By Mark DaCosta- Speaking during the 2026 Budget Debate, Dr. David Hinds, Member of Parliament for the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) within A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), warned that Guyana’s transition to an oil-rich economy is exposing deep and widening social challenges. He argued that the budget reflects misplaced priorities by favouring certain groups over others, and urged a national reckoning on equity, inclusion, and who truly benefits from the country’s growing wealth.
Hinds is an influential figure in Guyanese politics, renowned for his advocacy on social justice issues and critical examination of governmental policies. As a member of the WPA, he has consistently pushed for greater inclusivity and representation of all social classes in policy-making. His comments during the budget debate aimed to spark a conversation about the meaning of “putting people first” within the context of a budget that allocates an astonishing $1.558 trillion.
In an era marked by high inflation and increasing costs of living, Hinds admonished his parliamentary colleagues to rise above partisan divisions and approach the budget with integrity and foresight. He expressed disappointment at the narrow lens through which many members of the assembly viewed the budgetary allocations, urging a more expansive consideration of its impact on every facet of society. “Critical thought and analysis compel us sometimes to critique that which we may have benefited from,” he asserted, signalling that gratitude should not preclude reasonable criticism.
The crux of Hinds’ address around the complexity of identifying who “people” are in the context of policy creation. He implored legislators to consider the multifaceted nature of society that encompasses various social classes, ethnicities, and age groups. Hinds questioned the administration’s commitment to inclusivity, suggesting that the current budget, while substantial, failed to reflect the needs of all citizens. He presented the stark reality that “58 percent of those people are living in misery,” drawing attention to the struggles of ordinary citizens as they face rampant inflation and socioeconomic instability.
In his presentation Thursday Hinds did not shy away from drawing historical parallels to emphasise the importance of critical engagement with government policies. Referencing the turbulent political climate of 1953, he invoked the words of national poet Martin Carter, who penned poignant reflections on oppression and the struggle for dignity. By citing national poet, Martin Carter’s “Dark Time,” Hinds painted a foreboding picture of the current state of affairs, where “the faces of men and women are strained and anxious” due to the prevailing economic hardships and uncertainties, exacerbated by external threats from neighbouring Venezuela.
As he continued his address, Hinds shifted focus to the very individuals who were instrumental in developing the budget — the public servants. He lamented that these indispensable workers seemed entirely absent from the considerations of the budget, stating, “public servants have not found a place in this budget.” He highlighted the stark difference between the minimum wage for public servants, set at a mere $102,000, compared to the private sector’s $60,000, questioning whether such disparities were acceptable in a budget of this scale.
The debate further illuminated the disparities in higher education funding. Hinds voiced alarm over the trend of sending students abroad for degrees while neglecting to adequately support the nation’s premier institution, the University of Guyana. He argued for a redistribution of funds from government-sponsored overseas scholarships, advocating instead for bolstered support for local education, imploring, “Let us put public servants first.”
Reflecting on historical injustices, he brought to light the need for reparations for African Guyanese, a community that has experienced systemic marginalisation. Citing experts who have calculated a staggering $131 trillion owed for unpaid wages over centuries, he urged the government to consider this demographic in the budget. “In our budget of 1.558 trillion dollars, nowhere could we have found a place to put some resources towards reparations?” he questioned, exposing the neglect of historical injustices within present policy.
Towards the end of his remarks, Hinds expressed frustration regarding the lack of consultation between the ruling party and opposition members prior to the budget’s unveiling. He argued that such engagement would have fostered a sense of ownership over the budget and allowed for a more collaborative approach to governance. The need for a genuine partnership in addressing national issues was underscored by his assertion that “there is a difference between a manifesto and a budget.”
The insights shared by Dr. Hinds resonate deeply within the hearts of those who see a government potentially failing to honour promises of equity and inclusivity. His call to action urges not just a critique of numbers but a challenge to rethink priorities in our country’s governance, lest we continue to overlook those who have long been silenced. The cry for justice, dignity, and representation in our budgetary processes cannot be ignored, making it clear that the struggle for equity remains as urgent as ever in our society today.
