Latest update September 1st, 2026 10:27 AM
Latest News
- ExxonMobil assures investors Guyana’s profits will decline to finance future projects
- China hits back at U.S. official over criticism of Chinese projects in Guyana
- Leaking classrooms, no furniture greet hinterland children
- Trump vows to hit Iran hard after first exchanges of fire in a month
- WIN takes its movement to New York
I agree and disagree with Peeping Tom
Dear Editor,
Peeping Tom’s missive of 23rd January 2026, under caption “Why targeted cash grants make sense” made some well taught out and reasonable arguments that I found easy to agree with. However, I will make some comments and voice disagreements.
I agree with the Peeper’s observation that targeted cash grants can be useful and indeed necessary. However, I reluctantly support this method of responding to the plight of needy groups. The thing is, that cash grants are easily and usually politicised here in Guyana, thus under minding our people developing a sense of having a right to the wealth of Guyana. A good example was/is the “because we care” grant which the Government does not cease to portray as an act indigestive of its paternalism and benevolence. This is not a mindset I want our people to inculcate.
Our people must see these grants as a right. For, me increasing salaries, so that workers can feel the pride of taking care of their families through their earned wages and increasing pensions are better ways of reducing poverty and undermining citizens cultivating a sense of benevolence.
The peeper’s argument that these one-time grants should be for persons living in Guyana since they “contribute to the economy daily” is not acceptable to me. I live in the USA and since being in Guyana is a qualifying criterion and since I am not likely to visit Guyana in the foreseeable future, I do not personally have a stake in these grants. However, I cannot see how persons who have lived and worked in Guyana for sometimes 40 to 50 years during the days when resources were not available, should not share in its present relative abundance today, simply because of their address.
Finally, let me say something about an issue the Peeper did not raise, but has relevance to the issue of poverty reduction and elevation which is at the crux of this discourse. Since the PPP’s return to government in 2021, large numbers of NIS pensioners have been denied any percentage increase in their pension. This I find heartless and unacceptable in a country hailed as the fastest growing economy in the world. A significant percentage of the self-employed and workers in the private sector do not receive workers’ pensions after their working days are behind them.
Generally, it is the little these workers are able to save coupled with the NIS pension that these ex -workers rely on. So, why is government so willing over these years, to not offer these workers a percentage increase on their NIS pension what makes them less deserving?
Further, on this immediately above matter, the peeper did argue for persons receiving less than $150, 000 per month to be seen as qualifying for this $100,000 grant. I read in this figure that the Peeper sees this $150,000 as the barest of minimum for people to survival on (not live on) in Guyana today. If this is so I would suggest that where the NIS pensions are concerned that all those receiving less than the said amount should qualify for yearly percentage increase in their pensions.
Your truly,
Claudius Prince
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
