Appeal to the Standing Committee of UN Pension Board

The Secretary

The Standing Committee to the Pension Board UNJSPF, United Nations
P.O. Box # 5036
New York, N.Y. 10017, USA

Dear Members of the Standing Committee:
Ref: UN Retiree # R/63374
Subject: Restoration of full pension for 1/3 Lump Sum Recipients after a pre-determined period of commutation

Alike many other UN retirees, at the time of retiring from UN service, and based on very little pre-retirement pension related briefing, I opted for 1/3 lump sum with the balance of 2/3 pension being paid on monthly basis. In truth, the decision to opt for (or, in some cases, lured into accepting) lump sum payment was due to anxiety for resettling back in life with family and fulfil imminent commitments in a manner befitting the values and norms imbibed thru UN working life.

We are aware of earlier appeals for the restoration of full pension to the 1/3 lump sum seekers, having been denied under pretext of existing co-joined rules in a manner we consider as unclear and unfair application of pensioners “valuable rights” without regard to equity and natural justice.

Shielded by “immunities” (that should essentially be used for UN functionaries in the conduct of their humanitarian work), and governed by its own committees, rules, etc. UNJSPF has assumed a pedestal unlike any other pension fund system, thus rendering the UN pensioners to accept whatever decision made by UNJSPF internal management, without recourse to any independent, impartial, transparent and non-UN adjudication/judicial process.

It is our considered view that contrary to the civil service pension systems in many countries, incl. my own, the non-restoration of full pension after the 1/3 lump sum payment having been fully recovered with interest over many years is NOT in accordance with the letter and spirit of a number of Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for which UN and its agencies/affiliates should remain the prime custodians and model of governance for the rest of the world.

In accordance with the statement by the UN Secretary General on the last Human Rights Day (20 December 2008), he declared that “we can only honour the towering vision of that inspiring document (UDHR) when its principles are fully applied everywhere for everyone”.

In other words, it is our view that the UNJSPF’s currently practiced rules and procedures appear to be ultra vires to the basic fundamental principles of UDHR and UN charter governing its management. Please see the following:

Article 10 of UDHR: the universal right to full equality to a fair ...hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal... This is being denied to the 1/3 lump sum seekers because of the existing in-house UNJSPF mechanism for dispute-resolution, which cannot be seen as “independent and impartial tribunal”. Such an in-house mechanism with judge and prosecution belonging to the same genre may be acceptable to the staff in
service, but certainly not suitable for retirees who are no longer UN staff members and located in different parts of the world and are subject to national laws and regulations.

Article 19 of UDHR: this article assures freedom to seek and receive.... information...thru any media and regardless of frontiers...We consider this right as invaluable to receive prompt, correct and truthful information regarding the basis, philosophy and justification, if any, for the life-time denial of full pension for 1/3 lump sum recipients in the context of pension fund reforms in many civil service pension systems that consider pension for old people as “valuable right” and treat all pensioners with equity and fairness.

Article 22 of UDHR: this article provides for... social security and its realization thru national efforts and international cooperation.... in accordance with the organization and resources...indispensable for his dignity and the free development....Here again, for many in the developing world, UN pension is often the main or probably the only source of income for social security and dignified living. Denial of full-pension even after the recovery of all the 1/3 lump sum + interest, in the context of rising costs and in the absence of any other social safety net, cannot be seen (by any stretch of imagination) as being fair and equal in the treatment of all pensioner with dignity...equity and fairness.. or based on natural justice.

Article 25 of UDHC: this article confers the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of him/herself and of his/her family....including safety/security net to take care of circumstances beyond control..
If this is indeed a fundamental human right enshrined in the UN governance, how can anyone justify the denial of a significant part of UN pension even after its full recovery during the commutation period?

Article 28 of UDHR: this article guarantees a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the UDHR can be fully realized.
In the context of what has been pointed out above, can UNJSPF management declare, in good conscience, that it is abiding by the UDHR in the treatment of its pensioners, especially those of 1/3 lump sum recipients even after the full recovery of the 1/3 lump sum payments.

In these circumstances, I/we believe that it is already time for an enlightened organization like UN/UNJSPF to review its rules, regulations, procedures and working methods, especially over 50 years during which time many fault lines would have been exposed, and ensure these are in full accordance with the fundamental values enshrined in the UN charter and UDHR, so that all UN Pensioners are treated with equity, fairness and based on natural justice.
Such a goal will indeed be a worthy accomplishment in the present UN Development Decade and serve as model for good governance.

Thank you for your consideration, Yours sincerely,
Name of Retiree: V.Muthuswami
Retiree # R/63374
Signature:

(Hard copy duly signed to follow thru normal airmail registered post)

Attachment: Annexure (giving three examples of reasonableness and sustainability of restoring full pension to the 1/3 lump-sum recipients)
********
Annexure

Example I - Comparison of lump sum against current value based on inflation index (US)

Assumptions: Lump Sum received in 1995 based on 13 yrs annuity value period: $2000 X 12 X 13 = $ 312,000
Lump sum takes into account the interest receivable to UNJSPF because this lump sum paid in advance vs. entitlement payable monthly as normal standard pension.

