Watch the PPPC like a hawk!

Jun 22, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – A curious silence has greeted what ought to be one of the most debated economic announcements of the year. President Irfaan Ali has indicated that bonds will be issued to members of the Guyanese diaspora, allowing them to invest in major infrastructure projects in Guyana.

One would have expected a national conversation. Instead, there has been little more than a shrug. Yet the proposal raises fundamental questions about the direction of economic policy, the management of our oil wealth, and the government’s stated commitment to broad-based prosperity.

The first question is straightforward: why bonds?

A bond is not a gift. It is not an investment by government. A bond is debt. When a government issues a bond, it is borrowing money and undertaking a legal obligation to repay that money with interest. In effect, the government is saying to investors: lend us your money today and we will pay you back tomorrow, with a return.

That immediately raises an obvious question. Why is an oil-rich country borrowing money to finance infrastructure?

Guyana is not a nation starved of resources. We are among the fastest-growing economies in the world. Every year, substantial revenues flow into the Natural Resource Fund from oil production. The government is already withdrawing billions of dollars from that fund annually to finance roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, energy projects and other infrastructure.

If oil revenues are already financing infrastructure, why the need for borrowing?

Is there a financing gap? Is there a cash-flow challenge? Is government seeking to accelerate spending beyond what current revenues permit? Is the objective to diversify financing sources? Or is there another explanation entirely? Is it a means to enrich friends of the government in the diaspora?

The public deserves clear answers.

What makes the proposal even more puzzling is that it appears to depart from an earlier vision articulated by the President himself. We were told that government intended to create investment instruments through which ordinary Guyanese could participate directly in the country’s development. The President spoke of citizens being able to co-invest in national projects and benefit from the returns generated by those investments.

The language was compelling. Economic growth would not merely be observed by citizens; they would participate in it. Wealth creation would be extended to ordinary households. That was an important promise.

Yet the first major investment instrument now being discussed appears to be directed primarily at the diaspora. Why?

What is the economic rationale for giving the first opportunity to those who reside abroad rather than those who live and work in Guyana every day?

Why should a teacher in New Amsterdam, a nurse in Linden, a sugar worker in Berbice or a public servant in Georgetown have to stand at the back of the line while investment opportunities are extended first to overseas Guyanese?

Surely the principle should be inclusion, not preference.

Indeed, one might reasonably argue that if the government’s objective is genuinely to democratise wealth creation, resident Guyanese should be the first beneficiaries. After all, hundreds of thousands of citizens maintain savings accounts in local banks where their money earns negligible interest. Many pensioners, teachers, police officers, public servants and sugar workers possess modest savings that could be productively invested if suitable instruments were made available.

Why not create a national savings bond programme specifically designed for them? Why not establish a mechanism through which ordinary Guyanese can invest small amounts and receive a reasonable return linked to the nation’s economic growth? Why not allow every citizen an equal opportunity to own a small stake in the country’s future?

There is another concern.

Guyana has previously experienced controversial bond issuances. A former finance minister has alleged that during one period of liquidity constraints, approximately $1 billion in bonds were issued at an extraordinarily high interest rate of 20 percent. According to his account, the entire issue was acquired by a single corporate entity which earned approximately $400 million over two years.

The episode illustrates a broader danger. Investment opportunities that are supposedly created in the public interest can quickly become concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy players unless safeguards are established. That lesson should not be forgotten.

If bonds are to be issued, there should be strict limits on concentration. The objective should be widespread participation, not the creation of another lucrative avenue for those already possessing substantial capital.

A cap on individual subscriptions would therefore be worth considering. Such a measure would ensure that the benefits are broadly distributed rather than monopolised by a small group of affluent investors, whether they reside in Guyana or overseas.

The central issue is not whether the diaspora should be allowed to invest. Of course, they should. The diaspora has contributed enormously to Guyana through remittances, expertise and advocacy. The real question is why they appear to be first in line.

In a country that has repeatedly spoken about inclusive prosperity, shared wealth and people-centred development, the first call should be directed inward before it is directed outward.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• economic announcements, Peeping Tom, PPPC, President Irfaan Ali

---