SIX days of debate on the National Expenditure for 2013 culminated last evening with the Leader of the parliamentary opposition, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger, condemning the budget as cardboard repainted to look like concrete, while Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh, accused both APNU and the Alliance For Change (AFC) of abandoning its own promises to the people of Guyana.

Dr Singh was the final speaker in the debate and in his rebuttal, told the House that the combined opposition appears to be “objecting for the sake of objecting, saying no for the sake of saying no.”
He appealed to the ranks in the opposition benches saying, “If we are to be honest and frank, we must be prepared to celebrate the successes,” made thus far, particularly in the private sector, as a result of the policies initiated by the government.
The minister told the House that, “just as there is the call that we should not say all is good and perfect in Guyana, if we are to have a frank and honest debate, they must not paint the dismal picture that all is dismal and bad in Guyana.”
The minister said that much of what had been espoused by the combined opposition, “apart from the well-trodden topics, there was very little said about what specifically is contained in the budget.”
As a result, the minister turned to the manifestos that had been presented to the public by the two opposition parties and sought to juxtapose the 2013 Budget in the context of the many initiatives that had been proposed by the opposition parties.
He said that “one could not help but come to the  conclusion that they say nothing is in the budget that they consider of relevance of use or of benefit to Guyana.”
The Finance Minister drew reference to a comment made by the AFC leader who had said that the real root of the problem in the differences on the budget lies in the fact that “our politics have troubles.”
Dr Singh said that surely “ we must be able to set politics aside and agree with some things.”
He said that even if it is a case that the ranks in the opposition benches were competing for political space, “we must be guided by that which is good for Guyana.”
In turning his attention to the leader of the political opposition, Dr, Singh pulled out the APNU’s election manifesto and pointed out that in it, APNU had promised a number of initiatives catered for in the 2013 Budget.
Dr Singh suggested that maybe APNU would have had a prelude to the 2013 Budget when it prepared its manifesto, given that it espouses the need for economic transformation; focus on education and training; ensuring food security as well as a heavy focus on the development of the ICT sector, all of which have been catered for in the 2013 Budget by the PPP..
“At the very least,” according to Dr Singh, APNU would have recognised that many of the promises made by APNU are being delivered on by the ruling party.
He told the members of the House that despite lamentations on the part of the opposition benches about a lack of inputs on the budget, the administration has been paying attention to all of their public pronouncements and where feasible, the initiatives are acted on and delivered by the PPP.
Dr Singh in drawing reference to the AFC’s manifesto, pointed out that it had regaled the establishment of  programmes similar to that of the school-feeding programme being undertaken by government, and as such, would have anticipated support for even the $1B for the national school- feeding programme
“Even if you didn’t agree with anything else,” said Dr Singh, in reference to the AFC’s opposition to various aspects of the budget, it would have been expected that the school-feeding programe would have found favour.
It would have augured well for a frank and honest debate,” said Dr Singh and posited that their philosophy is to oppose for opposing sake because it comes from the PPP.
Granger insisted that the 2013 Budget did not address the root causes of social ills such as poverty reduction and security in the nation.
The Opposition Leader said that the budget does not provide resources to realise the rhetoric spewed by the government and queried where the allocations are for the revamping of institutions such as the  Office of The Ombudsman or the Public Service Appellate Tribunal that serves to provide recourse for aggrieved public servants
He was adamant that the minority administration cannot continue to ignore the public’s will forever.
In Granger’s view, he said that the budget is worse than a mistake, but rather a blunder, a position vehemently rejected by the Finance Minister.
“A bold budget was needed to move the country at a faster pace but such a budget is yet to be,” said the Opposition Leader.
The finance minister in his rebuttal, maintained that the ruling administration has always been guided by an openness to listen and consult and “of course we didn’t agree with all, and to the extent that there were overlaps, we agree,” said Dr Singh, as he pointed to the many programmes being implemented by the Administration that would have also been proposed by the opposition over a course of time.
“When it is good for Guyana we will do it…we will not refuse to do it simply because you suggested it, wherever the idea comes from, if it is good for Guyana, we will do it,” the finance minister told the opposition benches.
In pointing too to the accolades being poured out in support of the 2013 Budget, the minister suggested, as did the Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, earlier in the day, that “the only people who oppose the budget are the 33 on that side of the house.”
He said that even if the rank and file of the opposition benches had been constrained to agree with everything, he would have at least expected objective support on the measures that would have been overlapping in the various manifestos that had been put forward to the Guyanese people.