Monthly pay back to UNJSPF by way of reduced pension = $ 2,000 (for ever, as per current practice)

As per North American inflation index for the period 1995 - 2008, (156 months) the value of $ 312,000 in 1995 would be costing currently (2008) $ 436,700

Against this, UNJSPF investing $2,000 monthly basis (i.e. money recovered from the pensioner based on pension reduction) at 4.0% interest and allowing 2% inflation would result in a return in 2008 of $464,070.

This would seem that UNJSPF would be entitled a maturity value of $464,070, thus gaining $ 464,070 minus $436,700 (current value of lump sum as above) = $ 27,370 in terms of current (2008) value for the same period (156 months).

Explained differently, inflation adjusted buying power of $464,070 would be currently $357,900, which is again more than $45,900 against lump sum payment of $ 312,000.

Therefore, it would appear that UNJSPF would stand to gain even more when the pensioner lives beyond the actuarial age of life expectancy, with reduced pension continuing.

****

Example II – A former pensioner’s simple calculation of loss incurred
by opting for 1/3 Lump sum vs. full pension

UN Pension `One-third' option appears beneficial device for the Pension Fund. How? Commuting one-third of our pension appears “valuable” (tempting) especially by Indians and nationals of other developing countries where life expectancy is not that attractive and several immediate commitments waiting to be taken care upon retirement. As such, we find UN pensioners in India have, by and large, opted for one-third commutations. But, given the life-styles (affording a good diet, a reasonably good house, regular health-check-ups and taking corrective action when necessary) that we have enjoyed as UN employees, we find, and there are definite indications among our members that confirm that we can expect to live an above average life. With better life expectancy, however, we become LOSERS in case we had availed of the `one-third' option. How? A colleague (M.L. Sharma of UNICEF) had done some research about the loss that we thus incur. He has calculated that the Pension Fund has already realized much more than what they had paid him by way of a lump-sum amount of 1/3rd of his commuted pension. He retired on 31 Dec 1982 and received a lump-sum of US S73,451. The chart below shows that in 11 years time up to DEC 1993 ML has fully paid back (in fact a little more) what he had received from the Pension Fund as the `commuted' amount representing 1/3rd of his pension. Thereafter, January 1994 onwards, for the rest of his life he has to be content with the reduced pension deprived of the 1/3rd portion. This shall remain a recurring loss, but whatever the loss be we wish him well and a long life.
From
To
Monthly 2/3 pension
1/3 loss X months
Total Loss
1/83 3/84 937 468 x 15 70204/84 3/86 1001 500x24 120004'86 3/88 1040 520x24 124804/88 3/89 1099 550x12 66004/89 3/90 1147 574x12 68804/90 3/91 1201 600x12 72004/91 3/92 1274 637x12 76444/92 12/93 1314 657x21 13797 Against US S 73,451 received by commutation, by 12/93 I had lost ---- 73,621 My loss is further multiplying since Jan 94 1/94 3/94 1314 657x3 19714/94 3/96 1388 694x24 166564/96 3/97 1463 731x12 87724/97 12/97 1512 756 x 9 6804
TOTAL LOSS up to Dec 97 107824 1/3 recd on retirement in Jan 1983 73451As such net loss up-to-date (up to 12/97) 34373 The chart shows that in 11 yrs the Pen Fund has fully recovered rather a little more than what they had paid by way of 1/3 commuted pension

Notes:

1. The above table is based on reality, i.e the lump sum having been used up for family resettlement and other immediate social/family obligations, hence Not available/used for any investment purpose.

2. Based on UNJSPF making an average monthly investment of $600 (representing 1/3 portion recovered from pensioner’s standard pension) for the same period (1983 – 1997: 180 months) – with an interest rate of 4% adjusted for inflation of 2% per annum – will result as follows:

Final maturity value at the end of 180 months: $ 170,570
Inflation adjusted value of the above $ 126,400

Thus, by approving the 1/3 lump sum of $73,451 in Jan 1983, and using 1/3 monthly reduction in standard pension for recurring investment, UNJSPF has gained significantly.

****


Example III – Sustainability vis-a-vis restoration of full pension after a pre-determined commutation period

1. Given the above examples of UNJSPF gaining thru lump sum payment and reduced pension for indefinite period, the required adjustments, if any, based on actuarial analysis be undertaken to implement full restoration of pension after pre-determined commutation period. Hypothetically, this adjustment may be accomplished in several ways, i.e. adjustment in contribution levels, factors used for lump sum calculation, pre-determined (not for life time) period for the purpose of reduced pension payment, demographic differentiation in actuarial age of life-expectancy, etc.

