admin

PNC and taxes – clear the air thoroughly, please Sep 06, 2024 Features / Columnists, The GHK Lall Column Hard Truths by GHK Lall Kaieteur News – The PNC must speak straight and speak true.  The PNC cannot speak like Vice President Jagdeo when a direct question is put to it, with a shave here, a shove there, and a slice somewhere else.  Does it owe any taxes to the Municipality of Georgetown? The party gave a loud, unequivocal NO.  Thanks for that clarity.  But that transfer of the lands to Maikwak has come in for its own fire.  Does Maikwak now owe the $6.7B to City Hall, and on this the PNC shouldn’t shift from foot to foot, or retreat into silence. If it does owe billions in taxes, as stated with considerable confidence by VP Jagdeo, what are its plans and arrangements to resolve the matter?  Whatever the amount owed, if any at all, what does the party intend to do about it? GHK Lall It does not help that a clear, straight answer on the $6.7B tax bombshell has shifted from the PNC itself into the blankness of Maikwak, and right there in Sophia.  I am all for confidential relative to certain matters, but there are some things that still must be said to set the record straight.  If Maikwak is due some concession or exemption, then the documentation would help. Also, confidentiality has its time and place, but it must stop being seen as some sacred, all-purpose shelter when answering uncomfortable questions can lead to the potential disclosure of inconvenient truths.  The PPP Government and some of its more sparkling luminaries have rushed for cover inside the sanctuary of confidential when to speak to truth about national matters would expose its underbelly and possibly some type of skullduggery.  Or it settled for silence.  The claims of clean, transparent government and leadership have suffered from this seeking of the safe harbor of confidentiality.  Or silence.  So, when I read of this development about Maikwak coming out of PNC spokespeople, it does not sit right, falls short.  The PPP Government and its players cannot be roundly denounced for hiding behind smokescreens when the hard issues of the day are raised, but the PNC held to a different standard.  Through silence.  Through some verbal maneuver.  Through what looks like an unpersuasive head fake.  Wrong once, wrong twice. I think that this stand from Jagdeo about $6.7B owed by the PNC (Maikwak) to the Georgetown City Council demands a clean response, represents a good start.  I could pause if the actual amount owed is not shared currently.  A case could be made for some degree of confidentiality, but it can’t be open-ended.  I assert this because the PNC is not some run-of the mill, fly-by-night presence in Guyana. The PNC is a major national presence, the national government more than once.  This makes it the farthest thing from a regular mom-and-pop corner shop.  With that highest former national presence [a government] and its status as the major opposition political group (a government-in-waiting, should there be alignment of the stars, and the Americans so inclined), as backdrop, the onus is on the PNC to get this issue sorted out convincingly and publicly. In other words, Maikwak cannot serve as shield or dead-end.  The confidential status that is due other ordinary presences in Guyana cannot apply in this situation.  The answer about the PNC not owing those taxes is welcomed.  But pointing to Maikwak does not conclude this matter. In the interests of plain truths and the transparencies that go along with those, this $6.7B issue [and Maikwak] must be told.  The longer that this alleged tax arrears dangles unanswered in the face of Guyanese, the worse odor it assumes.  I believe that the party has already put the wrong foot forward in how it has dealt with this startling development.  Should it persist with what I believe is a losing approach, the only thing that it succeeds in doing is digging a bigger hole for itself.  Separately, my concern is how does a responsible organization of the national standing of the PNC, reach this stage of an alleged $6.7B rates and taxes backlog.  If the amount is in the neighborhood (wherever it applies), I wonder how negligent or cavalier it could have been about something of this nature.  An amount of $6.7B must involve a good number of years.  Unless there is a significant set of property spread across the municipality’s area of authority.  Either way, this doesn’t look good and calls for immediate comment that goes to the heart of the matter.  To repeat: taxes are owed or not owed by Maikwak.  If owed, efforts are underway to clear up the situation.  The PPP Government loves to smirk and snarl about proof when cornered with allegations of wrongdoing or failure.  The PNC is best advised not to go down that road. This brings me to the development coming out of the Georgetown City Council.  I just say that it is certainly timely, a nice late August surprise that benefits one political group currently.  Why revisit what has been already settled?  So, it has nothing to do with arrears.  This blows some smoke in the face.  If not arrears, then what is it, really?  Why even bother to bring that up again?  We must start somewhere is walking the straight line with straight stories and straight talk.  If not, all that there would be is the usual six-for-nine that has become such a feature in Guyana.  From leadership to governance, to oil, to statistics, to taxes, to public disclosures.  We continue this way, and all Guyana would ever be is a society and country forever embroiled in controversies, riddled with accusations, and going nowhere. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

