Guyana’s financial system sound despite global turmoil - IMF
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 22, 2009 @ 5:30 am In Local News | 68 Comments
The International Monetary Fund has observed that direct spillovers from the global financial crisis on Guyana’s banking system have so far been limited.
According to the Article 1V consultation, “The banks remain well capitalized and profitable, and the financial system is sound.” However, the directors supported “heightened financial supervision to limit potential contagion and continued monitoring of the still high level of non-performing loans.”
Moreover, they welcomed the progress being made on financial sector reforms and on legislation to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
On February 27 this year, the Executive Board of the IMF concluded the Article 1V consultation with Guyana.
And according to a release on Tuesday, the directors noted that by implementing prudent fiscal and monetary policies, the authorities here had maintained macroeconomic stability in 2008 despite external shocks and social pressures.
But sustaining these policies will be critical to reduce vulnerabilities associated with commodity price volatility and possible spillovers from the global crisis, the release stated. The directors also commended the “commitment of the authorities to further entrench macroeconomic stability, strengthen the financial system, and implement structural reforms.”
They noted too that the administration had reduced petroleum product excise taxes temporarily in 2008 in order to limit the pass-through of higher international fuel prices to consumers, effectively diffusing social pressures while helping to contain inflation.
Meanwhile, they commended the government for reinstating the excise taxes in recent months as international oil prices have abated, to protect the fiscal position. Going forward, the release noted, the authorities were encouraged to focus on targeted support to the most vulnerable.
The directors welcomed too the commitment to sustain the fiscal consolidation effort and agreed that a more gradual deficit reduction than previously envisaged was justified in the context of the global slowdown.
While the administration’s plan to return to the target laid out in the medium-term fiscal framework by 2012 was welcomed, a few IMF directors considered that a faster move toward convergence would reduce risks to fiscal sustainability.
The identification of contingency measures in case of a shortfall in revenue or more difficult access to financing would help protect priority spending and avoid reductions in growth-enhancing capital expenditures, they advised.
The progress made in the area of fiscal reforms, including the successful implementation of VAT, was welcomed. The IMF directors cautioned, however, against a further expansion of the list of zero-rated VAT items and a weakening of the rules-based system for granting tax exemptions.
The reduction in the rate of inflation was also commendable. The directors said that they supported continued vigilance and readiness to adjust monetary policy to keep inflation low as needed. They noted that the exchange rate appeared broadly aligned with fundamentals, and the current exchange rate policy had served Guyana well. In this context, a number of directors stressed that a stable exchange rate was critical to the goal of maintaining macroeconomic stability.
The release noted further that despite external shocks and social pressures, macroeconomic stability in Guyana was preserved in 2008. “Growth decelerated to about 3 percent owing to a sharp shortfall in sugar production, but end-2008 inflation declined to 6.4 percent (6.8 percent target). The fiscal deficit widened to 7.9 percent of GDP (6 percent target) due to measures adopted in early 2008 to reduce the impact of high fuel prices, most of which have since been eliminated. So far, the financial system has been relatively unaffected by the global turmoil,” the IMF Executive Board stated.
In the meantime, higher growth is projected for 2009 with a recovery in sugar output expected to offset a slowdown in the other sectors of the economy.
Lower oil import prices would compensate for a decline in commodity export prices in 2009.
According to the IMF Executive Board, Guyana still faces other significant challenges, including lower worker remittances in 2009 and preferential sugar export prices in the years ahead, while downside risks include a lower-than-projected increase in sugar production and a more protracted than currently envisaged global slowdown.
68 Comments (Open | Close)
68 Comments To "Guyana’s financial system sound despite global turmoil - IMF"
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/22/guyana%e2%80%99s-financial-system-sound-despite-global-turmoil-imf/
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Govt insists deadlines met for disbursements
Govt insists deadlines met for disbursements
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 24, 2009 @ 5:30 am In Local News | 8 Comments
– challenges EC ‘interpretation’
Government, in defence of its actions regarding budgetary disbursements by the European Commission (EC) said it has met required deadlines and specified conditions but funds are still being withheld.
Stating that recent developments by the EC represent a fundamental departure from the principles of the budget support mode for delivery aid, the administration charged that most of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of EU budget support came after Guyana adopted a position critical of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).
