5th August 2012
The fact that we are living in a socially insecure environment is not disputable, at least among those who bother to observe what is going on in our a rapidly changing society. There are many tell-tale signs to prove the obvious, and we can only mention a few of them in this limited space.
Yes, we are in a situation where most of
the citizens in the land of apparent peace are surviving under
conditions which are anything but social security friendly. The
two-digit inflation which for the past few months has fluctuated within
the range of 15-20 percent, when incomes are not rising correspondingly
and are even dropping in some cases, is making life both difficult and
insecure to many living souls.
Unemployment, especially among the youth,
continues to be a time bomb waiting to explode, although half-measures
meant to contain the problem are being implemented. The extended family
practice, which in the past used to provide social security to the aged,
widows and orphans is crumbling fast, exposing the hitherto
beneficiaries to all sorts of social security-related problems.
The above introductory remarks are meant
to underscore one intended point in this write-up, that is, since
workers and peasants of this country are already victims of social
insecurity, introduction of any new laws and programmes in this area
must aim at ensuring the bad situation is not made unnecessarily worse.
Does the new social security law passed by
parliament in April this year, and already endorsed by the President,
meet the objectives of introducing positive changes in society?
The new social security law, which has
replaced the old one, introduces a new system where key stakeholders,
that is workers making monthly contributions to the pension funds, as a
form of insurance for the proverbial rainy day and old age, are not
allowed to access their money until they reach the voluntary retirement
age of 55 years, or the mandatory one of 60 years - no matter what kind
of emergency situation the contributor to the fund finds himself or
herself in.
As we continue to witness, revelation that
implementation of the new arrangement will soon begin has literally
raised hell. Trade unionists, leaders of opposition political parties,
civic movement activists, and other public opinion leaders are up in
arms condemning the new changes and demanding immediate unconditional
amendment of the unpalatable and unjustifiable articles in the new law.
The pressure seems to be too big to be successfully resisted by the
authorities behind the new change.
Those against the new arrangement cite an
example which is easy to comprehend. At 45 years a worker who has been
contributing to one of the pension funds for 20 years loses his/her job
through retrenchment or any other reasons, and decides to establish a
self-reliance project.
It happens that he/she has no any other
savings apart from the reserve in the pension fund. The new law requires
this contributor to wait for 10 years to have access to the saving
which can give him/her a good take-off to self- employment world! Those
opposing the new approach say this is ridiculous and unacceptable.
Now, all sorts of issues are being raised
in the wake of this development. There is this bureaucrat in the social
security sector, who the other day openly opined that the new change is
in the interests of workers, as it takes care of their wellbeing in old
age.
But is it proper, or wise, for that
matter, to expose a person to economic hardship in his or her middle age
in order to give him/her care in old age? Does the monetary benefit
which is not adjustable to inflation make much sense to a person who can
utilize it when he/she is still energetic and secure assets likely to
be more beneficial in future?
Another observation made by analysts and
critics is that since social security business, involving members who
contribute to the pension funds, has two clearly defined parties; one
would expect them to negotiate and agree on the terms which work in the
interests of both.
Hence, any government laws on this kind of
undertaking should take this fact into consideration, and allow for
flexibility where necessary. We are living in a world where contracts of
this kind should be worked out democratically, short of which
resistance from the short- changed party is inevitable.
Of concern also is how the honorable MPs
passed the controversial law without noticing the articles likely to be
unacceptable to workers. Is it evidence that the keenness and
concentration of our legislators when passing sensitive laws leave much
to be desired? As hinted earlier, it is unnecessary to further frustrate
the already hungry and angry workers of this country.-
No comments :
Post a Comment