In his closing address to the National Assembly on the budget debate that concluded just before 1 am yesterday, Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh said he found it difficult to take criticisms of the budget seriously.
Following on the heels of Opposition Leader Robert Corbin’s budget presentation, Singh said he got the feeling that the opposition parliamentarians did not have much to comment on in the budget and so they spent a lot of time raising baseless arguments that tended to destroy whatever meritorious suggestions they made during the course of their presentations.
In a lengthy speech that took the National Assembly past the midnight hour, the minister chided the leader of the opposition for his presentation which, he said, saw Corbin and his colleague Winston Murray using the names of past budget documents as content and therefore it seemed the opposition leader was playing for time.
Nevertheless he acknowledged that there were some useful suggestions as he detected some criticisms of merit but fundamental flaws negated those that had potential to be taken seriously.
Singh pointed out that in his view there was distortion of numbers, vacillation on issues, and a resort to innuendos which was reflected in overused and rejected arguments.
One of the first arguments he targeted were those put forward by PNCR-1G parliamentarian Basil Williams who, he said, manipulated the numbers with regard to budget estimates. He pointed to Williams’ statements that the government got a windfall as a result of the replacement of six taxes with the Value Added Tax (VAT) and could therefore address increasing salaries.
Making reference to the budget estimates, Singh said he did not know how Williams could have come up with an $8 billion windfall when the figures in the budget estimates proved otherwise.
He pointed to the presentation of PNCR-1G parliamentarian Keith Scott who he said made a good presentation focused on serious issues with regard to debt relief but fell short when he forgot all his previous rigorous comments to say that during the period of PNC rule they never made those mistakes. The minister said this was disappointing, as no one on the government side would make statements imputing that they did no wrong.
Focusing on the World Bank report quoted by AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan, the finance minister highlighted the fact that it was a draft report and addressed several positive aspects of Guyana’s economy in comparison to a number of other Latin American countries such as Honduras and Nicaragua. The report, he said, noted the relative ease with which businesses could be registered and that there was less governmental obstruction here, among other things. Singh contended that Ramjattan could not use one part of the report and forget about the other areas.
Corbin in his presentation knocked the budget saying it was an acknowledgement of the failure of the ruling party to achieve the lofty objectives set in past presentations.
Pointing out the trends in GDP growth over the PPP’s term in office, the opposition leader said Guyana would probably achieve the goals set out in 2110 instead of 2011. He questioned among other things how employment and increased salaries could be realized based on this year’s budget.
Corbin later stated that credit must be given where it is due in relation to Singh’s debut budget presentation, adding that the PNCR-1G would not do anything to thwart the developments set out in the budget. He said the party welcomed and supported any programme to bring development to Guyana. For instance, he said, if jobs could be provided for all that would be good for everyone.
However, he noted, the policies in place did not seem to make it possible to achieve certain aims such as 40 bags of rice per acre in the agricultural sector. Corbin also remarked that unlike what the ruling party expected, the job of the opposition was to criticize and they would continue to do that when necessary. He advised that when the opposition criticized, government ministers should take notes and go back to their ministries to check whether the criticisms had merit.
Corbin also stated that dictatorial tendencies were creeping into the administration’s approach to governance. Though members of the ruling party have voiced certain platitudes and invitations to work together, Corbin noted the protracted period before the two parties were in a position to sign a communiqu
