FNPF pension dispute – Qarase verdict
By Dewan Chand
I have written at length about the 2012 illegal and damaging pension plan hatched
by the Bainimarama-Sayed-Khaiyum dictatorship and supported by the Fiji
National Provident Fund.
In this article I will share strong criticism of this notorious scheme by one of Fiji’s
most famous sons. The late Laisenia Qarase, who served twice as elected Prime
Minister of Fiji, wrote scathingly on what he described as “pension aggression”
unleashed on elderly innocents. He was not complimentary about the role of the
FNPF.
Mr Qarase’s description of what happened is in Part 111 of his biography Prisoner
302 under the heading Pension Malice and Punishment. I have read the book
which has an important place in the story of Fiji.
For context, I include some of my own comments on the ongoing and still
unresolved pension saga. After that I will quote from Mr Qarase’s condemnation
of the then government and his view of the role of the FNPF in the scandal.
The victims were hit with an unexpected loss of income – in some cases above 60
per cent – and a nightmare of uncertainty.
2
For good measure the dictators denied us the right of seeking justice through the
courts.
That was a protective benefit for the FNPF which it appears to be relying on to this
day.
As all this crashed down on us, we asked ‘what will happen to us now?’ We knew
what occurred was unprecedented and wrong. Those representing us made our
opposition known publicly at the time. This was risky given the regime’s
intolerance of dissent.
Throughout the years that went by, the flame of justice flickered in our hearts.
There was, however, little prospect of relief until democracy returned. That
happened when the Coalition Government came to power at the start of 2023.
We began to organise again and to communicate our case for restitution. About
1500 of us have survived. With our numbers continuing to decline we are still
asking: How long will it be before justice is finally done?
We have received no assurances and support from the FNPF. We believe the Fund
has totally abandoned its duty of care to us, its fiduciary responsibilities.
In one article, I accused the FNPF of being in a state of “stubborn denial” and
afflicted by “wilful blindness”. This was because the financial giant with money
coming out of its ears, has steadfastly refused to settle the debts it owes to us.
3
I drafted another broadside about the untold human cost involved. There were
letters from me touching on many other facets of this unprecedented and cruel
episode in the history of the FNPF. For instance, under duress, some of the
casualties decided to withdraw partial or full amounts from their contributions to
the Fund. These lump sums of course were not pensions. Penury eventually
followed.
The reason for the pension reduction was because the Fund allegedly could not
afford to pay us. This was never proven.
A central issue is that the pensions violated were protected by irrevocable
contracts. The FNPF didn’t hesitate to break those contracts.
And so it is that several thousand innocent pensioners endured a retirement
nightmare instead of enjoying their final years in security, peace and happiness.
A ray of light came in the June 2024 Budget when then Minister of Finance,
Professor Biman Prasad, announced the Coalition Government would take
responsibility for restoration of some pensions to the tune of $4 million a year.
This was a welcome relief, but it did not take account of the years that FNPF had
refused to pay what it owed. Neither did it serve those who had taken partial or
full lump sums and were left in virtual poverty.
4
It was notable that Minister Prasad branded as illegal the unilateral reduction in
the pensions. Also broken, he said, was the statutory arrangement and trust
between the Fund and the pensioners.
Here was the FNPF line Minister proclaiming that what had been forced on the
pensioners was illegal. And yet the Fund’s board and management remain silent.
How can that be?
The current number of surviving victims appears to be about 1500, as old age
thins our ranks and reduces the FNPF’s liability.
My first contact with Mr Qarase was when I was appointed Senior Administration
Officer (SAO) in the Labour Party’s Opposition Office in Parliament. Mr Qarase, as
parliamentary leader of the SDL Party, was twice Prime Minister.
We began to meet in the Parliamentary corridors; it wasn’t long before we found
ourselves chatting around the tanoa with Government and Opposition members
and officials. He was quiet and polite and enjoyed the yaqona socialising.
Things changed substantially for me when I accepted an invitation to contest the
General Election of 2006 on a Labour ticket. Campaigning in the Laucala Indian
Communal constituency, I won in a landslide. I was now a Member of Parliament
and felt a bit more qualified to engage in conversations with Mr Qarase.