2. UNJSPF, as a social security agency to fulfil the mandates of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), should strive to treat all pensioners on the basis of equity and fairness, once the lump sum indebtedness of the pensioner remains fulfilled. UNJSPF has an obligation to be seen to be operating as what UN Secretary General declared during a recent Human Rights Day (20 Dec 2008) that “we can only honour the towering vision of that inspiring document (viz. UDHR) when its principles are duly applied everywhere and for everyone.”

3. In fulfilling the above UDHR obligation, UNJSPF secretariat should be advising the UN legislative bodies on the necessary changes, if any, in regard to policies/procedures to be implemented, i.e. to ensure sustainability and at the same time achieving the goals of equity and fairness enshrined in the UDHR.

4. In the case of (lump sum recipient) national staff and whose pension is adjusted by government COL index for their reduced 2/3 pension do not reflect the actual market rate increases in their cost of living. This is further exasperated in the case of GS staff receiving only a minimum stipulated pension payment.

5. It is important that UN pension system be comparable to many enlightened civil service pension systems rather than private groups, and yet sustainable based on UDHR values.
*****
May 2009

HOLDING ON FOR DEAR LIFE AS UN PENSIONER IN INDIA

ATTENTION UN PENSIONERS: THANKS TO APRIL FIRST CELEBRATION, OUR UNPA SECRETARY SHRI BALDEV BAJAI'S EMAIL ...@HOTMAIL.COM WAS HACKED AND HE IS TRYING TO RECREATE HIS ESSENTIAL RECORDS. HIS NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: baldev_bajaj@live.com (that is, baldev (underscore) bajaj@live.com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here are a few key emails exchanged with UNJSPF & Pension Board members on the appeal for the restoration of full-pension to the 1/3 lump-sum recipients after the commutation period:
*********
Subject: Fw: UN PENSION FUND - Letter from the Chief Executive OfficerTo: vmuthuswami@hotmail.comCc: "Hans Narula" , "Bajaj Baldev" , "Sandy Sundaram" , "UN JSPF" , "Ramnath Dore" , "Frank Deturris" , "Sergio Arvizu" Received: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 10:00 AM

Dear Mr. Muthuswami,
Thank you for copying me your below email. I noted your sentence on "theconcerns and genuine grievances from some of the pensioners (of 1/3 lumpsum category)" which were
expressed and apparently went unanswered.May I ask you to please forward to me directly any messages or lettersalready sent to the Fund concerning these issues.
Thank you.Best regards.
Bernard CocheméChief Executive OfficerUNJSPF
cocheme@un.org
Visit our website: www.unjspf.org----- Forwarded by Bernard G Cocheme/UNJSPF/NY/UNO on 03/23/2009 01:37 PM
**************
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:04:22 -0700
From: spsundaram2003@yahoo.caSubject: Re: Fw: UN PENSION FUND - Letter from the Chief Executive OfficerTo: cocheme@un.orgCC: vmuthuswami@hotmail.com; baldev_bajaj@hotmail.com; ramnath.dore@gmail.com; sarojlingam@gmail.com; mdam@bluewin.ch; art.desmit@sympatico.ca

Dear Mr. Cocheme,
It was nice of you to copy your letter to Mr. Muthuswami. I am pleased to take the opportunity of addressing you about the let-down feeling that some of us feel.You may not remember our meeting at the FAFICS Council meeting in Montreal in 2004, when I was much impressed with your directness in answering questions and projecting yourself as the friend and supporter of the interests of the pensioners. That is why I was surprised that there wasn't even an acknowledgement when I wrote to you last year. Probably, it was lost in the mail.
Actually, I had posted a letter to you only 3 days ago, which you will be receiving in a few days. I am, however, pleased to send you an advance copy as an attachment to this email. I shall, no doubt, appreciate your reactions and comments. I am also taking the liberty of sending you a copy of the presentation I will be making at the forthcoming AGM of our Association, AFUNPI. I will naturally be grateful for your patience in going through the 4-page submission and giving me the benefit of your valued comments.Incidentally, I also wish to recall my brief meeting with your predecessor, Mr. Raymond Gieri, when he was on a 1-day mission to ICAO Montreal (in the late 80's I think) . He kindly gave me a couple of minutes during which I told him, "the lump sum would be cleared sometime in the future and what would the Fund do -- either follow the universal practice and restore full pension or continue the deductions beyond; in the latter case, would it be morally justifiable?" (at that time, the actuaries' determination that in 13 years the recovery would be completed, was not common knowledge). Mr. Giery merely said, "Mr. Sundaram, you have a point". Whether he followed up or not, I don't know. I thought I would share that with you.
Kindest regards,
S. P. Sundaram
***********

