Critique of the government must be consistent

Apr 16, 2025 Letters

Dear Editor,

It’s easy to talk about policy from behind a desk, to frown at a policy announcement and call it irresponsible. Harder, I imagine, is sitting at a kitchen table in the backdam with your teenage son, telling him you can’t afford for him to write eight subjects this year.

The Stabroek News editorial titled “Eight Subjects free”, published on April 14, implies that the government’s move to cover up to eight CXC and CAPE subjects for every student is reckless, uncosted, and politically suspect. But while cloaked in the language of prudence, the editorial is built largely on flawed reasoning, double standards, and a selective application of scrutiny.

The first misstep is the editorial’s reliance on the “argument from silence”—concluding that because the President’s announcement did not include an itemized fiscal breakdown or reference to a parliamentary motion, the policy must lack planning. This is an unsubstantiated leap. Policy announcements often precede the publication of technical documentation or supplementary budgetary procedures. Suggesting otherwise, without evidence, amounts to conjecture.

The editorial then invokes a “slippery slope argument”, warning that increased access to examinations may dilute results if “less able students” sit more subjects. This line of reasoning is speculative, yes, but it also carries dangerous undertones. It implies that broader inclusion threatens academic standards, as if ambition extended to poorer students somehow undermines national outcomes. That is not analysis; it is an elitist narrowing of who deserves to strive.

Another fallacy emerges in the form of a “false dilemma.” By pointing to issues such as teacher migration, interior underfunding, and infrastructural inequality, the editorial implies that no effort should be made to reduce student costs until all systemic challenges are resolved. But improving access and enhancing quality are not mutually exclusive. The government’s policy does not replace broader reform—it complements it.

Perhaps most revealing, however, is the editorial’s descent into ad hominem (circumstantial) reasoning. It suggests, without evidence, that the decision was driven by electioneering or a desire for personal glorification. Even if political benefits follow, as they often do with good policy, that does not invalidate the value or necessity of the intervention. To impugn motive without disproving merit is a rhetorical sleight of hand, not a substantive critique.

What undermines Stabroek News’s position most, however, is the evident inconsistency with its own past editorials. In August 2021, the paper praised direct cash transfers to flood-affected farmers. In January 2024, it advocated for the expansion of the Because We Care and uniform grants. In neither case did it demand feasibility studies, parliamentary debates, or concerns about fiscal sustainability. Back then, urgency and dignity were enough. Now, the same principles are rebranded as populism.

One cannot help but ask: what changed?

The reality is this: covering exam fees for students across Guyana—public and private, coast and hinterland—is not a handout. It is a levelling of the playing field. It is a quiet act of justice for parents who, year after year, have had to choose which dreams their children can afford.

That such a move might also build public trust is not a flaw. It is, in fact, a sign that good policy is doing its job.

No government should be above critique. But the critique must be consistent. When Stabroek News applauds direct support in one instance and condemns it in another—on the same grounds it previously ignored—its editorial voice begins to sound less principled and more partisan.

This country’s children deserve more than our suspicion. They deserve our belief—in their ability, their ambition, and their right to opportunity unchained from cost.

Sincerely,

Alfonso De Armas

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News