Truth be told, my interest in Barbadian politics has waned alarmingly. That interest was first ignited in 1955 when my father took my brother David and me to a political meeting in Four Roads, St John, to hear his friend Sir Grantley Adams light up the platform. I was a keen student of politics ever since.
Throughout my years at The Lodge School, as a rookie journalist, student in England and the United States, civil servant, working for the University of the West Indies, the American Embassy as a political officer, and as a Barbadian diplomat, my interest was unwavering. It reached its zenith in 1994 with my hands-on involvement in the communications aspect of the Barbados Labour Party’s election campaign. Â
Now in my sunset years, free of the day-to-day hassles of the job market, with time to pursue one of the most absorbing and satisfying pursuits of my life – reading – I find my interest in Barbadian politics evaporating. Last week’s televised debate on the Financial Statement and Budgetary Proposals, in bygone times a riveting must-see attraction, hammered home the reality of declining interest.
Noticing my unaccustomed nonchalance, two close friends confided that theirs too had fallen off. We pondered why at length. It does not mean we are totally devoid of interest in what is going on politically around us. Rather, that our interest is not as intense these days; and while the parliamentarians were holding forth on our televisions our interest was divided, our time shared otherwise.
For the first time in my adult life in Barbados, I found myself unable to comment on the basis of first-hand observation on all contributions made on the floor of the House. Of course, it was still de rigueur to watch the presentation of the Minister of Finance and response of the Opposition Leader.
I was particularly struck by the proposed user fees for medical prescriptions filled at private pharmacies.
I am one of the 17 per cent of the population over 65.
I suffer from three non-communicable medical conditions demanding medication. As a pensioner, I am a beneficiary of the Drug Formulary for two of those conditions. I feel blessed to live in a country which covers the costs of my medications.
I have said repeatedly that I would have no quarrel with paying a nominal dispensing fee at my private pharmacy. For the other condition, the very expensive medications are not on the formulary taking a substantial chunk out of my meagre pension. But the alternative is too grim to contemplate. So I pay up and give thanks for living to see another day.
While, however, I have no quarrel with paying a nominal dispensing fee monthly for my medication using the convenience of my private pharmacy, to ask pensioners to pay 30 per cent of the cost of medications over $40 is punitive. To ask senior citizens debilitated by disabilities and chronic illnesses to queue for hours to get a prescription filled at a public pharmacy will be a modern form of torture.
Indeed, with the anticipated huge increase in numbers migrating to public pharmacies to save precious scarce dollars, the pressure on these facilities could turn out to be crippling, especially as they are open only on weekdays, unlike the private pharmacies most of which open six and sometimes seven days a week.
So, I appeal to the Ministers of Finance and of Health for reconsideration on behalf of the large number of struggling pensioners whose microscopic increases in pensions will not give us any leverage to offset the new charge compounded by increases in VAT, petrol, public transport and other goods and services.
While we all appreciate that the country’s finances are under immense pressuren (savings have to be engineered wherever possible, and there has been wastage and abuse), senior citizens are among those least able to carry the weight of new financial impositions. Instead of the new charge, which in some cases I know will come to nearly $100 monthly, why not put a flat fee of say $20?
Ironically, pensioners, after sacrificing to build this great society, are now called upon to carry a new burden in these most difficult days to safeguard life and limb. With education allocated the other major portion of the national budget, when will UWI students be asked to make a small contribution to their education?
Looking around we see splurging on luxuries like ubiquitous cellphones. What became of the tax on them proposed in the 2008 Budget? With 300 000, many owned by youths, in a population of 270 000 and the consequential drain in foreign exchange repatriated to European telecom companies, surely there is a more equitable case for collecting on them rather than from ailing elderly folk?
• Peter Simmons, a social scientist, and a former diplomat.
