Dear Editor,
I am deeply disappointed with the Stabroek News editorial of August 2, 2023, captioned “Third anniversary of PPP/C gov’t.” This overtly biased editorial is another glaring example confirming that Stabroek New’s modus operandi is to condemn the government even if publicly available and verifiable facts contradict the newspaper’s views/opinions.
In the editorial, the author created the false impression that ‘sporadic handouts’ were the only measure implemented by the government to tackle the rising cost of living. For the author to make, such a claim means that he/she is either ignorant of the work this government did over the last three years or patently dishonest.
Since assuming office in 2020, the government immediately implemented a suite of measures to safeguard the well-being of the citizens who suffered significant losses in income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and five months election impasse.
In the first 100 days in office, the government distributed a one-off cash grant to every household in the country, made a one-off payment to all public servants, granted a two week tax-free bonus to frontline workers and the joint services, and re-hired the Community Service Officers (CSOs).
Simultaneously, the government successfully negotiated with commercial banks to wavier loan payments and reduce interest rates by up to 2 percent for loans and credit card customers. To complement these initiatives, the government reversed the 200 burdensome taxes imposed by the previous government to fulfill its Manifesto promise. In its report “Headwinds Facing Post-Pandemic Recovery in the Caribbean” the IDB praised the Government for implementing these measures.
In subsequent budgets, the government continued to implement numerous initiatives to boost the disposable income of citizens. The most notable initiatives were the payment of a one-off cash grant to households in hinterland and riverain communities, a one-off cash grant to fisherfolks, reemployed the CSO, recruited part-time workers in various regions, reintroduced the one-one tax-free bonus to the Disciplined Services, Because We Care Cash grant, and introduced a $100,000 cash grant for each child with a disability and $600,000 grant to dialysis patients and increased Public Assistance and Old Age Pension as promised in its Manifesto.
Additionally, the Government implemented several supply-side measures to tame cost-push inflation which were due to exogenous factors such as the Russia-Ukraine war and Global Supply Chain challenges. The menu of measures included freight cost adjustment to pre-pandemic levels ($10.8 billion), lowering of excise tax on fuel ($17 billion), maintaining water and electricity tariffs, and distribution of fertilizers to over 5,000 farmers ($1 billion).
The Government removed VAT and duties on machinery and equipment to allow for the recapitalization of key sectors including mining, forestry, agriculture, and manufacturing. Coupled with the granting of tax concessions for mining, forestry, manufacturing, and agriculture, served to stimulate supply-side response in bolstering production in the real sectors.
The Government also reversed land lease fees imposed by the previous administration, back to the position it was in 2014 and removed Value Added Tax on agro-chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, and key inputs in the poultry sector, all contributing to the overarching goal of bringing relief to the lives of ordinary citizens, stimulating economic activity, increasing the country’s productive capacity, reducing the cost of doing business and facilitating the growth and development of businesses.
These measures successfully contained inflation to single digits and well below most countries in the world. For the editorial’s author to deliberately ignore the initiatives aforementioned initiatives and highlight the ‘payouts’ is totally misleading.
Even more disappointing than the half-truth presented by the author regarding the Government’s effort to combat rising cost of living, was his/her views on the Government’s investment in infrastructure.
There is consensus among academics and policymakers that the infrastructure gap is a major constraint to the competitiveness of the local economy. Indeed, if Guyana is to compete with the rest of the world, this constraint must be relaxed through investment in infrastructure projects aimed at improving the country’s Logistic Performance Index.
Equally important is the fact that investment provides both short and long-term benefits. In the short-term, investment in infrastructure create jobs and business opportunities for suppliers of building materials. Further, the investments in roads and bridges are aimed at opening-up lands for economic activities and residential purposes (50,000 houselots promised by the Government).
Infrastructure projects also generate positive externalities. For example, new roads and bridges significantly improve the value of properties and create wealth for property owners permanently.
It is important to note that the investment in infrastructure by the Government was not limited to roads and bridges but hospitals, schools, sports facilities, the water and sanitation, and electricity sectors.
These investments include the six Regional Hospitals, a new Specialised Pediatric and Maternal Hospital, upgrade and expansion of the existing healthcare facilities, construction of new schools and expansion of existing schools, construction of PV Mico-Micro Grid Systems, small hydros, development of the Gas-to-Shore project, investment in new Generators, expansion and modernization of the sports facilities, construction of water treatment plants, well and expansion water distribution networks.
Mr. Editor, the PPP/C was voted into office because it promised to make these investments. Now that the PPP/C is in Government, it is merely delivering these promises, which will ensure every Guyanese enjoys world-class health care, education, and other social services.
Mr. Editor, it would take me more than one letter to list and explain the benefits of these investments. I am sure, however, that it would be reasonable to assume that the average Guyanese deserves and will benefit from better roads, bridges, health, education, sports, and recreational facilities and more reliable and cheaper electricity.
Regards,
Kevin Persaud