Infrastructure as post oil backup Sep 06, 2024 Editorial Kaieteur News – Guyana’s chief policymaker, Bharrat Jagdeo, operates with his own logic.  His latest is that infrastructure gorging represents the best in forward thinking and preparing for a post-oil world in Guyana.  Jagdeo fallback being pushed is that when the oil is depleted, infrastructure will prove its usefulness in many ways, with the manufacturing sector benefiting handsomely.  It is wishful thinking at work, but with a conspicuous deficit which he sidesteps because there are negatives embedded, which darkens his fairytales.  In Jagdeo’s head, it is highlighting the pluses, ignoring the drawbacks, and the rest will solve itself somehow. The justification for hundreds of billions in several national budgets is that there will be a blueprint already in place, when the oil is finished.  Surprisingly, Jagdeo acknowledges that ExxonMobil is pushing the daily production meter, which means that the initial 20-year lifespan for some projects/wells has been considerably reduced.  Like massive GDP numbers, increased oil production has resulted in minimal differences in the lives of ordinary citizens.  Guyanese observe the staggering rush of activity, read of the billions being spent, learn of how well the country is doing, but lament about why they are left behind, falling farther behind. It is mostly because of the oil wealth but, to repeat, the benefits at the citizen level are not coming to them.  According to chief policymaker Jagdeo, Guyanese must sacrifice today, so they will be better poisoned to capitalize in a few years when oil production peaks.  Meanwhile, those on the lower ends of the local wage ladder (in a rampaging economy) must find ways to get by.  The richest citizens in the world per capita are forced to ask themselves that, if this is what it means to be that rich, since it has translated to nothing for them.  For poor they are today, because they are fighting a losing battle with cost-of-living and living in a dignified manner.  In other words, they can’t manage, survival is a daily trial of brutal proportions. So, they are waiting, and now Jagdeo is all brightness about the significance of infrastructure when the oil is gone.  Ordinary Guyanese have serious difficulty coping today, when they are the talk of the world.  The challenge is how are they going to manage from now in this time of penniless individual barrenness to the time when Jagdeo’s infrastructure magic proves its worth?  He says that the manufacturing sector will benefit, notwithstanding the fact that the same sector is struggling with a severe shortage of workers with the required skills.  It is obvious that Jagdeo prefers dealing with fantasy than reality. When the new roads and bridges connect farm to markets, what about the money that should have been in the pockets of the poor Guyanese masses to help them buy not whatever they want, but what they need?  It is the usual Jagdeo standard, where his economic formulas have one element only which appeals to other objectives that he is slick enough to leave unstated.  It is a truism that for corruption to take wings, there must be spending.  The more spending there is on infrastructure, the more the opportunities for the skullduggeries that Guyanese live with, pay for, and which torture them presently. Aside from roads, Jagdeo spoke of the Wales gas-to-energy project and how his promised lower electricity rates will be a boon for the manufacturing sector.  Give Guyanese the basis for that promise, that optimism, and there could be some support for it.  Having been promised before, and burnt badly before, by Jagdeo with different costly projects, more Guyanese have had their fill of him and his clever concoctions always wrapped in secrecy.  Two billion American dollars do not represent pocket money for Guyanese.  They want substance now, they want money in hand now, they want to taste and savor the benefits of their oil wealth now.  Post oil is years from now, and Guyanese must live with dignity now.  Future probable infrastructure benefits do nothing for struggling citizens now.  The oil is flowing now, and Guyanese should experience its positives today.  Less in infrastructure and more for people is the wiser and better way.  Of course, less infrastructure spending means less available to steal. Related Similar Articles