From: vmuthuswami@hotmail.comTo: alakhanpal@unicef.org; oadeniyi@unicef.org; carlos.santos@pnuma.orgCC: bajaj_baldev@hotmail.com; spsundaram2003@yahoo.ca; ramnath.dore@gmail.com; merrillcassell@gmail.com; hansnarula@aol.com; pbala1932@gmail.com; kmckenzie@unicef.org; cocheme@un.orgSubject: UN Pensioners appeals to the CEO/UNJSPFDate: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 08:16:33 +0530
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Dear UNICEF friends and colleagues:
Greetings from UNICEF old-timer from India.
It is great to know that there are two UNICEF members serving the UNJSPF board. A number of UN Pensioners both in India and elsewhere who were 1/3 lump sum recipients and are still alive and kicking have appealed that their full-pension be restored after commutation period, in accordance with the following "enlightened" premises:

1. First there is nothing in the regulation and rules, signed documentation etc. to sanction life-time denial of full pension.In fact close scrutiny of the UNJSPF regulations/rules will reveal many critical self-conflicting methods and practices, totally ultra vires with the UN foundational constitution, viz. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Charter. How can a UN outfit enact and practice such rules and methods that maybe seen in conflict with its own foundational constitutional framework? This mystery needs to be resolved.

2. "Luring" pensioners into 1/3 lump sum and recovering this "loan" by paying only 2/3 reduced pension could probably make good investment sense. See UNJSPF rule 43 regarding recovery of such advance payments or indebtedness (that is what the 1/3 lump sum is in its essential nature).

3. In fact, it makes a lot of sense for "luring" pensioners into lump-sum as "loan-investment" and recovering it safely. Thanks to good life style and reasonable disciplines, UN Pensioners are normally live longer than the usual actuarial age of life-expectancy and continue to pay back the lump-sum loan.Even if the pensioner kicks-the-bucket sooner than the actuarial age, never mind: any way the pension is reduced to one-half if there exist any surviving/recognized spouse to claim anything from UNJSPF. In any case, this loan-investment method is safer than the shark-infested wall-street type or AIC-patented stocks and bonds. It is a win for UNJSPF and loss for pensioners in old age! The correct ethical model should be a win-win solution!

4. Many of civilized countries civil service pension schemes around the world, e.g India, Australia, New Zealand etc. and their court judgments have declared that full pension be restored after a pre-determined commutation period. Pension is seen as "valuable right" by these courts.

5. There seems some kind of totalitarian or unilateral approach being followed in the UNJSPF system: the rule provides for appeal to the UN Admin Justice system which is universally known for its delays and mis-carriages; more over why UN pensioners (who are no longer UN employees, dispersed around the globe, and also drawn from so many institutions within the so-called big UN family) should be subject to a system which is basically meant for in-house disputes and operating probably in a dark basement; so, it is a typical unilateral non-starter approach for the UN Pensioners having any problem with the UNJSPF; why not an internationally accepted arbitration process (e.g. UNCITRAL) provided in the case of problems with the UNJSPF.

6. To be truly transparent and accountable, UNJSPF can easily enter into some kind of MOUs with any inter-governmental organizations or with country governments to emphasize/guarantee its readiness to abide by the decisions of any territorial judicial mechanisms in case of dispute redressal. In today's globalised world, with internet connectivity, it is so simple to be honest, transparent, answerable, accountable, truly compassionate, etc. if UNJSPF is prepared to seek out-of-box creative solutions that are not immediately known to those sitting in their small myopic cubicles in its Manhattan First Avenue office.

7. Until this happens, given the perception that international laws are vanishing point of jurisprudence, and because of mis-understood/often mis-placed immunities enjoyed in the name of UN Geneva Convention, many of the territorial judicial systems normally treat the UN and its outfits like UNJSPF as "untouchables" - international pariah.What this means is that, incase of disputes or grievances, the UN Pensioners are left to the goodwill of those who run the UNJSPF or mend for themselves.These are not the characteristics of a model organization or model of good governance to any one.

8. I must also mention at this time about the various pensioners associations around the world: most are at best social clubs, worried about next picnic place or re-union location! In India we have two associations for one country: none wants to unite or merge with a sensible mission-goal, despite members assurance to the leadership to keep their titles and egos in tact! The European associations, I am afraid, despite their renowned reformist high-growth brain power, most seem to suffer from a bout of adult-autism.

