Guyana’s Public Servants: That Sunday morning market basket

An editorial highlighting the plight of Guyana’s Public Servants

That Sunday morning market basket

La Penitence Market

La Penitence Market

“I go to the market every Sunday; I know what it takes for a family of four or five to put food on the table, to put shelter and so forth. The average public servant, what they make would be very sufficient to put the basic and enable them to acquire some of the material goods every family wants.”

So said Manzoor Nadir MP and former Minister of Labour, Human Services and Social Security on Monday last at a press conference hosted by the ruling PPP at Freedom House.

Mr Nadir was seeking to make the argument that the lot of public servants has improved under the PPP, which has been in power since 1992. He posited that the ‘average’ public servant earns above the government set minimum wage which is $35,000 and is able to meet his/her basic needs. [$35,000 = about $175 US]  

However, this servant of the people, who can by no means be described as average, did not provide the necessary comparison between what goes into his Sunday morning market basket and that of the ‘average’ public servant. Nor did he provide any comparison between his monthly earnings and that of the ‘average’ public servant—although he was asked the question—which gave his statement the consistency of cotton candy; lots of fluff, no substance and cloying sweetness wrapped in hot air. Incidentally, cotton candy also has a bitter aftertaste.

Had Mr Nadir deigned to speak to any of the ‘average’ shoppers buying greens alongside him on Sunday mornings, he might have learned a few things that could have better informed his utterances. For instance, persons spend between $2,500 and $4,000 [US 12 – US $20] per week purchasing perishables (excluding meat or fish) at the market for a family of four—two adults and two children—and this by no means covers every day’s meals.

In response to a casual enquiry, this newspaper was told that the ‘average’ family of 6 or 8 would have the same limit on weekly fruits and greens purchases, but would use more rice, which ultimately would impact on the health of family members as it signals a poor diet. But perhaps the long-term health of the ‘average’ person is no longer a concern of Mr Nadir, as he has ceased to hold the Labour Ministry portfolio.

Simple arithmetic, however, points to the lack of credence in Mr Nadir’s statement and displays how out of touch he is with the reality of the struggle of the ‘average’ public servant who has a family. Fruit and vegetable purchases add up to between $10,000 ($12,500) – $16,000 ($18,500) per month. To this one must add: other groceries (rice, meat, etc) – $20,000 to $30,000; rent/mortgage – $20,000 to $60,000; public transportation – $10,000 to $20,000 or car loan and gas – $40,000 to $50,000. We can stop here without adding other expenses such as electricity, water and telephone bills and fuel for cooking. Because already the ‘average’ public servant who has a family must be earning between $60,000 to over $100,000  [US$300 -US $500]  (take home) to be able to meet these needs.

Mr Nadir’s “Sunday morning market” statement is also unfortunate as it ignores an entire sector of people who are not government workers and whose earnings are below the minimum wage. While the question that was raised at the press briefing had to do with the government’s now annual arbitrary 5% increase that is meted out to public servants across the board every December, the former minister, in his haste to defend, ignored pensioners and such low-income workers as domestic servants, security guards, shop clerks and others. Incidentally many of these people, as well as ‘average’ public servants, are single parents subsisting on a single income and fortunately in some cases with supplementary funds coming via remittances from relatives and friends overseas.

A smoother response from the ‘average’ politician would have been one where government’s social services and public assistance offerings, meagre as they are, were cited – the uniform vouchers, free text books, school meals and so on. And rather than claim the absolute: that public servants are able to meet their basic needs; the ‘average’ politician might have pointed to ways in which the government was still trying to improve the livelihoods of Guyana’s poorer citizens. Although the country is on record as having eradicated extreme poverty, there are scores of citizens, perhaps hundreds, who remain under the radar and still live in abject poverty.

But then Mr Nadir is not the ‘average’ politician; he is simply one of a breed of puffed-up seat-heaters in Parliament.

[Note $1US = app $205 Guyana $] Public Servants, like other workers, also pay National Insurance and Income Tax on income over G$50,000 [US $250].

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Cliff Thomas  On January 10, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    The Govt has said that they cannot afford to pay more than 5% to Public Servants. What I believe would happen if a higher percentage is paid, inflation would jump beyound 3.5% and so will goods and services too. This would mean that prices on all items will skyrocket and the Civil Servants and all other workers will be back to square one. Stabroek News should first find out from Financiers before printing such an Editorial. I am all for paying higher wages particularly to the poorly paid but because of the above, it will serve no useful purpose. I would like if anyone in Finance could advise me on the above matter if this is correct. Looking forward for a reply.

    • Abert  On January 13, 2014 at 12:02 am

      It may be a bit more complex than you stated. You have to see the full picture of govt revenue and expenditures. Raising public servants pay does not necessarily caused inflation if, for instance, the govt has items in its budget from which it could pull those funds without having to raise taxes. Most of the time it goes back to good national management. There are some things a well manage country could do to increase its source of revenue. As an example almost every country on the planet is working on developing tourism. It brings in foreign dollars and eventually increase govt revenue. But it requires developing the kinds of local entertainment and transportation that attracts foreign tourists with money to spend. It also means keeping the crime rate and social instability to a minimum. Is the govt up to this task?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s