Dear Editor,
Government is praised for doling out a grant to adult nationals. The distribution of a cheque worth $100K to each adult is a better proposal than the $200K grant to households; albeit, both are fraught with problems.
The $100K to every adult may also cost the treasury more than the $200K, but the former would lessen risks of fraud and skullduggery.
Also, defining a household through a utility bill (electricity, water) is fraught with too many problems, and Government is right to abandon that idea.
The Vice President presented very good reasons for abrogating the proposal of the $200K grant to every household, and replacing it with the $100K grant for every adult.
It is extremely difficult in Guyana to identify, or even define, “a household”. Thousands of ‘households’ did not receive the $25K grant of 2021. Many individuals (heads of households) complain till this day about not getting the grant, and have refused to go to court to force the Government to give them the essential grant.
Any household that did not receive the 2021 grant would win any action filed in court in this regard. Government would be instructed by the court to give that household their legitimate grant. Those who did not receive their grant should consider filing a class action lawsuit in this regard; there may be a statute of limitation.
Anyone who has studied Anthropology and/or Sociology, subjects under which families are studied, would know that a household is very loosely defined. Households are not specifically defined in a traditional society, and Guyana is classified as a traditional society, although there are many clearly defined ‘nuclear families’ (households), as in a ‘modern’, industrialized, western society as USA.
Most households in Guyana have extended or joint families, with multiple households in each family sharing the same house or lot. Also, many dwellings have multiple families or rentals with single utilities.
Indigenous population and tens of thousands of Africans, Indians, Mixed have extended and joint families with multiple households, and newly married couples may continue living with their families or in-laws. Are they not a household?
Many families share a home (roof) with in-laws, but do their own cooking and maintain their own finances. Are they not households?
There are many families who share utility bills, and not every name is on the bill. Are they not households?
There are families who rent with utilities included in the rent. Are they not households?
To give the grant to only one household in a joint or extended family, or in a dwelling with multiple families or households, is to deny others in the home or in a house lot or dwelling their legitimate deserving grant.
Giving the grant to adults (defined as 18 and above) eliminates the abovementioned issues.
A better option for the grant would have been to distribute it (perhaps a larger amount) according to needs and/or some other criteria. The rich do not care much for the grant, and it would not impact their lives. Many poor families are hurting badly with the rising cost of living and utility and medical bills. They need a grant more than the wealthy.
Subsidizing utility bills of ‘households’, including funding electricity and potable water to those not currently recipients; increasing the grant to school children; and allocating a sum of money to each relatively poor family (to be defined by income) for medical (dental) purposes would have been better options.
All options have advantages and disadvantages, and supporting or advocating one over the other would have its detractors or critics.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