The administration said disbursements were made promptly and in full during the early rounds of provision of budget support by the European Union to Guyana, and addressed the recent issues surrounding disbursements for general budget support as well as support for the sugar sector.
“Government would hope that the difficulties currently being experienced in securing delivery of promised budget support is not somehow connected with the critique of the EPA, and will continue to argue that anticipated budget support must be delivered in accordance with the financing agreements,” a statement from the administration said on Friday.
In advancing its position on the budgetary support for sugar that was not disbursed by the European Commission this year government said the funds were withheld though the conditions described in the financing agreement were met, but admitted that a copy of the plan was submitted three months after the deadline.
Cabinet was reviewing the plan which was approved by GuySuCo board of directors to “ensure consistency with the national macroeconomic objectives”, government said adding that this was explained to the EC delegation which also required a copy of the plan.
The plan was submitted in June 2008 following the review, but the EC had concluded that the submission in June rather than on March 31, 2008 constituted non-achievement of the indicator.
EC Ambassador to Guyana, Geert Heikens disclosed last week that Guyana lost 6 million euros in budgetary support because of the late submission of the sugar action plan. He also said that as far as he was aware, the Government of Guyana did not give any reason for the delay in the submission of its action plan. According to the ambassador, Guyana failed to meet all the necessary criteria, which he stated were interpreted with some form of flexibility.
The deadline in the financing agreement with the EC was extended from December 31, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Government argued that GuySuCo did prepare its plan by the extended deadline and that the board approved it on March 29, 2008. It said also that this was communicated to the EC Delegation in the application for the release of the variable tranche.
Government said that it subsequently submitted further evidence that the business plan was approved by GuySuCo’s board via a letter of certification from the Company Secretary of GuySuCo upon request of the delegation, adding, “there is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that the condition as spelt out in the financing agreement was met”.
Government said also that it challenged the interpretation of the EC that the indicator was not met at the level of the local delegation as well as the EU headquarters via letters from the Ministry of Finance and through the ambassadorial representation in Brussels, adding that it made the case for the reversal of the commission’s decision to withhold funding.
“The fact that the EC Delegation received the plan in June 2008, after Cabinet completed its review, does not alter the fact that the condition was met by virtue of the plan having been approved by GuySuCo’s Board of Directors by March 31, 2008. The EU continues to disagree and has withheld funding,” government added.
The administration also responded to comments made by Heikens in relation to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) saying there is no requirement for the PRSP to be completed and approved by Cabinet or “by any other authority for satisfactory progress to have been made and for the condition to be met”.
Heikens had said that the EC was awaiting Cabinet’s approval of the strategy before it could disburse 12 million euros of the 40 million euros allocated in the ninth European Development Fund for budgetary support.
According to the administration, there is a requirement related to the PRSP under the General Budget Support Programme which points to satisfactory progress being made in the establishment of a second generation poverty reduction strategy drawing from lessons learnt from the first PRSP, but no requirement for cabinet approval.
Government said it supported its applications for disbursement under the general budget support programme with the Cabinet-approved draft of the PRSP to the EC delegation with a confirmatory letter from Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon. This, the administration said, was a second generation PRSP approved by Cabinet and “has therefore demonstrated satisfactory progress”.
However, Luncheon had told reporters on Thursday that while the PRSP had Cabinet’s approval it had to be presented in Parliament before it could be accepted as a national document. He said too that the details of the process involved had already been explained to representatives of the EC delegation, and while he stated that the paper needed to be taken to Parliament he gave no indications as to when this would be done.
The government said further that the draft document was shared with the joint donor group for their consideration and comments, adding that because of this further consultative process, the EC delegation had determined that the indicator was not met and that it was not in receipt of the final version of the PRSP.
“Government has consistently reaffirmed that there is no requirement for a final version and that the requirement of satisfactory progress has been adequately demonstrated by the submission of a draft approved by Cabinet to the delegation,” the administration added.
Meanwhile, the Alliance for Change (AFC) criticized the administration in a statement issued yesterday saying that the Agriculture Minister should have raised the issue of the loss of the six million euros at the level of the Economic Services Committee “as part of his bounden duty to give an accurate and honest statues report on the sugar industry”.
The party blamed the problem on incompetence, adding that it is concerned with the loss of the six million euros as a result of Guyana not meeting the deadline.
