admin

Westside Golf Course to Host inaugural Hole-in-One Challenge with over $500k in prizes  Aug 03, 2024 Sports The Westside Golf Course in Vreed-en-Hoop is set to host Guyana’s first ever Hole-in-One Challenge. – Tees off August 11 Kaieteur Sports – The Westside Golf Course in Vreed-en-Hoop is set to host Guyana’s first ever Hole-in-One Challenge next Sunday, August 11th. Action tees off from 15:00h-18:00h with the highlight of the event will be the famous island green, designed by renowned Guyanese golf course designer and Guyana Golf Association (GGA) president Aleem Hussain. Players will vie for their chance to win over $500,000 in prizes by testing their skills on this iconic feature. Golf enthusiasts will have the opportunity to win a grand prize of $100,000 cash, along with additional prizes including airline tickets, resort stays, dinners, cases of beverages, and much more. Located alongside the new highway connecting the Harbour Bridge to the existing main road, Westside Golf Course boasts a unique layout and luxurious condos with stunning views of the Atlantic Ocean. All profits generated from the event will be donated to orphanages in Region Three, supporting the local community. Players of all skill levels from beginners to seasoned players are welcome to participate as there will be a variety of challenges and prizes for each category. Related Similar Articles

From where, the PPP gets such classy company Aug 03, 2024 Features / Columnists, The GHK Lall Column Hard Truths by GHK Lall Kaieteur News – Who will the PPP turn to now?  Who else the party and party man will get to do dirty jobs, hatchet jobs, and subversive jobs?  From where, from under which rock and hole, does the PPP get this kind of company?  For sure, the fish rots from the head.  And the PPP, as a party, as a government, is now rotted from the head through the scales and fins all the way to the tip of the tail.  Regardless of the glistening colours in which the fish is dressed, it still rots, it continues to stink after the dreadful carcass has been removed from the sight and smell of Guyanese.  I have said it before for the benefit of my fellow citizens, and I say it again, so that it registers deeply and stays.  When the godfather is a mad hatter, then what else is to be expected of those (the dregs of Guyanese society) that he finds comfort in surrounding himself with, those hustlers who tell him what he wants to hear, those tainted operators who do sick jobs that makes others recoil in horror?  Guyanese are familiar with an old saying: “show me yuh companee an ah gon tell yuh who you are.” GHK Lall I give to Guyanese the company of the outstanding squad of workers and doers for the PPP’s cause.  It is really the machinations of one man only.  In normal circumstances, that one mastermind would be the one that features most powerfully and prominently on the organization chart.  Suffice it to say that Guyana is not a normal country anymore; it lost that recognition and standard a long time ago.  Citizens make do with what they have, under which yoke of oppressions they live.  The chief oppressor is the godfather, and he has his joyful company of doers and tricksters ready to dive into any cesspit and perform any dirty job that the moment (or the opponent) requires to be done.  In the head of the mostly criminal company that now has become the standard caliber of a PPP that has lost its way, and couldn’t find it, even if the party’s elders and wisemen were willing to try.  They are not, and so the band is disbanded a person at a time.  For some reason, compulsory or randomly, the Americans are almost always in the thick of the dismantling of the PPP’s fishy people and their fishier stories.  They do have an odour about them, don’t they? The first casualty was extracted from a crowd and carried to a corner and questioned.  One of those marvelous pieces of modern technology was the smoking gun of smoking guns.  The device was so hot that I am surprised it did not explode while in the custody of the Americans and their laboratories that have special skills at unraveling these things.  What did the PPP (and its biggest people) do?  Tongue was held and teeth tightened.  Lockjaw stepped in, other than the usual futile bluster from the regular bluffers.  The second casualty was engaged at JFK International, and to this date, the government here has been terrorized into tranquilizing silence.  A leading man from a leading national institution and all is quiet on the Guyana front.  Then another ranking Guyanese made spectacular waves by being the beneficiary of an escort service, compliments of the US Government at JFK.  Yanks again and at an airport that has mutated into the equivalent of an ICU located somewhere between an airplane door and the airport’s automatic sliding exit doors.  Who was not extracted was engaged, and then to top off all this special treatment, there is one who claimed the proud status of being escorted.  I love it, would gratefully accept one of those honour guards. Down home in old Guyana, the Americans were just as busy, only this time, it was a different kind of effort.  Another Guyanese (one of several) is extracted, engaged, and endowed with equipment (foreign money, corporate documents, electronic feeds, and all expenses paid) to proselytize and propagandize on behalf an American Komodo dragon.  Its powerful tail swings in huge, searching arcs and sweeps away bad Guyanese and entices the good ones.  The so-called good ones are those in the PPP’s galaxy of self-glorifying prattlers and pretenders who sell their souls for the Yankee dollar.  