Jagdeo is attempting to dictate the narrative Sep 06, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – At yesterday’s press conference, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo did what Jagdeo does best. He sought to frame the public discourse in terms most favourable to his government. With the finesse that only decades of political experience can confer, he began with a familiar refrain—complaining about the so-called “anti-PPP” elements that refuse to measure the success of the current administration by comparing it to the previous APNU+AFC regime. That government, according to Jagdeo, was a festival of corruption, a five-year carnival of ineptitude. And here, as if he were a university professor grading papers, Jagdeo insists that the current PPPC administration’s performance should be evaluated against the low bar set by its predecessor. But why should Bharrat Jagdeo dictate how the current government is assessed? Who granted him the authority to set the boundaries of public debate? What makes the APNU+AFC’s tenure, which Jagdeo repeatedly castigates as disastrous, a useful standard for comparison? This is the central question that Jagdeo evades as he attempts to straight-jacket the analytical framework within which his government’s performance is scrutinised. It’s a clever rhetorical sleight of hand, one we’ve seen before. Jagdeo would have us believe that because the APNU+AFC was bad, any improvement—no matter how marginal—should be cause for applause. He places the goalposts so close to the ground that the PPPC could trip over them and still be declared victors. The implicit message is clear: “We’re not as bad as they were, so we must be doing fine.” But this argument collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. If the APNU+AFC administration was, as Jagdeo claims, an unmitigated disaster, then why should we be satisfied with merely surpassing such dismal standards? To compare the present government to the previous one is like grading on a curve in a class where most of the students failed—everyone looks better, but it says nothing about the quality of the work. By Jagdeo’s logic, if the previous regime drowned in corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence, then the PPPC’s ability to keep its head just above water should be celebrated. This is governance by contrast rather than by excellence, a tactic as old as politics itself. But why should the people of Guyana accept such a meagre proposition? Why should they allow Jagdeo to dictate the terms of debate? The answer is simple: they shouldn’t. Instead, the public should feel free to assess the PPPC government on their own terms, using criteria that matter most to them. Let us take, for example, the glut of resources now available to the government—primarily from the burgeoning oil industry. When Jagdeo compares his administration to the APNU+AFC, does he take into account that his government presides over vastly greater wealth than its predecessor? If not, then why should the public not ask: “What could have been achieved with these resources?” Should they not demand to know whether this unprecedented revenue is being spent in a way that benefits the many rather than the few? Should the government not be judged by how effectively it manages the bonanza that has landed in its lap? Why limit the discussion to a comparison with the last administration when there are countless other regimes worldwide that could serve as models? Why not evaluate the PPPC by its resourcefulness compared to other oil-producing countries? Nations with similar reserves and populations often manage to harness their oil wealth to build strong, diversified economies with robust institutions and minimal corruption. Why, then, should the people of Guyana be content with comparisons to a failed regime? And what of corruption? Jagdeo speaks of the APNU+AFC as though their legacy is one of unbridled graft, and perhaps it was. But the fact remains that corruption is a persistent problem under the PPPC as well. The perception of corruption—whether in the awarding of contracts, in government hiring practices, or in the cozy relationships between government officials and certain private sector interests—has not dissipated. If anything, it has deepened. The public should not feel compelled to compare levels of corruption between two regimes but should rather be asking whether their government is as clean as it ought to be or whether it is as accountable as they were promised it would be. Jagdeo, of course, prefers not to dwell on such matters. He would rather the public forget the PPPC’s promises to renegotiate contracts with oil companies, a promise that remains largely unfulfilled. The government’s current posture toward these contracts is one of cautious acceptance, rather than renegotiation in the people’s interest. Why should citizens not measure the administration’s performance against the promises it made? Why should the government not be held accountable for what it said it would do with the oil contracts and with the Petroleum Commission? The public must also consider the present government’s policies on their own merits. For instance, what has the PPPC done to address the chronic issues of poverty and inequality? Has it pursued policies that genuinely uplift the working class, or has it focused more on expanding the fortunes of the political and economic elite? These are the kinds of questions that Jagdeo seeks to avoid by imposing his narrow comparative framework. He does not want the public to assess the government by how well it has reduced poverty or by how much it has reduced inequality. He would much rather they assess it by how much less corrupt or less incompetent it is than the last administration. But even here, Jagdeo overreaches. By seeking to dictate the terms of analysis, he exposes the fragility of his government’s record. If the PPPC’s performance truly stood on its own merits, there would