– 18 seconds ago
An ongoing debate over the special pension privileges enjoyed by our military and uniformed personnel (MUPs) says our guards deserve higher retirement benefits because they give their lives to protect the country. A defense has been consistently raised.Instead of cutting MUP pension benefits, the solution lies in reducing massive government corruption, and I will refrain from another defense. Of course, these arguments cannot erase the problem of unfairness and illegality.
First, our MUPs are compensated with significantly higher salaries during active service compared to other civil servants. Her MUPs in general receive at least 40,000 pesos a month, but many government employees are below minimum wage and are on mere “mandates.”
Secondly, our MUP does not contribute even one centavo to the pension, while the salaries of other civil servants are deducted for mandatory contributions to the government service insurance system.
Third, our MUPs retire early at age 56, after which they enjoy a life annuity. This is nine years earlier than her mandatory retirement of 65, which applies to all other civil servants. In fact, MUPs can retire as soon as they reach 20 years of service and enjoy their pensions well into their 40s.
Fourth, MUPs are automatically promoted one rank up upon retirement and enjoy a pension equivalent to the next level of salary. This is unlike colleagues in other government departments who leave without automatic promotion privileges.
Fifth, the survivor benefits enjoyed by heirs of deceased retired MUPs are much higher compared to the 50% pension benefits enjoyed by survivors of other retired government employees.
The argument that our MUPs deserve special severance pay compared to other civil servants is based on the premise that MUPs are treated the same as active civil servants. As shown earlier, this assumption is false because MUPs already receive special treatment while in active service. And even if the indexing of pensions to the salaries of active workers is removed, MUPs still enjoy pensions with features that make them a privileged class of retirees, as mentioned above.
If employees who risk their lives to love their country are the measure of eligibility for special pensions, why not apply to veterans? Compared to her MUP of us, the veteran receives a meager pension even though he has proven his love for his country in real world warfare.
Also, if eligibility for special pensions is life-threatening, why not distinguish between MUP combatants and non-combatants and limit eligibility for special pensions to the former? What is the difference between MUP personnel performing mapping services, logistical support, medical services, financial services, communications and electronic services, engineering services, and forensics, and government personnel in other sectors performing similar or similar work? Why are combatant MUP members given special pension privileges, no different than members of other government agencies?
It then addresses the argument that instead of cutting MUP pension benefits, attention should be focused on reducing corruption to strengthen government coffers. This argument amounts to hiding under the bedrock of our country’s age-old problems in order to confuse the issue. It is true that corruption is a long-standing and massive problem in our country, but by adding another hole to the public treasury that leaks vast amounts of public funds in the form of fat pensions for the privileged few. Corruption cannot be resolved.
If MUP advocates want to include the issue of corruption in the fray, why not fix the corruption that pervades the MUP ranks as a prerequisite for MUPs to receive special pension privileges? Isn’t the rank of security personnel a source of rampant corruption in our government? Wipe out the herd.
—————-
Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com
