Dear Editor,
I write to address the disingenuous complaints from members of the private sector regarding the government’s intention to establish a drinking water bottling plant and distribution operation. Their outcry about “unfair market competition” rings hollow when examined against their own track record of benefiting from government support.
The private sector’s selective principles are on full display. When government subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure investments, and regulatory favours flow their way, there is silence—even gratitude. Yet the moment government exercises its legitimate right to participate directly in commerce for the public good, suddenly we hear cries of market distortion and unfair advantage.
Let us be clear about what is truly hypocritical here. The very companies now complaining about government market share have benefited immensely from publicly-funded infrastructure they did not build. Consider the Bharrat Jagdeo Bridge—a government project that cost taxpayers billions. The private sector uses this bridge freely, integrating it into their supply chains and operations without bearing the full burden of its construction, maintenance, or financing. Had private companies been required to pay tolls proportional to the actual cost of building and maintaining such infrastructure, their operating costs would be substantially higher. Yet they do not complain about this implicit subsidy.
When government builds ports, roads, airports, and bridges that private businesses rely upon—often at tremendous public expense—these are deemed appropriate public investments. But when government proposes to enter the water bottling sector, a basic necessity for public health, suddenly the rules of capitalism apply and competition concerns emerge.
Consider the concrete financial benefit the private sector currently enjoys. The Bharrat Jagdeo Bridge alone facilitated over 50,000 vehicle crossings daily before tolls were eliminated in 2025. At the former toll rate of $200 per car/minibus (the most common vehicle category), the private sector was avoiding an estimated GYD $2.5 to $2.6 billion in annual crossing costs—costs that were entirely borne by taxpayers. Across all three major bridges in Guyana, the private sector benefits from approximately GYD $3.5 billion in annual toll savings, a massive implicit subsidy funded by the public purse. One wonders: where were the complaints about unfair government advantage when this implicit subsidy existed?
The hypocrisy is stark: government infrastructure subsidies are acceptable; government commerce is not. This is not principled market ideology—it is naked self-interest dressed up as concern for free enterprise.
A government water bottling and distribution operation serves the public interest by ensuring access to safe drinking water, reducing dependence on private monopolies, and capturing value that could be reinvested in public services. Access to clean water is a fundamental human right and an essential public good—not a luxury commodity from which private enterprises should profit at the expense of citizens who lack affordable access. If the private sector cannot compete on fair terms with a government enterprise operating at cost to ensure this basic necessity reaches all Guyanese, perhaps this speaks to the efficiency of public provision rather than the unfairness of competition. The private sector’s right to profit should never supersede every citizen’s right to clean, affordable water.
The private sector should either embrace genuine market principles—including the elimination of the infrastructure subsidies and favours they currently enjoy—or accept that government has the right to provide essential services when private actors fail to do so adequately or equitably.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
Discussion