8 Comments (Open | Close)
8 Comments To "Govt insists deadlines met for disbursements"
#1 Comment By evileyes On May 24, 2009 @ 7:56 am
deadline met…..eu is big..eu is bad..eu is powerful…dem cud seh and do any ting dem want…small countries at their stinking feet to be wiped on…
#2 Comment By Raj On May 24, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Remember Family Teach song: “Teacher person says if you tell a lie you going to hell as soon as you die. Lie, that is lie. You tell lie, that is lie” I rest my case on the content of the article as said by the government and carried by stabroek in the name of news.
#3 Comment By NeNe On May 24, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Someone is not telling the truth here: either Heikens or the government. Who does one believe?
#4 Comment By Brandon Samaroo (End the PPP Dictatorship Now!) On May 24, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Oh please cack eye you are so gullible
national macroeconomic objectives” say what? what national macro economic objective does jagdeo have? you are getting a 6 Million Euros and you have to check and see if it is in line with National objectives?
What national objective would run contrary to getting 6 Million Euros? Oh please this government this is a line straight out of jagdeo mouth clearly for local and dotish consumption by PPP soup lickers who will not spend 2 minutes to really evaluate what is going on here.
The PPP screwed up and of course they never and I say never do anything wrong they are always right. All the external agencies like OxFam, the Heritage foundation and Transparency international are always out to get the Jagdeo bogus lazy government? why why why they have it in so much for this goody guvament?
ow laud this must be the fault of the PHENC.
#5 Comment By Brandon Samaroo (End the PPP Dictatorship Now!) On May 24, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
I will take my chances on the Europeans
#6 Comment By Brandon Samaroo (End the PPP Dictatorship Now!) On May 24, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Isn’t it Amazing the apologists like Soldier, Sase Looknauth and many others are nowhere to be found when articles like these are published.
You cannot hear peep out of them, its like they all of a sudden beamed to a different world.
The silence from them is deafennning…………
#7 Comment By evileyes On May 25, 2009 @ 12:03 am
ow cack eye kakaroo 2 2 yuh cant teck truth eh??man sometimes yuh gat to give in wen u dont know noting…u trying too hard to be a wanabe politician..dem pee pee pee people ent had time fuh yuh so yuh now trying wid afc april fool comedians…ow kaka roo samaroo 2 2 give it up now man…try yuh hand at some ting else…ehehehe
#8 Comment By evileyes On May 25, 2009 @ 12:05 am
baraban kaka roo samaroo 2 2 if dem pee pee pee people think of you as kaka how on gods green earth dem euro people gun want yuh??? ow buddy try someting else nuh…
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/24/govt-insists-deadlines-met-for-disbursements/
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 24, 2009 @ 5:30 am In Local News | 8 Comments
– challenges EC ‘interpretation’
Government, in defence of its actions regarding budgetary disbursements by the European Commission (EC) said it has met required deadlines and specified conditions but funds are still being withheld.
Stating that recent developments by the EC represent a fundamental departure from the principles of the budget support mode for delivery aid, the administration charged that most of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of EU budget support came after Guyana adopted a position critical of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).
The administration said disbursements were made promptly and in full during the early rounds of provision of budget support by the European Union to Guyana, and addressed the recent issues surrounding disbursements for general budget support as well as support for the sugar sector.
“Government would hope that the difficulties currently being experienced in securing delivery of promised budget support is not somehow connected with the critique of the EPA, and will continue to argue that anticipated budget support must be delivered in accordance with the financing agreements,” a statement from the administration said on Friday.
In advancing its position on the budgetary support for sugar that was not disbursed by the European Commission this year government said the funds were withheld though the conditions described in the financing agreement were met, but admitted that a copy of the plan was submitted three months after the deadline.
Cabinet was reviewing the plan which was approved by GuySuCo board of directors to “ensure consistency with the national macroeconomic objectives”, government said adding that this was explained to the EC delegation which also required a copy of the plan.
The plan was submitted in June 2008 following the review, but the EC had concluded that the submission in June rather than on March 31, 2008 constituted non-achievement of the indicator.
EC Ambassador to Guyana, Geert Heikens disclosed last week that Guyana lost 6 million euros in budgetary support because of the late submission of the sugar action plan. He also said that as far as he was aware, the Government of Guyana did not give any reason for the delay in the submission of its action plan. According to the ambassador, Guyana failed to meet all the necessary criteria, which he stated were interpreted with some form of flexibility.
