admin

Oct 07, 2024 Sports GCC mini Zingers Cricket Program officially got underway over the weekend and continues this Saturday. Kaieteur Sports – The Georgetown Cricket Club (GCC) Mini Zingers Cricket Program bowled off this past Saturday, October 5, at the legendary Bourda Cricket Club Ground. The mini kiddies program bowled off early from 8:00h-9:30h and targets Primary School aged boys and girls. Registration was conducted on site with players required to be dressed in White T-Shirt, a cap and closed toed shoes. Saturday’s opening day featured a solid turnout, with some 24 youngsters officially marked present for the first day of training. With the program being geared towards developing cricket at the grassroots level, no monetary fee is attached, while Registration forms can be uplifted at the Club. Meanwhile, more youngsters are encouraged to join the program which continues next Saturday, October 12, from 8:00h. Related Similar Articles

What an astonishing display of defeatism! Oct 07, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – In a letter addressing media coverage of oil revenues, former Prime Minister of Guyana, Samuel Hinds begins by acknowledging that while some argue Guyana should have received an arguable US$10 billion from oil, the US$4.4 billion earned is still significant compared to nothing. Hinds stresses that absorbing even the US$4.4 billion has been challenging, suggesting more would have been overwhelming. He then reflects on fairness in oil payments, referencing a U.S. article that highlights how foreign governments receive higher payments from U.S. oil companies than the U.S. government itself. He implies that if Guyana were in a similar situation, it might have received even less than US$4.4 billion. Hinds compares this to past negotiations with SaskPower, where media from both countries viewed the deal differently, revealing the challenges in securing agreements that satisfy all parties. He emphasizes that few people in Guyana truly understand the complexities of oil or electricity sectors, and calls for more articles focused on learning about the industry’s history and technology rather than simply criticizing it. Hinds points out the high costs of oil production in Guyana and warns of future price shake-outs due to climate change. He concludes by urging Guyanese to “make hay while the sun shines” by investing wisely in infrastructure, education, and health to ensure future prosperity once the oil era ends. Samuel Hinds’ letter is a sobering reminder of how easily those entrusted with national responsibility can peddle complacency under the guise of pragmatism. Hinds suggests that we, the citizens of Guyana, should rejoice in our modest US$4.4 billion earnings from oil. Never mind that the world is awash with examples of resource-rich nations impoverished by the very wealth beneath their feet. Never mind that the $10 billion we supposedly missed out on might have been the lifeblood needed to build a sustainable future for our country. No, Hinds would have us believe that we ought to be grateful—after all, before oil, we had nothing. Hinds’ argument reeks of the same old resignation, the kind of thinking that has kept our nation tethered to underdevelopment while others have moved forward. What he fails to understand—or perhaps deliberately ignores—is that the discovery of oil was supposed to be the moment we stopped settling for crumbs and started demanding our rightful share.  Instead, he comforts us with the notion that our US$4.4 billion is a blessing, as if we should be content with the scraps while foreign oil companies extract billions more from our finite resource. Does he not realize that when the oil is gone, it is gone forever? He casually dismisses the notion of the US$10 billion as “arguable”, a throwaway line meant to diminish the very real possibility that we have been shortchanged. To him, the sum we receive—whether US$4.4 billion or US$10 billion—appears immaterial. He even dares to suggest that we should be relieved we aren’t receiving more, lest we struggle to “absorb” it. What an astonishing display of defeatism! Are we now a country so unprepared for wealth that we must be shielded from our own prosperity? Hinds would have us believe that the complexity of oil extraction—the “mile and a half through the water,” the drilling into the rock—justifies our meek acceptance of whatever table scraps are thrown our way. He romanticizes the technical prowess of companies like Exxon, as though we should be in awe of their ability to extract our oil, rather than outraged by the paltry sum we are left with after they do. What is most galling about Hinds’ letter is its implicit message: that we should lower our expectations. We should not dare to ask for more because, in his view, we are lucky to have anything at all. He would have us believe that Guyana, with its population of under a million, is destined to