|
Introduction:
The publication in sections of the national press of lists of employers
who have defaulted for at least three months in the payment of National
Insurance Scheme (NIS) contributions for their employees appears to have
generated quite some interest, prompting an editorial and a major article in
the Stabroek Business of Friday July 28, and a lead letter in the Stabroek
News of the previous day. The letter called for "the culprits" including
security services such as Cops Security, UAS & DS and Instant Security "to
be sent to jail" while the article dealt exclusively with the staggering sum
of $40M owed by UAS&DS in contributions and interest. Shockingly, this
company of which leading trade unionist Selo Baichan is a director has up
until recently been able to obtain NIS compliance certificates to obtain yet
more government work!
Neither the article, nor the letter nor the editorial mentioned that
among the defaulters is the law firm of Chapman and Trotman of which
Alliance for Change (AFC) Presidential Candidate Raphael Trotman is a
partner. Business Page (BP) too may have ignored this as an oversight had
the AFC not made social security one of the major planks of its campaign
platform - see advertisement inserted in Stabroek News of July 26.
Those election promises:
As it has done for previous general elections, BP will review the
programmes of the contesting parties, particularly those with fiscal,
economic and governance implications for the country. BP is not unmindful
that campaign promises are known often for their extravagance and sometimes
for their impracticability but when they emanate from a party that touts
change and address something as serious and fundamental as the country's
national social security scheme, such promises cannot be ignored.
The AFC, it seems, wants to introduce either through the NIS or some
parallel institution, social assistance programmes without any consideration
about the cost implications. Does it have any idea what level of
contribution it will require of the working population to finance NIS
programmes and benefits for the elderly and persons with disabilities, NIS
benefits for self-employed parents or an employment assistance programme
that provides job training and self-employment assistance? Not that these
things are not important, but does the AFC know how much it will cost to
implement these plans or does it intend to supplement the Scheme from
general tax revenues? If these are to be done through the NIS, it will
require not only transforming the Scheme from one financed by contributions
and income from investments to one financed additionally by taxpayers, but
also raises the question whether the AFC is in favour of huge increases in
taxation. Any plan that calls for higher taxes and NIS contributions is not
only unlikely to win any support from current employees and employers, but
can be considered no more than a mere wish list with little or no chance of
success.
Long history:
The recent revelation of the defaulting employers is just another
consequence of the unwillingness over the years by successive
administrations to address serious systemic difficulties facing the Scheme
and which according to its actuaries could cause the Scheme to fail. In
order to propel those in authority to take some action Business Page has
identified the deteriorating performance of the Scheme under the
chairmanship of Dr Roger Luncheon since 1992, questioned the legality of
loans to private sector entities, expressed dissatisfaction with the role of
private sector directors Messrs Paul Cheong and Maurice Solomon, drawn
attention to the benign neglect with which the private sector and the GTUC
have treated the NIS, taken issue whether the loan of US$4M for the Caricom
Secretariat was an arms' length decision and more recently (BP March 12,
2006) with the roundabout way the Scheme has been compelled to invest in the
Berbice bridge.
Business Page has noted that some of these questionable practices are not
new for Guyana's national social security system established in 1969 to
provide compulsory coverage to the country's employed and self-employed
population. During the seventies it became a useful source of funds for the
PNC government which practically dictated the terms under which it
commandeered the large amounts of funds the Scheme held. More recently, the
Scheme's movement into a mature phase has coincided with the government's
failure to act on key actuarial recommendations to maintain the Scheme's
viability and the government's exercise of an unchallenged authority to use
the Scheme's funds as it pleases. We even published statistics showing the
mismatch between the government's pronouncements on the economy and the
employment data generated by the NIS hoping that the responsible minister
would take action. No response.
On March 12, BP noted that the Sixth Actuarial Study of the NIS for the
years 1999 to 2001 expressed reservations about the future of the Scheme
unless urgent remedial action was taken and that in 2004 the NIS had sent
recommendations to cabinet for policy decisions on a number of critical
issues. All this elicited was a decision to set up some committee which
according to my information has still not been done.
Conflicting numbers:
Part of the difficulties affecting the viability of the Scheme lies in
the fact that a number of assumptions underlying the periodic actuarial
reviews might not have materialised including the return on investments,
expenditure and benefits costs and the necessary changes to the contribution
rates. But the difficulties also have to do with the number of persons
contributing to the Scheme. A fall in the number of contributors coinciding
with an increase in the number of beneficiaries and the cost of the benefits
would be a problem for any scheme, and that is something that all contesting
parties would need to confront. The data from the NIS show that the number
of new NIS employees registered which has been on a downward trend since
1994 continues its descent with 2004 being the lowest since 1990.
Nor do the data show that the large number of persons joining the job
market annually have become self-employed registrants. The number of
self-employed new registrants in 2004 is less than 20% of what it was when
Mr Jagdeo took over as Finance Minister and 87% when he passed on the
Ministry to Mr Kowlessar. Business Page has continually asked of GO-Invest,
why are investors who are granted fiscal and other concessions not
registering themselves and their employees?
Strengthening the laws:
Apart from the weak court system and timidity to pursue defaulting
employers, there is the question of inadequate laws to secure the
contributions and benefits to employees. I have on numerous occasions
recommended to the authorities that certain of the provisions of the Income
Tax Act be replicated in the National Insurance Act. For example, the Income
tax Act provides in section 93 that PAYE deducted is held in trust and not
subject to any attachment in respect of the debt or liability in the event
of bankruptcy. Section 101 provides that a certificate of indebtedness
prepared by the tax authorities and lodged with the Registrar of the Supreme
Court shall have the effect of a judgment debt and the penalty and interest
on late payments of quite exorbitant amounts. Had similar provisions been
incorporated into the NIS Act, the management of the Scheme would have found
it far easier to prosecute the defaulters. But successive governments and
parliaments seem far less interested in protecting workers' contributions
and benefits than in securing the tax revenues of the state.
Conclusion:
The NIS cries out for attention and will be a major challenge to the
post-2006 elections administration. The Scheme is already facing an
actuarial deficit which needs to be made good while there is a long list of
unmet social needs as identified by the AFC. Having been allowed to fester
for so long, the solutions will be painful and will require imagination and
some substantial restructuring. Business Page's earlier call for some of the
funds freed up by debt write-off to be used to refinance the NIS was never
taken up. That does not mean the problems have disappeared. In fact as the
new government will find out, they have increased.
(Ed note: This contributor has acted in a pro bono capacity as advisor to
the GTUC on Social Security since 1985.)

|