Dear Editor,
There is an old proverb that comes to mind when considering the President Irfaan Ali’s recent attempt to explain away Guyana’s rising inflation: “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
With respect, that wisdom applies squarely to the President’s astonishing claim that Guyanese families eating out more often – and cooking less at home – is what is driving inflation in our country. With respect, I believe the President’s analysis is incorrect, and I would like to offer a few observations.
Before addressing the economic arguments, let us reflect on one point. When considering all of Guyana’s Heads of State from Burnham to the present, it is worth asking: who has spent the most taxpayer dollars at State House parties? Reports indicate that each State House event now costs in excess of $12 million on food alone under President Ali and First Lady Arya. No previous president has come close to this level of expenditure. It seems inconsistent to attribute inflation to families eating out while the presidency itself maintains such a lavish catering budget and really splurge too much on eating out.
Now, to the President’s central claim. I reject it on three grounds:
First, the assertion lacks supporting evidence. No data has been presented showing a significant rise in restaurant visits, nor that such spending constitutes a meaningful portion of the Consumer Price Index. Official statistics consistently show that grocery prices have risen faster than restaurant prices. If families are eating out more, it is likely due to rising costs of cooking gas, electricity, and raw ingredients – or because longer working hours leave less time for home cooking.
Second, inflation in Guyana is structural, not behavioural. It is driven by global food and energy price shocks, supply chain disruptions, fertilizer costs beyond our control, and the macroeconomic effects of rapid oil-sector spending – often described as “Dutch disease.” Foreign exchange inflows push up wages, rents, and prices across the board. These are matters for government and central bank policy, not family dining choices.
Third, the President’s logic does not withstand international comparison. Countries where eating out is far more common – the United States, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago – do not experience this higher level of runaway cost of living as a result. Inflation is determined by monetary policy, productivity, and import dependence, not by whether people cook at home.
In truth, this explanation deflects responsibility from the real drivers of inflation. Instead of pointing fingers at family kitchens, I would urge the President to focus on practical solutions: investing in local agriculture, making shade-house farming attractive for young people, release more land for agriculture, and coordinating with the central bank on appropriate monetary measures. The crux of the matter is productivity in Guyana; it is at an all-time low.
Guyanese families are making rational choices under difficult circumstances. To suggest their decisions are causing their own cost-of-living crisis is neither fair nor constructive. They deserve better than to be scapegoated for problems they did not create. Who green-lighted all these foreign restaurants into Guyana? Not the ordinary people.
I respectfully submit that the President would serve the country better by addressing the structural causes of inflation, rather than offering explanations that do not align with economic reality.
But unfortunately, the more President Irfaan Ali speaks, the more palatable a political choice, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed becomes. The best thing the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Azruddin Mohamed has going for him at this time, is President Irfaan Ali.
Yours faithfully,
Surujdai Juglall
Discussion