IN the National Budget, the Minister of Finance usually outlines planned programmes and policies of the government over the next year and how they will be financed.

This year, the National Budget was presented in the National Assembly after wide consultation with the public. After its presentation, as per norm, there was a debate.

One expected a lively response from the parliamentary opposition with better ideas. The opposition had a whole week (from January 16 till January 23) to prepare for the budget after it was unveiled by the Senior Minister within the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, on January 16. The debate lasted almost two weeks. The opposition’s response was, however, lacklustre, poor, and deficient.

The budget debate was supposed to provide the opposition with an opportunity to critique the budget, exposing flaws and showing how it would have better spent the funds. There was hardly any from the APNU+AFC. The budget was pragmatic with doable programmes. The need for practicality is very important in a country with limited capital. The opposition did not outline any practical ideas worthy of consideration by the government.

Regrettably, the opposition came to parliament with what critics described as one of the worst responses to a budget – seemingly unprepared as one listened to the incoherent, unfocused responses of opposition members of parliament. They offered no meaningful alternatives on what government ought to do. The opposition appeared confused about what they should do in a budget presentation. They came across as unprepared; it appeared they didn’t do any research. The government MPs were more focused and made far more intelligent comments on the budget than their nemeses, although some government MPs were not up to par. It is the opposition that is supposed to hold the government to task, not the other way around.

Clearly, these opposition MPs did not even read the budget or study it to make constructive critiques or offer suggestions that government could consider for funding and implementation that would help transform the economy to boost development. It was a budget to improve lives today and building prosperity for the future. It is designed to accelerate development. There was nothing constructive from the opposition, no ideas to improve peoples’ lives, prepare the country for tomorrow’s challenges, or fast track development. They praised nothing in the budget — not even the school and uniform grants that they cut when in government (2015 to 2020); not even meals for kids in public schools; not even an increase in the pension for that vulnerable segment of the population; not even the measures to mitigate cost-of-living increases; not even programmes that will uplift poor communities and marginalized people, and not even for the allocation to revive the sugar industry that was decimated under their cutbacks.

One critique of the opposition response was that most presenters simply muddled through their presentation with unfocused, disjointed, unconnected remarks. They were not synchronized. There were repetitions by presenters, including by the Opposition Leader, suggesting inadequate preparation or caucusing among opposition members on how they would tackled the budget. The opposition did not expose valid holes in the budget. It could be that the budget was so good that the opposition could not find much fault with it.

Some of what was said by opposition MPs was unclear, unintelligent, and incomprehensible. Some MPs garbled utter nonsense. Some criticized the budget for criticism’s sake with no meaningful objective; their criticisms did not impress the pubic. The budget was given an overwhelming approval of 88% by the general public by a poll, clearly suggesting that the Finance Minister and the government MPs did a better budget in presenting and supporting the programmes and funding in the budget. It appeared that they didn’t find favour with any aspect of the budget.

Clearly, the opposition failed to do their homework in Budget 2023. A budget is not only information recorded on a statement for parliament or for the opposition to critique. It is a serious document, having implications for the lives of everyone in the nation. The opposition should not have taken the budget lightly and ignore its many benefits for the country and the population.  MPs should have been more prepared to debate the budget with sound analyses. They would do well to come prepared for the next budget presentation.