The deadline in the financing agreement with the EC was extended from December 31, 2007 to March 31, 2008. Government argued that GuySuCo did prepare its plan by the extended deadline and that the board approved it on March 29, 2008. It said also that this was communicated to the EC Delegation in the application for the release of the variable tranche.
Government said that it subsequently submitted further evidence that the business plan was approved by GuySuCo’s board via a letter of certification from the Company Secretary of GuySuCo upon request of the delegation, adding, “there is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that the condition as spelt out in the financing agreement was met”.
Government said also that it challenged the interpretation of the EC that the indicator was not met at the level of the local delegation as well as the EU headquarters via letters from the Ministry of Finance and through the ambassadorial representation in Brussels, adding that it made the case for the reversal of the commission’s decision to withhold funding.
“The fact that the EC Delegation received the plan in June 2008, after Cabinet completed its review, does not alter the fact that the condition was met by virtue of the plan having been approved by GuySuCo’s Board of Directors by March 31, 2008. The EU continues to disagree and has withheld funding,” government added.
The administration also responded to comments made by Heikens in relation to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) saying there is no requirement for the PRSP to be completed and approved by Cabinet or “by any other authority for satisfactory progress to have been made and for the condition to be met”.
Heikens had said that the EC was awaiting Cabinet’s approval of the strategy before it could disburse 12 million euros of the 40 million euros allocated in the ninth European Development Fund for budgetary support.
According to the administration, there is a requirement related to the PRSP under the General Budget Support Programme which points to satisfactory progress being made in the establishment of a second generation poverty reduction strategy drawing from lessons learnt from the first PRSP, but no requirement for cabinet approval.
Government said it supported its applications for disbursement under the general budget support programme with the Cabinet-approved draft of the PRSP to the EC delegation with a confirmatory letter from Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon. This, the administration said, was a second generation PRSP approved by Cabinet and “has therefore demonstrated satisfactory progress”.
However, Luncheon had told reporters on Thursday that while the PRSP had Cabinet’s approval it had to be presented in Parliament before it could be accepted as a national document. He said too that the details of the process involved had already been explained to representatives of the EC delegation, and while he stated that the paper needed to be taken to Parliament he gave no indications as to when this would be done.
The government said further that the draft document was shared with the joint donor group for their consideration and comments, adding that because of this further consultative process, the EC delegation had determined that the indicator was not met and that it was not in receipt of the final version of the PRSP.
“Government has consistently reaffirmed that there is no requirement for a final version and that the requirement of satisfactory progress has been adequately demonstrated by the submission of a draft approved by Cabinet to the delegation,” the administration added.
Meanwhile, the Alliance for Change (AFC) criticized the administration in a statement issued yesterday saying that the Agriculture Minister should have raised the issue of the loss of the six million euros at the level of the Economic Services Committee “as part of his bounden duty to give an accurate and honest statues report on the sugar industry”.
The party blamed the problem on incompetence, adding that it is concerned with the loss of the six million euros as a result of Guyana not meeting the deadline.
8 Comments (Open | Close)
8 Comments To "Govt insists deadlines met for disbursements"
#1 Comment By evileyes On May 24, 2009 @ 7:56 am
deadline met…..eu is big..eu is bad..eu is powerful…dem cud seh and do any ting dem want…small countries at their stinking feet to be wiped on…
#2 Comment By Raj On May 24, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Remember Family Teach song: “Teacher person says if you tell a lie you going to hell as soon as you die. Lie, that is lie. You tell lie, that is lie” I rest my case on the content of the article as said by the government and carried by stabroek in the name of news.
#3 Comment By NeNe On May 24, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Someone is not telling the truth here: either Heikens or the government. Who does one believe?
#4 Comment By Brandon Samaroo (End the PPP Dictatorship Now!) On May 24, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Oh please cack eye you are so gullible
national macroeconomic objectives” say what? what national macro economic objective does jagdeo have? you are getting a 6 Million Euros and you have to check and see if it is in line with National objectives?
What national objective would run contrary to getting 6 Million Euros? Oh please this government this is a line straight out of jagdeo mouth clearly for local and dotish consumption by PPP soup lickers who will not spend 2 minutes to really evaluate what is going on here.
The PPP screwed up and of course they never and I say never do anything wrong they are always right. All the external agencies like OxFam, the Heritage foundation and Transparency international are always out to get the Jagdeo bogus lazy government? why why why they have it in so much for this goody guvament?
ow laud this must be the fault of the PHENC.
