From Low Salaries and the Theft of Deposits to Threatening to Abolish Pensions

What arouses suspicion regarding the abolition of retirement pensions and indemnities for the public sector is that it aligns with the orientations and recommendations of the International Monetary Fund on the one hand, and the government's lack of hesitation in complying with the dictates of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on the other. Moreover, the government's track record, whether in adjusting salaries or resolving the financial and economic crisis and returning deposits, does not inspire optimism. Compounding doubts over this leak is the fact that the proposal is not new; former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, during his tenure as finance minister, previously floated the idea of abolishing retirement in the public sector and shifting toward temporary contracts instead of permanent employment (the permanent cadre) as part of structural reforms in public finances, under what is known as the concept of "contracts and tenders," with the aim of curbing the cost of the "public cadre" and reducing the pension bill. By contrast, retirees' pensions and indemnities, under the laws in force, are vested rights protected by the judiciary, and the administrative authority may not halt, suspend, or abolish them by administrative decision, as they are financial rights established by law rather than a mere "grant" that the administration can cut off unilaterally. A retirement pension is a sacred right, and its costs have been paid through monthly deductions from employees' salaries during their service. Any infringement upon them, whether by halting, withholding, or reducing them, must be based on an explicit legislative or regulatory text, as it is unacceptable for the administration to turn into a "judge" imposing financial deprivation outside the framework of the text. Furthermore, the text may not infringe upon the essence of the right, and must respect the principles of legality and non-retroactivity. In upholding non-retroactivity, the State Shura Council previously annulled a decision by the director general of finance aimed at recovering sums from a retiree equivalent to the salaries and indemnities paid to him, while arranging the settlement of the difference between what he had received and the retirement pension due for the same period. There are also other rulings by the State Shura Council that annulled decisions by finance ministers concerning the modification or adjustment of retirement pensions and severance indemnities. Fears and doubts persist because of this leak, which is seen as reconnaissance by fire (to use the military term) to gauge retirees' reaction, and a prelude to preparing the right climate to proceed with abolishing retirement pensions and public sector indemnities. There is a belief that the government would not have held back from referring a draft law to that effect to Parliament were it not for the approaching parliamentary elections, as this would provide rich fodder for MPs to use in their election campaigns to win over voters. Yet none of these MPs has submitted proposed laws either to adjust salaries or to return depositors' funds, rendering Parliament, as an institution, parliamentary blocs, and individual MPs, complicit in the failure to enact reform laws that address Lebanon's financial and economic crises and pave the way for the rise of a state of right and justice, a state of law and institutions. The leaked news of abolishing retirement pensions compounds the suffering of retirees whose pensions are insufficient to cover their basic expenses, particularly the cost of medicines and treatments unavailable through medical coverage institutions, as well as exorbitant transportation costs that exhaust retirees and compete with them for their livelihood. This comes at a time when their deposits are trapped in banks, and the most the fortunate among them receive is pocket money that neither nourishes nor staves off hunger. Alongside retirees' suffering and their fears of having their pensions abolished, and despite the importance of the medical services still provided by military and security institutions, especially the army, elderly retirees face hardship as their need for medical tests and procedures increases. This requires them to make administrative visits that rarely conclude in a single trip, in addition to the effort and cost of commuting, calling for procedures to be simplified and streamlined in order to save time, ease the strain on patients, and lower their expenses. While all factions in power benefit from marshaling their supporters at the expense of these retirees, and at the expense of their future and their children's future, retirees' suffering grows and widens to touch every aspect of their lives and threaten their livelihood. Threatening to abolish retirement pensions is not a mere miscalculation, but a dangerous gamble with social peace and with whatever trust citizens still have left in the state. Infringing upon retirement pensions does not constitute a mere financial measure or a passing reform item, but represents a fundamental breach of the concept of the state as a guarantor rather than a violator of rights, striking at the very heart of the principle of legitimate trust between citizen and administration; retirees must not be turned into scapegoats for folkloric and selective reforms. If the authorities are incapable of confronting corruption, recovering looted funds, and returning deposits, striking at retirees' rights on the grounds that it is the easiest option will prove no less costly politically and socially. Recent history shows that ignoring social justice does not extinguish crises, but merely delays their explosion. Share your opinion with us in the comments.

Translated from Arabic with AI. Read it in Arabic