rely on the benevolence of others—whether foreign governments or multinational corporations. But this is the same old story, the one told by those who lack the vision and the courage to demand better for their country. In Hinds’ world, there is no room for the kind of bold thinking required to turn finite resources into lasting prosperity. There is no consideration of the fact that when the oil runs out—and it will run out—we will be left with nothing but the empty promises of what could have been. Instead, we are to take our US$4.4 billion, say “thank you,” and continue to play the role of the grateful recipient, ever mindful not to rock the boat. It is a vision devoid of ambition, one that treats Guyana not as a nation with its own destiny but as a passive player in the global game of resource extraction. And yet, Hinds has the audacity to conclude with a call for us to invest in our future. But how, one must ask, are we to invest in our future when we are being systematically deprived of the wealth that could secure it? How can we transform our country when the very resources meant to fund that transformation are siphoned off by foreign interests? The answer, of course, is that we cannot—not if we continue to accept the tepid arguments of leaders like Hinds, who would rather pacify us than face the uncomfortable reality that we are being exploited. The oil will dry up, and with it, the opportunity for true development. But by then, those like Hinds will be long gone, leaving the rest of us to wonder why we didn’t demand more when we had the chance. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)                        Related Similar Articles

Incompetence can’t be masked when the essence of the country’s future is at stake Oct 07, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, During his address at the Opening Ceremony of the 22nd Biennial Delegates Congress of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) in late June, the Party’s Leader and Leader of the Opposition, Aubrey Norton, mentioned that “the PNCR will place youth development high on its agenda and revisit our national youth policy with the aim of adapting it to the present situation. “We believe that youths are not a problem; they are resources to develop. In this regard, there will be a significant focus on training and educating young people while opening opportunities for them to have employment and be involved in business. We intend, in government, to execute our 50/50 youth programme, in which we will give 50,000 youths $50,000 a month while training them to improve their skills and to make themselves marketable!” I vividly remembered these utterances from Mr. Norton, because they were coming from someone who a few years earlier was the Presidential Adviser on Youth Empowerment in the David Granger-led administration. While he held that designation, Mr. Norton told us that “Government sees young people as a human resource to be developed. Too regularly young people are dealt with as if they’re a problem. We do not believe that young people are a problem. We believe they are a human resource to be developed and once they are given the requisite training then they will achieve their objectives”. And let us not forget about the National Youth Policy 2015, described then as a comprehensive policy document that stated the vision of the Government of Guyana for the youths of the country, and also how this vision will be realised by the Government. Whatever did that achieve? Editor, I was reminded of Mr. Norton’s promises to the youth of this country, and his inability to make a perceptible impact, when I recently read of his rejection of the proposal for Mr. Clifton Hicken to be confirmed as Commissioner of Police. It is ironic that the judge in this case (Mr. Norton) who was given full powers to empower young people, does not have anything to proudly hang his hat on. He flubbed his lines at the highest level.  Though his rejection of Mr. Hicken has nothing to do with their public stances on youth empowerment, it is apt to note that the Commissioner has been much more visible and effective in that regard, despite it not being his primary role. I’m certain the communities across the country would endorse that assertion. You’ve been exposed, Mr. Norton. The youth certainly haven’t forgotten that you left them hanging. The bottom line is that incompetence can’t be masked when the essence of the country’s future is at stake. Yours faithfully, Alicia Barrow Related Similar Articles

