TRINIDAD | Senate Blocks Million-Dollar Pension for Former PM Stuart Young

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago - In a dramatic parliamentary showdown that gripped Trinidad and Tobago yesterday, former prime minister Stuart Young lost his bid for a million-dollar annual pension after serving just 42 days in office.

The Senate's passage of the controversial Prime Minister's Pension (Amendment) Bill 2025 ensures Young will not receive what would have amounted to $87,000 monthly in taxpayer-funded retirement benefits.

The legislation sailed through with support from an unlikely coalition of government and independent senators, delivering a stinging rebuke to the notion that a month-and-a-half of service should guarantee a lifetime of luxury at public expense.

The Numbers Game That Decided Young's Fate

When the final votes were tallied, 20 senators had supported the bill while 10 abstained—crucially, none voted against it. The government's 15 senators were joined by five independents in what Attorney General John Jeremie described as legislation serving "peace, good order, and governance."

Young, who served as prime minister from March 17 to April 28, 2025, following Keith Rowley's resignation, now faces a stark choice: accept the parliamentary verdict or challenge the law's constitutionality in court—his only remaining option.

The bill required a special three-fifths majority to pass, a hurdle the government cleared with surgical precision. In the House of Representatives, all 27 government MPs voted in favor while 11 Opposition MPs abstained, setting the stage for yesterday's Senate drama.

The Salary Hike That Changed Everything

The push for pension reform gained momentum following a substantial 50% increase in the Prime Minister's salary, which Attorney General John Jeremie identified as the catalyst for legislative action. This salary boost automatically inflated the corresponding pension benefits, transforming an already controversial system into what Jeremie termed an unsustainable "burden on the taxpayer."

The timing proved particularly awkward for Young, whose brief tenure coincided with these enhanced benefits, making his potential $87,000 monthly pension even more politically toxic. The salary increase had effectively doubled the financial stakes, forcing parliament to confront a pension system that many viewed as fundamentally broken.

Independent Voices Speak Truth to Power

Independent Senator Courtney McNish emerged as the unlikely hero of fiscal responsibility, becoming the first to publicly signal his support for the bill. His words carried the weight of common sense: "I had to ask myself—does he deserve it? I have come to the conclusion that he does not."

McNish painted a vivid picture of public sentiment, recounting phone calls from concerned citizens, including one person who tried to disguise their voice while pleading: "Courtney, you cannot let this man get a million dollars a year."

The senator challenged anyone to "go into the streets of Port of Spain or Couva and hear the views of the people"—a populist appeal that resonated far beyond the Senate chamber's mahogany walls.

The Equity Argument That Sealed the Deal

Senator Michael Simon Victor de la Bastide SC delivered perhaps the most devastating critique, calling the prospect of an $87,000 monthly pension for one day's service "startling" and "disturbing." His words cut to the heart of the matter: most right-minded citizens would find such largesse fundamentally unfair.

De la Bastide drew sharp contrasts with ordinary workers, noting the "startling inequity" where citizens earning $10,000 to $12,000 monthly struggle to pay taxes that would fund Young's pension. "Their taxes are going to fund a pension that is being given to someone who has maybe 30 days of service," he observed, capturing the raw injustice many felt.

The distinguished senator acknowledged the legislation's constitutional implications, admitting it deprives Young of property without due process. However, he cited the Privy Council's ruling in Suraj v Attorney General, noting that "not every little impingement" constitutes a constitutional violation.

A Tiered System Emerges

The new legislation establishes a merit-based pension structure: one year of service earns one-third of salary, two years brings 50 percent, three years yields two-thirds, and four years guarantees the full salary amount. Labour Minister Leroy Baptiste championed this as correcting historical inequities, particularly when compared to other public servants who must serve a decade before qualifying for pensions.

Senator Francis Lewis, while supporting the bill's core purpose, expressed reservations about its retroactive nature. He called it a "Gethsemane moment"—a biblical reference to moral testing—and suggested removing the retrospective clause to allow Young to choose his own path.

Senator Deoroop Teemal emphasized fiscal responsibility, questioning whether taxpayers should fund pensions for those who served briefly. His support stemmed not from political loyalty but from conviction that the bill "meets the constitutional threshold and seeks to improve public accountability."

Young's Absence Speaks Volumes

Notably absent from the debates was Young himself, who declared the bill "constitutionally illegal" and refused to participate in what he termed "ad hominem" legislation specifically targeting him. His Facebook post denouncing the retroactive application as unconstitutional fell on deaf ears among senators more concerned with public opinion than procedural objections.

Young argued that since entering politics in 2014, he had sought to make "sustainable, impactful and meaningful contributions" to Trinidad and Tobago's development, positioning his brief tenure as part of a longer service record.

The Bigger Picture

This pension reform reflects broader questions about political privilege and public accountability that resonate across the Caribbean. The government cited precedents in Antigua and Barbuda and The Bahamas, where similar minimum service requirements exist.

The legislation's retroactive nature—applying from March 10, 2025—ensures no loopholes remain for future brief tenures. Legal Affairs Minister Saddam Hosein noted that the original 1969 Prime Minister's Pension Act was itself retroactive to 1962, providing precedent for backward-looking legislation.

What Happens Next

Young's legal team will likely scrutinize the bill's constitutional validity, particularly its retroactive elements and potential violation of due process rights. However, the overwhelming parliamentary support suggests public sentiment strongly favors fiscal restraint over procedural niceties.

The stark contrast remains: ordinary senior citizens in Trinidad and Tobago qualify for monthly pensions of just $5,500 TTD after meeting strict residency and income requirements, while Young would have received more than fifteen times that amount for his brief stint in office.

The Senate's decision yesterday represents more than pension reform—it signals a new era where public service duration matters more than political pedigree, and where independent voices can still triumph over partisan politics when the public interest demands it.

-30-