A lack of a constructive discussion continues

Dear Editor,
The budget debate continues with the usual finger pointing and posturing from both sides of the aisle. A lack of objective discussion and the lack of real solution finding continue to plague the debate. The Natural Resource discussion was particularly disappointing with no emphasis placed on plans to grow the Natural Resource Fund, adding value added products and the establishment of future trade agreements. Both sides of the aisle continue to pursue socialist and communist approaches to governance. With an emphasis being placed on hand outs and social programs, while showing a lack of revenue generating projects to support the long-term viability of the programs being implemented.
China has shown that they had to shift their approach to value added production and embrace the World Trade Organization to foster real growth. Yet in 2025 Guyanese politicians continue to focus on non-revenue generating measures, which deplete resources without finding additional means of fostering long term sustainable growth. In attempts to gain the popular vote, both sides of the House of Parliament prefer to place money directly in the hands of each citizen. To sustain such an approach, they must also allow the government to earn money to carryout development plans. Members of the House are avoiding taxation due to its unpopularity, which leaves earnings from the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) as the key source of funding. Therefore, measured development is the only solution that will allow for the continued vote grabbing approach to be sustained. It will also help avoid the pitfalls of the ever so common approach used by politicians who implement such socialist and communist measures that will endure during their time in office, but that will come to an abrupt end after the resources have been depleted. This usually occurs after they have left office.
The pull of resources from the NRF can only be sustained by a rate of return that surpasses the withdrawal amount or depletion rate. A requirement that lacks achievement to date. The renegotiation of the Exxon PSA will provide the needed flexibility and sustainability for the current socialist and communist programs being implemented, but the discussion in Parliament has lacked commitment and thorough discussions around this urgent issue. There is an opportunity to add objectivity and constructive criticism, but a divided House continues to prohibit progress towards real solutions on important issues. Our leaders must make a commitment towards addressing what is important in the face of foreign exploitation. We do not need nationalization. What we need is a fair production sharing agreement with Exxon, additional trade agreements for value added products and improved management of the Natural Resource Fund. The budget debate must allow for an intellectual solution finding discussion in these key areas that will provide opportunities for real long term economic growth.

Sincerely,
Jamil Changlee