Dear Editor,
With reference to the implementation of the single parents assistance programme, I feel this was not subjected to a verification process which would have ensured beyond any reasonable doubt that the persons were not living in common law relationships and were even legally married. Guyanese will pounce on any opportunity to get free money. If we take our memories back to the 2005 flood, we will recall how many residents received flood relief which they did not qualify for.
In the developed countries governments have the distinct advantage of fully computerised data on all persons employed, and in Guyana, a relatively small country where everybody knows everyone, an efficient data retrieval system followed by verification would have presented an almost accurate list. It is important when charting new initiatives, to examine precedents at home or abroad and modify them to suit the intended purpose.
In the USA, UK and Canada, for example, parents who have to pay for day-care services are given an income tax rebate each year. So, in Guyana, if these single parents are employed, they would have IRD and TIN numbers, and the day-care centres would also have those numbers.
The situation would then become simplified, because if these mothers claim for day-care services, after all other income is examined, an income tax allowance could be effected.
The present system is rife with corruption.
Single-parent family arrangements are not the way that families should be built. They should not be encouraged or seem to be encouraged. It is becoming more and more the accepted norm. But it has its negative domino effect on society. A single working mother can by no stretch of the imagination adequately provide and socialise her children properly. The records can attest to the number of delinquent children and adults who have been socialized in a single-parent family arrangement. There are exceptions, but the negatives are overwhelming.
My second area of concern is the public assistance programme and how it is being administrated. Admittedly, there are some persons who may need this assistance for quite a while. But there are also a significant number of persons on public assistance who are strong, living with one or more than one male partner and some are even working. The criteria need reviewing; there are many persons who can work but do not want to work because they can receive ‘free money’ through an apparently corrupt system. If the government continues increasing the public assistance money, it will be a magnet for more lazy people.
Yours faithfully,
R Seepaul
