yearly by 2020. Not true.
3. It seems that Government has trusted FNPF management and has
incorporated this untruth in the Fiji National Provident Fund Transition
Decree 2011 (Decree N0. 51).
Section 4 (1) (c) and I quote : “………….and so must be met by applying a
proportion of FNPF member contributions to that purpose including by way
of reserving against liabilities” . Not true.
Most pensioners are aware that pension rates for members opting for future pensions
need to be reduced.
While FNPF Management and Messrs Tomkins and Rashbrooke have alluded to
World Bank, ILO and Consultant’s reports recommending reduction of pension
rates and using these as basis for reducing pension rates for contracted pensioners.
Again, we challenge FNPF Management and Messrs Tomkins and Rashbrooke to
produce evidence from reports published by these organizations. A section of the
ILO Actuarial Valuation Report on FNPF as at 30 June 2002 is reproduced below:
Much has been said about sustainability by FNPF management, Board members and
their consultants but the aforesaid reports (World Bank, ILO and consultants) refer
to long term sustainability. FNPF presently has the reserves, assets and capacity to
meet its responsibility to contract pensioners.
1. Neither return on investment nor interest was paid or credited to pensioners’
funds (Pension Buffer Reserve).
2. Pensioners are owed $823m from which future pensions of $565m can be
paid after which a surplus of $258m would be available for members.
3. There is no need for any reduction in contracted pension payments and hence
no need for top up payments.
4. Pension payments are not subsidised by 300,000 or so current members.
Considering the premise on which the Decree 51 was constructed being flawed and
not true, Government should reconsider FNPF Board recommendation to reduce
pension payments to contracted pensioners.