Dear Editor ,
At a time when the majority of Guyanese are struggling to meet basic needs, the Government’s decision to table legislation restoring unlimited state-funded benefits for former Presidents is not just tone-deaf—it is indefensible.
Bill No. 10 of 2026 seeks to roll back the modest safeguards introduced in 2015 and reinstate a regime of open-ended entitlements: free utilities, taxpayer-funded household staff, unrestricted medical coverage for former leaders and their families, state vehicles, security, travel allowances, and tax exemptions equivalent to a sitting President. All of this—guaranteed for life.
Let us be clear: this is not about dignity. This is about excess.
The previous reforms did not strip former Presidents of respect or necessary protection. They imposed reasonable limits, introduced accountability, and aligned benefits with a basic principle of governance—that public resources must be managed responsibly. The removal of those limits now sends a troubling signal: that restraint is optional when power is involved.
The Government argues that these benefits reflect the “continuing obligations” of the presidency. But what ongoing obligation justifies unlimited utilities, unrestricted medical spending, and lifelong tax immunity in a country where thousands cannot afford consistent healthcare, reliable electricity, or adequate nutrition?
This is not about honoring service. It is about privilege without proportion.
Even more concerning is the timing. Guyana stands at a critical juncture, with oil revenues expanding the national purse. Citizens have been repeatedly assured that this wealth would translate into improved living standards, stronger institutions, and equitable development. Yet, instead of prioritizing systemic relief for the many, the Government’s first instinct appears to be restoring elite entitlements for the few.
That choice is revealing.
It underscores a widening disconnect between leadership and lived reality. While ordinary Guyanese tighten their belts, the political class is loosening its own constraints—legislating comfort, security, and excess at public expense.
The justification that this restores a “consistent framework” is equally hollow. Consistency is not a virtue when the standard itself is flawed. A bad policy, uniformly applied, remains bad policy.
The Opposition is correct to raise alarm. This move dismantles the very safeguards that were designed to prevent abuse and ensure transparency. It reopens the door to unchecked spending with little oversight—precisely the kind of governance Guyanese have long rejected.
What is most troubling, however, is the absence of empathy.
Leadership demands more than authority; it requires awareness. It requires an understanding of the struggles faced by citizens and a willingness to lead by example, especially in times of economic disparity. This legislation does the opposite. It elevates the comfort of former officeholders above the daily realities of the population.
That is not leadership. That is detachment.
If the Government is serious about responsible stewardship, it must reconsider this bill. A balanced approach is possible—one that ensures security and reasonable support for former Presidents without imposing an indefinite burden on taxpayers.
Anything less is not governance. It is self-preservation at the public’s expense.
And the Guyanese people deserve better.
Yours truly,
Hemdutt Kumar
