Dear Editor,
The Stabroek News editorial, `Human dignity in the cash grant programme’ (January 3, 2025), aptly captured the essential nature of life in Guyana today. The editorial notes, “At its core, the programme was expected to reflect a commitment to human dignity – ensuring that the process and policies surrounding its implementation respect the worth and integrity of every citizen.” Instead, as the editorial rightly concludes, the implementation of the cash grant programme achieved the opposite.
The editorial generously accepts the government’s stated intentions of the cash grant programme in good faith, allowing the deeds to speak for themselves. However, the programme’s rollout violated its own professed objectives, as Stabroek News observed. Rather than promoting dignity, the process underscored the government’s disregard for its citizens’ integrity.
The people’s desperate response to the cash grant reflects the harsh economic conditions they face. They flocked to the distribution centres, seeking “manna from oil dollars” to ease their hunger and thirst. Yet this supposed relief is proving to be a dangerous mirage.
I do not share the editorial’s impartial stance towards the government’s cash grant initiative. On the contrary, I see it for what it is—a “handout” aimed at securing political loyalty in the run-up to elections. It represents one of the most cynical and callous uses of Guyana’s newfound oil wealth.
By contrast, Dr. Clive Thomas’s proposal to allocate 10 percent of oil revenues directly to citizens was politically neutral and rooted in the principle of citizenship rights. His plan aimed to uplift the poorest Guyanese, using taxation mechanisms to ensure that those in need benefited the most. It was not a “handout,” as its detractors claimed, but a guaranteed share of the nation’s sovereign wealth—a birthright of all Guyanese citizens. The dignity embedded in Dr. Thomas’s proposal stands in stark contrast to the government’s opportunistic giveaways. The current government’s cash handout, in essence, invites citizens to sell their birthright for a “mess of pottage.”
The connection between Guyana’s oil wealth and the well-being of its citizens was highlighted in another Stabroek News editorial, `National crises’ (January 1, 2025). Reflecting on the state of emergency declared in Trinidad and Tobago—another oil-rich Caribbean nation—the editorial cautioned Guyana to learn from the crisis. It stated:
“As we empathise with our fellow CARICOM neighbour during this stressful time, we should be duly noting both the levels of fear and desperation being experienced. As 2024 drew to a close, this column, over the final few weeks, returned to many of the concerns we have as a nation.”
The editorial’s warning and plea for Guyana to address its pressing national concerns, including “national unity in an upcoming election year,” cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, the government’s misuse of oil dollars works against this vital goal. Instead of fostering national unity, the cash handout programme deepens political divisions.
Guyanese must now recognise the clear distinction between Dr. Thomas’s proposal and the government’s cynical cash grants. The appetite for economic relief has been whetted, but the people must see through the political motivations behind the government’s handouts. These are election ploys—not genuine solutions.
In contrast, Dr. Thomas’s proposal reflects true human dignity. It guarantees that Guyanese citizens will receive their rightful share of the nation’s wealth—not as a transactional “handout,” but as an inalienable right of citizenship. Guyanese deserve better than to be asked to “sell their birthright for a mess of pottage.”
Sincerely,
Rohit Kanhai