A more measured look was needed

Editor: I am responding to an article in a November 7, 2025 issue a local newspaper, entitled “NDP promises Public Servants 50% duty-free concession on vehicles Gonsalves says it is a Gimmick”, These comments by Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves dismissing a proposal to grant duty-free concessions to long-serving public servants as “rubbish” and a “gimmick” deserve a more balanced and reasoned review. While fiscal prudence is essential, the reasoning presented to reject the idea appears logically flawed and politically charged rather than analytically sound.

First, the Prime Minister’s argument rests on an exaggerated assumption that all 4,000 public officers with ten or more years of service would immediately apply for duty-free concessions on vehicles, costing the state some $76 million. This calculation ignores basic realities: not every eligible officer owns or intends to purchase a car, and duty levels vary significantly by vehicle type and value. Moreover, such a policy could be phased, capped, or tied to specific criteria to limit fiscal exposure. To use an extreme scenario to invalidate the entire idea is a classic case of over-generalisation.

Second, the Prime Minister confuses rank with tenure when suggesting that a junior officer with ten years of service could benefit while a senior officer with fewer years could not. If the policy aims to reward long and dedicated service, tenure—not hierarchical position—is the relevant measure.
Many public-sector rewards, including pensions and long-service awards, operate on this same principle. Such a structure does not create confusion; it acknowledges loyalty and consistency.

Third, the tone of ridicule used to characterise the proposal as “rubbish” detracts from the substance of the debate. Public officers—teachers, nurses, police, and administrators—form the backbone of national development. Proposals that seek to boost their morale and retention should be examined through the lens of constructive policy analysis, not political theatre.

Finally, rejecting an idea without exploring its potential refinements sends the wrong message to a dedicated public service already struggling under rising living costs. Instead of dismissing the proposal outright, the government could have considered moderated alternatives—such as partial concessions, periodic eligibility reviews, or linking benefits to performance metrics.

In times when the public sector faces growing challenges and low morale, we should welcome creative ways to reward service and strengthen commitment, not deride them with misplaced arithmetic and partisan language.

Robert Lashley