be no need to constantly invoke the spectre of the APNU+AFC. There would be no need to play the game of relative success. The PPPC could proudly tout its achievements, unburdened by the need for comparison. But the fact that Jagdeo continually returns to this refrain suggests that the government’s accomplishments are not quite as impressive as he would have us believe. In the end, Bharrat Jagdeo’s attempt to impose a framework for assessing his government’s performance is not just an insult to the intelligence of the Guyanese people; it is a tacit admission of his administration’s shortcomings. He would rather be judged against the lowest standards than face the scrutiny of a free and independent evaluation. The people of Guyana should reject this gambit. They should demand more. They should assess their government by the standards that matter most to them—not by the pitiful ones Jagdeo so desperately clings to. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

Guyana should look to Switzerland to learn how to improve democracy by radical constitutional reforms Sep 06, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Reference is made to Keith Bernard’s letter of September 5, 2024, published in Stabroek News, where he calls for a reconsideration of how Guyana is governed. This topic is indeed timely but the author lacks an in-depth understanding of other governance models. For example, he mentions the Swiss system of direct democracy but then dismisses it as difficult to adopt. As a Guyanese born and largely raised in Switzerland, I have ample experience with Swiss democracy and how the Swiss Federal State is organized. And strongly believe that it can serve as an excellent case study for Guyana! Keith Bernard writes that scaling up the Swiss model is tricky, but this is not the issue here. The population of Switzerland has reached 9 million people, which is more than ten times larger than that of Guyana. Switzerland is a nation comprised of 26 cantons (equivalent to the states in the US), which enjoy far-reaching autonomy including the right to raise communal and cantonal taxes. The Federal Government is organized largely along the principles defined in the Constitution of the United States, which was the only example available to the Swiss in 1848, when they crafted the Constitution of the Swiss Federal State. Importantly, the Swiss adapted the US constitution to accommodate the specific requirements of the Swiss people, who were not accustomed to a strong central state led by a monarch. This explains why the Swiss president is comparatively weak and does not have the same executive powers that a US (or Guyanese) president enjoys. The power is concentrated with the legislature, which is a two-chamber parliament. The Swiss Federal Parliament is composed of a National Council elected on the basis of proportional representation, and the Council of States (equivalent to the US Senate), which represents the cantons. Both chambers of the Federal Parliament enjoy equal power and laws have to be passed by both chambers with a majority. In addition, each law approved by parliament can be challenged by the public in a referendum. To do so, 50’000 signatures have to be collected, which then will trigger a national vote on the new law. Hence, the Swiss people have the ultimate say on any new legislation. This may sound cumbersome and risky, but this mechanism of direct democracy has moderating effects on the Federal Parliament. It will aim at crafting legislation that reflects the majority opinions of the Swiss population. If it fails to do so, it runs the risk of having new legislation rejected at the ballot box. As a consequence, Switzerland has become a very stable democracy as it is grounded in consensus building and compromise finding. Being fully aware of the deep divisions that run through Guyanese politics, I am of the strong believe that adopting elements of Swiss direct democracy could offer a unique opportunity to overcome these divisions. For example, the tool of a referendum on laws passed by parliament would force the dominant political forces in Guyana to workout solutions to the pressing problems of the nation that serve not only the base and constituents of the party in power but the broad population independent of political preference and ethnic loyalties. Furthermore, the introduction of a two-chamber parliament would have advantages as it would allow for direct representation of the regions and their specific interests in parliament and would subject the legislative process to greater scrutiny and checks. The key question however is how can real and deep constitutional change by achieved? Unfortunately, no party in power will agree to changes of the current political system, which serves them so well. This is best evidenced by what happened in 1992, when PPP took power after years in opposition. In 1980, Guyana’s president Linden Forbes Burnham dumped the traditional Westminster system, in place since independence in 1966, in favor of an authoritarian constitution with a strong presidency. This constitutional change was strongly opposed by the PPP, while in opposition. However, once the PPP gained power, Cheddi Jagan failed to reject the Burnham constitution in favor of crafting a more democratic constitution for Guyana. In Switzerland, the transition