Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

I am writing concerning the announcement of a “one-off cash grant” by the NIS for persons who have attained pensionable age but with between 500 and 749 contributions, one short of the number for a lifetime pension. The “award” was posted on the Facebook page of Dr. Ashni Singh, a Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, including the National Insurance Scheme. These awards reveal the government’s startling insensitivity and callousness toward our nation’s retired workers.

For workers who have between 500-549 contributions recorded by NIS (representing approximately 10-11 years of labour at 50 contributions per year), the government offers $260,000. This sounds substantial until one realizes it amounts to just $84.80 per day when spread across the average 8.4-year pension term (from age 60 to the average pensioner’s age of 68.4 years). Continuing with these derisory awards, we note the following:

– Those with 550-599 contributions receive $390,000 ($127.20 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

– Those with 600-699 contributions receive $520,000 ($169.60 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

– Those with 700-749 contributions receive $650,000 ($212.00 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

These individuals dedicated over a decade to formal employment, dutifully making their NIS contributions, “awarded” what can only be described as a pittance in return. Many have contributed far more than what appears in their official records, victims of an inefficient system that has repeatedly failed to document workers’ contributions properly. This administrative failure represents 28 years of abysmal oversight – 24 years under PPP administrations and 4 years under the Coalition Government. For nearly three decades, successive governments have allowed the NIS to deteriorate, ignoring actuarial recommendations, neglecting their responsibility to ensure proper record-keeping of workers’ contributions while expecting these workers to fund the system.

What makes this situation particularly galling is its presentation and timing. The government’s announcement features the President’s image more prominently than the actual awards, suggesting that these meagre sums should be received as generous gifts rather than the rightful entitlements they represent. Although these payments were announced several months ago, the timing of their implementation now – with such prominent political imagery – can only be interpreted as an undisguised attempt to bamboozle voters, using pensioners’ rightful entitlements as political currency for the upcoming elections.

Adding further insult to injury, these paltry payments are financed from a $10 billion allocation in the 2025 Budget. This substantial sum represents about 40% of the total amount paid to all 40,327 full pensioners by the NIS in 2022. Rather than using these funds to improve the lives of all pensioners meaningfully, the government has chosen to distribute them as politically timed handouts, creating the illusion of generosity while shortchanging those who have contributed to our nation’s development.

Rather than taking responsibility for successive governments’ collective failure to provide proper oversight and implement necessary reforms, the current administration now presents these derisory payments as some gift when they represent a tiny fraction of what workers are rightfully owed after decades of governmental incompetence.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

I am writing regarding Vice President Jagdeo’s recent attacks on the GHRA and the Red Thread at Babu Jaan and Minister McCoy’s subsequent defence of these partisan statements.

As we aspire to be “One Guyana”, it is counterproductive for government officials to vilify organisations dedicated to advancing human rights and transparency for all Guyanese. In any circumstance, political leaders – junior and senior – have a responsibility to unify rather than propagate division. When the Vice President labels respected civil society organisations or individuals as “haters,” they undermine the collaborative spirit necessary for our nation’s progress.

Mr. Jagdeo’s characterisation of GHRA and the Red Thread as “PPP haters” misunderstands their vital role. What the Vice President labels as “hate” is the necessary work of independent oversight that these organisations provide, regardless of which party holds power. Their critical stance does not make them enemies of the state; it makes them essential participants in our democratic discourse.

I also note the profound irony in Minister McCoy’s accusation of “duplicity” when defending statements made at an explicitly partisan political rally. This blurring of lines between party and state is precisely what civil society organisations stand against. Sadly, this is not the first occasion on which Vice President Jagdeo has used the Babu Jaan gathering for pointed attacks on perceived enemies, nor is this Jagdeo-McCoy dynamic an isolated incident.

The hypocrisy extends to financial accountability. NGOs operate with minimal funding from credible international sources, for which they provide comprehensive accounting and reporting. Contrastingly, political parties in Guyana face no such scrutiny, receiving funds from undisclosed sources without any legal requirement for transparency. More concerning, those who finance the ruling party are frequently rewarded with lucrative government contracts – a more significant threat to our democracy and our society than the operations of civil society organisations.

