|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Georgetown, Guyana — The National Assembly on Wednesday, November 27, 2024, witnessed a heated exchange as the government sought approval for $30.5 billion to partially fund its $100,000 cash grant initiative for Guyanese adults. Opposition MPs challenged Prime Minister Mark Phillips on the decision to request only half of the estimated $60 billion needed, raising concerns about the grant’s feasibility and the clarity of its execution.
The cash grant scheme, announced in October, promised direct payments to every Guyanese adult over 18 years. However, the government’s allocation request, representing only 50% of the total funding required, left opposition MPs questioning whether the program could meet its ambitious goals.
Funding Shortfall Sparks Opposition Queries
MP Shurwayne Holder was among those who scrutinized the government’s financial strategy. “Is the government saying that only 50% of the population will receive their grant during this financial year?” he asked, pointing to the gap between the requested $30.5 billion and the program’s total cost.
Prime Minister Phillips dismissed concerns, explaining that the government intended to distribute the requested amount by the end of 2024 and seek the remaining funds in the next budget cycle starting January 2025. “This is financial management at the highest level,” the Prime Minister asserted, pledging that all eligible Guyanese would ultimately be paid.
Concerns About Distribution Plan
Opposition MPs also questioned the government’s readiness to distribute the funds, particularly in hinterland regions where no visible registration efforts were underway. MP Holder pressed for details, asking, “What is the structure of the distribution, and how will regions like Region 2 be addressed?”
The Prime Minister acknowledged the focus on registering and paying public servants first, as they were a “captive population” and easier to reach. He assured that payments would extend to every region “street by street, center by center.” However, he did not provide specifics on timelines or logistical strategies for remote areas, fueling further doubts about the program’s feasibility.
Accountability and Registration Challenges
MP Amanza Walton-Desir zeroed in on the rationale for requiring public servants to register, despite already being listed on government payrolls. “Why is there a need for re-registration when these individuals are already documented?” she asked.
Senior Minister of Finance Ashni Singh came to the Prime Minister’s aid, explaining that universal registration was necessary to prevent duplication, given that public servants also reside in communities where registration was occurring. Singh dismissed the opposition’s concerns as a failure to understand the mechanics of program implementation.
Meanwhile, MP Sherod Duncan criticized the government’s inconsistent communication about the initiative, noting the shifting timelines and registration requirements. “This issue of the cash grant has been an enigma wrapped in a mystery,” Duncan remarked, highlighting public confusion about the process.
Photographs and Public Awareness Under Fire
The Opposition also grilled the government on its decision to require new photographs for registration, questioning why existing national ID photos could not suffice. Prime Minister Phillips maintained that the additional step was a measure to ensure accountability, declaring, “If we put that measure in place to satisfy accountability, so be it.”
MP Walton-Desir expressed concerns about the lack of public awareness in hinterland areas, asking how residents with limited access to information would learn about the program. While the Prime Minister acknowledged the issue, his assurances of ongoing registration efforts did little to address fears of exclusion for remote communities.
A Divided Outcome
The 89th Parliamentary Sitting exposed significant concerns over the government’s cash grant initiative, with the Opposition warning that the partial funding request, combined with unclear logistics, could undermine public trust. Despite this, the Prime Minister remained firm, framing the decision as prudent financial management and pledging to meet the program’s goals in stages.
