Dear Editor,
Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, has once again taken to the airwaves to sermonise about fiscal responsibility and the “careful management” of Guyana’s oil revenues. In a recent post‑budget interview on Hits and Jams 94.1, he spoke glowingly of our “late‑mover advantage” — as though arriving late to the oil game automatically guarantees wisdom. The irony is impossible to ignore.
The Minister’s words are gentle, even professorial: learn from others’ mistakes, rely on a strong non‑oil economy, safeguard the future. But beneath the reassuring cadence lies a different reality — one in which the government he serves has converted the nation’s Natural Resource Fund (NRF) into the fiscal equivalent of an automated teller machine. The fund that was intended to save for the future and stabilise the economy during volatile oil cycles now bankrolls yearly budget excesses in the name of “development.”
When the administration came to power, it swiftly amended the NRF Act 2021. Gone were the tight withdrawal limits and independent oversight; in came a sliding‑scale formula granting near‑discretionary access to billions. Under the new rules, as total inflows soar — now exceeding US $10 billion — the permitted draw‑down may be dressed up as “formulaic,” yet in practice it leaves only symbolic sums after the government carves out its budgetary share. What once was a shield against the resource curse has become a convenient revenue tap.
Dr Singh’s sermon on volatility — recalling oil at $140 a barrel and again at $8 — underscores precisely why this approach is reckless. Oil income is, by definition, finite and unstable. Using it to fund an avalanche of recurrent expenditure rather than productive investment empties tomorrow’s coffers to cushion today’s politics. The NRF was established to prevent that very temptation, to ensure that our children inherit stores of wealth and not stories of mismanagement.
The Finance Minister insists that Guyana is avoiding the mistakes of other resource‑rich nations. Yet history’s cautionary tales — Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, even Venezuela — all began with this same confident rhetoric. Each vowed to spend “prudently” while the windfall lasted; each eventually discovered that revenue convenience can turn to economic dependency. Oil wealth is meant to build schools, hospitals, and roads — yes — but also to generate alternative engines of growth. Instead, the widening of every budget cycle now seems to rest on withdrawals from petroleum reserves and, increasingly, carbon credits—which ironically still pays a meager, static 15% of earnings to the indigenous community, the stewards of these forests .
This is not prudent management. It is fiscal short‑termism dressed in technocratic language. The nation’s most valuable finite resources are being depleted to inflate the illusion of prosperity. A truly responsible strategy would channel oil earnings into a stabilisation mechanism and productive diversification — powering manufacturing, agriculture, technology, and education so that, when the wells run dry, the economy hums on its own steam.
Guyanese citizens have every right to demand more than slogans about “sustainability.” They deserve a transparent accounting of every cent extracted from the NRF, parliamentary scrutiny over withdrawals, and safeguards strong enough to outlast any administration’s political appetite. Until then, Dr Singh’s appeals to prudence will remain an eloquent mask on what is fundamentally a reckless plunder on the nation’s future.
Oil wealth, once squandered, does not regenerate. The test of leadership is not how deftly one spends it, but how wisely one saves it.
Sincerely
Hemdutt Kumar
