Seemingly the draft Pension Reform Ordinance is headed for a return to the drawing board, after the Committee Civil Servant Unions (CCSU) made clear it does not agree with the current version (see related story). That was already evident from its presentation in Parliament last Thursday by Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs with “mixed feelings,” which led opposition members Sarah Wescot-Williams of United Democrats (UD) and Wycliffe Smith of St. Maarten Christian Party (SMCP) to conclude the law proposal didn’t have government’s support.
What’s more, one member of the Coalition of Eight supporting the present interim Cabinet, Christophe Emmanuel of National Alliance (NA), said beforehand he wouldn’t give his approval. Another one, independent parliamentarian Rolando Brison, meanwhile United People’s (UP) Party leader, listed a series of far-reaching conditions.
Both – although the former had not signed the related accord – are also part of the incoming NA/UP coalition in the newly-elected legislature to take office on February 10. It thus appears the legislation in question has little chance of passing unless adjusted to address concerns of CCSU, the General Audit Chamber, the Social Economic Council SER and, of course, the legislators.
The problem is that this matter is becoming increasingly urgent to secure the future of the General Pension Fund APS due primarily to the ageing population. Raising the pensionable age as now proposed to 65 is following a global trend.
In addition, the reforms were set as requirement for liquidity support from the Netherlands that became necessary to balance the budget since the onslaught of Hurricane Irma in September 2017. A discussion in the Kingdom Council of Ministers on whether to continue this financial assistance was recently postponed at St. Maarten’s request until the next monthly meeting, but the clock is obviously ticking.
One puzzling statement by CCSU is that in late 2018 its members signed for the draft law despite not having reviewed it because government discouraged such, arguing that the content was too technical. With all due respect, but that sounds a bit naïve.
