Arguments for and against a cash transfer
Dear Editor,
The call for the government of the day to distribute as cash part of its oil proceeds seems to have as its genesis a real urgency to assuage the looming economic and social crisis that is and has been for the longest while, suffocating the ordinary Guyanese. In articulating the arguments for and against a cash distribution, I for one, sitting far away will not brush aside the need for immediate relief of the anguished seven thousand sugar workers who with the swipe of a pen lost their daily bread when they were laid off en masse - it is important to note that the champion of the idea to distribute cash, is our eminent economist Dr. Clive Thomas, the same economist who was part of the management apparatus that laid off those seven thousand Guyanese workers. I am sure that many of those workers would agree with me that Dr. Thomas could have timed those layoffs so that the social safety net (the cash) could have broken their fall - onto cold hard times. But getting back to the method of distributing the unbaked pie, as we say, cash is king and giving a Linden-based farmer money so he can buy a car to bring his produce to Bourda market is not a pie in the sky proposal, it makes a difference to the food he eats, the clothes he wears and the mood he
is in when he interacts with his family and his neighbours - it is an immediate boost to his wellbeing, his family’s wellbeing and a boon to the much flaunted social cohesion. I can also see the other side of the argument, what about nation building, refurbishing our beleaguered educational system, what about making the streets and homes safe, an end to blackouts, paved streets, an end to poor services from public departments, horrible healthcare, and the list goes on? The answer lies partially in an effective, efficient and innovative public service that is representative of all Guyanese and one that serves those Guyanese with competence, excellence, efficiency and impartiality. While these abilities come with an educated public service, it is not a sufficient condition. Values such as representativeness and impartiality would have to be invoked by a constitution that demands it; and an executive that supports it. The complexity of our socio-ethnic makeup demands that rules be in place, as high standards in the public service could possibly set the standards for the society as a whole to act cohesively and demonstrate that one tide lifts us all.
Neither the current administration nor its predecessor has given the public service serious thought. Our society is a victim of a weak constitution, a constitution that may have not contemplated the complexities of multiple stakeholders and complex economic systems. It takes nimble thinking and the will to be transformative to tackle a multifaceted problem. While the proponents of spending of the bonanza money on schools may have a point, the other side will say why? To educate people to do more of the same? The side preferring the cash payment may have little confidence in pouring more good water into a leaky vessel, this is a telling vote of no confidence in our leadership since independence - but can you blame them?
Yours faithfully, Jagdesh Singh Toronto