Dear Editor,
The subject of cash transfer has hit the national fan. It is a complex one but unfortunately, we are not well equipped to dish out a plan bereft of buffoonery. It is generally known that the economic existence of thousands of Guyanese is not a happy one and there seemed to be little hope until recently that the situation would improve materially. One can see why some are pushing, and in the process punishing themselves, for the cash transfer to materialize. Yet, the proponents of cash transfer have utterly failed to convey a basic convincing approach and plan on how to proceed with it. They have relied heavily on anecdotal evidence, emotional sustenance, and party loyalists to glorify their plan, producing a deeply flawed writ to readers. Additionally, some are peddling a wide falsehood that those who oppose the cash transfer are anti-poverty. Simply not true because most Guyanese have at least one family member, know someone closely or themselves, are poor.
The idea of cash transfer certainly deserves attention but timing and credibility are at stake, which arguably will stall the momentum moving forward. Why is there a mad rush to have a clear position and answer on cash transfer before the March 2, 2020, general election? Is it a ploy to gain votes for the caretaker government? Is the cash transfer argument a national distraction, namely to take away the attention from an active no-confidence motion against the government? We have waited, and are still waiting, for the main elements of the no-confidence motion to happen, and so, why can’t we wait until the conclusion of the general election to discuss the cash transfer? Is it that the rush rests on the thought if the caretaker government loses the general election, which is likely, the new government will not entertain cash transfer? Legally and logically speaking, even if the cash transfer plan is accepted, the current government cannot implement it because of its caretaker status and a defunct National Assembly. Then again, any respect for constitutional law to this government is a mere showcase. The man at the helm recently boasted in front of his captive gathering that he is a constitutional leader. That may be the case, but his diktat certainly sounds delusional to large sections of Guyana who were denied the opportunity to go to the polls before March 31, 2019. Hey man, why this hullabaloo: 33 is never the majority of 65, parachuting the nation onto a slimy and slippery road since.
Then there is the vexing question of credibility. The individuals from one particular party and one particular background who are exaggerating the benefits of the beleaguered cash transfer are too trapped in their parochial political bedrooms and ethnic cells to deliver anything remotely fair to the poor. Following the no-confidence motion, a whole school of thought has emerged defying it, ranging from convoluted to bizarre to plain stupid, with a debasing aim to hold on to power. Some individuals who are masquerading the cash transfer have been privy to the aforementioned school of thought. Bless their hearts. One individual who is in the middle of the cash transfer saga is also the director of the State Assets Recovery Agency but he is yet to submit one name within the current caretaker government for corruption. If you are living in another country and you have been the victim of reading this individual’s work you would believe that the current government is as clean as a whistle. Oh lard! Another individual has been an anti-whistleblower and a propagandist for this regime. Welcome to the West Indies Mon! A more critical, if not a sound approach, would be to include an Amerindian, Indian, Chinese, and so on, on the table with lived experience and qualifications of poverty when discussing cash transfer. Revenues from oil and gas belong to all Guyanese, and so, a few should not speak for us, especially when their timing and credibility is questionable.
Yours faithfully,
Lomarsh Roopnarine
