Georgetown, Guyana — Dr. Clive Thomas, prominent economist and the thought leader behind the 2018 Buxton Proposal on Cash Grants, expressed strong criticism of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP)-led government’s $100,000 cash grant initiative, calling it a “grave disservice to Guyanese.” Speaking on Politics 101 on November 6, Thomas argued for parliamentary oversight of all public spending on cash grants to provide Guyanese with clear legal entitlements and to prevent politically motivated use of funds.
According to Thomas, cash transfers of this magnitude require a legal framework that secures parliamentary approval, ensuring they operate as a sustainable benefit to families in need rather than, in his words, “nothing more than a handout” controlled by the government. “You don’t go spending millions of dollars… on a fly-by-night idea of some minister looking for votes,” he said, underscoring that the structure of the current disbursement allows for “political manipulation.”
Dr. Thomas condemned Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s stance against legislating the distribution, arguing that the program’s alignment with the voters’ list, rather than broader family structures, limits its reach and risks it becoming merely a vehicle for political gain. “I think it narrows the scope…[of] the universal basic income,” Thomas argued, warning that such a focus “allows for the tendency for it to become nothing more than a handout.”
Thomas also criticized Jagdeo’s calculation of potential costs, which projected a $60 billion expense for cash grants, as based on a gross misrepresentation. “He’s deliberately lying. I mean, I’ve never seen a gruesome attempt to mislead like that in my life,” he said, adding that his proposal had always emphasized distribution per household, not per individual, effectively multiplying the estimate by four.
Dr. Thomas has suggested exploring potential legal challenges to the PPP’s approach, urging citizens to hold the government accountable. “If they break the law, if they violate traditional custom, we should mobilize politically to challenge it in whatever forum we’re allowed to,” he said, indicating that consultations with legal experts could help assess the viability of a challenge to enforce parliamentary oversight.
