admin

Jagdeo, the Marriot, and the government’s grand illusion Aug 30, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – There is a strange phenomenon that occurs when power and public finance intertwine. A sort of intellectual alchemy arises that transforms debt into ownership and risk into security. This transmutation is often orchestrated by those who understand the magic words and numbers that can convince the populace that what is theirs is in fact someone else’s, and what is someone else’s is in fact theirs. In Guyana, this alchemy found its latest expression in Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s persistent assertion that the Marriot Hotel is 100% owned by the government. This despite the web of loans and financial instruments that underpin its existence. One might recall the story of a man whose name alone appeared on the title of his home, yet he claimed that the bank owned it. He had taken out a loan covering more than 80% of the property’s cost. Legally, his name on the transport made him the de jure owner, but the debt held over his head made him feel otherwise. This man’s honesty, though misinterpreted by some as ignorance, was rooted in a deep understanding of where power truly lies. Ownership, as he knew, is not just about holding the title but also about having the means to control the asset. Similarly, when Jagdeo proclaims that the Marriot is fully government-owned, he appeals to the simplistic logic that equates shareholding with ownership. The reality, however, is more complex. Initially, loans were expected to cover 71% of the total costs of the Marriot project. That changed along the way. According to a forensic audit into the hotel, the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL) injected US$15.5 million, interest-free, into the project.  A syndicated loan from Trinidad, which amounted to another US$15.25 million, was the other major loan that helped to finance the hotel. Syndicated loans are not a benign financial instrument; they come with strings, or rather, ropes, attached. The audit revealed that these syndicated investors had special rights, giving them preference over other creditors. If the project faced financial turmoil, the first in line to be paid were these investors, not the government. The syndicated loan’s interest rate of 9.15% during construction and 8.65% post-construction, with an 18-month moratorium, ensured that the syndicated lenders would be well-compensated for their risk, their ‘investment’ secured by mortgages and debentures. Jagdeo’s portrayal of the Marriot as wholly owned by the government conveniently omits these financial encumbrances. The true nature of ownership is laid bare when one examines who holds the financial reins. By financing the majority of the hotel through debt, the government effectively handed control to its creditors. Should the hotel fail to meet its obligations, these creditors could claim the property, thanks to the liens secured by mortgages and debentures. In other words, the government’s ownership is conditional, a facade that exists only as long as the creditors are satisfied. It is worth pondering why, in a country with low interest rates on savings and on treasury bills, no bond was floated to involve Guyanese citizens in the project. As it stands, the identities of the syndicated investors remain shrouded in mystery, their identities unknown to the very citizens whose taxes underpin part of the government’s financial commitments to the hotel. One can only imagine the outcry if the Marriot had gone belly-up, leaving the government to explain why foreign creditors, not NICIL were the first to be compensated. The syndicate’s preference rights would have ensured that, even in financial ruin, their interests were prioritized. Who knows, they might have taken possession of the hotel at a bargain price. Jagdeo’s assertion of government ownership, therefore, must be scrutinized not through the lens of legal title but through the practical realities of financial obligations. Ownership, in this case, is a legal fiction maintained by a precarious balance of debt and revenue. The Marriot’s salvation came from the serendipitous discovery of oil, which brought an influx of business travellers and oil workers and boosted the hotel’s previously poor occupancy rates. Without this stroke of fortune, the hotel might have found itself in the very predicament its financing model had made likely—struggling to meet debt repayments and at the mercy of its creditors. This is the real lesson of the Marriot Hotel saga: that ownership is not merely about holding shares but about controlling one’s destiny. By relying heavily on debt financing, the government could have ended up ceding control to its lenders, placing a public asset at risk. The narrative of 100% ownership is a comforting tale, a myth designed to placate the public while obscuring the precarious financial foundations upon which such ownership rests. The Marriot, much like the Berbice River Bridge, stands as a monument to a controversial financial strategy. In the case of the latter, there was no act of fortune to boost the revenues of the bridge. In fact, the APNU+AFC, by administrative fiat, moved to take control of the structure to avoid an onerous tariff being imposed on users. This stands as a reminder that in the world of public finance, as in personal finance, true ownership is not about titles or shares.  As Jagdeo continues to tout the government’s ownership of the Marriot, one cannot help but recall the man who knew that while his name was on the title, it was the bank that truly owned his home. Ownership, in the end, is not about appearances but about power—and in the case of the Marriot Hotel, that power lay not with the government. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

