Bahrain Shura Council, Digi Mart USA News (Bahrain): Three bills to let sons draw a deceased parent’s pension until 24 instead of 22 face rejection after a Shura committee warned the extra payments would drain funds already spending more than they take in.
The bills, covering government, private sector and military pension schemes, will be debated and voted on by Shura Council members on Sunday. They would also let sons studying at university or in higher education keep receiving payments until 28 instead of 26, or until they finish their studies, whichever comes first.
But the Shura Services Committee has urged members to reject all three bills, arguing that pension funds cannot afford longer payouts without new sources of income. Sons already receiving pensions would gain another two years of payments, while the higher age limit would also widen the group entitled to support.
The Shura Financial and Economic Affairs Committee found no direct cost to the state budget but warned of higher spending by pension funds. How much higher remains unknown, as there were no detailed figures on the number of sons who would benefit, their monthly payments or the share of pension spending they already account for.
The Social Insurance Organisation (SIO) said the funds were still paying out more than they collected, according to its 2024 accounts. Reforms in 2020 and 2022 had bought the funds time, extending their lifespan by several years, but spending still outstripped income.
Another two years of pension payments would eat further into their finances.
The SIO called for an actuarial study to work out the long-term cost, assess how much the funds could bear and establish where the money would come from. It also argued that longer payments could discourage some young men from seeking jobs, leaving the funds without the contributions they would otherwise pay and the investment returns those sums could earn.
The Services Committee questioned the thinking behind the bills. Pensions, it argued, were meant to help those who could no longer earn a living, not provide an ongoing income for young men old enough to work.
In three reports dated November 8, it warned that extending payments without new funding would undo some of the gains made through earlier pension reforms and leave less money to meet future claims.
The Military Pension Fund also objected to the changes, agreeing with the government’s position. The three measures, previously passed by MPs, seek to amend Article 78 of the 1976 Social Insurance Law, Article 27 of the 1975 Government Retirement Law and Article 26 of the 1976 Military Retirement Law.
