Dear Editor,
I refer to Charles Sugrim’s letter in KW (September 3rd) complaining about the State of Guyana taking on too much debt, despite receiving higher levels of oil revenues.
I’d like to comment as follows:
Guyana (less than one million people) is a very small country compared to many other oil countries. Given an oil reserve of 11 billion barrels, 0.5% royalty and 5% of revenues as “profit-share” would generate enough revenues to rebuild all the roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, put in new railways, replace all ferry boats and wharves in the whole country, etc.; so, – – it is not about lack of, or too much revenues – it is about three things:
(1) Oil is a non-renewable resource and this nation should be paid fairly for its resource;
(2) Spend your money strictly on what is needed to make life better for all its citizens;
(3) Like Kuwait and Norway, with huge SWFs, Guyana should place all “surplus” funds into a properly managed SWF. This nation will need it – to maintain the same higher level of standard-of-living – when the oil reserve is depleted.
Guyana should also commission studies that will teach you how to build a self-sustainable economy. In many countries (Venezuela is an example), oil accounts for 90% of the economy, and when the oil runs out or oil prices collapse, your country falls back into third-world country status and your people’s standard-of-living retrogresses back into poverty.
President Ali comes off as a more confident leader than 5-years ago; he is the leader of a nation on the rise. But the reality is: Guyana is mired in too many political and social problems. Too much corruption. And, Ali’s leadership in my opinion, does not inspire hope. However, we do see a lot of paid propagandists boosting Ali’s leadership on false facts and false reasonings.
Note: Guyana receives 2% royalty and 12.5% of revenues as “profit-share”.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
Discussion