Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Workers of budget cut agencies feeling squeeze

 

- as pay day approaches

THE imminent arrival of the salary date for this month in the Public Service has brought home, with stark clarity, the full impact of the 2014 Appropriation Act, which was passed in National Assembly subsequent to the $37.4B Opposition-led cut from the $220B national budget.Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon said the impact would no doubt take its toll on the livelihoods of the affected workers, particularly those at Office of the President and its subventions agencies.

Both the capital and current expenditure programmes for administrative services for the Office of the President were disapproved by the political Opposition in Parliament.

“The impact, were it to be felt, would essentially see us putting up the ‘For Rent’ or ‘For Sale’ sign as there is no money in the kitty…nothing to support even the most routine activities of the Office of the President and the subvention agencies under the Office of the President,” Dr. Luncheon told reporters.

He explained that the impact is such that it has not only threatened the discharge of the constitutional functions of the President, but livelihoods of many public officers as well. Many of these officers were appointed by the Public Service Commission to pensionable posts.

The HPS said the intellectual authors of the 2014 Appropriation Act need to be reminded that for these workers, the said Act may be seen as a denial of their constitutional rights.

“With such a track record, Guyanese must be warned and must be on the alert; the Opposition appears to have little attention, little care for the rights of ordinary Guyanese. They send the most conflicting of messages and conflicting of signals and this is all done as they pursue their narrow partisan political interests,” the Cabinet Secretary said.

The Opposition has been cutting successive national budgets since the commencement of the tenth Parliament; jeopardising not only people’s livelihoods but many developmental projects as well. As a result, the Government has had to move to the high court to seek redress.

Subsequently, the Chief Justice, issued an interim and later a final ruling, which empowers the Minister of Finance to restore funds cut and/or reduced. However, the workers of affected agencies bore the brunt of the Opposition’s actions since many of them were without salaries for months before the restoration took place.

The 2014 Appropriation Act, which was passed in the National Assembly on April 16, was assented to by Acting President, Samuel Hinds.
At a previous press conference, Dr Luncheon had noted that moving forward presents a challenge, considering the $37.4B reduction in the National Estimates. He contended that the cuts “stranglehold” the implementation of many programmes and functioning of many entities, including OP, where allocations in some areas have been reduced to zero.
Under the allocation for OP, the cuts include $245M for the Presidential Guard services; $95M for the provision of developmental and humanitarian aid, among other initiatives; $10M for the Office of the First Lady; $73.5M for the Guyana Energy Agency; $119M for the Guyana Office for Investment (Go-Invest); $122M for the Institute of Applied Science and Technology (IAST); $17M for the Integrity Commission; and $28.5M for the Office of the Commissioner of Information.
He had reiterated that, in the absence of a “negotiated solution”, the definitive answer to the challenge of the budget cuts lies in the hand of the interpreters of the Constitution of Guyana, the Judiciary.
On January 29 this year, Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang had ruled that the National Assembly has no right to cut the National Budget. In the Preliminary Ruling given in June 2012, the CJ had ruled that the National Assembly has a role to either approve or disapprove of the National Estimate, not to cut them.
A Notice of Appeal of Chief Justice Chang’s decision was filed, in February, by Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Attorney-at-Law Khemraj Ramjattan, on behalf of Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman, who was listed as the appellant in the court.
Last year, the combined Opposition cut the Budget by $31B; and in 2012 by $21B.

 

Extracted from the Guyana Chronicle

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The total income earned by the PPP ministers exceeds that of the remainder of the Guyanese workforce.

So who exactly has put the low paid workforce in this situation? The salary of the highest paid minister can feed the whole of New Amsterdam.

Mr.T

Why the sudden PPP concern about these low paid workers? Has the PPP not hastened the decline of the Guyanese workforce by allowing the Chinese to bring their own workers all the way from China in order to rob Guyanese labourers from making a living?

Mr.T
Originally Posted by Conscience:

Many of those working class Guyanese are the sole breadwinners for their families, the APNU/AFC are directly placing hundreds of Guyanese on the breadline.


Councie why yuh complaining.....You and Kwame still getting pay. And you'll still Promoting, Practicing & Enjoying Buggery.
FM
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Why the sudden PPP concern about these low paid workers? Has the PPP not hastened the decline of the Guyanese workforce by allowing the Chinese to bring their own workers all the way from China in order to rob Guyanese labourers from making a living?


Please remind them.  They then claim that Guyanese are lazy, which will be a shock to many who live in the Caribbean and North America!

 

If they are correct and that is Guyanese who remain in Guyana are lazy, why is it that all the hard working Guyanese have LEFT?  Remittances declined last year, so that excuse doesnt work.

FM
Originally Posted by Billy Ram Balgobin:

Dem Chinese are using their laborers in Africa too. You all have a problem with that? It's same complaint everywhere the Chinese go. That's how they do business. 

Take it or leave it.

 

Are we not saying leave it for traditional, safe financing? It is the PPP who love t he graft that is associated with these deals. They look to their own pockets rather than to the future were our environment is desecrated, our people suffocated by cheap crap goods from china and our lives montage to Chinese pension plans. No; we do not want our children working to support the Chinese. We want safe, open financing to projects.

FM

Stormy,

 

I hear your concerns and I share some of them. We should not take aid from any country or financial institutions that sets conditions that are detrimental to our economy, environment, and political stability. When we took loans from the IMF they set harsh conditions that brought more sufferings to our people. This has been acknowledged by people in the US and other West European nations. Today, the IMF does not have enough funding for developing nations. Countries are now forced to go to the China National Development for loans. These loans are given with strings attached. If the Chinese financed a factory they demand the contract to build it. If they don't get the contract they want concessions of your raw materials or  natual resources. It's hard to turn the Chinese away since there is no else to give loans for development

 

 

 

Billy Ram Balgobin
Originally Posted by Billy Ram Balgobin:

Dem Chinese are using their laborers in Africa too. You all have a problem with that? It's same complaint everywhere the Chinese go. That's how they do business. 

Take it or leave it.

 

So if the Chinese use their money, their capital goods, their supplies and their labor, and then stick us with the bill, of what benefit is it to us?

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Billy Ram Balgobin:

Dem Chinese are using their laborers in Africa too. You all have a problem with that? It's same complaint everywhere the Chinese go. That's how they do business. 

Take it or leave it.

 

Are we not saying leave it for traditional, safe financing? It is the PPP who love t he graft that is associated with these deals. They look to their own pockets rather than to the future were our environment is desecrated, our people suffocated by cheap crap goods from china and our lives montage to Chinese pension plans. No; we do not want our children working to support the Chinese. We want safe, open financing to projects.

Brazilians don't pay bribes so the PPP ignores them.  Chinese pay bribes in exchange for not hiring Guyanese, nor using local supplies.  They get the projects.

 

Brazil is willing and able to be involved in lots of things, and I am sure will use Guyanese labor too!.  But no bribes so no dice!

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×