The new Berbice bridge project should be based on solid, transparent and publicly available data Aug 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, The infallible ones are at it again. In a letter in Stabroek News (SN), the letter writer sought to justify the PPP’s past decision to construct a floating bridge crossing the Berbice River. Now 15 years later, they are seeking to dismantle that bridge and replace it with a fixed concrete bridge. Sadly, the letter only magnifies the short-sightedness of the government – all at the expense of the residents of Berbice. Every Guyanese, inclusive of the opposition, have always been supportive of bridging all our rivers, not only the Berbice River, since this is a progressive measure. However, we have always cautioned that our support was conditional on data which shows the technical and financial sustainability of such a project. We must ensure the citizens of Berbice, as well as the rest of the country receive value for money since our history is replete with short sighted, unplanned and eventually failed projects implemented by the PPP. A bridge over the Berbice River has had a long history of poor decision making by the PPP. In February 2000, Ballast Nedam International submitted a bid to construct a fixed bridge in the sum of US$30.8M – this submission was rejected by the PPP. In June 2004, another bid for a concrete fixed bridge was submitted by another Dutch company Diwydag International in the sum of US$34.6M – this bid was also rejected by the PPP. Interestingly both companies proposed constructing these bridges upstream of Everton, at the shortest river span (1.15km). Exactly two years after rejecting bids to construct a fixed bridge, in June 2006, the PPP entered into a Concession Agreement with the Berbice Bridge Company Inc. (BBCI). The owner of the major shareholder, Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. (QAII) was reportedly the best friend of the current Vice-President to construct a floating bridge at the least favourable location. This location was the least favourable for several reasons including the size of the river span (1.6km). The agreement was penned for a projected cost of US$32.43M (the final project cost was US$45M). It is acknowledged that the final project did bring much needed relief to the Berbice travelling public, but it also had the negative consequences of saddling the citizens of Berbice with the highest river crossing toll in the Western Hemisphere (US$11 per car) coupled with economic decline in the township of New Amsterdam. In an effort to ensure that these private investors achieved the guaranteed rate of return (12%), the PPP passed the Berbice River Bridge Act 2006, which prohibited, the operations of any Ferry Service for vehicles over the river. The Berbice River is the ONLY waterway in the whole of Guyana that is not serviced by any river service for vehicle crossing.  But, despite all these concessions, BBCI announced that effective November 2018, tolls for cars would be raised to G$8,040 (266% increase) and boats to G$291,040 (174% increase). This imposition was blocked by Administrative Order by the Coalition government, the order was unsuccessfully challenged by BBCI all the way to the CCJ. Interestingly, four years after returning to office, the PPP government has not removed this Order, signaling their full agreement with the actions of the Coalition. It should also be noted, that in 2015, the Coalition approached BBCI, in an effort to keep the Government’s commitment to reduce the tolls, with the proposition of purchasing their shares. The major shareholder (QAII) insisted that the then government pay his company, the cost of its shares PLUS a 23% rate of return per annum from 2006. Should the PPP government attempt to purchase the shares of BBCI, it would be of interest to learn if similar payment demands will be made. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” and thus in an effort not to reproduce the same results of unsustainable projects while burdening the citizens of Berbice, the Alliance For Change (AFC) has urged that any new bridge project be based on solid, transparent and publicly available data to ensure Guyanese are provided with strategic and sustainable development projects that are good value for our money. RegardsDavid Patterson  Related Similar Articles

Soesdyke-Linden Highway renovation long over due Aug 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor The recent signing of the contract to rehabilitate and modernise the Soesdyke-Linden Highway represents a monumental step forward for all who traverse this critical stretch of road. For years, the highway has been synonymous with peril, as too many lives have been tragically lost, limbs severed, and vehicles damaged due to both reckless driving and the poor state of the roadway. The need for action has been glaringly obvious, and the countless letters and pleas for intervention are finally being answered. The visible and invisible showing of excitement surrounding this development is palpable, and for good reason. As a proud Lindener and a very frequent user of this highway, I can attest that this news of the highway’s imminent renovation is a welcome relief to all who rely on this route. The improvements set to be made will significantly enhance the safety and convenience of the highway, transforming it into a more modern and reliable artery that connects communities and facilitates smoother travel. The much-needed installation of lights, reflective signage, road markings and rest stops marks a major step toward bringing our infrastructure in line with the demands of a growing and progressing nation. The prospect of job creation through this project adds another layer of optimism for the future. The local economy of the communities along the highway and into Linden should be given the opportunity to benefit from the employment opportunities that will emerge as construction gets underway. This development is not only about improving a roadway but also about uplifting the lives of those who call this area home. The potential influx