President Carter, Guyanese, and Guyana Oct 07, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Former US President (Jan 1977-Jan 1981) 1981 Jimmy Carter celebrated his birthday last week. Using cricket metaphor, we celebrate and cheer a century; it is quite an achievement. Living for a century is an even greater achievement as almost cricketer ever achieved that feat. And locally, we cheer those who reach the milestone. The former American President is deserving of the highest praises and accolades not only for attaining a century, but more so for his domestic and international policy that changed socio-economic conditions for minorities in USA and helped to democratize many authoritarian states including Guyana. The former President visited Guyana multiple times and his intervention helped to democratize the country in 1992. Some of the President’s achievements and his role in Guyana need mention. The younger Guyanese generation needs to know and those from the era of the struggle for democracy in Guyana need to be reminded of the very important role that carter played in Guyanese history. Without Carter’s role (and his wife Roslyn was also at his side for all events and policies), Guyana may well have remained at a minimum of a one-party state with some semblance of democracy or even an authoritarian state as it was from 1966 till the restoration of democratic governance in October 1992. His presidency also set a trend of governance that provided some semblance of equality and increased rights in USA for minorities like Guyanese and other migrants. In the US, Carter’s cabinet set the trend or precedent for racial inclusivity; Blacks and other minorities had a greater presence in his administration and began to be treated with some measure of respect in a historically racist society that was moving away from ‘Jim Crowism’ and ‘Klu Klux Klanism’. He was loved by Guyanese and other migrants who were happy to see the end of the Nixonian (Forde) era. During his presidency, there was a rush of Guyanese to America, including this writer who came to pursue tertiary education at a public university. Human rights and democracy can be included in what was the ‘Carter Doctrine’; the first Black American to serve as US Ambassador at the UN, Andrew Young, was his appointee. There was also recognition of and closer relations with China, the Panama Canal Treaties, the Camp David Accords, independence of (Rhodesia) Zimbabwe, pressure on apartheid South Africa to respect human rights, push back on communism, among others. There were also the Iranian crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that weakened his presidency. Guyanese politicians on both sides sided with Iran and the Soviets; that attitude led to a hardening of Washington position on communism and revolutions and the prolonging of the Guyanese authoritarian state. Carter, Ronald Reagan, and even Bush Sr. (in his initial years) lost interest in Guyana being transitioned into a democracy. Some of Carter’s greatest achievements were in his post-Presidency as head of the Carter Center that he and his wife founded in which he helped to restore democracy in several Latin, African, and Caribbean countries, including our own Guyana. The former President played a most significant and important role in the 1992 and 2015 elections. Carter (and on a few occasions with his wife) visited Guyana multiple times. His first visit in 1991 set the stage for the return of free and fair elections after the last one being in colonial Guyana in December 1964.  Several Guyanese in USA, including this writer lobbied the Bush presidency and prior to him the Reagan and Carter presidencies to pressure the Burnham and Hoyte dictatorships to end human rights abuses and restore democratic governance but of no avail. A few of us tried to convince Washington with intense lobbying through a variety of means (including multiple trips to DC) to help bring about political change in Guyana but without much success. Washington communicated clearly to us that it was not interested in replacing an opportunistic socialist with a hard-core communist aligned with USSR. Things would change a decade later because of Carter’s connection with the Guyanese advocates of democracy in NY. An Asian American fundraiser, coordinated by Yashpaul Soi was held in Manhattan for Carter’s re-election in 1980; a few Indian Guyanese were in attendance. Roslyn was the Chief Guest as the President had to campaign elsewhere.  The President communicated his gratitude. Yashpaul and a few Guyanese (including the late Hassan Rahman, Baytoram Ramharack, Ravi Dev, Ramesh Kalicharran, me and others) and our role in Global Org of People of Indian Origin would use the Carter connection to help set up an appointment for Cheddi Jagan to meet with the Carter Center in August 1989. Carter expressed concerns about fraudulent elections in Guyana and would become deeply involved in and supportive of the Guyanese diaspora struggle (in America) for FFE in Guyana. Guyanese groups in USA persisted with their lobbying of the Bush administration and Congress to pressure the Hoyte regime to democratize the country. Communism collapsed and with it the USSR that would help to usher in democracy in Guyana. It was reported that Presidents Bush and Gorbachev reached an agreement in