9. Finally, our appeal to you as members of the Pension Board: please help make UNJSPF as a progressive, compassionate and accountable model of good governance. Cheers, Best regards to all.
V. Muthuswami/Chennai, India
(Camp: Yogic Center, Escondido, CA, USA)
***********

From: vmuthuswami@hotmail.comTo: carlos.santos@pnuma.orgCC: bajaj_baldev@hotmail.com; spsundaram2003@yahoo.ca; tnkutty@hotmail.com; ramnath.dore@gmail.com; pbala1932@gmail.comSubject: FW: UN PENSION FUND - Response to Mr Bernard Cocheme's readiness to review our appeals!Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:54:48 +0530
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Respected Sir:
In the understanding that you are currently serving the UN Pension Board and a friend of democractic world order based on UDHR, I, as a world citizen UN Pensioner (born in the largest democracy India) and on behalf of fellow pensioners, would like to share with you the concern expressed in the following email sent to Mr Bernard Cocheme, CEO, UNJSPF. Details of our appeals are available in our website: http://unpensionerindia.blogspot.com/ Our appeal to you is simple: please support and ensure the credibility and integrity of the UN & its entities (UNJSPF) as a true and best model of good governance and accountability for the rest of the world.
Best regards,
V. Muthuswami/Chennai, India
(Camp: Escondido, CA, USA 92025)
**********
From: vmuthuswami@hotmail.comTo: cocheme@un.orgCC: hansnarula@aol.com; bajaj_baldev@hotmail.com; spsundaram2003@yahoo.ca; unjspf@un.org; ramnath.dore@gmail.com; deturris@un.org; arvizu@un.org; pbala1932@gmail.com; nambiar@un.orgSubject: UN PENSION FUND - Response to Mr Bernard Cocheme's readiness to review our appeals!Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:58:38 +0530
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Dear friend Mr Cocheme:
First of all, thank you for your prompt response. In respecting your office and your own time, let me try and summarize our appeals to you submitted earlier thru UN SecGen office and also sent directly to your office during the past many weeks. Also, the appeals made on behalf of many UN Pensioners in India are available in our website: http://unpensionerindia.blogspot.com/ and I can separately forward those email appeals should you desire.

1. Despite the "rights" enshrined in Articles 19 & 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and UN Charter itself, the group of Indian pensioners has not been able to seek any reliable information thru your office on the background philosophy and legal basis of NOT restoring the full pension to the 1/3 Lump-Sum recipients, after the commutation period and after completion of full recovery of the lump sum amount + interest on the lump sum over the years. Not only the l/3 lump-sum recipients did not accept/sign off any life-time denial of that part of the pension, nor was it specifically explained in any of the UNJSPF rules, regulations or documentation. This practice is contrary to many enlightened governments' civil servant pension schemes, incl. India, where both the government and courts had ruled to restore the full-pension after commutation period. Hope, it is not that UNJSPF does not favour pensioners living beyond "actuarial age of life-expectancy" and share their experience with the fellow-beings to make this planet a better place to live! (Incidentally, this situation betrays most unhealthy undemocratic censorship of emails from beneficiaries that exist in your office. Please do something before such practices undermine the credibility and integrity of your esteemed office.)

2. It is our understanding that actuarial committees and other advisory groups had favoured the restoration of full pension for 1/3 lump-sum recipients after the commutation period, basically to ensure equity, fairness, and justice among all pensioners; also it was considered to be affordable to implement "equity and justice" within the well-managed and capitalized UNJSPF. It is not known why this recommendation/decision is not implemented until now. Is it administrative lacuna, lack of administrative action or just psychological blockage by convoluting the interpretation of your rule 12(g)?

3. Though not specifically included in our earlier appeals, the following queries were raised time and again within our pensioners group:
(a) why is it necessary to apply the CPI movements of over 2 % effective only from April on any calendar year. Why not implement the increase right from the beginning of the year (i.e. month of January) ?
(b) in the case of lump-sum recipients, this practice is indeed a double-whacky: these category pensioners are also denied any CPI adjustments on the 1/3 portion of pension because this group received the lump sum earlier.
(c) because of the so called immunity (hopefully not, minus responsibility/accountability) enjoyed by UN and its entities, it seems a pity that all common sense approach and all the natural justice elements enshrined in the UDHR are thrown to the winds; and pensioners are at the receiving end as beneficiaries without any voice.
The reasons are not far from seeking: UN Admin. Tribunal system is not effective (e.g. justice delayed, justice denied), nor any internationally acceptable arbitration mechanism (e.g. UNCITRAL) is provided, nor is it a smooth ride to any seek territorial judicial intervention (thanks to the all-embracing immunity shield that seems to shy away all the otherwise available avenues of justice to UN pensioners dispersed around the world); finally our own two Pensioners Associations in India function more like "social clubs", and do not appear to have the courage of conviction to do anything useful to the beneficiaries.
On behalf of my fellow pensioners, I sincerely believe you understand the purpose and sentiments behind our appeals, and also pray and hope that you will review these concerns in a proper perspective and ensure UNJSPF continue to remain as a model for all others.
May we wait to hear from you before long and regards,
V. Muthuswami/Chennai, India
(Yogic Camp: Escondido, CA, USA)(On his behalf and on behalf of UN pensioner in India)
*******
From: vmuthuswami@hotmail.comTo: spsundaram2003@yahoo.ca; bajaj_baldev@hotmail.comCC: carlos.santos@pnuma.org; alakhanpal@unicef.org; oadeniyi@unicef.org; castellanosa@un.org; cocheme@un.orgSubject: UNPensionersIndia: appeal for restoration of full-pension for 1/3 lump sum recipients after commutation periodDate: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:25:16 +0530
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Dear Sandy Sundaram:
Do you really need a socalled official sponsorship to attend and listen to the deliberations in the forthcoming pensioners assns. meeting in Vienna. From what I understand from the UNJSPF Pension Board group that in this great democractically administered system, you have the right to be heard and that should mean attendance, if desired, at the FAFICS meetings as a UNPensioner.
Maybe, we should ask the Pension Board members to help open the doors for you to participate in those meetings, without voting. I am therefore taking the liberty of copying this email request to three of Pension Board members with the request if they can facilitate your attendance at the forthcoming Vienna meeting. Godspeed for your initiative,
V. Muthuswami/Chennai, India
(Camp: Yogic Center, Escondido, CA, USA 92025)