When deceptions must be peddled, they spring to attention; the pay is that good, the lure of betrayal that irresistible.  Guyanese betraying Guyana and their fellow Guyanese.  Where does the PPP (and its resident badman) find these kinds of people from, and so easily, so frequently?  I think that these PPP eggs were ethically and morally distressed to begin with (predators, pundits), but the party’s culture and conditions cultivated the worst in them.  Check them out.  Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver.  Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of broccoli.  Today, the PPP has this kind of Guyanese here and overseas selling themselves with abandon for undercover work and through under-the-table arrangements.  One more time for emphasis: how does Guyana keep churning out these fraudsters and pretenders, these double dealers and double dippers? The more relevant issue is this: where does this leave the PPP and its master arranger, manipulator, and conductor, Prince Machiavelli.  To whom will he now turn?  Guyanese watch and wait to detect who is the next schemer, the next telephone owner, the next JFK traveler, the next local two-timer to be stripped of all their sordid pretenses and be exposed for who they truly are.  Traitors to Guyana’s call.  Sabotaging Guyana’s rich promise. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

Stop and Search Aug 03, 2024 Editorial Kaieteur News – Members of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) that are on duty can stop and search any vehicle or anyone at any time.  There is a qualifier, though, and it has strength.  The GPF can stop and search vehicles and persons, but only within the bounds of Section 18 of the Police Act.  In language for the understanding of ordinary citizens, the GPF rank, or officer must have reasonable grounds for doing so.  The entire Section 18 reads as follows: “Any member of the Force may stop, search and detain any aircraft, vessel or vehicle in or upon which there shall be reason to suspect that anything stolen or unlawfully obtained, or that any person suspected of having committed an indictable offense, may be found; and he may also stop, search and detain any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner anything stolen, or unlawfully obtained.” Clearly, the GPF has been given considerable power to do its duties, but it is also constrained by the same Section 18 in the protections that are due to citizens.  Law-abiding citizens do well to familiarize themselves with what is due to them and take comfort in what the law affords them. Reasonably and reasonable mean that there must be some basis for a stop and search of citizens and their property.  Reasonably is not random nor whatever the whim or selfish objective of the rank on duty harbours.  The GPF has a duty to ensure that this is instilled into its members at every level and that it is strictly followed.  It cannot be hot one day, then cold on another.  There must be consistency in application of that reasonableness test on the roads and other GPF operations.  There cannot be that standard for some people and its absence when others come within the radar of the GPF and attract its attention.  If the GPF is ever going to rise to its fullest height, then it is imperative that the training and reminders of what must be the standard cannot stop, nor be toyed with, in that such standard functions with an on and off switch. The natural complement to this is that citizens must know where they stand relative to stop and search and understand the limits of the GPF’s authority.  An informed citizen makes for a better GPF.  To comply with what is unreasonable and probably unsound, if not a violation of the law, is to open the door for wrongdoing, lend a hand to official corruption in the GPF. It was the Minister of Home Affairs himself, Robeson Benn, who said that he is bombarded with calls about shakedowns and other forms of corruption practised by GPF members.  Citizens have their part to do, and they must know their rights and when lawful, stand by them during stops and searches of their vehicles, other property, or their persons.  If the GPF is going to improve, it must be a combined effort encircling the institution and those Guyanese who attract its gaze.  Guyanese must know that ‘report to the station’ has its place.  But again, only on the basis of judgement calls that are reasonably based.  Judgement calls that can withstand any retaliatory legal action taken by citizens who believe that they have been wronged, because the requirements of the law were ignored. We say this because as attorney-at-law and UG Lecturer, Chevy Devonish, noted that ‘report to the station’ for the wrong reasons constitutes what is tantamount to “unlawful detention.”  Further, when the GPF takes such a matter to the court, it opens itself up to claims of “malicious prosecution.”  Citizens who take what has happened to them seriously can then initiate their own legal proceedings and file for damages. Mr. Devonish ruefully recounted that the GPF has been forced to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring such court filings to an end.  All this can be avoided when the GPF goes the extra yard to remind its ranks and officers that the stop and search provisions of Section 18 of the Police Act are always in operation. Police members must apply those when conditions provide reasonable grounds for doing so. Related Similar Articles