which they would use their influence in Guyana and Nicaragua respectively to have both nations hold free and fair elections. Bush warned of consequences if democracy was not restored in Guyana including the holding of FFE. Our group lobbied Members of Congress, including Ted Kennedy, brother of President John who toppled Cheddi Jagan from office, also demanded FFE in Guyana. It was never publicly reported what role Gorbachev played in FFE in Nicaragua; communists never announced certain policies especially on matters pertaining to democracy. Carter was assigned the role of negotiator and arbitrator for free and fair elections in Guyana. Carter Center was closely involved in a variety of activities, including training and support to GECOM as well as to civil society organizations to monitor elections. Eventually, Carter also became ‘Chief Observer’ and ‘Chief Guarantor’ of FFE in both Nicaragua and Guyana and other states as well that were emerging out of authoritarian rule. And both nations held relatively free and fair elections. Since then, the Carter Center, the President himself, engaged leaders of Guyana to have inclusive government and constitutional reform in which no party or race dominate government. The President’s recommendations, while praised by all parties, have been largely ignored by the two dominant political forces. Fortunately, the Carter’s formula still holds at GECOM in the appointment of the Chair who casts the tie-breaking vote (of 3-3); in fact, it was the Carter’s formula that helped to deter planned fraud in the 2020 elections. The CCJ ruled unanimously that the President’s appointment of a Chair must come from among the nominees proposed by the Opposition Leader – that was the Carter’s formula. The political leaders of both sides need to examine other recommendations of Carter to promote peace, stability, and greater inclusive democracy. In both Nicaragua and Guyana, the incumbents were resistant to yielding power after defeats at the ballot box. Carter intervened in what was the first transition to a democratic transfer of power for both countries after a long period of dictatorial rule. Daniel Ortega eventually accepted defeat to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, wife of a newspaper publisher who was assassinated because of his advocacy of democracy in his homeland. His murder brings back memory of the assassination of journalist Father Bernard Darke who was murdered at an opposition rally in Georgetown that was championing democracy. In Guyana, Carter’s life was threatened by mobs on election night and the day after. A prominent government official at the time was heard loudly telling a mob pelting projectile at GECOM headquarter, “We ain’t listening to any White man about our election”. Attempts to rig the outcome were being derailed. Carter warned of consequences if he was harmed; back channel threats were issued from Washington through diplomatic circles. Hoyte agreed to accept defeat. Hoyte sent the army to disperse the mob that burnt buildings, looted stores, and beat up a lot of people. The official, who didn’t want the white man to run a fair election, himself had to seek shelter or face the consequences announced by Hoyte. Carter is credited for brokering an agreement that usher in a transition of power to Cheddi Jagan and restoration of full democratic governance (with some aspects of high-handed governance from both sides) that stands till this day. Cheddi would honour Carter with the highest national award. Without Carter’s intervention, would democracy have been restored in Guyana and or protected in 2019/20? Carter also came to Guyana to monitor the 2015 election but left on election day itself. There was a change in administration. The Carter Center was also deeply involved in the 2020 elections that also led to a change in administration. Whenever the Carter Center makes its presence felt in Guyana, there was political change and democracy was strengthened. Yours truly,Vishnu Bisram  Related Similar Articles

Innumerable positives injected into the Guyana Police Force by Commissioner Hicken Oct 07, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Whatever the motivation for MP Ganesh Mahipaul’s vulgar diatribe on Commissioner of Police Mr. Clifton Hicken, it is a sad such expressions of ignorance that graced the pages of respected publications. MP Mahipaul’s expressions resemble those of a delusional individual who sees the world through a prism only he and his political party can interpret. Editor, I beg to differ with all the points raised by Mr. Mahipaul on why Clifton Hicken should not be confirmed in his position as Top Cop. The reality is, Hicken’s name and presence have always caused the leadership and elements in Mahipaul’s party to have sleepless nights and loss of appetite. The constant criticism of Mr. Hicken and the Guyana Police Force in the public sphere is confounding. What has