#5 Comment By Brandon Samaroo (End the PPP Dictatorship Now!) On May 24, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
I will take my chances on the Europeans
#6 Comment By Brandon Samaroo (End the PPP Dictatorship Now!) On May 24, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Isn’t it Amazing the apologists like Soldier, Sase Looknauth and many others are nowhere to be found when articles like these are published.
You cannot hear peep out of them, its like they all of a sudden beamed to a different world.
The silence from them is deafennning…………
#7 Comment By evileyes On May 25, 2009 @ 12:03 am
ow cack eye kakaroo 2 2 yuh cant teck truth eh??man sometimes yuh gat to give in wen u dont know noting…u trying too hard to be a wanabe politician..dem pee pee pee people ent had time fuh yuh so yuh now trying wid afc april fool comedians…ow kaka roo samaroo 2 2 give it up now man…try yuh hand at some ting else…ehehehe
#8 Comment By evileyes On May 25, 2009 @ 12:05 am
baraban kaka roo samaroo 2 2 if dem pee pee pee people think of you as kaka how on gods green earth dem euro people gun want yuh??? ow buddy try someting else nuh…
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/24/govt-insists-deadlines-met-for-disbursements/
Fidelity farce
Fidelity farce
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 25, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 6 Comments
Just over a year ago, on April 7, President Jagdeo sounded off on what he said was orchestrated fraud at Customs involving Fidelity Inc and employees of the GRA. He sternly warned that there would be hell to pay and all the culpable would be held accountable. An investigating panel was duly convened, headed by the Auditor General, Mr Deodat Sharma.
Even then, there had been great skepticism about President Jagdeo’s declarations. Other major investigations especially where senior government functionaries or persons believed to be close to the government were involved have fallen away through a combination of rigmarole proceedings and twisted decisions. The duty-free concessions scam which had ensnared a senior Ministry of Finance official comes to mind right away. Yet, many in the public were prepared to give this investigation a chance because in a democratic society no matter how challenged our investigating institutions and dispensers of justice are they must be allowed to operate without hindrance so that the public can judge them by their fruits.
Unfortunately, this long drawn out process to investigate Fidelity and its intersections with corruption at the GRA has descended into a well-knotted farce that will require much undoing but which undoing is mandatory if this society truly aspires to a rules-based and ordered existence.
The discontinuation by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the charges against the Fidelity Head Mr Safeek has occasioned much consternation on the street. It was always felt that in an investigation of this order it would have defied logic that charges could have been preferred against a dozen customs employees and two customs brokers but that the company itself which potentially would have profited the most from the transactions would be completely unscathed. Such an outcome would suggest that the brokers and the customs employees operated this scam in such a manner that they didn’t require the blandishments of the company. The whole thing strains credulity.
Unless, of course, this is the local version of the yet-to-be-tested plea bargaining legislation. That is, the small people would be prosecuted on the evidence of those of means. It’s actually supposed to be the other way around so even if this was the upshot of the discontinuation of the charges against Fidelity it would be the most perverse use of this law. There isn’t even a sign that perhaps someone more senior in the ranks of the GRA could be targeted in a plea deal which would at least be more palatable to the public.
Thus far, there is no real light on the plea bargaining except for an offhand remark by President Jagdeo at the conference of Caribbean police commissioners in Georgetown earlier this month. It was he who first revealed a plea bargain in relation to the Fidelity case. How he knew about the plea bargaining should be explained as not even the special prosecutor assigned to the Fidelity case had been shown the courtesy to be properly notified by the DPP’s Chambers of the discontinuation of the charges and to be advised of the reasons for the decision. More importantly, the public – either through the media or through the DPP’s Chambers itself – must be told explicitly why the charges were discontinued by the DPP against Fidelity and how exactly the plea bargaining legislation will be employed in this case.
Otherwise, this investigation choreographed by President Jagdeo on April 7th last year will implode into nothingness and add to the image of the country as one lacking in transparency and riddled with corruption. It must be remembered that it was the team headed by the Auditor General which was entrusted by President Jagdeo with the task of deciding what had transpired in the polar beer scam and to present the basis for an ensuing prosecution. Whether or not the Auditor General engaged in overreach by recommending charges against not only the customs officers but Fidelity is beside the point. What the Auditor General presented was a credible enough depiction of what transpired to warrant charges against the main players who were embroiled in a conspiracy to defraud the Treasury.