from a loose confederation of independent cantons to a federal state with semi-autonomous cantons was only possible after a brief civil war in 1847, which was won by the liberal and radical forces over the conservatives. This laid the basis for the visionary Swiss constitution of 1848. The transition to a federal state with a stable and accountable federal government and the rule of law was also key to Switzerland’s economic rise starting in the 19th century to become one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, nota bene without any natural resources except for its hard-working population. Is Guyana ready to undergo serious and fundamental constitutional reform without a major political crisis? Sincerely, Andre Brandli, PhD Professor, LMU Munich, Germany Related Similar Articles

Political parties are NOT social welfare organisations Sep 06, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, I write in response to Mayor Mentore’s latest attempt at obfuscating the facts around this most reprehensible policy aimed at exempting the PNC/AFC from paying their fair share of rates and taxes. In his latest risible contortion, the mayor finally admits that he was not truthful when he wrote that the policy “…establishes a 25% institutional rate for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) AND political parties.” He now claims that “…a well-crafted policy to provide a framework to apply the institutional rate of 25% to one category of organisations – political parties – was discussed and approved. The policy does not mention non-governmental organisations because it was not necessary.” Thank you, Mayor Mentore. Though revealed in bits and pieces, the truth has finally come to light. Furthermore, the meeting minutes will reveal that the policy presented to the council was so vague and poorly written that it had to undergo several revisions before being passed, with approval coming solely from PNC councillors. Contorting himself further, Mayor Mentore attempts to deliver a misguided lecture on the distinction between a policy and a decision. However, his attempt at obfuscation does not change the facts of the matter: on August 26, the PNC councillors voted to exempt political parties from their tax obligations. This is particularly outrageous given the mayor’s own admission of the city’s ongoing budget struggles, which have led to diminished services such as solid waste management, drainage, public health, and security. Editor, I wish to make clear that political parties are NOT social welfare organisations. A social welfare organisation exists to improve societal well-being through services like charity, advocacy, and community development, remaining largely apolitical and non-partisan. Its focus is on addressing social issues without seeking political power. A political party, however, is explicitly designed to gain political control, shape government policies, and compete in elections. While social welfare organisations assist communities, political parties aim to govern them, making their pursuit of influence and authority central to their mission. Finally, if the policy is as well-crafted as His Worship claims, then he ought to have no problems answering the following questions: 1) What is the potential impact of the proposed rate reduction on the City coffers? (2) What is the potential impact of the proposed rate reduction on current real estate assets held by political parties and the classification of such assets in the future? (3) Who sent the letter requesting rate reductions? (4) What is the AFC’s role in this matter? (5) What is the value of the benefits the AFC would receive from this relief? In conclusion, Mayor Mentore must be held accountable for his continued obfuscations and misleading statements. The fact remains that on August 26, the PNC councillors voted to exempt political parties from paying their fair share of taxes, a decision that directly contradicts the city’s urgent need for revenue. No amount of evasive language or shifting narratives can change this truth. It is time for Mayor Mentore to stop dodging the facts and answer for his role in pushing through this indefensible policy. Sincerely, Alfonso De Armas PPP/C Councillor Related Similar Articles

The Govt. must urgently consider rebuilding/rehabilitating/ maintaining post office buildings Sep 06, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, I am eternally grateful to have been given the opportunity to commence my working life at the Guyana Post Office Corporation (GPOC), on completion of my Secondary Education, several years ago. At that time, the Corporation had at its helm Post Master General, Mr. Edward Noble, supported by Personnel Manager, Mr. Stanton Halley and several other great men and women who served the Corporation with distinction. The Guyana Post Office Corporation is an autonomous body, managed by the Post Master General, with oversight by a Board of Directors. Unfortunately, no Board of Directors has been appointed since the PPP/C returned to office in 2020. GPOC provides service to the ten regions of Guyana, from no less than sixty buildings, and generates revenue from the services they offer and the rental of office space, to both individuals and organisations, public and private. The Corporation does not enjoy a subvention/ budgetary