become evident is the fact that freedom of expression has taken on frightening dimensions. The detractors, such as Mr. Mahipaul, are giddy with hatred. His claims, as stated in his letter published on October 05, 2024 are just outrageous and so I have refused to repeat them here in the interest of allowing this paper to have added space for a few more relevant letters as this one. His hatred has clouded his judgement. For Mr. Mahipaul’s benefit, I can point to a simple example of what currently occurs “under Mr. Hicken’s tenure”, and that endears the Commissioner to the public. Accessibility. One remembers times when making contact via phone with the top brass was nigh impossible. There was an obvious aloofness. It was as though the voices of those who needed assistance were an irritant. A visit to the Commissioner’s Office in years gone by was an odyssey not many were built to undertake. By the time you reached the secretary, you had basically forgotten what you had intended to highlight or complain about. It was torturous. Things have changed for the better under Mr. Hicken, and fortunately the transformation has been embraced at a higher level, and the requisite resources are being provided. No more big-shots. There is a refreshing confidence in all engagements with the ordinary man. There is currently no limit to the belief that the current trend in the Force is conducive to the principles of natural justice and safeguarding our democracy. Thanks to Mr. Hicken. The Guyana Police Force must remain rooted to its core values, and fight against negativity to maintain an image that is convivial, honourable and non-toxic. Irrespective of political inclinations, there must be no impediment to the continued building and preservation of a highly professional police force. The man-in-the-street looks to the Force for quality leadership. Mr. Hicken has provided that at all levels. Hicken is cognizant that law enforcement carries with it, a responsibility unlike most other vocations. The temptations that are yielded to by John Public, cannot be given into by those who are entrusted to preserve law and order. Mr. Mahipaul is malicious in his inferences. Mr. Hicken should take him to task in no uncertain terms. Fortunately, the Commissioner’s level-headedness at the top of the organization has seen an embracing of that which matters in a modern-day society. He has ensured that the role of technology is consistently highlighted, and this goes hand-in-hand in buttressing the rapidly changing landscape. For Mr. Mahipaul’s information, under Mr. Hicken’s tenure there has been an expansion of human resource capacity in the Guyana Police Force, and previously dated systems are being ramped up to satisfy international standards – a development which will attract greater cooperation with the developed world, and at a minimum, enable us to be effectively supportive of our sister nations in the region. No amount of negativity can erase the innumerable positives that have been injected into the Guyana Police Force by Commissioner Hicken. As many of us have learnt, the idle mind is the devil’s playground. The playground is always open, and there is an abundance of idleness. Mr. Mahipaul and his cohorts are advised to find a more wholesome environment to convene. Yours truly Leroy Smith Journalist Related Similar Articles

Not paying NIS? These heartless defaulters and fraudsters need to be exposed Oct 07, 2024 Letters DEAR EDITOR, It has come to my attention that there are many entities (some quite prominent) failing to make, and in some cases who never have made National Insurance contributions for their employees. The stories of the affected are heart-rending. It is arguably the worst possible feeling to end decades of employment with a company, organisation or individual, only to learn upon application to the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) that contributions have never been made for you, or have not met the required number because your employer was not dutifully fulfilling that obligation. In the Laws of Guyana, Chapter 36:01 (National Insurance and Social Security Act) at the beginning of PART III – Insured Persons and Contributions – Under 11. (1), the following is stated: Subject to this Act, every person who on or after the appointed day is – (a) sixteen years of age or over and under sixty years of age; and (b) gainfully occupied in insurable employment, shall be insured under this Act and shall remain so insured for life. There aren’t any complexities here. You don’t have to be a lawyer or someone with legal knowledge to understand what is required of you. I am not sure of how efficient or effective the system is for thoroughly checking all and sundry for compliance, but I can say that many hard-working people are being mercilessly shortchanged by unprincipled employers. The authorities need to expose these heartless defaulters and fraudsters. Yes, name and shame them. Yours faithfully, Sherwin Crandon Related Similar Articles

