Majority of poor households used monies small or large in a responsible way

Dear Editor,

Permit my brief response to Mr Anthony Pantlitz‘s letter published in the Monday, November 4, 2019 edition of the Stabroek News, under the caption: `Impressed with Professor Thomas but we still differ on cash transfer’.

Editor, your letter writer may have attended the WPA symposium on cash transfer to Guyanese households, held at the Critchlow Labour College a few months ago. I recognized him from the reasons, he gives for his opposition to the proposal. In a previous letter published in the SN (Oct 10, 2019) captioned, `Giving people free money never worked’, he had expressed the said position stated in his recent letter: “... From my experience growing up, I witnessed how my family behaved when we received large sums of money.” He continued, “My father used it to buy more alcohol, which led to him being more physically and verbally abusive to us. For my family, a large sum of money was a blessing and curse.” On the basis of this evidence, Mr Pantlitz’s family experience has a profound and lasting impression on him. I am in no position to challenge the accuracy of his contention on how his family dealt with money. That confirmation can only be done by his family members.

However, his generalization that poor people, “collectively” will do as his family did when it received large sums of money must be rejected since the life experience of the vast majority of the poor in Guyana tells the opposite story. I am contending, contrary to what Pantlitz claims, the majority of poor households used monies small or large in a responsible way.

In this letter, I have chosen to ignore the other social prejudicial issues he raised in relation to the alleged effects cash transfer would have on the poor. However, I would like to comment on his repeated use of “free money’ to describe the payment of an oil dividend to Guyanese, the true owners of Guyana’s natural resources. The poor and working classes are in their present socio-economic condition because of colonial exploitation, past governments’ policies- the policy of state capitalism, structural adjustment and ‘Washington Consensus’ (neoliberal economic). When Government had little money, the poor and working classes bore the brunt of economic adjustment, and now that the fiscal position is favourable it is only right, fair and just that these groups be compensated for their loss of earnings from devaluation, retrenchment, wage and employment freezes. So no Mr Pantlitz, the direct oil dividend is not free but has been paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of the poor and working masses.

In closing, in spite of my disagreement with Mr Anthony Pantlitz’s advocacy against cash transfer. I do appreciate his interest in the proposal that was demonstrated in his letter. His uncompromising opposition against cash transfer, in spite of having participated in an event where persons present overwhelmingly demonstrated their support for the proposal. His presence seems to have had no effects on his zeal to indict hundreds of thousands of people based on his unfortunate family experience.

Yours faithfully, Tacuma Ogunseye