allocation like Guysuco. Editor, the service provided to many communities by GPOC is hampered by the poor state of some of the buildings. I will focus mainly on the Essequibo Coast and Bourda Post Office today. The Danielstown post office was demolished and is causing great inconvenience to the older residents. Has the rebuilding of this post office been budgeted for in 2024? The Aurora post office is in a dilapidated state and is in urgent need of repairs, while Suddie, Queenstown, Anna Regina and Charity are in fair condition. Hopefully when these buildings are being rebuilt the Corporation would maintain the 2-storey design and not resort to one flat buildings as has been done elsewhere. The Bourda Post Office, in the heart of the city, which was rehabilitated between 2003-2004, appears to have been excluded from the Corporation’s maintenance budget. One would have thought that with the PPP/C’s huge budget allocation for building projects, agencies such as the GPOC would have been included so as to facilitate the delivery of critical services to our communities. I am therefore making a public appeal to the government for urgent consideration to be given to rebuilding/rehabilitating/maintaining, where necessary, post office buildings across Guyana. I am also requesting that the Office of the Prime Minister facilitate the appointment of a Board of Directors to support the growth and development of the Post Office Corporation, ending the four-year hiatus. The urgent release of the audited reports for the GPOC for 2020 to 2023 will also provide clarity on the financial performance of this critical agency. Regards, Annette Ferguson, MP Related Similar Articles

The regional system is broken, continues to fail us in education and in timely maintenance of schools Sep 06, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, A news item about toilets not functioning in a West Coast Demerara school is symptomatic of a regional system that never fails to disappoint us over and over, and has been designed to fail. The regional system was supposed to serve people in their regions to get all Government services efficiently, not regionalize corruption, create unresponsive bureaucracies, and send people on a merry go-round. The current inefficient and ineffective design of the Regional Ministry being charged with carrying out works for the maintenance of schools and other government sectors in the regions including being responsible for the “Education Department” schools and dorms in the regions outside of Georgetown, need to be dismantled immediately. It’s a poor way of running Government when an entire Ministry, lacking in the skill sets and technical expertise in managing education, is allowed to hold schools to ransom. If schools need a light bulb or need to fix broken windows or broken faucets and toilet fixtures, they have to wait on the regional system to get these things done. These tasks fall in the laps of regional officials such as the Regional Executive Officers and Regional Chairmen. Schools are at the mercy of these folks with their own agendas, “bureaupathic” ways of operating, and potential skullduggeries that does Guyana no good. Nothing moves quickly! Schools deal with thousands of children on a daily basis and emergency needs occur all the time. Our systems need to be super-responsive to calls from schools for immediate and urgent assistance. Schools cannot wait. They always have to respond to student needs speedily. But when things are in the hands of the regional system and their folks, nothing is going anywhere fast. When faucets don’t work, toilets don’t flush, and buildings are not painted, it’s not always the Ministry of Education that is to be blamed. Most often it is Regional Officials operating on “Guyana Time” when they should be operating on “US Visa Application Appointment Time.” Sloth and lack of response, as is the norm, bedevils the Regional Ministry, and the new, inexperienced Ministers there, cannot fix that “humpty dumpty.” So, when things don’t work, it’s not that it’s always the case that there is weak school leadership or lapses on the part of education officials, most of the time you ask for help until you are blue, and if you are lucky someone will respond to you. “Rapid response” is not something the Regional Ministry understands. So, I urge the Government and parliament to reform a largely useless regional system, or exempt education from such a rotten arrangement whereby schools can be directly run by the Ministry of Education, instead of being under the management of an ineffective and inefficient regional system. When the regions award multiple contracts to the same people, the contractor is simply lacking in capacity to do concurrent repairs and maintenance in all the regional schools in a timely manner. And students and teachers are made to suffer for a bad design for running government. As we talk about constitutional reform, let’s either fix the regional system or dismantle it in favor of modern systems for rapid decision making and program implementation. The Regional System, “as is,” is a “goadie” the country has to carry, and that’s not good. Let’s revamp and reform the system now! Simply saying our system is bad and our not fixing it, is insanity. Sincerely, Dr . Jerry Jailall Civil Society Advocate Related Similar Articles