Ram’s comments on the Budget lack objectivity

Jan 24, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
For a few years I have been reading the annual diatribe by junior Attorney, Christopher Ram, on the Budgets which the government has been tabling. This year I find that Ram’s comments have not changed from the usual lack of objectivity, professionalism, political attacks and political pandering. His comments have, however, especially since he had joined a political slate of candidates, spewed more vileness and venom.  Also since the assent of Dr. Ashni Singh to the post of Finance Minister, Christopher, Ram seems to have personally gone after him with an unusual amount of animosity and envy.
I decided to pen this piece because Ram cannot match up to the capacity and abilities of Dr. Singh and I feel he does not deserve to be even a sparring partner of the Minister of Finance. The credentials of Dr. Singh are impeccable. He has not only passed through the stage of Mr. Ram, but exceeded and excelled all the way to the top – nothing less was expected of this brilliant son of Guyana.
Dr. Singh has always been at the top, academically, of his cohort.  A few weeks ago at a popular social spot I ran into a gentleman (Mr. Michael Joseph) from St. Lucia, who mentioned to me how he started his Doctoral studies with the “bright and talented Ashni Singh”.
Dr. Singh has acquitted himself in all his stations and when asked to serve at the level of the Cabinet, has, in the last five years, delivered the goods, in an exemplary manner. He has produced budgets that have kept us on a growth path despite internal and external shocks to our economy – unprecedented spikes in food and oil prices in 2007, global financial meltdown and falling commodity prices in 2008 and 2009, an unrelenting opposition campaign to stop loans and assistance to Guyana and of course unpredictable climatic changes.
Ram’s contentions are that Dr. Ashni Singh’s numbers are unbelievable, his projections unattainable and paints a picture of our country that not only misrepresents our progress, but is dishonest at best. For example, Ram says that, “The Minister expects the nation to believe that the economy grew by 3.6%’.
I will answer him by quoting just two sources I Statement by an IMF Mission to Guyana Press Release No. 10/448 November 19, 2010, Therese Turner-
Jones, chief of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission to Guyana, released the following statement today in Georgetown:
“An IMF mission visited Guyana from Nov 8–18 to conduct the Fund’s yearly review of the Guyanese economy. Despite external and domestic shocks in 2010, Guyana’s economy has exhibited resilience, registering a fifth consecutive year of robust growth. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to grow by just under 4 percent this year, above the outturn in 2009, supported by increased activity in the sugar, gold, and services sectors. Notwithstanding downside risks, including the global environment and concerns in the sugar sector, the team expects growth to continue on a steady path, supported by expansion in the mining and construction sectors. Despite a small increase reflecting movement in food prices inflation remains relatively low.
ii. Excerpts from the Report of the Managing Director’s of Republic Bank (Guyana)
“… However, in spite of the contagious effects of the global financial crisis, developments in our country’s economy enabled the Bank to deliver strong returns to its stockholders. ….. an overall balance of payments surplus of US$34.6 million was recorded, while the Bank of Guyana increased its external reserve position from US$628 million at end 2009, to US$677 million at end June.  … Future Outlook – Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited takes confidence in the performance of the economy which has been commendable despite the setbacks of the sugar sector and the global economy”.
Ram also goes further with his incomplete and dishonest analysis, he says, “Contract employees continue to drive up employment cost while some traditional public servants earn monthly salaries equivalent to less than US$175 per month”.
Ram fails to remind the reader that in 2010 we moved all the cleaners, handypersons, drivers and lower level skills to contracted positions.  Thus, there will be an increase in this category of workers.
Ram also fails to tell the reader that the U$175 he is quoting is on the pay scale for the lowest level of staff in the public service and these are, now, all contracted workers.
Ram makes it sounds like the differential in corporation tax rates is something new. He now calls this tax policy an affront to the supreme law of the country. This differential has existed for decades. He knows that every country uses taxation, or lack of it, to discourage some activities and encourage others. SIN Taxes are a classical example.  So what is wrong if we would like to give an incentive to non-commercial activities in our economy? This differential was not created in this budget Chris. A bit dishonest on your part!
Then he does a broadside with the paint brush claiming,
“Several entities with a poor record of audit and accountability continue to receive huge subventions and in certain cases increases. Indeed so pervasive is this situation that only those entities whose audit are in arrears by more than five years are publicized”.
Name them. I say and speak with the Auditor General, he is responsible to Parliament for auditing and reporting on such, not the Government.
Lastly, I will deal with the issue of his comments on Supplementary Provisions by repeating from an earlier piece I published.
Supplementaries in the case of the PPP/C government do not mask the true picture of the government’s expenditure. Much misconceptions are created by critics and  it is made out as if, in addition to what has been approved in the budget, there are all these “wicked” other interventions – ie. Supplementaries.
The evidence shows something different. In spite of several supplementary papers, overall expenditure has been lower than what was projected.  For fiscal prudence we ensure that we do not balloon the budget. However, it makes for great sensationalism and political grandstanding.  As M P Nandalall would say ‘all fluff!’  Every government will have supplementaries. Why? –
1. Some programmes where there is faster implementation will require more money than was approved in the budget. This addition, for it to be spent, has to be approved by Parliament.  Foreign inflows are a case posit.
2. There may be some projects that are delayed and we would not be able to expend the approved resources. What do we do? Keep the bank accounts growing when our people need housing, better roads and social amelioration? This PPP/C government would wisely spend the available resources rather than save it. What in fact happens is that some projects are brought forward to replace those that are delayed.
The point is that there is no wild expenditure. If there are emergencies, for example blackouts to be fixed, we will fix it. If workers are laid off and we can help, we do it, if there is mechanical breakdown in ferries, we fix it. But look at the record – overall the total accrued expenditure generally is in line with projections in the budget.
I can do a line by line rebuttal of Mr. Ram’s budget comments here, but I only used a few examples, for I am sure that his mentors on the opposition benches will regurgitate his comments giving us much more space to deal with these comments.
I challenge Chris to come into the arena since from his perspective this government is so inept, has so mismanaged the state and his friends in the opposition are so noble and brilliant. The PNCR is looking for a leader come join them, test your theories.
Unlike the excellence of Dr. Singh, Chris’s claim to fame is as a critic.
Manzoor Nadir

---

---