cc: UNJSPF Pension Board Members:
In the absence of harmony and lack of unity among the two socalled UNPensioners Associations in India (I admit I am also member in both these social clubs), some of the public-spirited UN Pensioners in India and elsewhere, have taken the initiative to make the appeals of which details are available in our website: http://unpensionerindia.blogspot.com/ and in the number of emails marked for your kind attention in the recent past. Driven by our honest concern and commitment to do some good to the fellow-pensioners, especially those in Asia and Africa retired at local levels, our senior statesman Pensioner, Mr Sandy Sundaram (retiree from ICAO, Montreal, in the 1980s, now living in Bangalore, India) would like to have an opportunity to attend the forthcoming FAFICS in Veinna, and also explain how this administrative commission & omission could be easily resolved. His attendance would be at no cost to any of your outfits; this trip will be purely personally-financed and I will be glad to share any cost with Mr Sundaram. My appeal to you esteemed Board members and officials, to allow the attendance of Mr Sandy Sundaram, signifying true democratic spirit of our system.If this is agreeable, you may kindly inform Mr Sandy Sundaram, whose email address and mailing address in Bangalore is available in this email.
Thank you, God Bless.
*******
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:36:27 -0700From: spsundaram2003@yahoo.caSubject: Re: greetingsTo: bajaj_baldev@hotmail.comCC: vmuthuswami@hotmail.com
.ExternalClass DIV

Dear Mr. Bajaj,

Thank you for your e-mail. You are so kind.
Yes, I too feel that with the convincing and persuasive appeal to the CEO (If I am able to attend the FAFICS Council Meeting, where CEO usually is present at one of the sessions to answer questions and clarify things, I hope to have a one-on-one talk with him as well as an exchange at the Meeting. I am sure that with all your contribution and moral support, we would not fail to succeed, perhaps even before the next UN Day. Should the CEO reject our Appeal or shows only a lukewarm interest, he should know that the class action suit is only round the corner and he would have to answer all those intrusive questions from the legally trained minds. I am not doing this for us in particular, but for the likes of Praveen, the office "boy" and Prachob, the driver at the ICAO Regional Office long ago and Moses the driver in Addis Ababa. We are our brothers' keeper as the Prophet said.

Yes, I would like to be on the mailing list of UNPA News. Incidentally, years ago, when I was on the Executive Committee of CAFICS in Montreal, I used to read your Bulletin and enjoyed them so much. That is why I was saddened by the fact that there is no co-ordination between our two organizations. For practical and logistical reasons, it is necessary to have two organizations in a country like the size of India, but it is absolutely criminal that our organizations are not on talking terms to coordinate our views and actions. I have told Mr. Janakiraman many times but his one-track mind would not listen.

I am pleased to give you my mailing address, which is:
S. P. Sundaram, 22 First Cross, Sundar Nagar, Bangalore 560 054. Ph: (080) 2345 6938
Cell: 944 981 8802.

I will also try and send you a copy of AFUNPI Directory (which in the normal course of things our two organizations should be exchanging) so that you can know of the contacts of all our members. AFUNPI may not take the initiative, but maybe UNPA should set the ball rolling by initiating action towards co-ordination between our two organizations whose aim is to serve pensioners of the UN family. (My son is in Delhi. I will ask him to contact you at your mutual convenience)

Kindest regards,

S. P. Sundaram
*******
From: baldev bajaj To: SP Sundaram Cc: Vemlatram Muthuswami Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:31:13 PMSubject: greetings
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

indeed i love to read and re=read your note to the Pen Fund CEO - this is a very well written piece and should bring us some good news I need your postal address so that i may share with you copies of UNPA Bulletin and LINK wherein we have published a writeup on restoration of pension - thanks and regards
***********

UNWIND: UN PENSION FUND - LETTERS OF CONCERN

UNWIND: UN PENSION FUND - LETTERS OF CONCERN

Additional relevant issues raised by Mr Merrill Cassell, former UNICEF Budget Chief, and the response from the CEO/UNJSPF.

