There is a particular recognition  that has been noted from the contributions by three very senior members of the parliamentary opposition: two from A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), and the last from the Alliance For Change (AFC).  It is of the general understanding  that Budget 2013  is one that was crafted with the welfare of the nation’s peoples, and like the previous ones, continues to advance and consolidate gains already made.
Even a visitor from another time, will not fail to observe the inherent changes, very much visible in the lives, and surrounding environment, of Guyanese. The inescapable truth is that the  Guyana of up to 1992,  is  now quickly being overtaken by the new Guyana, from  1993, led by the PPP/C government, and onwards; quickening with  the brisk march  towards modernisation.  
Leader of APNU, Mr. David Granger, was the first opposition member to comment positively  on Budget 2013, when he said: “There is a little bit for everyone”; Amna Ally  “believes giving praise where it is due”, in commending Minister of Education, Priya Manickchand for the advances in the education sector; and AFC’s Khemraj Ramjattan – that the Budget 2013 is a “good financial plan”.   
All these sentiments, signalled an acknowledgement from both opposition  parties,  that the economy is being astutely managed, with successive budgetary allocations reflecting  positive results, such as those in the education sector, as alluded to, by MP Ally. So why the continuous  contradictory statements, and back-pedalling, when there ought to be magnanimity from both opposition parties in commending the government for another budget that will continue to effect a stronger platform on which the transformation process can be expedited?  
Minister Of Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, in his final presentation during the budget debate, pointed to a number of suggested  initiatives from both parties that were included in Budget 2013. Beginning  with APNU: Enhancing education institutions; providing high-speed internet access; expansion of the agricultural base; facilitating access to credit; and major infrastructural development.
While from the  AFC’s Action Plan, there were “ideas  such as the upgrading of technical schools, job-placement programmes, micro credit for youths; and free lunches for primary school children”, also incorporated into the budgetary considerations.
The fact that these inclusions have  been considered  in the Estimates is ample proof that government acknowledges the important role of the parliamentary opposition in matters critically essential to  Guyana’s development.   
Of course, one does not expect that there will be unanimity  by the opposition on every budgetary plan/allocation, suggested by the government. But where this is apparent, alternatives should be offered by both APNU and the AFC, rather than descending into the wasteful realm of arid criticisms that do not make for proper intelligence. This is self-defeating, apart from depicting a collection of people’s representatives who are not honest,  realistic, or moreover not in consonance with the needs of the nation.
However, based on the divergence of views/opinions, as reflected in the presentations of APNU’s MPs, there is a perceived strategy of ‘politics’, as being the sole  reason for not supporting Budget 2013. But at this crucial hour, politics must be set aside, and the broader interests of the nation must prevail.
This must be the guiding light of both opposition parties.