I have two simple questions for Mr. Kwame McCoy.

One, why is it that in the more than 25 years of the PPP government since 1992 they have never introduced legislation for regulating political parties?

And two why have they not triggered campaign financing legislation? Is it to hide the sources and disbursement of moneys?

This moment demands unity as Guyana faces territorial threats from Venezuela. National cohesion is not achieved by attacking or silencing critics but by embracing diverse voices that strengthen our democracy. Civil society organisations foster the democratic culture, a critical element in our national defense against external threats.

President Ali’s “One Guyana” initiative can only succeed if it embraces rather than alienates independent voices. A genuinely unified Guyana requires substantive respect for diverse perspectives, including those that hold power accountable.

Mr Jagdeo can make a more significant contribution to the country by moving beyond divisive rhetoric and embracing the inclusive dialogue that “One Guyana” purports to represent.

Respectfully,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

There have been many letters and comments on the 10-year passports with President Ali’s slogan “One Guyana” emblazoned therein. It may have escaped attention that the Constitution of Guyana – Article 5 and Schedule 2 – includes the emphatic statement on the country’s national motto with the words “One People, One Nation, One Destiny”. It is, therefore, a violation of the Constitution for the Ali Administration to unilaterally seek to impose party hegemony – or, as Forbes Burnham referred to it, party paramountcy – over the Guyana Constitution.

A country’s passport is not a political billboard but a sovereign document that belongs to all its citizens, supporters and non-supporters alike. Therefore, unless amended, no other words can appropriately be substituted. Even Trump, with all his excesses and Executive Orders, would not dare to use his MAGA (Make America Great Again) on that country’s passport.

We have already witnessed the “One Guyana” slogan appearing at the entrance of the University of Guyana, as well as in public sector documents, school materials, government-sponsored events, the national currency, and photographs in every public building in Guyana. This all-consuming obsession with photo opportunities and personal branding has permeated almost every aspect of public life. Now, with the slogan’s appearance on our passports, the administration has crossed a dangerous line – effectively forcing every citizen who requires international travel to carry party propaganda. It even suggests that allegiance to a political vision is a prerequisite for full citizenship, a notion fundamentally at odds with democratic principles.

President Ali is the first full-term President of our oil-rich economy. He has a right and an opportunity to create a meaningful legacy for himself. As Head of State and Executive President, he is expected to do the ceremonial things – like ribbon cuttings and sod turning on top of grandiose announcements. But he needs to have a balance that allows him to address the serious stuff – like widespread corruption, constitutional reform, compliance with constitutional guardrails, reduction in income and wealth distribution, proper governance, and equal opportunities for all Guyanese.

He needs to get this balance right. Even though he has embarrassingly failed to meet his 25 by 25 commitment to CARICOM, he was able to find time to do research and write a book Achieving Global Food Security (on sale on Amazon for US$38). In other words, President Ali should be spending more time on real issues and measurable progress in the daily lives of Guyanese and national outcomes, and not focus on frivolities, however easy and tempting they might be. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

Your article “Questions rise over third-party provider in GOAL programme” (March 16, 2025) vindicates Guyanese’s concerns and fears about the credibility and integrity of the Government’s Guyana Online Academy of Learning (GOAL) programme. Launched in 2021, this programme has already cost the country billions and provided degrees to thousands of Guyanese who may find them marginally useful inside and outside of Guyana.

Your report suggests that Dr. Jacob Opadeyi, whose tenure as Vice Chancellor ended years ago, exercises substantial control over the programme, beyond and above the Ministry of Education, the University of Guyana and the national laws on procurement. But even that exclusivity – and Opadeyi’s relationship with the Office of the President – does not make his attitude toward legitimate scrutiny any more acceptable. His response to Stabroek News – telling the country’s most trusted newspaper to “do its research” – is arrogant and indicative of a deeper problem: a complete lack of transparency and accountability. If public funds are being spent on a major national initiative, those overseeing it – Guyanese or non-Guyanese – should welcome scrutiny, not deflect it.

