Dear BP,
The Announcement by the Bahamas Government to modernise the current public officers’ taxpayer-paid pension scheme has drawn the ire of the so-called union leaders, who are mired in the past. Notwithstanding the very clear communication that these changes will only affect new hires, these entitled people will seek any means to make a nonsense of any government plans to improve the system.
In the private sector, it goes without saying that you contribute to your pension, and your employer matches your contributions. The current public service pension, which is entirely funded by Bahamian taxpayers, is not only outdated but, given the quality of services across all ministries, the sooner we are relieved of this enormous financial burden, the better.
To put this into context, we need to look at the original intention of the UK public service model, which the Bahamas inherited from our former colonial masters.
The UK civil service and subsequently the Bahamas public service originally offered civil servants fully paid, guaranteed pensions to build a loyal, stable, politically neutral bureaucracy that would serve the state for life, accept lower pay than in the private sector, and uphold high standards of integrity, thereby attracting talent despite the lower pay. A guaranteed pension was the state’s way of compensating for:
- Lower lifetime earnings
- Limited opportunities for outside income
· To Reduce Corruption and Patronage
Since it was long accepted that civil servants were vulnerable to:
- Patronage
- Bribery
- Political pressure
A guaranteed pension reduced the temptation to seek outside income or favours. It also made dismissal for corruption more meaningful — losing a pension was a major deterrent.
So, how successful have we been in reducing corruption amongst our public officers by offering juicy pensions and a gratuity to boot? Well, based on the latest data, corruption has not been reduced. In fact, perceptions ofcorruption have worsened, as supported by multiple authoritative sources, including Transparency International. Indeed, Public service corruption in The Bahamas has not reduced but is growing at an alarming rate. Despite meaningful legislative reforms in 2024–2025, perceptions of corruption have worsened, and enforcement gaps continue to undermine public trust, especially as you are just as likely to see a policeman or a defence force officer in the courts for serious offences as a seasoned criminal.
Unsurprisingly, SOEs (BPL, WSC, PHA, NIB, Airport Authority, police, immigration and customs, etc.), all major procurement and payroll risk centres, have had employees accused of corrupt practices brought before the courts or disciplinary panels, where these investigations quietly die. In fact, there are multiple cases of corruption by NIB employees on the Family Islands, and no one appears to know their status. When you add to this mess the fact that government employees credibly accused of malfeasance in public office are routinely transferred to other ministries, you begin to realise the breadth and scope of the challenges to the ministers responsible.
This state of affairs was not supposed to be. The taxpayer-funded pensions and gratuities were intended to ensure staff integrity and relieve Bahamians of the burden of buying “lunch” for public officers, enabling them to discharge their duties efficiently and without bias. Visible enforcement actions and faster disciplinary processes against corrupt public officers were supposed to deter others who were even considering becoming corrupt. Alas, none of these aims has been achieved across the service. Miscreants are still being transferred to other ministries; religious leaders, union officials, friends, and families still largely influence who is punished for thiefin der people’s money and are getting promoted with frightening regularity as well. Think I am becoming a bit overwrought? Then reflect on what happened to the people who trumped up corruption charges against former PLP ministers.
So here we are; the current public service pension system is irretrievably broken and must be fixed. We tried to reduce corruption by guaranteeing pensions, but failed. But all is not lost; rigorous enforcement of the disciplinary rules will weed out many people, deprive them of their pensions, and reduce taxpayers’ unfunded pension liabilities. Then, of course, there is the “grievous misconduct” rule governing the granting of gratuity. Application of this rule upon retirement will fix the business of officers who keep getting transferred to other departments after misconduct because they were protected, people.
And finally, public officers credibly accused of crime must not be allowed to resign before the courts dispose of the matter. This is a crafty workaround being used to preserve a pension which their despicable, corrupt actions forfeited long ago.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Brown
