Dear Editor,
I thought long and hard about whether I should respond to Tacuma Ogunseye’s letter, ‘Had Mr Jordan done the responsible thing in dealing with the Buxton Proposal he would still be finance minister’ (Stabroek News, Saturday, June 18, 2022). In his long letter, he accused me of all manner of ills and sins. He, also, exposed an undercurrent of resentment at former President David Granger’s stewardship. That would not be my pre-occupation in this response
Mr Ogunseye referenced my contribution on Buxtonian Morning Programme, on KAMS TV, an online programme, on June 14, 2022. On that programme, I dealt with various subjects. A passing comment was made of the Buxton Proposal put forward by Professor Clive Thomas, eminent economist and a longstanding member of the WPA. (Incidentally, the name of the proposal is not original. It was former Central Executive member of the PNCR Deryck Bernard, who, at his Party’s Press Conference on October 26, 2002, mentioned a Buxton Proposal – a $250 million revival initiative for the Buxton area that was put to the then PPP/C government.)
Dr Thomas first made his proposal at the Eusi Kwayana Emancipation Symposium, in or around August 8, 2018, in Buxton. There, he argued for every single household in this country to be given a cash transfer – whether it be US$5,000 per year or any other sum. I do not know if Dr Thomas discussed his proposal with other members of the Coalition before he made his announcement. It is reasonable to expect that, making such a profound statement, with its potential to bind the Coalition to its implementation, should have been the subject of intense discussions and agreement before it was made public. Well-known lawyer, Nigel Hughes, who was also in attendance at the Symposium, welcomed the discussion on cash transfers, but cautioned that it must be data-driven; otherwise, we would be dazzled by the fantastic promises that would come from the politicians that would be unrelated to reality and economic sustainability. He urged a broader discussion with more information being made available. Almost two years later, in May, 2020 Chatham House expert, Dr Valerie Marcel, was cautioning against across- the-board cash transfers, arguing, instead, for targeted transfers to the needy and vulnerable.
Here is a summary of what I said on the KAMS TV programme: I was aware of Dr Thomas’s Buxton Proposal; he had sent a refined version to me. I indicated that Dr David Hinds often flayed the Coalition for not accepting the Buxton Proposal. I argued that the initial Buxton Proposal had suggested a US$5,000 payout to all households in Guyana. Thomas didn’t say whether that payout should start in 2027 or 2028. And he didn’t say whether the payout should be US$5,000 immediately or whether it should steadily increase to that figure. As a result, people like (Vice President) Jagdeo pounced on it, since to give roughly 214,000 households (according to 2012 Census), US$5,000 would require US$1.1 billion annually, just in cash transfers. I stated that based on current projections, the Natural Resource Fund would only begin to receive annual inflows in excess of US$1 billion in 2023. I ended that aspect on Buxton Proposal Principle by indicating that while the principle behind the proposal was correct, I was not in favour of universal cash transfer. Instead, cash transfers should target vulnerable groups.
That is an accurate summary of what I discussed. I invite readers to listen to the recording found on Facebook. In light of this summary, here are a few questions that come to mind, immediately: what caused Mr Ogunseye to launch his broadside at me? Was my sharing my views on the initial Buxton Proposal the casus belli for Mr Ogunseye to vent his proverbial spleen at me? Was it the occasion for him to air his disgust at the alleged treatment of the WPA that led to their departure from the Coalition?
Contrary to Mr Ogunseye’s assertion, I never set out to explain the previous government’s position on the Buxton Proposal. The government’s position evolved from initial surprise and confusion to what was presented in the 2020 Manifesto. I was giving my thoughts on the initial proposal put forward by Dr Thomas, and the unfortunate developments that followed.
My position has always been that cash transfers are not alien to Guyana: they are exemplified, for instance, in the public assistance and old age pension programmes administered by the government. In addition, in-kind programmes such as free uniforms, books and meals for school children help to increase household income, as they free resources that can be spent in other critical areas. What is needed now is a structured, effective social net programme.
I continue to argue against universal cash transfers. Though understandable from the standpoint of equality, thus avoiding allegations of discrimination in our divisive society, it fails the equity test. Instead, I have always advocated, as I did on the KAMS TV programme, for cash transfers to be targeted to the vulnerable, poor and powerless groups. On that programme, I recommended that, in the context of the rising cost of living, a variant of the Buxton Proposal should be implemented. Pending a study and mapping of poverty in the country, 100,000 of the poorest households should be targeted for an annual cash transfer of US$1,000. This is doable in the context of the oil projections. Both the sum and the recipients can be reviewed periodically. This cash transfer programme is one in a series of social programmes targeting people – not just infrastructure – in an economy that is growing beyond our wildest dreams. Others would include salary adjustments for public sector workers, re-introduction and expansion of the 5B’s programme and a massive increase in small business grants.
I can assure Mr Ogunseye that my views, as, indeed, those of other members of the Cabinet, were well-known to former President Granger. And, in his typical style, he allowed all views to contend, to percolate, to be ventilated before striving for a decision. If Mr Ogunseye is interested in how the Cabinet operated, he should discuss it with the WPA minister who was part of that set-up. I can speak only about the Cabinet of which I was a member. I cannot speak for APNU, AFC or any inter-party talks or discussions on any subject, including the Buxton Proposal.
I thank Mr Ogunseye for the nugget of compliment he threw my way in his last paragraph. I suppose, in these hard times, any sweet is worth its weight in gold. Having said so, let me inform Mr Ogunseye that his dig that “…I would still be the finance minister” suggests how little he knows of or about me. The offer to serve in the Coalition government was a great honour; I saw it as a continuation of my contribution to the people of this country. There are many other ways of being of service. Being finance minister is one, not the only one.
Yours faithfully,
Winston Jordan
Former Minister of Finance