Yet for all his brazenness, it is not Opadeyi who should be answering questions about the programme but Dr. Ashni Singh, who, as Minister responsible for public service, has direct oversight of GOAL which falls under the Office of the President, via the Ministry of Public Service.

My first concern is why President Ali considers it more appropriate for the programme to be administered by the Office of the President rather than the Ministry of Education, which has the expertise and institutional capacity to oversee higher education? There are other troubling questions:

1.  Why is the government using ISDC – a foreign entity with a tangled web of related dormant companies – instead of partnering directly with accredited universities?

2.  The UWI Open Campus is listed as a partner university of GOAL. What programmes does the Campus offer under the GOAL programme?

Another partner “university” describes itself as an independent higher education provider accredited by the British Accreditation Council (BAC). What is the nature of that so-called accreditation?

4. What is the actual value of GOAL certificates, given that recognised institutions like Liverpool and Staffordshire have publicly disassociated from the GOAL programme and ISDC?

5. Why is there such secrecy around how much of the $4 billion spent on GOAL has been paid to ISDC, particularly since it falls under the Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance?

6.   How is the GOAL programme structured and who make up its top management?

7.  Has GOAL or the Ministry of the Public Service provided audited financial statements and where can these be found?

8.   Has the agreement between GOAL and ISDC or any institution of higher learning been tabled in the National Assembly?

9.   If not, where can that Agree-ment(s) be found?

10.   Has Opadeyi been requested to provide annual reports on GOAL’s operation and finances, and where can that be found?

With the interests of current GOAL students as my paramount concern, I respectfully ask the President to take the following steps to protect both students and the integrity of education in Guyana.

●  Pause the programme until a full, independent review is conducted.

●  Release the full contract with ISDC and publish a detailed breakdown of all payments made.

●    Have a forensic audit of the operations and finances of GOAL. 

●    Examine the feasibility of bringing GOAL under the University of Guyana.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The recent news of a prominent political personality seeking refuge in the embrace of his former adversary has not just left many shaking their heads in disbelief, but has also sparked profound questions about motives and morality, decency and dignity, principles and pragmatism. The public’s shock at this turn of events is palpable, and rightly so. When faced with serious legal troubles, including allegations of conspiracy and fraud, some politicians grasp at any lifeline – even if it means kissing the ring of those they once opposed.

This calculated move comes as he faces multiple charges, including allegations of fraud and political shenanigans. These are not just serious; they are potentially career-ending. Now, in what appears to be a desperate bid for self-preservation, he aligns himself with the One who can save his skin, profession and liberty.

The timing is particularly telling. As the walls of justice close in, we witness this dance of political expedience – a man now abandons his political birthplace – a party for which he once marched at considerable risk, even taking figurative bullets in its service. Yet here he stands, ready to desert those battle-earned principles for personal preservation. The betrayal is palpable, and no alliteration is intended to soften the blow.

It is a twist worthy of Shakespeare: in a stunning reversal that would make Brutus blush, the man embraces his lifelong political adversary, followed by a lengthy message in a prominent newspaper – just in case anyone missed his reincarnation. The irony is not lost on us- a figure who once marched proudly with and for his people now seeks redemption and forgiveness in his former adversary’s corridors. When legal troubles loom, political loyalty seems as flexible as a rubber band, stretching over old boundaries until it snaps. Will the prosecuting authorities now get the message that he is now our guy, as much as you are?

Some might assume that I am writing about my friend and professional colleague, Mr. James Bond, following his recent political realignment. Any parallels are purely coincidental. In fact, I speak of no less a person than Eric Adams, the Mayor of New York City, who now courts Donald Trump’s favour while facing serious charges of bribery, fraud and illegal foreign donations. The case of mistaken identity proves that the script of political survival plays out the same, from East Coast Demerara to East Manhattan, New York – only the personalities and the price for their reinvention differ.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram