(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
September 25, 2011
NEW PENSION SCHEME
Defeat This Nefarious Conspiracy
IN order to face the economic crisis which is of their own making, neo-liberal regimes are hatching conspiracies in several ways to bleed the workers. Pension privatisation and the privatisation of banks and other public sector institutions are parts of this conspiracy.
The Pension Fund Regulatory & development Authority (PFRDA) Bill is now slated for introduction and passage in Lok Sabha --- at a time there are only a few members in the house, mainly from the Left parties, who are opposed to this anti-employee bill. This poses a serious threat to the government employees and other categories of employees who are covered by the statutory pension system.
Why is the UPA government so much bent upon pushing the bill through?
In an unwarranted
intervention in the statutory defined benefit pension system, the IMF,
in its work
paper WP/01/125,(2001), stressed the creation of a pension fund by
contribution from the wage earners at the earliest stage of their
as to fetch for them a decent (?) enough annuity to sustain them in old
in fact, it was a suggestion for a retrograde changeover from the
benefit pension scheme to a defined contributory system. While
the IMF categorically stated that
During his recent visit
The new contributory
pension scheme, enunciated by the government of
its inability to bring in a valid enactment, the government of
The PRFDA bill stipulates that there will not be any explicit or implicit assurance of a benefit except the market determined return. A subscriber to the new pension scheme is thus exposed to the following risks after retirement.
a) If there is a major market shock, (s)he may end with no ability to purchase an annuity and the entire money contributed by her or him may be lost
b) Since annuity cannot be cost indexed, its real worth may fall, depending upon the inflationary pressures in the economy.
c) As per the scheme, a subscriber is to make the choice of investment portfolio. As civil servants are mostly uninformed in finance and investment related matters, one might end up in making wrong choices which would eventually rob her or him of the old age pension.
d) A subscriber is to perforce contribute towards the charges of investment managers, whose priority often is as to how much profit they could make through investment of the astronomical corpus of pension fund in the volatile share market.
The pension fund thus created by the employees’ subscription and the employers’ contribution --- the latter directly flows from the exchequer which is nothing but tax revenue of the government --- will be made available for the stock market operations which is not only unethical but also a blatant diversion of public fund for private profit --- to both foreign and Indian capitalists.
It is rightly feared that, when enacted, the PFRDA bill will empower the government to alter or even deny the present employees and pensioners the statutory defined pension benefit, as has been done in the case of those who are appointed after the cut-off date.
considering the agenda of contributory pension scheme, the 6th central
Commission (CPC) asked the
“Since most of the state governments have chosen to switch over to “contributory pension scheme,” in fairness (from the study conducted by the Centre for Economic Studies and Policy) it can be concluded that the pension liability of all the state governments are bound to increase to three times of what it is today, by 2038.” This plainly means huge losses of government revenue for the benefit of Indian and foreign capitalists.
may, in fine, quote the conclusion reached by the committee set up by
given the fact that the
future liability although may be large in terms of absolute size is not
to last very long and does not constitute an alarmingly big share of
must therefore strongly demand of the government of
The toiling people of the world cannot
forget the second biggest world shaking deep capitalist crisis, after
1929, one which began in September 2008 with the crash of
Immediately after the collapse causing crisis, political leaders of major capitalist states in the world got together several times and harped on the same theme --- that public expenditure has to be drastically curtailed and austerity measures have to be strictly followed by all the governments to tide over the crisis. Along with it, they granted bailout packages to the bourgeoisie, spending tremendous amounts of money from their state exchequers. In other words, they transferred the common people’s money to the same collapsing industries and companies whose limitless greed for profit was the chief cause of the system’s breakdown.
What they actually meant by curtailing public expenditure and by austerity measures? In fact, they wanted to hoodwink the people by some apparently innocent terminologies. But, in reality, cutting public expenditure and adopting austerity measures, means cuts in workers’ and employees’ social security measures in the form of privatisation, cutting down pensions, stopping recruitments, promotion of contract basis or piece-rate basis employment, cuts in medicare and educational benefits, cuts in wages and salaries to cripple the already deteriorating economic condition of the workers and the poor by all possible means.
The sharply rising unemployment and the rising trend of the number of contract employees overtaking that of regular employees are the main features of this so-called austerity.
To be sure, such policy measures impacting
the workers and the poor were already there, and also the mass and
struggles against them were rocking Europe and other parts of the
That is why the international trade union movement, and the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in particular, raised the slogan that workers must not be forced to pay for the crisis; it is the capitalists and their governments who created the crisis, who are responsible for it, and it is they who must pay for this crisis. It means the governments and the capitalists cannot be allowed to augment the workers’ hardships. On the contrary, governments must mop up a part of the enormous profits the capitalists are gaining and increase the taxes on the rich to generate resources in order to meet the deficit.
Which governments have followed the course
suggested here? None of the governments, including that of
IS AT STAKE?
Pension privatisation is an attempt of the
same kind. In
In addition, the government intends to make a ‘pension plan’ for poor workers as well. The project is alluringly named ‘Swabalamban,’ which means self-dependence. But what self-dependence? The government will take a certain amount from the wages of the poor workers and that money too would be invested in the share market to help the capitalists reap huge profits. In the process, a poor worker may lose every pie of her/his life-time savings as (s)he would be at the mercy of an unreliable share market.
How employees and workers can tolerate such a heinous and criminal policy of the government that is intent upon committing a dacoity on the income of the poor employees and workers?
Capitalists are like vultures in the sky, searching for an animal carcass lying below. The PFRDA bill intends to help them.
During the recent debt-limit crisis in USA, President Obama’s Democratic Party and the opposition Republican Party came to agree on a formula --- the rich would not be touched by further taxation; on the contrary, medicare and other public expenditure would be cut and the money, meant for the common people’s benefit, would be utilised to meet the deficit and tide over the crisis.
This process of rescuing the ailing and collapsing corporate houses is calculated to transfer the burden from their shoulders to the government’s. This may set in a sovereign crisis that would engulf the entire economy of a country. The poor would be its biggest victims.
This is the inhuman logic of capitalism in its