The Philosophy of Exceptional Benefits!
How many former ministers and those in similar ranks are there in the State of Kuwait, with some officeholders transitioning from ministerial posts to retirement? This raises a legitimate question, frankly speaking, about insurance equity.
To begin with, this is not an objection to a minister’s right to retire. Rather, it is an inquiry into the balance between what those holding public office for a limited period receive, and what a government employee receives who spends decades working and paying insurance contributions until the end of their service—and “suffers” and struggles, perhaps even more! The Public Institution for Social Insurance defines the insured person as a Kuwaiti worker in the government, private, or oil sectors, or a self-employed worker, who has monthly contributions paid to the institution on their behalf. The pension is one of the fundamental outputs of the insurance system, and the institution sets clear conditions for eligibility, including, in some cases, reaching age 55 with 15 years of service, or age 50 with 15 years of service for a reduced pension, along with other cases linked to longer service periods. Thus, retirement is fundamentally tied to years of service, contributions, and legal conditions. However, Article 80 of the Social Insurance Law contains an exceptional provision that allows, by a Cabinet decision, the granting of exceptional pensions or bonuses to the insured, pensioners, their beneficiaries, or other Kuwaitis, subject to the provisions of the law as stipulated in the article. Herein lies the specific issue: when a person transitions from a ministerial post to retirement after a relatively short tenure—ranging from hours to days, months, and then resigning or being dismissed—becoming a “former minister” while receiving the same benefits! The natural comparison then arises with an employee who spent a quarter of a century or three decades serving the state, perhaps never having the opportunity to become a minister. In this light, I say with great astonishment: Is holding the office alone sufficient to justify a significant disparity in retirement benefits? Or should there be clearer criteria linking the exceptional benefit to the length of service, responsibility, and entitlement? At the very least, one should compare him with a minister who has served for years!
This is not a call to deprive the minister of his rights; legal rights must be upheld for everyone. Rather, it is a call to review the philosophy behind exceptional benefits, so that the employee who devoted his life to serving the state does not feel that his long years of service are less valuable than a short period in a political ministerial post!
Conversely, clear rules also protect the former minister, because rights based on law and published standards are more stable and just than rights that may vary according to circumstances. The Public Institution for Social Insurance confirms that its system is based on a solidarity principle to insure against disability, old age, illness, and death, and that one of its objectives is to provide insurance protection.
From this perspective, the real issue is not the minister per se, but justice among all who have served the state. The minister deserves recognition for the responsibility he bore, and the employee deserves recognition for the years he devoted to work. Some individuals possess the same academic level as ministers, or even more experience, but were never given the opportunity! As I said, the Social Insurance Institution deserves to maintain the sustainability and fairness of its system.
Ultimately, the goal is not to abolish the exception, but to ensure that it is a genuine exception, governed by clear rules and justified by transparent reasons, so that ministerial positions do not become a fast track to benefits that ordinary civil servants cannot attain even after many years of service. The question then remains: Do we want a system that rewards the position, or one that rewards service and merit? Therefore, the minimum qualifying period should be extended to a longer duration, ensuring that ministers receive their benefits only after resignation or retirement. Incidentally, and more broadly, the upper ceiling for pensions should be raised, as it has remained at 2,700 Kuwaiti dinars since the last adjustment, which was many years ago. The key takeaway is to achieve fairness and transparency. God Almighty is the ultimate source of help in all circumstances.