An economic lesson for Jagdeo Aug 03, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – When managing external debt, focusing solely on the size of a country’s GDP can be misleading, especially if a significant portion of that GDP is tied to a volatile sector like oil. While a larger GDP might suggest an increased capacity to absorb and service debt, it doesn’t account for the distribution of that debt burden across the population. A high per capita debt means that each citizen, on average, bears a significant portion of the debt load, which can be especially burdensome in times of economic downturn. The argument that Guyana has a much larger GDP than in 1992 and much larger also in relation to its total external debt overlooks the critical role that per capita debt plays in assessing debt sustainability. In 1992, the PPP/C rightly criticized the high per capita debt burden, recognizing that it placed an onerous strain on the populace and necessitated debt relief for sustainable growth. The PPP/C’s argument then was that debt relief was an imperative since the country simply could not grow out of its debt burden. In other words, expanding GDP was necessary but without debt relief, the country would not be able to climb out of its deep debt hole. Today, despite a higher GDP, the underlying dynamics of debt sustainability remain the same. The country’s economic resilience is contingent not just on the size of its economy but also on the stability and diversity of its revenue sources. With oil being the main growth pole of the economy, a decline in oil prices could lead to a substantial drop in both national revenue and GDP.  When oil prices collapse, it is not only oil revenues that would be affected but also the country’s GDP would contract. Such a scenario would exacerbate the burden of servicing external debt, as the relative weight of the debt would increase. The per capita debt would once again become a critical issue, as the country’s ability to generate income would be compromised, and the burden would fall disproportionately on its citizens. Therefore, it is crucial for policymakers to consider per capita debt when assessing debt sustainability. A high per capita debt, coupled with dependence on a volatile sector, increases the risk of a debt crisis. The focus should not only be on the overall capacity of the economy to absorb debt but also on the potential vulnerabilities that could lead to an unsustainable debt burden for the population. In the context of a potential downturn in oil prices, the size of Guyana’s GDP becomes largely irrelevant to the country’s ability to service its external debt. This assertion is rooted in several critical economic realities. Guyana’s economy has become increasingly reliant on oil, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in global oil prices. A downturn in oil prices would significantly reduce the country’s export revenues and, consequently, its fiscal income. As a result, the government’s ability to meet its debt obligations would be directly compromised, irrespective of the nominal GDP figure. While a high GDP may suggest a robust economy, it does not necessarily reflect the real economic activity or the government’s fiscal health. In an oil-dependent economy, a substantial portion of the GDP may be attributed to the oil sector. If oil prices fall, the nominal GDP figure may still appear high due to past investments and infrastructure related to oil production. However, the real economic activity generating government revenue would shrink, making it harder to service debt. Debt servicing requires actual cash flow, which comes from government revenues. If oil prices fall, the revenue generated from oil exports will decline. This reduction in revenue means that, regardless of GDP size, the country might not have the necessary funds to meet its debt service requirements. The nominal GDP, inflated by past oil production, becomes a misleading indicator of the government’s financial capacity. In the event of plummeting oil prices, Guyana’s government will increasingly rely on non-oil revenues to sustain its activities, as the primary source of income from oil exports diminishes. If a significant portion of these non-oil revenues must be diverted to service external debt, it will inevitably strain public finances. This diversion will likely necessitate cuts in public expenditure. Consequently, the economic and social development of the country could be adversely affected. A downturn in oil prices can lead to a depreciation of the local currency, increasing the cost of servicing foreign-denominated debt. This currency depreciation can also lead to inflation, further straining public finances and reducing the real value of any GDP gains. In such a scenario, the nominal GDP figure is disconnected from the government’s real capacity to generate the necessary revenue for debt servicing. A high GDP does not necessarily translate to a manageable per capita debt burden. If the per capita debt remains high, the burden on individual citizens remains significant. A downturn in oil prices would exacerbate this burden, as the government’s ability to service debt would diminish, potentially leading to austerity measures or increased taxation, further stressing the populace. As presently exists, our GDP is heavily skewed towards oil production. Therefore, the GDP size, primarily driven by oil, does not accurately reflect the economy’s capacity to handle external shocks. This is why the size of Guyana’s GDP, inflated by oil revenues, becomes an irrelevant measure of its ability to service debt in the event of rapidly declining oil prices. The critical factor is the actual revenue generated. Without a stable revenue base, a high GDP figure provides a false sense of security and does not safeguard against the risk of a debt crisis. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) Related Similar Articles

