A letter from Sue to FNPF Board

03 Saturday Dec 2011

Posted by in Letters to FNPF

≈ 9 Comments

Sirs 
You will see that this letter is sent to you in my name. Other than that you know absolutely nothing about me or my circumstances. In fact, I am quite sure that you know next to nothing about any FNPF pensioners – each is merely an FNPF ‘number’. The Nazis gave numbers to the inmates of concentration camps – they didn’t care about who those people were, either. 

You are aware of the huge turnout at the latest hearings. You cannot have missed the fact that there was even a walk-out in Labasa. Your senior pensioner scapegoat is now invalid; because the ‘little pensioners’ are mad as hell, not at the big pensioners, but at you, the board. They see, all too clearly, that if you go for the big fish, the little fish have no hope. They know all too well that a thing done once can easily be done again.

This whole ‘reform’ saga has been a comedy of errors right from the start – a start which the members knew nothing of until they were called upon to offer submissions to the board concerning a necessary FNPF reform. Only, of course, that is not strictly correct, since for the past decade and more letters to the Editors of our daily rags plugged away consistently at the need for reform and those warnings, many of them penned by Mrs Talei Burness, were blatantly ignored – how ironic is that? 

The initial call for submissions was a sham and that fact was blatantly obvious. Right from the start the FNPF knew where it was going and how to get there. Two sets of circumstances were manipulated to ensure that the fund would ultimately be wrested from its owners, that is, the members.
Continue reading →

FNPF Draft Decree 2011: Regime taking total control Dr Wadan Narsey

02 Friday Dec 2011

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ 16 Comments

The following article has been moderated, the original can be seen at Coup 4.5

>http://www.coupfourandahalf.com/

The current Government of the Day is now passing around a Draft FNPF 2011 Decree, for comments from selected people. 

The Draft Decree has references to “codes of conduct” “transparency” “duty” to FNPF Members, duty to become a whistle-blower who will be protected, etc., etc., etc.

But quietly put in all the sections to do with the real control of the money flows, are  clauses which ensure that the “Government of the Day” and FNPF Board can do virtually anything they want to, with the life savings of the workers of Fiji.

The 7 member Board will be all appointed by the Minister.   There will be no direct representatives of FNPF contributors, or FNPF pensioners or  employees or  employers.

The Board will not be Trustees but shall “own” all the assets of the Fund and be free to do whatever they want, establish whatever policies and procedures they want.

Sorry, that’s not strictly correct: the Board will have to implement whatever is required through “a written law” (yet to be written). By whom, did you ask? Ha ha ha. 

The annuity (pension rate) to be paid from the Retirement Income Fund will be reduced to 8.7% single pension rate if you retire at 55 but the rate will slowly rise if you retire later- going up to 12.3% if you retire at 70.

The Board will also be given the powers to vary the annuity as and when they see fit (i.e. no need for elected Parliaments), with frequent advice from actuarial experts (who are how so fortunately guaranteed regular incomes from the FNPF).

And if the “Retirement Fund” makes a “surplus” (why on earth should it?) then the surplus goes to the General Fund, where the Board can dispose of any amount, as they wish.

Stuck somewhere is also a statement that the Board must ensure equity not just between different classes of fund contributors, but also between annuity receivers (i.e. pensioners) and current contributors.  i.e. this is the clause that will be used to reduce existing pensions, no doubt once the new Board has all the new “powers”.

Promontory had recommended that there be a separate Retirement Income Fund solely to pay for the annuities, and the General Fund which would manage the workers savings as they came in.  This made sense for the future.

But the Draft FNPF 2011 decree also recommends (Clauses 86, 87 and 88) the setting up of a strange undefined “Supplementary Fund”.

Read closely the Draft Decree about how this “Supplementary Fund” is to be set up (where the money is to come from), and how the funds are to be used, including, a reference to “a written law” (yet to be written).

Pensioner might ask themselves:  if this Government can trash already existing contracts between the elected Fiji Parliament and pensioners, why won’t it trash any future contract with future pensioners, allegedly governed by the Draft FNPF 2011 Decree?  Indeed, who can trust this Government to keep any contract?

Quiz for pensioners:  will the FNPF 2011 Decree change anything at all at FNPF?

