Latest update January 1st, 2025 1:00 AM
Feb 16, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
‘Mouth tar and guitar are too different tars.’ This was old people’s way of saying that there is a difference between talking and doing; or, as we would say, ‘between talking the talk and walking the walk.’
We all, this columnist included, can justly be accused, at some time or the other, of staying on the sides and criticizing. But, had we been in the position of those whom we criticize, would we have done any better, or even any differently?
It is easy to say what is wrong, but far more difficult to say what should be done. And so, with the right to criticism should come also the obligation to offer alternatives.
There have been a number of criticisms of the 2009 Budget, and there will be much more, starting today in the National Assembly. But what would those criticizing have done differently had they been the one developing the budget?
Given the same challenge, the same constraints, and given that there are numerous competing needs for scarce resources, how would those criticizing the budget have fared if it were their job to present a budget?
I would certainly like to see an alternative budget developed, and I would urge the opposition parties to come together outside of Parliament to put together an alternative budget for this year for the country. I would like to see how different their budget would have been.
The main opposition has already called for an experts’ group to be formed to develop a national response to the global financial crisis. I believe this is an excellent solution which should be pursued; and if the Government does not do this, I would urge the opposition to assemble local experts to do this, since it is the responsibility of the opposition not just to criticize, but more fundamentally to offer alternative policies.
When the global financial crisis broke last year, the president indicated that he would summon a consultation with all stakeholders so as to develop a ‘firewall’ to insulate Guyana from its adverse effects. However, no sooner did the local financial sector advise that it did not have significant exposure within the troubled financial markets than the plan of developing a national response was put on pause.
There seems to have been a gross miscalculation on the part of the Government. It presumed, quite incorrectly, that Guyana was insulated from the fallout of capital markets because Guyana did not have significant investments in those markets. The Government seemed to have overlooked the interconnectedness of markets, and we are now seeing how the cash-flow problems of one single company in Trinidad, whose assets are far more than the GDP of Guyana, could directly affect companies in Guyana which are either subsidiaries of that company or in which the affected companies have significant shares.
We have a real problem in Guyana because of what is happening in Trinidad. The company, which the Trinidad Government is moving to take over, has a significant shareholding interest in Guyana, and therefore developments in Trinidad must be closely observed.
There is also bound to be other interconnected problems. The global financial crisis is going to affect global demand, and thus global prices; it is going to affect investment; it is going to affect labour. And therefore, it was a dereliction of the responsibility to the people of this country for the proposed stakeholder consultation to have been put on pause. We know where the buck on that one stops.
The budget itself seems clueless as to how to respond to the global financial crisis. The Government does not seem to know how the crisis will affect us, or what to do. They know something will happen, but they cannot predict what it is, and therefore they cannot plan for it.
And that is why the opposition, instead of calling on the Government to establish an experts’ group to advise on Guyana’s response to the global financial crisis, should cobble together such a group from local personnel, along with persons from overseas who have the expertise. (In today’s globalized world, this can be done without having to bring the experts physically together) to come up with a response to the crisis.
More importantly, all the opposition parties should develop, outside of the National Assembly, an alternative budget so that the people of Guyana — and who knows, even an intellectually bankrupt Government — can see how things can be done differently with a little bit of vision and imagination.
Dec 31, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports- In the rich tapestry of Guyanese sports, few names shine as brightly as Keevin Allicock. A prodigious talent with the rare blend of skill, charisma, and grit, Allicock...Kaieteur News- Guyana recorded just over 10,000 dengue cases in 2024, Health Minister Dr. Frank Anthony revealed during an... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]