Letter in response to article “MPs take to task SSFR”

Editor, I would like to complain an article The New Times published about SSFR. The article should have reported on the tabling of the Rwanda Social security Board’s governing law but instead the writer presented it like the MPs were probing SSFR which was not the case.

Editor,

I would like to complain an article The New Times published about SSFR. The article should have reported on the tabling of the Rwanda Social security Board’s governing law but instead the writer presented it like the MPs were probing SSFR which was not the case.

The Honourable members of the House inquired about SSFR’s responsibilities towards their clients and it was a gentleman’s debate not a heated debate as the writer goes ahead to say.

The MPs expressed concern on how people benefit from the Fund, SSFR has served the best interests of its clients i.e. pensioners; whereby at old age or incase of pre-retirement the employer/ employee gets his or her dividends from the contributions he or she has been making towards SSFR.   

It is also through the Employer/ employee contributions that SSFR has managed to become the biggest economic player in the country through investments i.e. shares in different financial institutions, real estate industry which has at least tried to solve the chronic housing problem in Rwanda and looking forward to eliminating the housing problem.

To make it more clearer, SSFR members benefit more than what they have contributed.

Take an example of an employee who contributes 8 percent 5% of the employer inclusive and after 15 years of contributing, gets a monthly pay of 30% of the salary he was getting before retirement and as it is formally, the more years one works the more increment in his/ her salary and therefore more pension.

I would like to dismiss the allegations in that Article that quoted some people saying that after a longtime of contributing towards SSFR people get the same money they have contributed and they don’t share SSFR’s dividends from their contributions that are traded… 

The New Times reporter made an error when he wrote that “under the prevailing pension law, an employee is charged 6 percent of his/her gross monthly salary as pension while the employer makes another 6 percent contribution”.

I found this misleading; an employer contributes for his employee 5% and the employee contributes 3% making the total contribution towards SSFR 8%.

The reporter went ahead to say that the DG of SSFR attended the session but made no contribution. To my knowledge of how things are run in the parliament the procedures and laws that guide the parliament’s activities do not give a chance for other people to express their views unless they are ministers and in this case Hon. James Musoni.

Edmond Tumwine
SSFR
etumwine@csr.gov.rw

Editors note:
Thank you very much for your letter and correcting the errors that were reported. Please note that the journalist reported what he saw and heard during the parliamentary session. Should you have further doubt, do no hesitate to request for session recordings from the House. Additionally, The New Times is an independent institution and reserves the right to decide the angle that stories take.

 

Have Your SayLeave a comment