Dear Editor,
The PPP/C has always viewed and used the budget as an economic tool for managing available resources to meet the needs of our people in communities across our country. In this regard, the PPP/C government continually provided opportunities for the people and their leaders including private groupings such as the churches, women’s groups, private sector and the various chambers of commerce to express their views individually, collectively and through their leaders as we worked with the parties to identify and prioritize the needs of our people in pursuit of their livelihood goals.
Thus, resource allocation through the instrument of the budget was always for the PPP/C government primarily a function of expressed needs, the estimated cost of satisfying those needs, available resources, the opportunity costs and the ability of those who manage these resources to effectively and efficiently utilize the resources.
A check of our annual national and regional budgetary allocations from 1993 to 2015 provides no empirical evidence of discrimination by the PPP/C in the allocation of resources on the basis of political affiliation or ethnicity to the ten administrative regions of Guyana and to the municipalities and neighbourhood democratic councils situated therein.
Indeed, I wish to assert that a check of these budgetary allocations during our period of governance would evidence that the then local government bodies and areas from which the then opposition derived its main support, received an equal share of the resources having regard to what resources were available at the time, the priortised needs of the communities and the ability of the communities to efficiently manage the available resources. Furthermore, opportunities to access and to share resources were always available to all.
I invite our readers to check and analyse the available data drawn from our national budgets from 1993 to 2015, our allocation of grants and subventions to local authorities and other resource allocations to communities and local authority areas with respect to the beneficiaries of the improvements in terms of infrastructure, social services, the economy, in addition to the quality of livelihood in our country over the past two decades and to examine how the resources and concomitant improvements were shared.
Who benefited from improvements in education delivery and health care? Were the benefits confined to a particular ethnic group or supporters of a particular political party? Were the beneficiaries not residents across the ten administrative regions? Would it not be a fair comment if I said that each community, over the period of governance of the PPP/C received a significant level of social development, viz, schools, trained teachers, health centres, doctors, nurses, medexes, health workers, beneficiaries of government funded or sponsored scholarships; new roads and airstrips, etc?
The PPP and the PPP/C have always sought to enhance the well-being of the Guyanese people, not a few or a particular group. Who benefited from increased allocation of resources? Check the occupancy of our housing schemes; the communities that benefited from extended and improved water supplies, roads, electricity, bridges. Not only have those who reside in the various loci benefited, but also those who must traverse the areas and who were involved in their actual construction.
It is apparent that the significant improvements which the PPP/C’s policies, programmes, plans and projects brought to Guyana as a result of restored confidence in our economy allowed also for restored confidence in the banking system with concomitant reduced interest rates on loans including mortgage loans and hire purchase, and made it possible for many to access loans which they used to acquire their own cars, house lots, houses, etc. Citizens should ask the question whether their life in May 2015 was better or worse than it was in October 1992? Many from each of the ten administrative regions would answer this question in the positive; that is, if they are honest and a friend of the truth.
I invite anyone to check the cumulative annual increases in budgetary allocations as per administrative region under their Capital and Current Estimates during the calendar years 1993 to 2015. Note the annual increased allocation of resources and the administrative regions which benefited. Then compare that with what has happened thus far under the APNU+AFC. Is there any justification for the decline in allocations which is very much evident in the administrative regions which the PPP/C won at the recent general and regional elections? A fresh approach? Perhaps. To the good life? Certainly not.
Why would a government remove from its national budget, programmes that create employment and provide skills and income to several thousands of young people? How does a budget that is obviously poor on job creation qualify as the ‘Good Life Budget?’ What provision is there to create employment for the thousands (most highly qualified/trained) whose services were terminated at the Office of the President and One Laptop per Family, as well as the permanent secretaries and regional executive officers?
When one examines the budget as an instrument for fighting poverty and improving the quality of life of the Guyanese people, we cannot but honestly agree that the 23 years of PPP/C rule provides an example of how this can be achieved. The key achievements of the PPP/C government include not only the improvements in terms of the nature, extent and quality of the social services, infrastructure expansion and economic improvements but also the geographic spread and distribution of these improvements across our ten administrative regions. In the process, we moved Guyana from the state it was in 1992 to one where its people were enjoying a better standard of living in May 2015. We managed our resources made available through the budget fairly, wisely and efficiently. Furthermore, we knew that real economic growth in a country came not vide mere taxation but from production of goods and services, productivity and job creation via investment. These are realities we must face.
Yours faithfully,
Norman Whittaker