Without ring-fencing, improved monitoring, and timely auditing; the Profit Squeeze will continue until the oil is exhausted Aug 03, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, In a recent presentation by Mr. Glenn Lall, he asked the following question: What is the average cost of a barrel of oil?   In reply, I will present some information on the cost of a barrel of oil, based on the combined 2023 Financial Statements of the consortium: EMGL, Hess and CNOOC. Additionally, a comparison will also be made with the cost recovery method that is included in the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA). Published data by the Bank of Guyana show that the total number of barrels of oil (Q) sold in 2023 was 141,657,000 (Table 1). In the combined Financial Statement of the consortium, the Total Cost after taxes in 2023 was US$4.953 billion; and dividing this amount by the number of barrels of oil sold (Q) yields an average cost per barrel of US$34.97. In 2023, Total Revenue (TR) was US$11,322 262,264.00. Dividing Total Revenue (TR) by the number of barrels of oil sold (Q) yields the average price (P) of US$79.93 for a barrel of oil. In keeping with the PSA Article 15.4 (a and b), it is stated that the Government of Guyana must pay the taxes of the consortium from its profit share to the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) and this will satisfy the tax liability for the consortium. Additionally, the GRA must issue a tax receipt to the consortium for the taxes paid by the Government so that they can present the tax receipt for tax purposes in other countries. While this is a fraudulent transaction, as no government pays the taxes for any company, it should be acknowledged that this tax amount must be deducted from the Total Cost in the project, as it comes from the profit that Guyana receives, reducing thereby the average cost of a barrel of oil. In 2023, the total taxes paid by the government for the consortium was US$1,471,384,630.78; and when this amount is deducted from total cost, the true cost of oil production in 2023 is US$3,481,915,369.50, yielding an average cost of US$24.58 per barrel of oil (Table 2),  which is US$10.39 less than the original average cost of US$34.97 (Table 1). In reviewing the cost methodology employed in the PSA, it is observed that the average cost of a barrel of oil is more costly than the method used to calculate the average cost in the financial statements. Furthermore, this PSA method, along with no ring-fencing, guarantees that profits are squeezed and channeled into the cost recovery account that is 75% of total revenue. Specifically, total cost recovery (TCR) is defined as: TCR = 75%TR = 75% (Price x Q). Therefore, the average cost of a barrel of oil (ACBO) is: ACBO = 75% (price x Q)/Q = 0.75 (Price). In Table 3 below, the total cost under the PSA method of producing 141,657,000 barrels of oil is not US$3.482 billion as recorded in the financial statements, but it is US$8.491 billion, some US$5.009 billion more, yielding an average cost per barrel of US$59.95, some US$35.37 more than the average cost of US$24.58 per barrel in the financial statements. The implication of this result is that when the price of a barrel of oil is US$80.00 and the cost of a barrel of oil is US$59.95, the profit margin per barrel is only US$20.05 (that is, US$80.00 – US$59,95). In contrast, when the price is US$80.00 for a barrel of oil and the average cost of a barrel of oil, using the data in the financial statements, is US$24.58, the profit margin is US$ 55.42 (that is US$80.00 – US$24.58). Therefore, this result confirms that the PSA Is not really a Production Sharing Agreement; but instead, it is a Profit Squeezing Arrangement; for costs are inflated and with no ring-fencing as well as the Government paying the taxes for the Consortium, profits are minimized, and costs are maximized.  Consequently, without ring-fencing, improved monitoring, and timely auditing; and without the end to government paying the consortium taxes, the Profit Squeeze will continue until the oil is exhausted or until renegotiations generate a fair distribution of the benefits for Guyana. Regards, Dr. C. Kenrick Hunte Professor and Former Ambassador Related Similar Articles

Rwanda’s refusal to refund UK funds – a diplomatic breach and ethical misstep Aug 03, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, I am writing to express my deep disappointment and to heavily criticize the Rwandan government’s recent decision to refuse refunding the UK government as part of the remigration agreement that was established under the government of Rishi Sunak. This stance taken by Rwanda not only undermines the agreement but also raises serious questions about their commitment to international cooperation and the principles of mutual respect and accountability in diplomatic relations. The remigration agreement between the UK and Rwanda was a significant diplomatic arrangement, aiming to address the complex issue of illegal migration. This agreement was intended to be a mutually beneficial solution, providing the UK with a viable option to manage illegal migration while offering Rwanda an opportunity for international support and collaboration. However, the Rwandan government’s refusal to honour their financial obligations as part of this agreement is a blatant disregard for the principles of international agreements and diplomacy. First and foremost, this decision by the Rwandan government