PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE FIRST SESSION (2015-2016) OF THE ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT OF GUYANA UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA HELD IN THE PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, BRICKDAM, GEORGETOWN 52ND Sitting Friday, 9TH December, 2016 The Assembly convened at 10.05 a.m. Prayers [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PUBLIC BUSINESS GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS MOTIONS MOTION BY THE MINISTER OF FINANCE WHEREAS the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana requires that Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana for any financial year should be laid before the National Assembly; AND WHEREAS the Constitution also provides that when the Estimates of Expenditure have been approved by the Assembly an Appropriation Bill shall be introduced in the Assembly providing for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure; 1 AND WHEREAS the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana for the financial year 2017 have been prepared and laid before the Assembly on 2016- 11-28. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That this National Assembly approves the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2017, of a total sum of two hundred and thirty billion, three hundred and forty nine million and seventy nine thousand dollars ($230,349,079,000), excluding nineteen billion and seven hundred and seventy four million, and eighty seven thousand dollars ($19,774,087,000) which is chargeable by law, as detailed therein and summarised in the undermentioned schedule, and agree that it is expedient to amend the law and to make further provision in respect of finance.” [Minister of Finance] Assembly resumed budget debate. Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we will continue the debate and, at the end of the debate, we will consider any outstanding matter which is before the House. The first speaker is the Hon. Clement Rohee. You have the floor, sir. Mr. Rohee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to start out my presentation by referring to some comments that were made by the Hon. Member, Mr. Joseph Harmon. Mr. Harmon said, “The complaint by the Opposition against the Budget portrays the Opposition’s mindset of rebellion against order.” He said that the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) always has and continues to utilise fear as an element of control of its dwindling support base and that it aims to galvanise its support base for Congress. Well, I will tell you one thing: rather than watching out for us, I would suggest that those in the Government benches watch out for themselves. In this respect, Dr. David Hinds recently wrote, in the Guyana Chronicle: “…the larger coalition of forces which brought the Government to power may be falling apart, or have already fallen apart.” 2 He went on to say: “I think there is a larger problem. This is a new Government, and it is quite inexperienced in the art of governance... Some ministers, from all accounts, behave as though they do not owe their positions to the sacrifices and struggles of others.” The Hon. Member raised, once again, the controversial blood on the hands narrative. But what about blood on my carpet? He did not mention that. He further declared that the PPP had been known to raise the spectre of violence to gather the flock. Raising the spectre of violence is one thing but unleashing violence is another, as was done on the 11th May at Sophia and Lodge and as was seen in the past. When the Hon. Member, Mr. Harmon, said that the complaint by the Opposition against the Budget portrays the Opposition’s mindset of rebellion against order, his statement is reminiscent of the colonial master who would have said to the servant and what the Roman Council would have said to the Plebeians. Indeed, it reminds me of Othello’s struggle against Lago. What we should have done was to mobilise thousands of supporters from across the country to make them tremble in their boots and to demonstrate what the “flock” he spoke about really is. What I wanted the Hon. Member, Mr. Harmon, to refer to is the fear of crime that is gripping the nation. He avoided that completely and instead chose to talk about comfortable and esoteric issues. Mr. Harmon spent a lot of time regaling the National Assembly about the Green State Development Plan and that in the green state, jobs will be abundant. But if I am not mistaken, those green jobs will be exclusively for ‘green men’, who will be specially trained and selected for those green jobs. What will happen to us who are not ‘green’ by that time? The new green pathway seems to be like the contents of Muammar Gaddafi’s Green Book, since it sets out the green philosophy of the current Administration. It is jumbled with various ideas, including a fair amount of mysticism bottled up in a strange mixture. I have heard, repeatedly, references to the resilience of the Guyanese people as raison d'être for imposing the additional taxes on the populace. And as if to add insult to injury, Mr. Jordan ended his presentation with the exaltation: 3 “…we ask every Guyanese to dedicate their best efforts to becoming more productive, more financially responsible...” “…let us act now to bring our country out of potential into prosperity.” This is cynicism taken to the highest level. How can you impose higher taxes on the populace and, at the same time, ask them to make sacrifices? This is reminiscent of the period when the people were told: eat less, sleep less and work harder at a time when their stomachs were empty. Further, to try to praise the people in a cynical way by describing them as resilient is to mock them while, at the same time, stab them in their backs. The people are being pushed against the wall. There is a point at which resilience becomes resistance, when the people will have no alternative but to throw up their oppressors regardless of whether they have blood on their hands or blood on the carpets. The Budget lacks imagination. How do you explain the humongous increases in taxes? Where is the logic? How will this contribute to economic growth? In the growth economy, the measures will have quite the opposite effect. Two examples will suffice. A young dentist now entering the profession has to register his company. He has to have tax identification number (TIN) certificate, which has a cost; increase of acquiring dental equipment; cost of acquiring consumables such as dental materials; cost of electricity and water; basic office supplies such as textbooks, magazines, et cetera; and value-added tax (VAT) on rent if the place is being rented. A young lawyer now entering practice, having graduated, has to pay registration fee for his company; increased cost of TIN certificate, cost of lawyer registration, cost of acquiring consumable materials, et cetera; VAT on electricity and water; VAT on basic office supplies, et cetera; and VAT on rent for the office or the chambers which he will be renting. The Hon. Minister of Finance stated that the current development model can no longer be pursued. He said that the dated model cannot deliver on our aspirations as a nation. And he went on to say: “We inherited an economy that was built essentially on the proverbial sand and running on the proverbial fumes.” 4 He stated that the economy remained undiversified and incapable of withstanding even small shocks. And he concluded by saying that what we need is a growth strategy that is broader in scope and more diversified in nature. How will the model he spoke about succeed when the institutional political environment is characterised by political instability and uncertainty; loss of confidence in the Government; a demoralised and unsupportive private sector; divisiveness instead of cohesion; witch-hunting; trampling on the Constitution; flouting laws; a high degree of corruption; and, above all, plotting and planning to stay in Government by force and fraud. Because the model is built on a weak foundation, the strategic approaches to achieve this model are about to fail. According to the International Monetary Fund’s 2013 Article IV Consultation – Staff Report: “Guyana weathered the global financial crisis relatively well and macroeconomic policy buffers have been broadly maintained.” The Report went on to state: “…the current macro framework strikes the right balance between fiscal consolidation and addressing Guyana’s developmental agenda.” And recently, the Bank of Guyana issued a statement where it said: “We have seen an economy with very sound macroeconomic indicators...” The question, therefore, is: how come suddenly there are troubling economic and social indicators and an economy with unstable macroeconomic indicators? This is a total mystery. The growth economy being touted by the Government is really based on the discovery of a new natural resource and, as a result, they say that the economy will increase its capacity to produce. But the Government is going down the same road which some oil producing countries have gone down, mistakenly, before; that is to destroy the agricultural sector by deeming it a drag on the economy and by determining that agriculture, in the context of an outdated economic model, cannot deliver our aspirations as a nation. That explains why sugar is on the chopping block. The Minister’s Budget seeks to deceive. 5 The Hon. Member, Mr. Troutman, is reported to have said in the Kaieteur News, on the 20th November, 2016: “We are in an extraordinary process of transformation for our nation.” The discovery of oil… “…alters the political, economic and social DNA of our present and future…” He, in my humble view, re-enforced the deceptive nature of the Budget.