admin

Discriminatory approach to cash grant distribution must stop Oct 08, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, The discriminatory approach to cash grant distribution must stop, forthwith. What the Jagdeo/Ali regime has done is taken a well-intentioned policy, initially articulated in 2018 by Professor Clive Thomas to create economic opportunities and lift Guyanese out of poverty, to pursue a partisan political agenda that is dividing more than uniting this nation. Where at least half the nation lives in poverty in the world’s richest economy, per capita, we must demonstrate high level of intolerance for the pervasive discriminatory policy that aims to do two things: (1) transfer the nation’s wealth to a few, and (2) as token handouts to secure silence, buy or keep votes. The mismanagement of our resources and wealth is not what our forebears fought for and envisaged. Theirs was the vision to create a society of inclusivity and an economic programme where all benefit. Ours become the responsibility to pursue, protect, build and bequeath these values even moreso now with this tremendous wealth at our disposal. Let us not be fooled by the ‘one Guyana,’ talk, which was a 2006 Elections Campaign slogan used by Robert Corbin, now adopted and misappropriated by Irfaan Ali. This regime, apart from casting aside a carefully thought out and consensually arrived at national motto, is seeking to superimpose one man’s ego on the entire society but after four years has failed to articulate a policy and show this nation that ‘one Guyana’ is inclusive of all. The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) is good at taking well-intended ideas and policies and screwing them up. For instance, the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC), in its 15-point proposal on the cash transfer/grant identified using oil and gas money to support home improvement projects in a just and equitable manner. The PPP has taken the fantastic idea and misappropriated it for its own self-serving and voting buying agenda, creating more animosity than camaraderie among the people in the communities. The same can be said for the disbursement of cash grants for business and to workers in various sectors of society. In this oil and gas economy Guyanese are being reduced to feel they must grovel to benefit when they are equally entitled. Also of national import is that there exists no accountability for how the money is being spent. This policy is underpinned by corrupt and criminal intent. This is the people’s money and why must it be distributed, in salt bags and cartoon boxes, outside of a structured organisation like the post office where a trail can be kept and opened to auditing. This regime is running ‘cow’ with our money.  Whilst some are advocating for renegotiating the oil contract, the money that flows from the existing contract sees the majority economically marginalised. It is disgusting to watch our men, more particularly our women, driven to put their dignity under their feet, gyrating to Ali and other government officials who are operating like lords, in order that they too can get some of the oil money. It is unfortunate that all who are equally entitled, some feel they must sell their dignity and soul for a mess of pottage or a better life. This money is ours. We must develop the will power to hold the Government and Opposition accountable to ensure its fair, equal and equitable distribution. And when I say this, I mean now, not after another election. The Opposition has a responsibility to give political leadership to a vexing matter of public import that requires political resolution. The push by citizens and civic organisations will mean nothing if the Opposition looks past the present and only focuses on the future. Cash transfer or cash grant is the right of every Guyanese citizen. The Constitution of Guyana expressly outlines that we are heirs of the nation and entitled to participate in its bounties.  We must fight not grovel for the respecting of this right. I repeat the call for equitable and transparent cash grant disbursement made by GTUC in 2018, shortly after Thomas made his proposal public. There is nothing new about social programmes with direct and indirect cash transfers, with or without conditionalities.  Cash transfer programmes already exist in our society where we see the business sector getting indirect forms of cash transfers through tax waivers, duty-free concessions and much more. The opportunities and conditionalities are limitless. The benefits to society are bountiful. Guyanese must not allow this opportunity for people’s empowerment through cash transfer to be dismissed or discriminatorily applied. And where the regime is recalcitrant, we the people must force them to see the errant of their ways and change course. Sincerely, Lincoln Lewis Related Similar Articles