showcases a lack of commitment to their international responsibilities. Diplomatic agreements are founded on trust, mutual respect, and the understanding that both parties will uphold their end of the bargain. By reneging on their financial commitments, Rwanda is not only violating the terms of the agreement but also damaging their credibility on the international stage. This move will undoubtedly strain the diplomatic relations between Rwanda and the UK, potentially leading to wider repercussions in terms of future cooperation and support. Moreover, the refusal to refund the UK as per the remigration agreement is a clear indication of the Rwandan government’s disregard for the welfare and rights of migrants. The agreement was designed to ensure that migrants would be treated humanely and provided with opportunities for a better future. By failing to honour their financial obligations, Rwanda is effectively jeopardizing the well-being of these migrants and undermining the very purpose of the agreement. This raises serious ethical concerns about the Rwandan government’s commitment to human rights and their willingness to provide a safe and supportive environment for those in need. Additionally, this decision reflects poorly on Rwanda’s governance and financial management. If Rwanda is unable or unwilling to fulfil their financial commitments as part of an international agreement, it raises questions about their fiscal responsibility and the allocation of resources within the country. This move could be interpreted as a sign of mismanagement or a lack of prioritization of important international agreements. It is crucial for any government to demonstrate accountability and transparency in their financial dealings, especially when it comes to international obligations. The refusal to refund the UK as part of the remigration agreement also has broader implications for Rwanda’s international relations. Trust and reliability are fundamental components of diplomatic relations. By breaking its financial commitments, Rwanda risks damaging its reputation and credibility. This could have far-reaching consequences, affecting their ability to negotiate and collaborate on future international agreements. Trust once broken is difficult to rebuild, and Rwanda’s actions in this instance could have long-lasting negative effects on their diplomatic standing. Furthermore, the Rwandan government’s refusal to refund the UK undermines the efforts of the international community to address the global issue of illegal migration. The remigration agreement was a step towards finding practical solutions to this complex problem. By failing to honour their commitments, Rwanda is hindering progress and potentially setting a dangerous precedent for other nations to follow. International cooperation is crucial in addressing global challenges, and Rwanda’s actions in this case are a setback to these efforts. In conclusion, the Rwandan government’s refusal to refund the UK as part of the remigration agreement established under the government of Rishi Sunak is a deeply concerning and disappointing decision. This move undermines the principles of international cooperation, accountability, and respect for human rights. It raises serious questions about Rwanda’s commitment to their international responsibilities, their governance and financial management, and their willingness to provide a supportive environment for migrants. Moreover, it damages Rwanda’s credibility and reputation on the international stage, potentially affecting their future diplomatic relations. I urge the Rwandan government to reconsider their stance and honour their commitments as part of the remigration agreement, for the sake of international cooperation and the welfare of migrants. Sincerely, Wayne Lyttle Journalist Related Similar Articles

Did Ashni Singh do everything possible to accommodate for a budget shortfall before asking the Guyanese people for more money? Aug 03, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Reference is made to news reports that the Government of Guyana is seeking Parliament’s approval for over US$192 million (40 billion GYD) in supplementary funds to shore up needed expenditure up to the end of 2024. Earlier this year, Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance and the Public Service, Dr. Ashni Singh had submitted a national budget of 5.5 billion USD, which was the largest in the Guyana’s history. Not a bene, the current budget is 3.5 times larger than the last pre-oil budget of 1.58 billion USD passed under the Coalition government in 2020. The record 2024 budget is in part financed by looting the Natural Resource Fund, Guyana’s sovereign wealth fund. The National Assembly approved this record budget as requested in February 2024. Now, merely six months later Dr. Ashni Singh comes back to Parliament demanding a supplementary budget of US$192 million, which amounts to 3.5% of the 2024 national budget. How come the Senior Minister in the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance and the Public Service did not see this development? Is this result of bad planning? Did he check whether there was room for savings or reallocation of funds from other budget posts to make up for the budget shortfall? In my humble opinion, this is what one would expect from a de facto finance minister, who should be running his portfolio with caution and prudence. In fact, any Guyanese person and family has to operate on this basis to accommodate unexpected expenses, which may occur during the year. Sincerely, Andre Brandli, PhD Professor LMU Munich Related Similar Articles