5
He was easy to talk to and always had details of Government initiatives at his
fingertips. Of course we didn’t agree on everything, but we were able to enjoy
some verbal jousting without acrimony.
Like me, Mr Qarase was caught in the pension squeeze. However, he suffered
what he called a “double hit”. First his pension as a former Prime Minister was
withheld by the Bainimarama-Sayed-Khaiyum government. The PM believed the
duo had begun to see pensions as a weapon against those who had criticised
them. He reported how his Prime Minister’s pension was withheld for eight years.
The late PM related how the regime embarked on another project that left many
people “bitter, disillusioned and in despair”. He was referring to the so-called
FNPF reforms that have penalised so many of us. Mr Qarase was also at the
receiving end.
“As an FNPF pensioner,” he wrote, “I was also caught in this new onslaught on
senior citizens.”
The victims, his book relates, fought hard to escape the clutches of the regime.
“They could not, however, prevail against a military dictatorship which was used
to imposing its will and had the means to do so.”
6
Then came Mr Qarase’s direct attack. “It was a mark of enduring shame for the
FNPF, its board and senior management, that they became willing accomplices of
the dictators.”
He indicated he had documents about the “disgraceful betrayal” of FNPF
dependants. He signed a petition calling for an independent inquiry into the plan
to cut pensions of recipients. He described them as mainly the poor, retired
working people, and some from the middle class.
According to Mr Qarase, the petitioners said that for the first time in its history the
FNPF had broken binding pension contracts. The FNPF had initially ignored advice
from its own consultants to honour contracts to existing pensioners.
He made short work of the FNPF argument that pensions had to be reduced to
ensure the FNPF was sustainable.
“…..its case fell apart on the details. In fact, it seemed to be making things up as it
went along.”
The late PM referred to the “bitter reality” of a future on substantially lower
incomes than the pensioners had been receiving through “irrevocable”
arrangements with the FNPF.
7
“They contended, with justification that the Fund had never proven that the
continuation of their pensions at the existing contractual levels would send the
FNPF into bankruptcy.”
Mr Qarase submitted that the FNPF further undermined its case when it stressed
that the Fund as it stood was sustainable for up to 45 years. According to the
aggrieved pensioners, this did not provide any foundation for default on current
payments.
He quoted from the pensioners’ petition: “…..Our plea is for the FNPF to leave us
alone in our final years, without inflicting on us the destruction and stress caused
by savage reductions in income for citizens who will find it difficult to re-enter the
workforce to make up for their loss…the government and FNPF have, without
justification, cut away the foundation of the last phase of our lives.”
Mr Qarase highlighted what he called a “new ploy” – refunds of the original
amounts pensioners had in their accounts.
“A refund is not a pension. The offer was seen as a ‘sweetener’ to soften the
impact of what the Fund had done.”
“In the circumstances, a good number of pensioners decided to take refunds. The
question I saw was when the money is gone, which in many cases was likely to be
8
sooner rather than later, what will happen to the recipients? Destitution will stare
them in the face.
“The petition described this as a social and human disaster for the pensioners
concerned. That’s exactly what it was. In fact, the entire business was disaster.”
The late Prime Minister then took a swipe at Mr Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. He wrote
that to make things even harder for the innocent pensioners, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum
tossed into the arena a “dreadful” piece of legislation called the Transition Decree
(known also as Decree 51).
“Not only did this endorse the rescinding of contracts; it also denied the
fundamental right of seeking redress through the court system. The 1997
Constitution properly addressed this. It provided that every party to a civil dispute
had the right for the matter to be determined by a court of law or an independent
and impartial tribunal.
“Sayed-Khaiyum’s Transition Decree completely ignored this basic legal principle.
It put an end to a civil action already started by a courageous pensioner from Suva
Point, the late Mr David Burness. How shameful that Mr Burness was prevented
from seeking justice before he died.”
Mr Qarase passed away in 2020. He was a faithful and able servant of Fiji.
Meanwhile, the surviving pensioners continue their campaign for justice.
Fiji Pensioners 