‘Suriname/Guyana: good and bad governance’ Oct 08, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, In ‘Suriname graduated: Guyana failed’ (VV 15/09/2024. KN 16/09/2024) I reported that according to V-Democracy, the world’s most comprehensive democracy index, while Suriname is proceeding towards being a fully-fledged liberal democracy, Guyana is galloping towards becoming an autocracy. Governance in Guyana lacks most of the important values of a liberal democratic society, e.g. checks and balances on the executive, adherence to the rule of law, the separation of powers, focus on the common good instead of parochial ethnic appeals and coercion, the primacy of local democracy, etc. Indeed, some of its adherents claim that by directly going to opposition ethnic localities and undermining the local governments for electoral gain, the PPP is developing some new kind of democracy! Recently, a report that epitomises Guyana’s decades-long descent has come to the fore, which in the present context deserves comment. ‘The Chief Executive Officer of Suriname’s state-owned oil company, Staatsolie, has been boasting that his country has clinched a far superior production sharing agreement with TotalEnergies compared to Guyana’s with ExxonMobil and its co-venturers. … He said while Guyana has 2 percent royalty and 50 percent profit split and no taxes, Suriname’s agreement provides for 6.25 percent royalty, profit split based on “the higher the oil price the better” for Suriname, but the lower the oil price the contractor “gets protected.” Additionally, he said Suriname has a stable tax rate of 36 percent.’ (DW 03/10/2024). To those who argue that it is not the system but the people, Suriname does not have more intelligent or moral people than Guyana. As I noted in the article referred to above, what Suriname does have is a more accountable and inclusive governance model. Guyana, with all its natural resources, has been falling and failing to provide the good life for its people for some considerable time. No amount of exclusive, divisive and suboptimal spending can conceal the fact that without relatively strong governance, Guyana cannot adequately confront a strong foreign investor. Indeed, in our political context an individual party that threatens such an investor opens itself to being perpetually in opposition! Unlike Suriname, the existing political majoritarian ethnic context has locked Guyana’s population in ‘the politics of fear’ – a state in which governmental competence or bad behaviour is not adequately punished. ‘The core idea of the Politics of Fear is that as long as supporters need the leader to maintain power … this ruler can deviate from the preferred policy of his following in other matters and still keep their support. … In particular, it shows that a ruler that is kleptocratic, inefficient and costly to all groups in society may still have a basis of support that fears a change in the status quo. This is especially true if civil society is divided on ascriptive grounds. This basis of support may even be willing to fight to return to the previous status should their ruler be deposed. ….  Consistent with the model, these tensions are exacerbated by a high degree of specific income easy to expropriate such as oil revenues’ (https://gerardpadro.com/published-papers/PoF-RES.pdf). Because majoritarianism in ethnically divided countries such as Guayana exacerbates the politics of fear, ‘[i]f any generalisation about political institutional design is sustainable, it is that majoritarian systems are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious and other emotional and polarizing divisions’ (The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). Last week I dealt with the presentation made by Mr. Vincent Alexander at the Forbes Burnham Foundation’s 2024 Elvin McDavid Memorial Symposium on the theme ‘How can an Electoral System for Guyana engineer a system of Governance that is responsive to the Plurality of the Guyanese Society?’ Today I will deal with the contribution made by, Ms. Shanieka Haynes at the same event on behalf of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR). To recap, Mr. Alexander told his audience that in Guyana ‘no single group should be able to dominate, and that conflation and consensus should prevail’. The principle of ‘subsidiarity’ should limit the scope of central government. The determination of who is president should be a function of a process in the legislature that the allows for the appointment of a cabinet based on proportionality and a prime minister based on the consensus and that the powers of the executive and the legislature should be significantly reduced.  I concluded that, though vague, Alaxander’s approach is within the range of what Guyanese society requires if its decline towards autocracy and suboptimal management is to be reversed. So let us see how the PNCR, by way of Ms. Shanieka Haynes, plans to remove or significantly reduce the politics of fear.  She began quite rhapsodically. ‘Today, we gather not just as members of the PNCR, or members of the Forbes Burnham Foundation, but as guardians of a vibrant nation that embodies a mosaic of cultures, customs, beliefs, languages, and traditions our Guyana, a truly plural society.’  Ms. Haynes must have been using the concepts very loosely, for Guyana is not ‘a nation’, ‘a people’ or an ordinary plural society. It is a bicommunal society with a lengthy history of ethnic struggle and this is precisely the reason why after some fifty years of independence the population is still being bombarded by aspirational but wholly utopian notions like ‘One Guyana’. Nevertheless, Ms. Haynes broadly recognised that this ethnic diversity ‘has brought us challenges, particularly in matters of governance and public administration’ and that ‘as a plural society, we must confront the reality that our electoral system influences how well our governance reflects this diversity. The mechanisms of our democracy must serve all segments of our population equitably. … It should be understood [that] every grouping of the society deserves representation …. to protect their fundamental rights and interests.’ According to her, the current electoral system is flawed and is ‘perceived as favouring one group over another. Dominance by a single party leads to the alienation of minority voices, creating an environment where many feel their interests are not adequately represented. This disconnects fosters disenfranchisement, tension, and ultimately, political instability.’ The obvious question for the PNC is what is to be done? There were the normal political platitudes about the need for more civic education, etc., and Ms. Haynes appeared to forget that it was the PNCR that first broke the tradition of the deputy speakership of the national assembly going to the opposition or that the Local Government Commission, with its current structure and reach, was a creature of the PNCR. More substantially but far to narrow, Ms. Haynes recommended that ‘[w]hile a proportional representation system is used for the general and regional elections, we must consider a shift towards a complete proportional representation system in our local government elections.  She also advocated multi-member electoral districts and the strengthening of local governance structures. ‘Inclusive governance means regularly engaging all stakeholders and that governmental appointments should reflect the ethnic diversity of Guyanese society.’ Thus, if in the effort to find a solution to Guyana’s persistent democratic decline Mr. Alexander’s recommendation was somewhat vague, Ms. Haynes’ contribution was uninspiring. Sincerely, Dr. Henry Jeffrey Related Similar Articles

