Opposition and PNCR-1G leader Robert Corbin yesterday accused the government of hijacking the debate on the 2011 National Budget and turning it into a platform for electioneering ahead of the polls due later this year.
In his presentation last evening, Corbin told the National Assembly that he had no problem with an election budget coming since it was expected but he was at a loss as to why so many of the government MPs tried to convince the House otherwise. “Whether the government likes it or not, the fact is that this is an election year… the budget presentation and subsequent debate have been used as an opportunity to cleverly propagandise with the use of figures, statistics and lengthy commentary, the alleged achievements of this administration from the standpoint of their manifesto in 2006,” he charged.
However, he added, an election budget has more to do with the manner in which allocations are expended and not the quantity of the allocations. “Try as the Minster of Finance did, however, he has failed in this objective since the elections sweets such as the increase in Old Age Pension and Social Assistance, the raising of the income tax threshold… the reduction in corporate taxes… and the promise of laptops to every family will not erase the memory of discriminatory treatment by this administration over the years or reduce the growing army of poor and impoverished people in this country,” Corbin stated.
According to him, the budget offers no relief to the worker who earns less than $40,000 per month and despite arguments about social and infrastructural developments, what is in his pocket is of more significance to the worker. “The first benefit the average worker wants to have is a proper and decent meal every day. How he’s going to feed himself and family? That’s the first consideration. And he who is earning less than $40,000 per month and still confronted by the escalating cost of living as a result of rising food prices… and the unconscionable 16% VAT, he will not have an opportunity to see that benefit.”
Corbin added that the $161.4B budget was “nothing to shout about” with lots of lengthy rhetoric masking the “delicate areas” of the economy such as the sugar industry. He then proceeded to refer the House to the finance minister’s submissions on the sugar industry, which he said the minister had glossed over.
“All the projections on sugar are based on expectation and assurances,” Corbin stated.
A new way
For his part, AFC leader and MP Raphael Trotman called for a new way of doing business in the parliament, saying that the current system was designed to keep the two sides at loggerheads. “An adversarial parliamentary system is quite antithetical to cohesion and development in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi dimensional society such as Guyana’s. It was designed for homogeneous societies in which there were small minorities who could be easily assimilated. It cannot work in Guyana, and this is why report after report will define race and politics, and the lack of political cooperation, as our major hindrances to development,” he said.
Trotman noted the existence of a bipartisan Committee of the Future in Finland, which he said relies heavily on technocratic support from academia and civil society, deliberates on parliamentary documents referred to it and, when requested to do so, makes submissions to other committees on future-related matters. “Unless we have the courage to embrace our own unique form of power-sharing and inclusive governance, uniquely designed for our unique situation, we will continue to be lesser than our true potential,” he said.
He recommended as matters to be treated with urgency the establishment of a similar Committee of the Future, the immediate introduction of a national dialogue on governance and the embracing of the offer of a bipartisan approach to security failures. According to the AFC leader, yesterday’s presentation was “most likely” his last budget presentation because he has resolved to recuse himself from the current system of governance. “I will not be involved in the business of “playing politics” or being in the Chamber for the sake of being here; knowing that my ability to offer genuine representation is stymied or non-existent. I have therefore resolved to only be involved in the future when there is something that is constructive and not destructive; something that is embracing and not insular; and something that is forgiving and reconciling.”
Contacted afterwards, Trotman told Stabroek News that he will be serving out his current term as an MP with no plans to go anywhere before elections.
