THE EDITOR: It is highly ironic that the PNM administration today seeks to berate citizens for the choices we make in our consumption habits, since the politicians themselves are directly complicit in shaping those negative consumer attitudes from the election platform.
For example, to justify its policy decision on the fuel subsidy, the Government utilises various administrative platforms to scold the population for its addiction to what is now generally considered by the citizens to be a right to cheap fuel.
The citizens’ attitude towards fuel prices is the result of years of mental conditioning from the election platform by politicians seeking power. This began with Dr Eric Williams who sought political currency in the irresponsible message that cheap fuel is the birthright of every citizen in an oil-rich nation.
No political party since then has ever stood on an election platform and taken the responsible position to educate the population that subsidised fuel disproportionally benefits the wealthy, leads to poor consumption habits with little focus on conservation and comes at an opportunity cost of investment in other essential services such as healthcare and education. The responsible message being, vote for us and we will ensure a more beneficial redistribution of national income.
Rather than vote for us and everything would be free, you have no responsibility. Therefore, I suggest to the Prime Minister and the Sport and Community Development Minister that the better place for the paternal and maternal scolding is the election platform as this is where the bad behaviour is created.
The fuel subsidy is but one example of the duplicity of government in its policies driven by its pernicious strategy of using freeness and giveaways to create dependency and loyalty to the party. The Energy Chamber president summed it up perfectly when he stated on a post-budget panel discussion, “The Government has painted itself into a corner with the fuel subsidy.”
The iconic Lee Kuan Yew (former prime minister of Singapore) described this as, “The irresponsible auctioning of state resources at election time.”
Transfers and subsidies now account for a very large and growing percentage of government expenditure, which comes at an opportunity cost of badly needed resources for development. The key point I am making is that this irresponsible use of transfers and subsidies for political gain must stop.
I concur that the genuinely needy or vulnerable in our society must be protected but the safety net must effectively target this group. For example, we must correct a government policy which allows for a poor motorist to consume $50 in subsidised fuel, while his rich SUV-owning counterpart should consume $500 which he can well afford.
It is time we begin the process of rolling back the unsustainable welfare state by ensuring those receiving limited state resources are genuinely in need of welfare. Certainly, this also involves having tough conversations with the citizens who must be sensitised to the concept of opportunity cost in that nothing is truly free. In my view the most appropriate place for such a conversation is on the election platform while seeking power.
EUGENE SYLVESTER
Carapichaima