Govt national development priorities Oct 08, 2024 Editorial, News Kaieteur News – As Guyanese learn by way of announcement last week that government has transferred $62.3B more from the Natural Resources Fund bringing its total withdrawal to date for the year to $239.176B, questions continue to be asked what specific projects these funds have been used for. The Ministry of Finance in a statement said that pursuant to the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act 2021, as amended by the Fiscal Enactments (Amendment) Act 2024, Parliamentary approval has been granted for US$1,586,150,331 (equivalent to G$329,885,563,088) to be withdrawn from the NRF in 2024. According to the ministry, in accordance with this approval, the Government of Guyana has made its fourth transfer for 2024, totalling US$300million (equivalent to G$62.394 billion) from the NRF on October 1, 2024, to the Consolidated Fund. This brings the accumulated withdrawals to date up to US$1.150 billion (equivalent to G$239.176 billion) within the total of US$1.586 billion (equivalent to G$329.9 billion) approved to be withdrawn in 2024. Chairman of the National Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Jermaine Figueira in on record like several others calling for transparency when using Guyana’s oil money. He even cited the need for possible amendments to the Act.  Section 16.2 of the Act states that “All withdrawals from the Fund shall be deposited into the Consolidated Fund and shall be used only to finance: (a) national development priorities including any initiative aimed at realising an inclusive green economy, and (b) essential projects that are directly related to ameliorating the effect of a major natural disaster.” To date, government has budgeted approximately US$2.6B in oil money through 2022 to 2024.  Revenues earned from oil are transferred to the Consolidated Fund, blurring tracks of expenditure. Government is yet to identify the “national development priorities” being funded by oil revenue. This is particularly concerning because the legislation features no penalties for misuse of the funds. Figueira however, pointed to the need for transparency when using resources from the sector. He noted that the NRF Act is clear on how the funds should be spent. He said thus:” we require more specifics because the Act is very clear with regards to how those funds should be spent and if you just lump sum it into the consolidated fund we need to know definitely of those funds that were transferred into the consolidated fund that are they being used for the specific purposes with regards to what the Act speaks to.” We support Mr. Figueira’s calls because Guyanese politicians in government after government cannot resist stealing millions upon millions from road building, school construction, public works projects, along with many other areas where huge amounts of the taxpayers’ money had to be spent.  What they didn’t steal, they squandered recklessly, and they always made sure that they had help just as crooked as themselves.  Bureaucrats at senior levels in the public service were put in those positions to ensure that the corruption machinery hummed without interference. The few honest, ethical public servants in the system were either reassigned or removed from where they could see how things are operating and, therefore, raise alarms, objections.  All of this was before the coming of Guyana’s Oil Age.  It is a fabulously rich oil age overflowing with promise, but also one that is laced with the human-originated devastations that drain away most of what it could represent, if handled cleanly and correctly. This is what local experts and even outsiders have warned this country about, how it should be careful, what is has to do. Like Figueira this paper had warned before about the vagueness of withdrawing the oil money to fund “national development priorities.” National development priorities are broad enough to mean nothing, and a clever political verbal construction to house any amount of wastage for self-enriching projects, and any kind of crookedness concocted by perverted politicians. It is why the government ensured that most of the people around the NRF are from inside the PPP/C circle. It is an example of keeping all in the family, with all the likely political tricks condoned, all the smooth leadership cover-ups not mattering at all. When Guyanese urgently need the highest level of integrity and accountability saturating every action of the NRF, they are given the equivalent of primarily party people. For something like the NRF, Guyanese would only get truth, cleanliness, and justice with a truly independent, and a truly international group without the ties that bind to any government in this country. Otherwise, it the same story of old skullduggeries operating under the not-so-new umbrella of “national development priorities” which were heard about before, and leave this nation where it has always been stuck. The what, why, who, and how are all left unasked and, hence, unknown. Related Similar Articles