The current FNPF Board and Management has been appointed by the same Government that is drafting this FNPF decree.  Answer “Yes” or “No” to the following questions:
Continue reading →

Fiji National Provident Fund Transition Decree 2011 (Decree No 51).

01 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by in Press Releases

≈ Leave a comment

By Dr Shaista Shameem, Counsel for David Burness

In case pensioners had missed it, Decree No 51 FNPF Transition Decree was released today to the public, backdated to November 25th –D-Day (Disaster Day) for pensioners.

Most of the initial sections of the Decree contain the usual indecipherable language which drafters of Fiji’s pension decrees like to employ for no other reason than to confuse and frighten elderly people. The FNPF decrees are a death sentence for many who will no longer be able to afford even the most basic of medical care when they need it most. I am very glad my parents are not alive to witness this total violation of the rights of old people and destruction of their limited means.

Part 4 of the Decree is where the real sting lies. Titled ‘Protections’ (it clearly means protection of the government from civil suit rather than protection of the rights of people), this part of the decree gives, among other things, power to the Attorney General or his appointee to tell the court, tribunal or other judicial mechanism to terminate a proceeding or any challenge to the new FNPF decrees.

In all my experience as a litigator and practicing lawyer, I don’t believe I have ever seen a provision similar to section 11 (6) of Decree No 51, which states as follows:

A court, tribunal or any other adjudicating body in which a proceeding, claim, challenge or dispute…. had been commenced must, on application by the Attorney General…, issue a certificate to the effect that a proceeding, claim, challenge or dispute, and all orders (however described) in the proceeding, have been wholly terminated on the date of commencement of this Part.

This provision, in layperson’s language, says that if the Attorney-General makes an application to the court to terminate a proceeding in relation to FNPF decrees the court must (note the mandatory word ‘must’) issue a certificate to state that the proceedings have been wholly terminated. By this provision, the AG of Fiji is directing the court to issue a certificate of termination for challenges to the FNPF decrees. As everyone knows, the Burness case is one such challenge.

Section 11 (6) of the Decree is direct interference by the AG with the powers of the judiciary. He can tell the court to terminate the Burness case in which he is a party- the AG is the third respondent. This is evidence of abuse of power by decree. Will the High Court comply with such an application by the AG? Courts, historically, have been quite creative when it comes to disregarding executive (non parliamentary) interference with its jurisdiction, as the landmark Anisminic case showed.

Further to this, the new decree has pronounced, by way of section 11 (1) that the decree is ’not to be taken to be inconsistent with a human right or similar right’, and section 11 (2) states that the decree is ‘not to be taken to provide for a deprivation of property of anyone’. Such drivel is decreed in the face of all international case law to the contrary.

Obviously, the drafters of the decree think they can decide what constitutes (God-given) human rights and what does not. If section 11 of Decree No 51 were not so tragic in its effect, it would be laughable. The drafters and policy-makers clearly did not attend the workshops convened by the Fiji Human Rights Commission during the glorious days of the 1997 Constitution which, in Chapter 4, represented the decision of the people on definitions of human rights.

Such Donkey-Kong type of law-making emanating from the AG’s Office does not augur well for Fiji’s future. 

To read the Decree in full click on the following link > FNPF transitional decree

FNPF in Crisis, says Mr Taito December 1st, 2011

01 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by in Grey Power Editor

≈ Leave a comment

Suddenly the FNPP is in crisis. For months the Fund management has been assuring us that the FNPF is operating well and our money is safe. In October the FNPF reported strong results with a net surplus of $243 million. Assets were up and contributions to the FNPF were the highest in the Fund’s history. To add icing to our cake investment income grew steadily. We say “our cake” because the FNPF belongs to its members and pensioners are members. It does not belong to the Government.

So the Fund has presented a very positive picture and naturally we welcome this. But now, out of the blue, the FNPF CEO Mr Aisake Taito, is referring to the FNPF’s “current crisis”. This is extremely alarming. He made the comment in the Fiji Government’s propaganda rag, the Fiji Sun.

Mr Taito has never spoken in these terms before.

He did not spell out precisely what the crisis is. But with a financial institution like the FNPF a crisis usually relates to urgent money problems. So what are these pressing problems that have emerged so soon after the triumph of the recently declared surplus, improved assets, and record contributions? Has the FNPF unexpectedly moved into reverse?

Mr Taito should be asked about this at the current round of meetings.  For the sake of accountability and good corporate governance, Mr Taito should provide the details of the disaster that has struck the FNPF.

It cannot be about payment of current legally binding pensions because the Fund has said consistently that it can continue for another 40 to 45 years as it is presently organised.

Mr Taito should also stop spreading the false story that the many pensioners who are upset and angered by the FNPF’s insensitive and cruel handling of their monthly entitlements, are trying to stop the Fund’s reforms. Mr Taito knows very well that this is not true.

We are not fools. We understand the need for reform for future sustainability. But we do not accept that the reform should involve smashing current pension contracts .

About ninety percent of the 11000 pensioners are below the poverty line. We welcome the FNPF’s plans to “top up” their payments although these arrangements appear to be less than generous.

That leaves about 1200 of us who face the big chop. The majority of our group are from the working and middle classes, ordinary, hardworking citizens who have contributed to Fiji and continue to do so. We have also contributed to the FNPF and helped to subsidise other pensioners before we reached retirement age.

We do not deserve the hard-hearted and uncaring treatment dispensed to us by the management and board of the FNPF.

Shame on them, we say. A big shame on them.

Questions for Aisake Taito CEO FNPF

01 Thursday Dec 2011

Posted by in Articles & Reports, Letters

≈ Leave a comment

Aisake:  On 23rd July this year you stated that the new pension measures would be introduced over a period of five years to give the pensioners a chance to adjust……………….. Have you now changed your mind ?

Aisake:  On 30th November 2011 you stated to the media, namely the Fiji Sun, that there were thousands of “Well Off” people getting paid high pensions, by our calculations on the figures published by the FNPF there are less than 50   ………………. Have you lost your ability to do simple additions, if so why are you still CEO of the FNPF.

Aisake:  The word transparency figures strongly in the FNPF slogan……………. Why do you not practice it ?

Aisake:  FNPF lent $200 million dollars to Air Pacific ………………………. Was this US dollars and did you carry out due diligence to ascertain that they could repay the loan or even the interest, and how much interest did you negotiate on our behalf and why haven’t you TOLD US?  

Aisake:  Given the fact that all the funds you are manipulating belong to the members not the government, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Why are you and the FNPF Board handing the responsibility to the government to reduce FNPF pensions at a time they are increasing, judicial, disciplined forces, politicians and civil servants pensions by 20% ?

Aisake:  Recently in October you reported strong results for FNPF with a net surplus of $243 million. Today 1st December you are quoted as stating the FNPF is “In Crisis” ………………. Are you incapable of telling the truth?, or are you just a moron ?

Aisake:  The maximum age on the FNPF pension brochure that you circulated on Monday is 69……………………….Is this when you think we MUST die ?

 

Fijipensioners welcome any other questions for Aisake Taito in our comments columns

PRESS STATEMENT from Shaista Shameem

30 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by in Press Releases

≈ Leave a comment

Counsel for David Burness and others in the multiple action against the Fiji National Provident Fund and Government’s decision to make substantial changes to pensions already granted to pensioners has requested the Chief Executive Officer Aisake Taito to stop insulting her clients in public meetings. Taito has referred to her clients and pensioners as being ‘well-off’ and beneficiaries of ‘overly generous’ pensions at the expense of FNPF members.

Dr Shaista Shameem, whose challenge on behalf of David Burness and others is already in court, said that pensioners receiving pensions from FNPF are elderly, and have no other source of income. Many are in ill-health. They were told when they retired that the pensions they would be getting would be given to them for life. They did not make any other arrangements for alternative sources of income and many are past the age when they can find work. These pensioners had a contract with the FNPF, and it is the court that will determine the outcome of the case, not Mr Taito.

For Mr Taito to arrogantly threaten to reduce the pensions of those who do not accept the FNPF and Government proposal by the end of the year when a case challenging this decision on human rights grounds is before the courts, is simply irresponsible, ruthless and dictatorial. Such announcements insult the judicial mechanisms of Fiji.  

Dr Shameem said her client and others seeking the court’s decision will continue to pursue their case in court irrespective of the announcement. The proposal of the FNPF is unacceptable to Mr Burness.

In the meantime, Dr Shameem said Mr Taito should stop throwing insults at her clients in public. As a public officer whose salary is paid by tax-payers, including former tax-payers, Mr Taito should exhibit more decorum in public meetings.

FLP Submissions to FNPF

29 Tuesday Nov 2011

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Revised FLP paper on the proposed ‘reforms’ to the FNPF

The long term viability of the FNPF can be maintained

without making cuts to the current rates of pension benefits.

Besides, pensions are too important a matter to be left to be

decided upon without free and informed public debate and

without considering other available options. Ideally, any

changes that need to be made should be left to a

democratically elected government with the mandate to carry

out such reforms.

Introduction

Years of mismanagement and plundering is threatening the long term

sustainability of the Fiji National Provident Fund, despite the fact that

it collects close to $300 million annually in members’ contribution.

The Fund is now proposing a series of drastic changes recommended by

hired foreign consultants, the most damning of which is a reduction in

the rates of annuity. Any such reduction will be a gross injustice to the

workers of Fiji who have contributed for years in the expectation that

they will receive adequate pension to be able to retire and live in

dignity in their old age.

The current annuity rate of 15% is to be reduced further to 9% under

the proposals now being considered by the Fund. Should this happen,

the ordinary worker will be lucky to pick $50 a week on retirement –

hardly a liveable payout – and well below the current poverty line of

$185 a week! It is to be noted that the annuity rate has already been

progressively trimmed from 25% to 15% in the past 10 years.

If the Fund’s viability is being threatened today, the workers should

not be penalised for it. The State must take full responsibility for the

current crisis at the FNPF – largely as a result of questionable

investment activity and failure to conduct timely sustainability reviews

of the Fund. A number of very large poorly or negatively performing

investments were made with the express approval of successive

governments and were influenced by political considerations rather

than the interests of the members of the Fund. As such the State must

be held accountable. (More on this later in these submissions).
Continue reading →

FNPF Scheme’- is this ‘windfall’ fair?

28 Monday Nov 2011

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Commentary on Budget Announcement re ‘Civil Pensioners or those who fall outside the FNPF Scheme’- is this ‘windfall’ fair?

Dr Shaista Shameem

The Budget Speech on Fiji National Provident Fund Pensions was a shocker. Pensioners supporting the David Burness v FNPF and AG  case are still reeling from the implications of it for them, that is, having their FNPF contracts cancelled without compensation.

What astonished most pensioners, however, was the part of the budget speech titled ‘Pensioners’, on page 19 of the speech.

This part is quoted in full below:

‘Regarding civil pensioners or those who fall outside the FNPF scheme, they will receive an increase on their existing entitlements. The last time these civil pensioners received an adjustment it was for 1 percent, back in 2005.

This time, former civil servants, their spouses, former members of the disciplined forces, war veterans, retired judges, former prime ministers, ministers and former members of parliament will all receive a 20 percent increase on their existing entitlements’ (my emphasis)

From the perspective of the Burness case already in court, consider what this provision means. It seems judges who retire will get a refund of their FNPF balance (hard cash) plus a 20% increase in their judicial pensions.

An example may illustrate our disquiet in relation to this provision better: if Judge Smith had worked as a lawyer before being appointed a judge, he or she would have been a member of FNPF and therefore entitled to a FNPF pension. If Judge Smith had chosen to take the pension option, he or she would now be entitled, under the new decree, to both a refund of his or her FNPF balance, as well as a 20% increase in judicial pension upon retirement as a judge.

No one knows how many of the judges are members or beneficiaries of the FNPF pension scheme but the public perception that judges in this category will receive a windfall at the expense of other FNPF pensioners cannot be dismissed. FNPF pensioners’ pensions, on the other hand, are not inflation adjusted.

The possible implications of a decree bequeathing such a windfall on the hearing of the Burness case cannot be ignored or dimissed.  

A landmark House of Lords case is pertinent in this regard: In Re Pinochet Judgment of 17th Decemner 1998 and 15th January 1999, where the Law Lords said…’it is of the last importance that the maxim that no man is to be a judge in his own cause should be held sacred. And that is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest’.

Public perception in this instance, in which a FNPF pensioner’s pension is to be reduced significantly whereas judicial pensions are to be increased by 20%, all by decree, is surely something to consider quite seriously in light of the aforementioned Re Pinochet decision.

Under these circumstances what would be the judicial attitude towards the strike out application currently being made by the FNPF and Government in the Burness case?