of jobs if given, can provide the much-needed economic boost to many communities including Linden, which can enable many families to ease the burden of the extremely high cost of living to enjoy a better quality of life. However, while we celebrate the signing of this contract, it is essential that the contractor/s remains fully committed to the project’s success. This is not just another construction job; it is a lifeline for many who depend on the highway for their daily commute and livelihood. As such, the contractor must honor all contractual obligations, ensuring that the work is carried out with the highest standards of quality and integrity. Our supervising engineers must be professional in every regard. Cutting corners or delaying the project would only exacerbate the issues we have long faced. The completion of the highway within the stipulated timeline is equally critical. Timely delivery will not only restore normalcy to the lives of commuters but will also demonstrate the contractor’s professionalism and reliability. The people of Linden, and all who use this roadway, deserve nothing less than a roadway that reflects the promise of progress and safety. The government has shown its commitment to this cause, and now it is incumbent upon the contractor to fulfill that vision by executing the project with precision and dedication. In conclusion, it is equally important to reiterate that the rehabilitation of the Linden Highway represents a watershed moment for the community and the country as a whole. It symbolizes the long-overdue response to the calls for safer and better infrastructure. This development is more than just paving roads; it is about safeguarding lives, boosting the local economy potential, and steering the nation toward a brighter future. As we celebrate this moment, we must also hold the contractor and the government accountable for delivering on the promise of a better highway, one that meets the needs of today and lays the foundation for tomorrow. Yours respectfully,Hon. Jermaine Figueira MP Related Similar Articles

Ogunseye’s responds to Sultan Mohamed Aug 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, After long and careful consideration trying to understand why a letter written by Dr. David Hinds in honour of the 99th birthday of Eusi Kwayana would move anyone in their right senses to write a letter like the one written by Mr. Sultan Mohamed with gross misinformation and outright falsifications. What manner of man is he? However, I choose to respond for the benefit of the younger generation and unsuspecting readers. His premise, “Kwayana and Rodney had different goals”, if this meant that Walter Rodney and Eusi Kwayana had different goals for their lives, Mohamed might be correct. But that is not what he meant. He is telling readers that during Walter’s activism in Guyana, he and Eusi had different political goals. This self-appointed ‘Know All’ knows things that have no existence in reality. Unlike him, I sat in the WPA’s Executive before Walter arrived in Guyana. I am in a position to challenge Mohamed’s false narrative. When the information of Walter being denied work at UG emerged, Eusi brought the leadership of ASCRIA to discuss the developments and what should be done. He pointed out the political importance of Walter and the fact that he was not tainted by race politics, and we should create a unifying response that cut across race and the political divisions in the country. This led to the organizing of the Walter Rodney defense committee, involving several forces, and individuals including Jagan’s PPP. The rest is history. When WPA was formed before Rodney’s arrival, the political goals were well established: (1) recognition of the historic race contradiction, and its negative effects on the nation and to seek a solution (2) build a political organization that facilitates the struggle and aspirations of all race groups (3) recognition of the class struggle and the need for multi-racial unity as paramount to success. In a nutshell advance the Guyanese revolution as a multi-racial, multi-class project driven by the unity of the working class/working people. Rodney had no problem with any of the above, he embraced those goals 100%. At no point in the WPA Executive did the issue of ‘Black Power’ ever arise, let alone any comparison between Kwayana’s and Rodney’s perspectives. This is purely a fiction of Mr. Sultan Mohamed’s imagination. It was no secret that ASCRIA saw black power through a Pan-African lens, when Brother Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Ture, was abandoned by his host in his visit to Guyana in 1971, ASCRIA filled the role. I was present at Queen’s College when the Indian detractors in the audience asked Carmichael about his definition of black power, he replied that black power was for Black People/Africans. He did not stop there and suggested that Indians build Indian power. He was in my view giving one of the highest honours a revolutionary can give, to an oppressed racial group who experienced indenture and colonialism. Yet Indian detractors of Carmichael even decades after the event are still poisoned by their anti-African mentality. Many years ago in a letter, I corrected the misrepresentation of Carmichael’s position on Indians in the Caribbean and black power. Readers should remember that in the period referred to above, the WPA was not in existence. If one followed the erroneous logic of Sultan Mohomed, Kwayana called for ‘partition’, – end of story. But history will show that the proposal made in the name of Kwayana was for a “joint premier ship” between Jagan and Burnham, and if rejected partition, as the last resort. The younger generation has a right to know the truth and hold the truth. In the propaganda war that followed led by Jagan/Burnham and their parties, the proposal’s objective was not discussed, which was to avoid the pending crisis over which race would control Guyana after independence. We know what followed, a civil war between Africans and Indians. What is also not known in this narrative is that the PPP and PYO were by 1964 also calling for partition as a last resort. This is a quote from the Sunday Chronicle in December 1964: “Indian religious organizations yesterday supported Premier Jagan’s talk of partition; according to a Press release by Pandit Reepu Daman Persaud, secretary, British Guiana Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha. He disclosed the Indian organizations cabled Britain’s Prime Minister stating that Burnham’s refusal to form a coalition with the PPP constitutes denial of the Indian population which is 51 percent of the population of the right to participate in the government. The Indian organizations urged Mr. Wilson to use his good offices to bring about a solution between all parties.  “Unless these steps are taken immediately”, the press release stated: “the Indian community will have little alternative but to begin consideration of partition.” For Kwayana’s detractors, attempting to avoid that ‘bloodbath’ was an unforgivable political sin. I am not surprised that Mr. ‘Know-It-All’ is unaware that Kwayana himself had spoken and written about his Joint Premier proposal, admitting in retrospect that it was too sophisticated and advanced a political solution for a colony just emerging from colonialism. More importantly, Eusi is the only major leader in the anti-colonial struggle for independence to have publicly engaged in self-criticism of his role during that period of Guyanese politics. He presented a paper at a symposium held at The Bishops’ High School where he addressed those issues. This isn’t for Sultan Mohamed, who doesn’t care, but rather for the education of the younger generation. Now let me address the question of Walter Rodney being the Leader of the WPA. The WPA at that period never named anyone the leader of the organization/party, we practice collective leadership of the executive. This was before Walter’s activism and during. The way struggle developed after Walter’s return, declaring any member more so Walter as leader, was setting up that comrade for execution. It was the multi-racial, multi-class masses in the Civil Rebellion that made Walter Rodney the leader of the WPA and the mass movement at the time. On another matter, Sultan Mohamed’s claim that Rodney and Jagan had devised a plan for the WPA to integrate into the PPP—an assertion made only after the deaths of both Rodney and Jagan—is yet another of Sultan’s fabrications. I close, by saying that even the ‘wicked’ in their quest to sow seeds of ‘dirty’ open the door to enlightenment. Yous sincerely,Tacuma Ogunseye.WPA Co-Leader. Related Similar Articles

Signing the contract for the reconstruction of the Linden Highway Aug 30, 2024 Letters Dear Editor I went on a listening and grounding move at the Yarrowkabra Creek for the signing of the contract for the reconstruction of the Linden Soesdyke Highway road, for US$161 millions on the 27/8/2024. When the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana saw me in the crowd, he started his target practice to shape his campaign for 2025 election. This was clear that some kind of fear is lingering around his confidence of winning the upcoming elections. As I listened attentively to the president trying to destroy the image of the Coalition for their action in government 2015 to 2020, I come to realize this is a full campaign taking place with State funds using the contracts as a means to pull the votes of young contractors who are lobbying for jobs. While some of his utterance was truthful of some of the past that had taken place, the measurement of what his government had done in four years and what the Coalition had done in its five years couldn’t stand up to scrutiny when you take into account of the finance received by the Coalition and what was received by the PPP in terms of revenues. The APNU+AFC had spent around 6,028.94 billion US in its 5 years, the PPP after this year finish will spend about 16,116,604 billion US, which means 10,087,624 billion US more than the Coalition government, totaling 2,017,524,800,000 Guyana dollars all because of the oil revenues. Editor, the PPP would be able to do far more than the Coalition government had done that is the reality, because the ‘cuss-down-oil contract’ has become a profitable contract that the PPP government would not fight to change although they said they would.  I must give him some credit for a good political dance, focusing on me, to send his political messages, lucky me, I am not thin skin or fearful of any one, I stand strong. As the President called on me, to verify if roads are being built in the area and I said yes, because I am a believer in truthfulness, he gained political energy, but retrogressed and he went into the depth of digging to find faults of the past administration, which gave me the impression that the PPP somehow is afraid of a party that they claim is dead. I would like to let the President know with all the talks of development, a lot of his projects are faulty and billions are being wasted. Please note the maintenance cost will be high also, in the village of Yarrowkabra and other villages on the highway. We already seeing the roads are deteriorating, contractors, and engineers need to be held to account for poor works done for hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars. SincerelyMichael Carrington AFC Vice Chairman  Related Similar Articles

.tdi_3.td-a-rec{text-align:center}.tdi_3.td-a-rec:not(.td-a-rec-no-translate){transform:translateZ(0)}.tdi_3 .td-element-style{z-index:-1}.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img{text-align:left}.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img img{margin:0 auto 0 0}@media (max-width:767px){.tdi_3.td-a-rec-img{text-align:center}} PAHO: Following a weeklong workshop on Strategic Risk Assessment and Multi-hazard Planning, Antigua and Barbuda are in a...