NASSAU| Bahamas Press is reporting the passing of Retired Bahamasair’s Captain Jehu Edwards. Captain Edwards was 82 residing in the community of #22 Linkford Street, in...

Jacob Mayers is champion-elect of the Sectus Technologies Barbados Karting Association (BKA) Championship, which concluded with Sunday’s (October 6) Glassesco Race Day at Bushy...

Bridget Hanniford Joseph Receives Award at Commffest Film Festival in Canada - Antigua Breaking News Antigua Breaking News Home Entertainment Bridget Hanniford Joseph Receives...

Oct 07, 2024 News …promises to establish Petroleum Commission, hire int’l firm to review award of NPTAB contracts Kaieteur News- Three-month-old Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Nigel Hughes on Sunday revealed the party’s plans to improve the lives of Guyanese within its first 100 days in office, if successful at the upcoming elections. : Leader of the Alliance For Change, Nigel Hughes addressing the Townhall Meeting in Queens, New York With National Elections likely to be held in November 2025, the party hosted a Townhall Meeting in Queens, New York to engage its supporters in the diaspora. Hughes was engaging the audience in a question-and-answer segment when he was asked to share the party’s plans to improve the lives of Guyanese within its first 100 days in office. The party’s leader did not hesitate to highlight firstly that a Petroleum Commission would be established with the requisite experts to manage the sector. He went on to explain, “In terms of immediate money to Guyanese, whether we call it cash transfer or whatever you call it, pick the five best economists you can in the Caribbean, let them identify what the country can meet before and have that money directly transferred by statute to the citizens.” Since Guyana started producing oil in 2019, the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) has received total deposits of US$4.8B, as at the end of June 2024. Presently, three Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessels (FPSOs) are operating offshore. The operator of the Stabroek Block, ExxonMobil Guyana, produces on average 650,000 barrels of oil per day. Earlier in the meeting during his opening remarks, Hughes pointed out that the country was now better positioned economically, compared to where it was prior to the commencement of oil production by Exxon. He explained, “the problem for Guyana today is not whether we have the financial resources. It is how we actually plan and create a truly democratic, modern Guyana in which every single citizen not only plays a role, not only has a vested interest but gets an equal share and an equal opportunity to participate in the country.” The issue of direct cash transfers to Guyanese, using the proceeds garnered from the oil and gas sector has often been the subject of debate. The current administration has dismissed the possibility of direct cash transfers to citizens from the Natural Resource Fund (NRF), urging that this move would not be sustainable. While some sections of society support direct cash transfers, other factors such as overheating of the economy was also previously raised. Nevertheless, to provide immediate assistance to the population, Hughes noted that businesses, especially those owned by women, will have access to capital at globally competitive rates. These firms will also enjoy guidance on their business plans. Importantly on the leader’s agenda is an international probe into the award of contracts. Hughes sent a strong signal indicating, “the message has to be sent that you cannot plunder the country and take its resources and get away free; and because we are ethnically divided, we do not ask the locals to investigate, we hire one of the best international forensic auditing firms to come in and pick the five most egregious contract awards and hire again, international council to be able to prosecute them. That message has to be sent early.” The AFC leader also pointed to the need for a National Development Commission with experts to gather data in developing a 10 to 15 year development plan. He added, “In terms of immediately, if we win, the first thing that I would change constitutionally immediately is to say look, we need a broad-based, national front government to address Guyana’s future. There is no point in winning and gloating if half the population or a third of the population are not on board. So, I will immediately engage all the major political actors with a view of forming a government that can address our immediate issues.” Related Similar Articles