Some pensioners have expressed their concerns about the inadequacy of their pension, particularly at a time when the executive has been boasting about our robust economy.

Not all pensioners, however, are hard up. Many pensioners, particularly in the self-employed (or public sector plus second job) category, are reasonably well off, or actually seriously rich, and their Social Security pension might only be used for a couple of luxury cruisesa year.

The argument that pensioners have potentially a strong voice because they form a substantial sector of the electorate is also weak. Politicians have probably argued that senior citizens tend not to change their voting habits at general elections, and have therefore directed most funding towards the younger generations, whom they see as ‘floaters’ needing to be attracted to the party (or is it the ‘movement’?).

The recent White Paper sections dealing with current pension problems confirm our politicians’ poor performance on pensions these last 30 years plus. Other examples add support to the view of politicians’ lack of concern for pensioners. One could argue that the income tax burden on hard-up pensioners is being used to fund non-means-tested free tertiary education with stipends, so that these graduates will enjoy highly paid future jobs.

Do you remember those ‘social justice’ and ‘so that nobody is left behind’ slogans?

Could they have been fairy-tale movements?

Politicians have also shown long-standing disinterest in those who had banked on getting what was due to them (having paid into a mandatory contributory national insurance), as proven by the way pensioners with a work-related (service) pension have been treated.

They have their service pension deducted from their mandatory contributory ‘two-thirds’ Social Security pension – again, so that politicians can offer non-means-tested free tertiary education with stipends for the wealth of future generations – a worthy cause, if it wasn’t to the detriment of many current senior citizens.