UNWIND: UN PENSION FUND - LETTER OF CONCERN

UNWIND: UN PENSION FUND - LETTER OF CONCERN

Please read the exchange of letters between a former UNICEF Budget Chief and CEO/UNJSPF on the impact of current global financial developments, thanks to the "AIG" (arrogant, incompetent and greedy) shenanigans.

Mr Bernard Cocheme, CEO, UNJSPF, seems to believe that there is no need to raise needless alarms now, hopefully the UNJSPF is in a good position to weather the current strom.

HUMANIZING UNJSPF

From: vmuthuswami@hotmail.com
To: bajaj_baldev@hotmail.com; spsundaram2003@yahoo.ca
CC: afus@unesco.org; wzyss@wanadoo.fr; jpndh@yahoo.com; jchevron@unog.ch; atholle@unog.ch; tholle@cytanet.com.cy; unjspf@un.org; jspfgva@unog.ch; ramnath.dore@gmail.com; tnkutty@hotmail.com; hansnarula@aol.com; nambiarv@un.org
Subject: Humanzing the dehumanized UNJSPF - restoration of full pension after the commutation period
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:55:42 +0530


THIS EMAIL IS BEING COPIED TO CHAIRMAIN OF UN PENSIONER ASSOCIATIONS FEDERATION AND HIS/HER CO-HORTS, UNJSPF AND ALSO THE TWO PRESS OUTFITS SUPPOSEDLY WORKING IN "HARMONY" WITH UN IDEALS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS.
FOR ME (on behalf of myself and other UN pensioners in India: http://unpensionerindia.blogspot.com) THIS SHOULD REMAIN FINAL-FOR-NOW CALL FOR "SANITY'' AND JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF UN PENSIONERS IN INDIA AND ELSEWHERE IN THE ASIAN/AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
(MY GRATEFUL THANKS FOR ALL THOSE WHO GAVE ME BACKGROUND INFN AND GUIDANCE IN PURSUING THIS "DHARMIC" STRUGGLE SO FAR; MAY THE LORD ALMIGHTY BLESS THE NECESSARY MOMENTUM AND STRENGTH TO ENSURE FAIRENESS AND JUSTICE IS DONE SOONER THAN LATER)
Dear Bajaj ji & Sandy Sundaram:
It is not at all disappointing to see that the colonized minds of the leaderships of UN Retirees Associations (mostly run by professionals of 18/19th century western orientation) have been functioning more like modern-day Hitler super-lords of the UN Pension empire, with no conscience for moral rectitude based on Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nor in touch with current developments in many progressive civil service pension schemes around the civilized world, ensuring better and stronger social security systems for civil service retirees and people of old age.

As said in the recent appeals to the UN Sec Gen and the CEO UNJSPF, all these retiree associations, the federations et al all behave as “your majesty’s servants” or mouth-pieces for what their masters want to hear - never mind about human development status among local categories of UN staff whose pension means less and less in today's inflationary situation vs. government civil service retirees getting better DEALS TO insulate against rising costs and other economic issues.
The lives of UN retirees of local lower GS categories in the third world are so pitiable because these retirees are neither cared for nor owned by their government, nor even thought of by these elitist UN retiree associations, whose super-boss leaderships are concerned more with the next picnic location, not worried about fellow retirees in the GS and other local grades in developing countries. These associations are not equipped to do anything to improving the UN pension ground rules more in tune with changing times, demands of current economic situation and improvements in many government pension systems.

Accepting that UN pension fund has to work within its financial means and capacity, it does not require rocket science to prove (my information is that the Actuarial Committee has already positively proved this) that extending full-pension after commutation period will not result in any unmanageable drain on its asset value and financial strength in fulfilling its commitments for years to come - even assuming every retiree is going to live beyond 100 years of age. Also, this should ensure equity and fairness among all retirees once the 1/3 lump sum has been recovered in full with interest.

Any enlightened human mind looking at the UNJSPF rule 28(g) will see how deceitful, one-sided, and insidious that such a rule was written by some convoluted minds of past century. For example:
1. When mentioning about commutation, the basis of commutation should have been mentioned and philosophy behind such payment;

2. If the commutation is on basis of no. of years/months, the rule has to make it clear what happens if the retiree lives beyond that no. of years/months;

3. Just asking to accept commutation or standard annual payment (divided into monthly parts) is obviously conceited way of saying that “you are done for life”;

4. UNJSPF would accept payment to validate the non-contributory years (as long as it comes with interest), but will not say anything about its own responsibility to restore the full pension if the retiree lives beyond the anticipated actuarial age (maybe he/she has NO right live beyond that time – may be a Hitlerian doctrine!).


