A political controversy has erupted in St. Vincent and the Grenadines as Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves has leveled accusations of “deception” against the newly-elected New Democratic Party (NDP) administration regarding its campaign promise to provide public sector workers with a “bonus salary.
The dispute centers on pre-election commitments made by then-opposition leader Godwin Friday, now Prime Minister, who presented a pledge card on October 1 outlining four key promises his party intended to fulfill within 60 days of taking office. Among these pledges was a commitment to “provide salary bonuses to all public servants” to address the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.
However, confusion emerged when two distinct versions of the NDP’s pledge card surfaced publicly. One version explicitly promised “A Bonus Salary” with the elaboration “A double payment for all public service salaries” within the first month of taking office. Another version referenced a bonus payment without the “double payment” specification.
The situation intensified when NDP Public Relations Officer and Junior Education Minister Lavern King attempted to clarify the party’s position on December 10, stating that the promise was always for a “bonus payment” rather than a full double salary. She attributed any suggestions of a double payment to “election exuberance” and emphasized that the 60-day timeline, rather than a December deadline, remained the official framework.
Gonsalves, speaking at a December 10 press conference, rejected these explanations as linguistic manipulation. He argued that the phrase “bonus salary” clearly indicated an additional month’s pay rather than a smaller bonus amount. The opposition leader contrasted this with the 3% Cost of Living Allowance for three months that his administration had provided to public servants before the election, which the NDP had criticized as insufficient during their campaign.
The controversy has sparked significant public debate across social media and radio programs, with many public sector workers expressing confusion and disappointment about the apparent backtracking on what they understood to be a commitment to a full additional month’s salary.