The fuss over UG and infrastructural development

THIS past week, as part of Budget 2024, the government has announced debt forgiveness for those with unpaid student loans at the University of Guyana. Can you imagine that that has drummed up loud controversy? The chief argument is that the PPP government of 1994 is the one to introduce fees in the first place. I saw some of the arguments, and, at best, they are extremely simplistic, monotonic and lack basic analysis.

I do not want to add anything to the superfluous arguments being passed for criticisms, I merely want to ask a few questions:
What was the physical condition of the campus at the time when fees were introduced, and what progress has been made since?\

What was the financial condition of UG at the time, and was an infusion of student fees alongside government subvention good for the survival of UG?
As a subscribing country to IMF’s Economic Recovery Programme that started under PNC’s Desmond Hoyte, wasn’t it an unavoidable part of the conditionalities for partial cost recovery (fees) to be introduced at the University of Guyana?

Wasn’t there general political consensus at the time that the introduction of fees was necessary for the survival of UG?
Wasn’t UG administered by a PNC government for almost its entire existence until 1992, when the PPP assumed Office? And, wasn’t UG in a deplorable, run-down condition when the PPP took office?

Wasn’t there a PNC government in office for five years, and during its term in office not only increased fees but also placed a VAT on education fees? Further, what effort was made towards total removal of fees and/or debt forgiveness?
The answers to the questions posed above will show the record of how each government administered the financial affairs of the university. These answers will also show how two-faced some of the critics are.

Further, I wish to remind the nation that when fees were introduced, the PNC was in general agreement that it was necessary. However, an on-campus protest started, I know, because I was part of the initial planning group. I participated in going from classroom to classroom to get the support of other students to shut down the campus.

And we succeeded in putting all classes on pause. Our initial protest was never about the introduction of fees, per se, but rather the condition of the campus. The buildings were rundown, toilets were stinking from half-mile away, poor water supply on campus among other types of concerns regarding UG’s physical and built environment.

Our protest was to gain an audience with President Jagan and the UG administration, either together or separately, to ask for fees to be paused pending an improvement in the physical conditions of the University. Our argument was that you can’t ask us to pay fees without first making that initial investment.

Dr. Jagan’s plans were to improve the university incrementally while fees were being introduced. After engaging the student representatives, Dr. Jagan agreed to bring forward and fast-track his timetable for physical improvement of the campus. Once we were convinced of his commitment to addressing our concerns, the protest ended.

There was one phenomenon about the protest that must be underscored. It was organic and entirely student-led, but elements within the PNC tried to usurp the protest and attempted to turn it into a protest about the introduction of fees, even though the Party initially agreed.

The PNC did the same thing in Linden during the protest over electricity rates. The PNC is on record as having agreed to the new price structure. Once the protest started, they moved in, usurped, and pretended that they never supported or contemplated a fee increase.

The weight of credibility on these issues are not on the side of the PNC. They should take several rows back, and find real avenues to become a better opposition; the history of clutching at straws and buying over other people’s “fire-rage” is now transparent.

I wish to touch briefly, only briefly, on the 1.146 trillion-dollar budget for the fiscal year 2024. In fact, I will reserve any analysis until after the actual budget debates are concluded. That said, I wish to address one of the early pre-debate criticisms. What they are saying is that the budget is too heavily invested in physical infrastructure.

Again, another question. What is unusual about such investments in new oil-producing countries? At the time when Trinidad, Venezuela, USA, UAE, Qatar and others discovered oil, what percentage of their budgets were allocated to physical development of their nations? We will find that the path being pursued by Guyana is neither abnormal nor imprudent. Check it for yourselves.