Could this year’s budget see a reduction?...APNU ready to go as far as Caribbean Court of Justice

Could this year’s budget see a reduction?…APNU ready to go as far as Caribbean Court of Justice

Mar 31, 2013 News

– “This Budget is Contentious to the plight of the poor”- Greenidge

By Abena Rockcliffe
This year again, both parliamentary opposition parties have signaled their intention to slash the estimates presented in the budget.
Following last year’s budget cut of $20.8B, the government had moved to the court for it to have the “last say.” The court had ruled in its favour with the Chief Justice giving the verdict that the joint parliamentary opposition could have either passed or voted down the Budget; but cutting was not an option.

APNU’s Shadow Finance Minister, Carl Greenidge

However both opposition parties remain adamant that the law provides for parliament to have the last say on Budget estimates.
In his introductory speech of the budget presentation, the Minister of Finance noted that last year, he “urged the prevailing of rational and meritocratic considerations, the identification of sensible and practical solutions, the avoidance of short term choices that compromise long term imperatives, the defence of that which is fair and just, and the most steadfast adherence to serving the national interest at all times.”
He added, “With the benefit of one year of experience since, those words seem even more prescient than I would have dared to think.”
However, at a subsequent press conference, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)’s shadow Finance Minister, Carl Greenidge, responding to a question relating to whether or not the party is gearing for budget cuts, said, “We will not be a toothless opposition.”
In reference to the Chief Justice’s ruling, the former minister said, “No one judge in Guyana has the final say.” He expanded on his point saying that the laws of Guyana are there to govern and as he stood firm in his position that the opposition has a right to cut, Greenidge noted that persons may interpret or choose to intercept the law differently.
Greenidge sought to remind that all decisions handed down by a Chief Justice are subject to an appeal that may be taken as far as the Caribbean Court of Justice.
According to him, the move to have the court sanction on such a matter is a means of questioning the powers of parliament.
Greenidge contended, “If a parliament approves 10 cents for a government to spend, no chief justice can say to spend 11. If there is a perception that we must be a toothless opposition then we need not meet.”
A reduction in the Value Added Tax (VAT) was one of the requests made by the APNU. However, at a press conference the night he presented the budget, the Finance Minister had stated that a reduction in VAT will more serve to benefit for the rich than the poor.
He said that most of the things a low income earner would purchase are zero rated so the money they would save from a VAT reduction in two months is equivalent to what the rich would save having one meal at “the Pegasus or Marriott.”
However, Greenidge referred to that as “jumbie economics”, calling it obscure and indefinable.
Greenidge said that the poor generally don’t care how much the rich saves since but would like to know that they are saving as well.
He added that if the poor saves $2000 a month that $2000 would be of greater significance to the poor than it is to the rich; “this budget is contentious to the plight of the poor.”
He went on to highlight that the government speaks of “Equal access, when members of the public sector is subject to a lie detector test but no such policy is implemented for government Ministers.”
“They speak of equitable treatment when they grant radio licences to their friends, the PPP is still to submit names for procurement commission, and these are some of the broader problems.”
Photo saved as: cut

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News