AFC Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan says that he felt betrayed on Wednesday after learning that APNU was retreating from plans to vote for budget cuts if the explanation by government for spending was unreasonable.
In a searing internal e-mail to party executives, seen by Stabroek News, Ramjattan spoke of how he was “furious and distraught” after speaking with APNU leader David Granger on Wednesday and noticed that he had made his mind up not to support the proposed cuts.
The AFC proposed cutting $3.8 billion in spending from the budget but attempts to make cuts were defeated after APNU members of parliament withheld their votes and the government voted against it.
Ramjattan, in outlining the events, said that APNU has “not behaved as consistently and with the integrity I thought they would.” He noted that the budget was criticized by both AFC and APNU and it was to be supported only with major amendments. “To make the amendments happen, as we argued during the course of the Debate, we had to propose certain cuts in both Current and Capital Expenditures, among other things,” he said.
The AFC Chairman said that senior officials of GPL and GuySuCo were earning over US$12,000 and US$6,000 per month, respectively, while other PPP officials were earning fat paychecks in a number of ministries and agencies. He said that he had written to Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh requesting information on the top 25 paid contract employees of a number of ministries but got no response.
Ramjattan said that chartered accountant Christopher Ram helped identify the proposed cuts, which were shared with Granger, as well as APNU executives Joseph Harmon and Carl Greenidge. “Now it was made very clear by me that before we vote for any cuts we will ask serious questions on the line item to be cut, and if the answers given by the Minister were reasonable we will not cut,” Ramjattan wrote. “I indicated that this was a discretion to be exercised by both parties. Granger specifically said Greenidge will make that call. I indicated I will make that call for the AFC. Once there was unity that the explanations were not sufficient to ground an approval for that line item we would proceed to call for a division of the House and vote for the cut as proposed.”
Ramjattan recalled that Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman, on Tuesday, met with the three parties after the notice of amendment of proposed cuts was circulated in the House. He said that APNU and the AFC were adamant that the budget cannot be supported as it was. PPP/C Chief Whip Gail Teixeira eventually asked that they put their core demands in writing.
The AFC wanted government to reduce the 16% VAT by 2%, costing $4.2 billion; increase old age pensions to $10 000 costing $750 million; reduce personal income tax by 3.33 % costing $1.5 billion; establish the Procurement Commission costing $100 million; suspend the decision to increase the Linden electricity tariff costing $2.9 billion, all totalling $9.5 billion.
Ramjattan said that on Thursday, Trotman invited him and Moses Nagamootoo to a meeting with APNU officials, including Granger, Greenidge, Harmon, Rupert Roopnaraine and another official. “We were told that my Notice of Proposed Amendment had created huge concerns and the proposed cuts to contract employees may not be a thing APNU may want to support. Rupert asked me to withdraw it as he felt that the PPP will not be so adamant and intractable if I did and they may grant some concessions,” Ramjattan said.
“I asked him whither he got that information from. He said he just felt so instinctively. I suspected he wanted to back out from this journey into uncharted waters. He insisted that withdrawing was the only way out,” he said. The AFC Chairman said that he urged that the proposed amendment go through while Roopnaraine urged that it be withdrawn but he was adamant that this would not be done and left.
Ramjattan said that on his way out he met AFC executive David Patterson and was informed that APNU had met President Donald Ramotar earlier that morning and may have had talks with the PPP/C the previous evening. “I went back into the room and asked Granger very directly whether he had a meeting with Ramotar. He seemed surprised at my question, hesitated and then answered in the affirmative. I then suspected a betrayal of some sort,” Ramjattan said.
“I then asked Granger why this change. He said his Parliamentarians had not gotten time to study the proposed amendments as they had gotten it late. I urged that they will deal with it as each item comes up. I reminded him that we were going to ask pertinent questions and if we were dissatisfied with the answers, only then will the cuts be made. He, I noticed, was with a mind already made up of not supporting the proposed cuts. He offered that there may be more gains with an engagement with the PPP. I said I respected his position and then left the room with Moses,” he recalled.
A “furious and distraught” Ramjattan met other AFC officials and proposed that they vote on at least one item which was not properly accounted for or explained by the relevant Minister. “This was to test APNU and to show them out for what they are.” That night there was one item for which there was a proposed cut. It was an $18 million item for security services for the home of Housing Minister Irfaan Ally and that of his permanent secretary. The cost was up from only $1.8 at the end of 2010. The AFC proposed that the $18M be cut by half and voted in support, APNU abstained and the PPP voted against. The PPP’s seats ensured that the amendment was defeated and the $18 million was approved.
Ramjattan said that Thursday’s announcement that APNU agreed to incremental tariff increases for Lindeners in an apparent exchange for TV licences for Lindeners “left me so mad.”
“So what is this? The Government does not give a bailout to Lindeners and the APNU sellout? This is what we have come to? Is this the content of this new dispensation?” said Ramjattan. On the same matter in the correspondence, Patterson said that: “Granger and crew are playing a dangerous game. On Wednesday I asked my former colleagues what happens if the PPP goes not honor their side of this deal, if Granger will come running back to the AFC for support, they of course could not answer.”
