David Spiteri Gingell’s article on pension reform, which is now negatively conditioning scores of pre-1962 pensioners’ quality of life, is the result of a cold, calculated, statistical and mathematical exercise but, alas, forgets that the livelihood of human beings is at stake.

The first seven paragraphs of his article confirm without any doubt that this reform process excluded a number of moral and social considerations. The author is openly declaring that the pensions reform exercise was aimed at future pensioners and very little or no concern was afforded to the living conditions of the 90,000 current pensioners.

Basically, the pensions reform group, to which no pensioner association was invited to give its views, did not care less about the conditions in which pre-1962-born pensioners would find themselves.

Fully justifying this exercise and stating that it has not created any anomaly between pre- and post-1962-born pensioners is simply rejecting a well-known and evident truth and living in denial.

Even Family Minister Michael Falzon, who had initially come out full guns blazing to deny what was evident to one and all, has now accepted that the anomaly exists and has publicly declared that it was created by the ‘GonziPN’ and that, now, he, Falzon, is committed to rectifying the anomaly at the next budget.

Spiteri Gingell refers to the three cohorts he divided pensioners into.

The first is the pre-1952-born group. He says these thousands of pensioners are not affected by the reform. Unfortunately, this is an untruth, there for all to see. The pension calculation of this cohort was not changed but none of these scores of thousands will get the increases of post-1962-born pensioners and their maximum pension will remain frozen. 

It is not quite honest to affirm that the pension of this cohort will not be affected. Didn’t these pre-1952 have children in their younger days? Of course, they did. Yet, they will not benefit from any child-rearing credits. Is this right? Is this equitable social justice?

The second cohort mentioned by Spiteri Gingell is that of the transitionals, those born between 1952 and 1961. These will be affected negatively in varying degrees. While Spiteri Gingell accepts that this negative effect exists, the end result is that they still remain not compensated accordingly since their maximum pension remains frozen, just like those belonging to the first cohort. 

Should we start debating whether everyone should get a two-thirds uncapped pension?

Yes, this second cohort will be getting half the child-rearing credits awarded to post-1962-born pensioners. But does this mean that it was easier to bring up children by 1952-1961-born parents?

The third cohort is that of the switchers, born post-1962. While those born pre-1962 had paid 43, 44, 45, 46 yearly national insurance contributions from their 18th birthday onwards if respectively retired at age 61, 62, 63 or 64, the post-1962-born switchers need to have paid only 40 years national insurance contributions in order to attain a full or even a maximum pension. 

In total, switchers would have paid approximately €4,200 more than the pre-1962-born, from 2011 onwards, when the national insurance rate was increased for them alone up to 2021.

However, since this switchers cohort will be getting €82 in their pension extra per week, they will be recovering the €4,200 investment in less than three years. 

The Pensions Reform Group, headed by Spiteri Gingell, has actually created an award-winning Ponzi scheme, paying the last entrants on a maximum pension a greater portion of the funds saved by the 90,000 pensioners and the current workforce, including those who will never benefit from a maximum pension since they are on low wages.

Finally, is not Spiteri Gingell aware that, in 2019, Falzon took over the treasury pension portfolio from the Ministry of Finance? This is an anomaly in itself since the treasury pension is a service pension and is bound to be paid by the employer, the employer being the Malta government.

One final consideration to ponder upon: should we in Malta start debating whether all contributors, irrespective of their job, be treated equally, with everyone getting a two-thirds uncapped pension?

Or should it be only privileged categories of people such as MPs, the judiciary and permanent secretaries who can avail themselves of a two-thirds pension based on a full uncapped salary?

Arnold Cassola, former secretary general of the European Green Party, is an independent candidate at next year’s MEP elections.