#Title

How universal and egalitarian is the ‘universal’ pension scheme?
Although pension schemes are considered safe and respectable across the world, its process and significance are different in Bangladesh. Millions of government officials and their families depend on pensions to meet the expenses of the family at the end of their lives. But the process of receiving and collecting pension has never been honourable or easy. Recently, the government has taken some steps to improve this situation with its “universal pension scheme.” Although it created much enthusiasm at the beginning, the pension scheme has not proven to be universal and respectable for all. There are plenty of frustration, apprehension and discrimination in the initiative.
Firstly, the word “universal” means this pension scheme should be applicable for all citizens of Bangladesh. The artificial process of creating hierarchy between different professions is by no means universal; it is rather discriminatory. This is why the call to withdraw the notification has come from various levels, including teachers of public universities across the country.
The government has announced the universal pension scheme as an alternative to the existing system of providing post-retirement financial and social security to government employees. Whether it is people-friendly and how reasonable it is considering the financial capacity of people in this country are important questions, but what has disappointed and appalled everyone is that it is practically not universal. The scheme is not mandatory for some government bodies and sectors, especially bureaucrats. The outline of the new scheme and the notification says that those who will join the employment of self-governed, autonomous, state-owned, statutory or homogeneous organisations from July 2024 will be compulsorily added to the scheme. However, keeping certain professions out of its purview is not an indication of universality. To exclude the people of any profession from the scope of this scheme means either to deprive them, or to place them above all others.
The military, judiciary and bureaucracy have been exempted from this so-called “universal” scheme. While new employees joining the service of self-governed, autonomous and state-owned organisations after July 1 will be compulsorily covered under the “Prottoy” scheme of public pension, benefits—including pensions—will remain unchanged for military personnel, members of the judiciary, and bureaucrats. On the other hand, public university teachers will be deprived of pension benefits in the future if they do not register for public pension.
Questions arise as to why the authorities of autonomous institutions like universities were not consulted before this decision was made. During the budget proposal for FY2024-25, it was declared that the government officials will be included in a new pension scheme called “Sebak” from July 2025. Nothing has been mentioned about the benefits of this scheme, or its difference with Prottoy. The work on Sebak has not even started. But in the case of others, Prottoy is planned to be effective from July 1, 2024. Why was this discrepancy allowed? What was the basis of this dual policy?
The scheme has been rejected by public university teachers due to such discrimination. This disparity has greatly distressed the teaching community. The Federation of Bangladesh University Teachers Association has already demanded that the government reconsider the pension scheme. Various university teachers’ associations have made it clear in their positions that this discriminatory scheme is in no way acceptable. They argue that as a result of this, talented individuals in the future will not feel compelled to become university teachers.
Universities will suffer if this discriminatory, bureaucrat-driven and special-purpose scheme is implemented. In such a situation, teachers today are concerned with their future.
Although there was great enthusiasm in the beginning, the pension scheme has fallen into a state of collapse due to bureaucracy, ambiguity, and discrimination. Where 10 crore people were expected to come under the pension scheme, only a little over 100,000 people have registered in the first 10 months. Due to the exclusion of some sectors, it is not only the teaching community but also the public who now have doubts about this pension scheme. Moreover, when this was first presented, it was said that this scheme would not be mandatory, and that after 8-10 years when people will understand its benefits, everyone will gradually register. What is the rationale for going back on that promise making it mandatory for new employees now?
The bottom line is that any laws and facilities of the country should be made applicable to all. At the same time, these systems cannot be imposed on people, they cannot be made applicable to some and not to others. Giving special importance to one group of people engaged in running the country and giving less importance to other, equally important sectors is not right.
The government has to be proactive in implementing policies according to the needs of the nation. In order to turn public universities into knowledge-based, research-oriented educational institutions, the government should play a leading role in establishing the dignity of university teachers in society. Increasing teachers’ salaries and other benefits is related to this. The government also has to play a necessary role in ensuring that the recruitment of teachers, appointment of vice-chancellors, and promotion of teachers, etc are done in a regular manner as per regulations. At the same time, university teachers, vice-chancellors and their associates should be brought under accountability even within the autonomy.
Likewise, the policy of demeaning and demoting teachers in public universities is totally incompatible with such a noble initiative as a universal pension scheme. We welcome this public welfare initiative of the government. But the initiative should not end up causing public anguish, fear, suspicion or discrimination.