Many of us who want to foster “one world one people” know that it is a tough challenge to tame the global Goliath called UN/UNJSPF, who is covered by so many immunity shields, and does not provide any level playing field to its civil servants. See its incongruous existence:


1. The organization (with all its entities) are supposed to serve as models of governance and as model employer. Thanks to its so called immunities, most of the civilized world’s judicial institutions treat the organization more as a pariah than with the respect and reverence it should deserve, because its day-to-day governance model is so flawed and acts just as a platform for letting steam off for ego-centric self-righteous big-wigs, powers-that-be, and oil-rich-money-bags.
It is common knowledge that though the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights should remain as the basic “foundational constitution” of the system, many regulations and rules, conventions etc. of the UN entities, remain totally ultra vires. No judicial system can do anything because these guys are immune! Basically both the charter and UDHR are more for preaching to others, not for practising at home in its own conduct.


2. Its legislative and executive wings work more in collusion than with any kind of independence and professional integrity necessary to make both these arms of governance stronger, ensuring transparency, accountability and answerability to the public at large.


3. Talking about the administrative judicial system, lesser said the better – because what one often finds to his/her dismay is that both the prosecutor and judge are the same genre mindset. If anyone has grievance against the system, he is done and cannot go anywhere outside of this vicious circle.

4. In a true democratic governance, we have a fourth pillar called “independent media”.
In the case of scrutinizing UN governance, the media’s role is so comical – nothing written/published about its functioning will be of any great impact except for your own amusement and nothing is going to change unless it can be willed by the UN system itself – law unto themselves.
********

You may then wonder why I have taken the trouble to write all this at my “70+ not out state”, the answer is just my moral calling, hoping that UN and its entities will ONE DAY become TRUE MODELS OF HUMAN GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT. It is not important I should be alive to see that day, as long as the future generation witnesses the human evolution in tune with natural justice and humane attributes (as I learnt in my Indian vedic tradition of thousand years vintage, that is happily finding its meaningful life-purpose in the western world educational and human-development institutions, except UN!)
Jai Ho! God Bless,
V. Muthuswami/Chennai, India
(Camp: Escondido, CA, USA 92025)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:32:35 -0700
From: spsundaram2003@yahoo.ca
To: bajaj_baldev@hotmail.com
CC: ramnath.dore@gmail.com; vmuthuswami@gmail.com


Dear Sri Bajaj,

I have been trying to send an e-mail to Sri Muthuswami (in reply to messages) for the last 3 days without success. Everytime I get the response "message not sent due to connection problems". I am trying to send you a message as a new transaction. Hope it goes and Mr. Muthuswami also gets it..

You may think I am having cold feet, but I have been thinking bseriously. All of them (FAFICS, CAFICS, and now the WHO Retirees' Association et al) are wielding the same stick to beat you with. Art 28g of the UNJSPF Regulations which allow you to commute (interchange one for the other) a part of the annual standard rate of benefit for a lump sum and that holds good forever. They wouldn't even consider cogent, logical, even moral if not legal arguments we raise. I am afraid AFUNPI next month will probably play the same tune. The Sec.Gen , a slave to his bureaucratic Assistants (advisers?) and the indebted Member Governments, will most probably wash his hands off with the excuse that the Rule is unfortunately clearly spelt out. So, I wonder whether it is worth spending all our time and money in try to reach the "Moon" and get solace? And after a negative vote from the Sec.Gen where can we go and who do we appeal to?

All said and done, I think the only way is to contest that blasted Rule itself as unfair, illegitimate in not being in conformity with the universal practice, unconscionable in the light of the Canadian Courts in a parallel case, immoral and unbecoming for a UN institution, illogical on the face of its own actuaries' recommendation etc. Yes, we have many, many (and no doubt, you and our friends have more, not to mention what the clever lawyers would think of) arguments to blast the gang and vestablish that their Rule can't be valid, legal or moral. We have to gear ourselves to that avenue and prepare our case.

I have a faint ray of hope that we confront the CEO for his impropriety in not following the Pension Board-sanctioned Rule 43 and as he administratively fouled things up he is dutybound to rectify with the only logical administrative decision to stop all deductions (after full recovery of our indebtedness) and restitute our full benefit. He may, although I don't have much hope, relent and see wisdom in taking the easier and more conscionable option (not going to the Board, UNGA and any meddling body else) and agree to our petition. Already, half a dozen beneficiaries have sent their individual appeals to him, and if we can mount this letter-writing campaign and drown him in hundreds of such personal appeals, he certainly would have to take cognicence; if he doesn't that is another argument to be adduced by us in the class action suit.

Sorry to be such a pessimist, but the reality unfortunately is hitting us.

Kindest regards,

Sandy Sundaram
*******S

State of Health Research - Cancer Update

AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY . Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime.
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumours.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and ! damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply. WHAT CANCER CELLS FEED ON:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells . Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal,Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells are being starved .
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled wate! r is acidic, avoid it.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering.. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-essence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor.. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising da ily , and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life.
*******

Civil-service Pension Schemes Around the World

Civil-service Pension Schemes Around the World

(Please refer to the above site to understand some of the aspects of civil service pension around the world)