THE Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) has noted that the preliminary census results, released recently, indicate that the population of Guyana has decreased from 751,223 in 2002 to 747,884 in 2012, a decrease of 3,339 persons.

The IAC is extremely alarmed with these statistics because they indicate, unmistakably, a high net migration outflow of between fifteen (15) and twenty (20) percent of the current resident population of Guyana between 2002 and 2012.
The IAC has recognised that this trend can be traced back historically for several decades when the population stood at 701,718 in 1970; 759,567 in 1980 and 723,673 in 1991. These figures indicate that migration outflows since 1970 probably, cumulatively, equal or surpass the total amount of persons now resident in Guyana in 2014.
The IAC, in light of statistics published by reputable international organisations, which place Guyana’s brain drain among the highest in the world, if not the highest, recognises that the current census figure strongly suggests that the brain drain from Guyana continues unabated in spite of the strength of Guyana’s economy which has witnessed fourteen (14) consecutive years of economic growth according to GDP per capita statistics published by the International Monetary Fund: US$1,417 in 1999; US$1,512 (2000); US$1,513 (2001); US$1,544 (2002); US$1,582 (2003); US$1,654 (2004); US$1,729 (2005); US$1,915 (2006); US$2,279 (2007); US$2,509 (2008); US$2,630 (2009); US$2,904 (2010); US$3,263 (2011); US$3,581 (2012) and US$3,729 (2013).
The IAC is alarmed that despite this prolonged period of economic growth, the migration outflows continue unchecked, and is of the opinion that Guyana’s post-independence economic history must be understood so as to place this population stagnation and decline in perspective.
The IAC believes that comparative analysis of the respective economic growth patterns of Guyana and Singapore will shed much light on Guyana’s current predicament.
According to IMF Statistics, the GDP (nominal) per capita in 1960 for Guyana was US$304 while that of Singapore was US$395. In 2013, the values were US$3,729 for Guyana and US$54,776 for Singapore.
Comparison of the GDP (nominal) per capita between Guyana and Singapore illustrates that:

(1) In 1975, Guyana was where Singapore was in 1968
(2) In 1985, Guyana was where Singapore was in 1968
(3) In 1992, Guyana was where Singapore was in 1969
(4) In 1993, Guyana was where Singapore was in 1971
(5) In 2006, Guyana was where Singapore was in 1973
(6) In 2013, Guyana was where Singapore was in 1979

Between 1960 and 2012, the population of Guyana increased by a factor of 1.34, while that of Singapore increased by a factor of 3.22.

The IAC recognises that in relation to Singapore, which had almost continuous economic growth between 1960 and 2012, the economy of Guyana stagnated between 1975 and 1992 and grew slowly between 1993 and 2006.

The IAC has computed, using statistics obtained from the IMF database, that to arrive at where Singapore’s economy stood in 2013, it would take Guyana 254 years (from 1960) or another 200 years from today.

This reality should be a cause of urgent action. The IAC, therefore, calls upon all political parties, all trade unions, all religious bodies, all cultural organisations, all NGO’s and all of civil society to study these facts presented to them by the IAC and, taking the example of the people of Singapore, join together to combat divisiveness, feelings of insecurity and to combine intellects and to plot a fresh approach for Guyana’s where people feel safe and want to make the country their home.

The IAC strongly feels that the time has come for a serious re-examination of Governance initiatives which will enhance a feeling of inclusiveness and togetherness by all ethnic groups.
This is absolutely necessary to address the deleterious effects of brain drain and if increasing levels of crime are to be effectively combatted and result in a significant reduction of the unacceptably high levels of insecurity present in the Guyanese society today.

The IAC will continue to engage other likeminded partners in the diverse cultural landscape so as to foster deeper national unity and a sense of belonging.

INDIAN ARRIVAL COMMITTEE