Dear Editor,

SN’s ‘minority report’ of June 3 quite logically argued that (one-time) cash grants ‘should not be given on an ad hoc basis’. Rather, there should be “a sustainable plan or policy to address income equality issues”.

On page 6, it is very well explained that the “one-time cash grant (of $150,000) to fishermen does not solve anything”. The question arises as to how this inappropriate move will restore the fishers’ ability to earn a future living and provide for their families.

The preceding scenarios pose a most fundamental question about the ability of cash grants to sustain the lives of families, not just one member.

Neither fishermen nor other underemployed can survive in this explicit state of dependency. ‘Downpresser man – where are you going to run?’ a question for policy makers to consider – how they will structure a facility that different categories of “subsidized” dependents could access on a more assured basis; and above all regain their self-esteem and that of their family.

A version of the IPED model could perhaps be envisaged, to include other more self-confident “small” entrepreneurs at the same time. So that the “bowl” of dependency can be replaced by a “creditable” future.

The experience of sugarcane growers on the defunct Skeldon Estate with commercial banks would likely remind policymakers of the need to be more creative in funding lives through more practical and motivating means than “subsidies”, which undermines makes it the acclaimed goal of ‘human development’. ‘.

But the previous irrationality is compounded in the event that Berbicans in Region Six are assured of “jobs… developed to improve regional services” – presumably after a joint assessment with the regional administration (not reported as present).

No specific pre-training was reported, but it was expected to use these unskilled groups to improve productivity in:

Government offices

Libraries (no literacy test)

Daycare centers

Other Agencies

It is not clear whether representatives of potential employers were present or were alerted before. (By the way, it would be useful to know how many libraries exist in Region 6). Either way, assurances were given that the only qualification needed was proof of being Guyanese.

The additional assurance given was that the part-time jobs provided were not “temporary”… “it may last for many, many years…”? In this regard, one must consider what the arrangements might be for leave (including maternity leave), relevant eligibility for INS membership, promotion, salary increases, pension , all of which are components of “human development”. But the other components actually promised were: “online scholarships” for which the government will pay – which arouses curiosity about budgetary provisions – for transport for example. But then there’s future employment at a hotel, stadium and shopping mall.

In the medium, it could have encouraged the public to know about the successes of the GOAL online scholarships, especially in the programs that last:

2 months; 4 months, 6 months; and up to a year.

It could therefore be useful to organize a related follow-up interaction which could confirm the promises made.

In the final analysis, what is the place of the regional administration in all this activity? Who, What, Where is the center of coordination on “the many, many years”?

In all cases, a copy of the presentation must be forwarded to the Regional Director General.

Yours faithfully,

EB Jean