Government is paving the way for ‘Integration of Venezuelans’ Oct 07, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, This is a very good move by the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) Government, that is, to  integrate Venezuelan migrants into Guyana’s formal economy. It really speaks well for the country, as migration overall has been the focus of many intense political debates in recent years, as most people have positive perceptions about immigrants, amidst the few with misconceptions and concerns. For example, some are still locked into the notion that migrants are a burden on economies. However, in the April 2020 World Economic Outlook, it is clearly demonstrated that the economic impact of migration on recipient countries is “… that migration generally improves economic growth and productivity in host countries.” I was surprised, but quite pleased that there are somewhere between “… 28,000 to 40,000 Venezuelan migrants residing in Guyana,” and the country’s Ministry of Labour is facilitating their transition into the legal economy.” This is not going to be overnight, as it will involve “… addressing key issues such as training and development, health and safety opportunities and education on local labour laws.” But it is a start, and apart from the economic aspect, the initiative shows that Guyana is on par with international ‘best practices’ as regards immigration issues, especially when it comes to respecting and safe guarding the well-being and dignity of all kinds of people. In terms of making the requisite transition, and doing so right across board, a host leaders with their organisations will be teaming up with the Minister of Labour. Some of these are Natecia Garraway, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Officer of the Board of Industrial Training (BIT); Juan Francisco Espinosa, Special Advisor to the International Organisation of Migration (IOM); Maria-Alexandra Bassermann, Regional Labour Mobility and Social Inclusion Coordinator IOM-UN; and Eraina Yaw, Deputy Regional Coordination Officer for the Caribbean and Chief of Mission for Guyana. When the process is truly on, according to Hamilton, “… such engagements will ensure that the migrants become an essential part of the formal economy which will allow them to have access to education and other social services.” In some respects, a lot of stuff, pro-immigrant, are ongoing, as the ministry explained, pointing out that in relation to programmes and training for the enhancement of migrants, we (the Government) hope to do more with support from international partners … (and) the pledge is one of the Government of Guyana’s support to partner with both parties to address this matter in a meaningful way.” Editor, for immigration to play a positive role and to be accepted by the host country, in this case Guyana, it is vital that immigrants and their children be well and fully integrated in the economy and society at large, ranging from employment to housing, Medicare, safety, education and whatever else is necessary to a life of worth. The reverse is true, that is, when it comes to any form of discrimination against immigrants and their descendants, it remains a key barrier to their economic and social inclusion. It also threatens social cohesion and has strong economic costs to the host countries. Let me add that the statistics are there to confirm that around one-third of highly educated immigrants who are employed in any  of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries are formally overqualified for their jobs. Groups that face particularly high overqualification rates are immigrants with foreign degrees, refugees, as well as recent arrivals. Overqualification often represents a waste of human capital and can lead to lower motivation among migrant workers. My point then is that Guyana has human capital residing in these Venezuelans, and it is good to note that the country is aware of it, and will utilise it. Guyana then is positively answering the question of how can destination countries enhance the contribution of immigration to development. It is by investing in these immigrants’ integration. Developing countries must not cheat themselves by lacking comprehensive policies to facilitate the integration of immigrants, as this can generate serious problems of social cohesion and reduce immigrants’ ability to contribute to the development of their host. Guyana is on a good pathway, and must not waver. Afterall,  immigrants (many Guyanese for sure) contribute to the U.S. economy in many ways. They work at high rates and make up more than a third of the workforce in some industries. Their geographic mobility helps local economies respond to worker shortages, smoothing out bumps that could otherwise weaken the economy. Yours truly, HB Singh Related Similar Articles