|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Georgetown, Guyana — “Jagdeo is a dunce,” declared Dr. David Hinds, Working People’s Alliance (WPA) executive, as he challenged Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent response to a letter written by Guyanese elder statesman Eusi Kwayana. Speaking on his social media program Politics 101, Hinds criticized Jagdeo’s remarks, which suggested Kwayana had been on “the wrong side of history” and dismissed Dr. Clive Thomas’s cash transfer proposal as “nonsense.”
Hinds took direct aim at Jagdeo’s response, accusing him of failing to grasp even basic legislative principles. He highlighted what he saw as a lack of respect for the role of law in managing national issues. “He’s afraid of laws and studies,” Hinds asserted, pointing out that Jagdeo has rejected feasibility studies and formal legislative processes in multiple high-profile projects. According to Hinds, “When Jagdeo does a project, it is to make it something from which you can thief…a feasibility study will not entertain corruption.”
Hinds also condemned Jagdeo’s response to Kwayana’s question about the cash transfer proposal initially advocated by Thomas. Jagdeo dismissed the claim that the proposal originated with Thomas, arguing instead that the concept of cash transfers in oil-rich countries is widely discussed globally. Hinds rebuffed this, asserting that Jagdeo’s framing minimized the contributions of respected Guyanese leaders. “Kwayana said that the cash transfer disbursement plan first came from Clive Thomas,” Hinds reiterated. “That’s all he’s asking: to admit it was introduced in Guyana by C.Y. Thomas.”
Hinds, who holds a doctorate, called Jagdeo’s criticism of Kwayana a “stinking” attack, noting that Kwayana’s contributions to Guyana’s democratic landscape stretch back decades. Kwayana, a founding member of both the People’s Progressive Party and the WPA, has played an influential role in shaping political discourse in Guyana. According to Hinds, Jagdeo “doesn’t understand basic things” and should avoid “lying on a man who you will never, ever be able to stand next to.”
Further defending Thomas’s economic proposal, Hinds accused Jagdeo of deliberately misrepresenting the figures in Thomas’s plan. “All of them know Clive Thomas said 1 million per household,” said Hinds, adding that Jagdeo should “go back and read” Thomas’s original 2018 cash transfer proposal, which was based on a 10% allocation of oil revenue. Hinds argued that Jagdeo’s claims ignored the nuances of Thomas’s model, which focused on households rather than individuals, as a way to spread oil wealth to those most in need.
Kwayana’s letter, published on October 27, urged the government to handle oil revenue distribution through a formal legislative approach, stressing that decisions of such significance require parliamentary debate and transparency. He questioned the recent executive-led approach to disbursement plans, cautioning that distributing public funds without legislative approval risks undermining financial accountability. Kwayana reminded leaders that the cash transfer proposal first gained attention through Thomas, a point he suggested would only strengthen the idea’s merit if acknowledged transparently.
As the 2025 elections draw near, Hinds expressed determination to continue addressing Jagdeo’s responses to senior political figures and their proposals. “I am ready to deal with you, Jagdeo,” he declared, asserting his intent to challenge what he labeled as Jagdeo’s “stinking lies” in the public arena.