There were telling findings which would now raise questions about the DPP’s decision to discontinue charges. For the purposes of valuation, the polar beer in question had been listed by Fidelity at a value of US$2.15 per case. The Auditor General’s team, following a visit to Venezuela, determined that Fidelity had been sold the beer at US$4.40 per case. Could the broker alone have been complicit in this deceit?
It was held by the Auditor General’s team that customs duties totalling $321.5M were allegedly evaded by Fidelity and that the requisite fines should be paid by it. Further, the probe team maintained that Fidelity submitted false documents during the investigations, and therefore recommended that the relevant charges be instituted against the importer for producing false documents to the task force with the intention of misleading it.
Telling
There was a particularly telling sequence of documentation presented by Kong Inc which was said to have sold the polar beer to Fidelity. Kong was supposed to have purchased its beer from Refrescos San Jose C.A located in Venezuela.
The Auditor General’s team was however unable to verify the existence of this company. Further, shipping records in Venezuela showed that exports were made to Fidelity and not Kong Inc. though Fidelity had insisted that Kong imported the polar beer from Venezuela.
A certificate of registration was produced for Refrescos San Jose C.A by Fidelity Investment, which stated that the company was registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on July 31, 2008, but customs records showed that Kong Inc made purchases from the company in 2007. When confronted with this, a second certificate of registration was produced by Fidelity, which showed that the company was registered in July 2007. However, the task force’s report pointed out that the first invoice from the mysterious Refrescos was dated even before this – June 22, 2007. Said the report: “This clearly proves that (Fidelity or someone on its behalf) fabricated the invoices produced to GRA via customs declarations and the invoice produced to the task force”. Could a broker acting on behalf of Fidelity have been capable of such paperwork or even been a part of the process at the time?
Further, the task force found that the exporter’s stamp, ‘Refrescos San Jose, C.A’, were all evident on the invoices produced by the importer, however it pointed out that the stamps were in a particular angle, adding that “it would be almost impossible for a person manually shipping a document, to do so at a particular angle every time”. Also, the invoices on ten customs declarations had signatures of the Export Manager of the Exporter which appeared to be different, although the same name was signed, the report said.
Such exquisite sameness and artfulness could not have been the work of a broker only.
It must also be recalled that on January 15, 2008 a team of customs officers had raided Fidelity and found in excess of 73,000 cases of polar beer for which no import documents could be produced.
The Internal Affairs Department of the GRA then conducted its own investigation and arrived at the following conclusions on March 28, 2008:
The polar beer had been smuggled into the country;
Some of the beer was smuggled via trawlers and discharged at a Parika landing;
The rest of the beer was illegally brought in at the rear of containers which were declared to contain only aerated beverages. How could a broker or brokers with a handful of customs officers alone been responsible for this mess of pottage?
The Chambers of the DPP has a lot of explaining to do. The Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining and Plea Agreement) Bill 2008 makes arrangements for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or any prosecutor, police prosecutor or attorney authorized by the DPP and the accused to enter into a plea agreement.
The explanatory memorandum of the bill says the proposed law “seeks to reward a person who has entered into a plea agreement and is cooperating with law enforcement authorities or whose cooperation is beneficial to the administration of criminal justice.”
Clause 5 of the bill says that a prosecutor who improperly induces an accused person to participate in plea bargaining is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment of five years.
Clause 8 says that a prosecutor shall obtain the views of the victim or a relative of the victim before concluding the plea bargaining unless the circumstances make it impracticable to do so.
Clause 17 states that a judge or magistrate may reject a plea agreement if he/she considers it is not in the interest of justice. Legal aid may also be granted to an accused in relation to the conduct of plea bargaining.
This Act extends much greater powers to the Chambers of the DPP and by its very nature there is a concomitant obligation on the Chambers to act judiciously and with clarity and equanimity while ensuring that the public in whose interest these functions are being discharged is kept well in the loop. The public awaits the explanation.
6 Comments (Open | Close)
6 Comments To "Fidelity farce"
#1 Comment By bull#%@# detector On May 25, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Excellent laying out of the evidence incriminating Fidelity. Sadly even such a clear explanation will not move the powers that be to do the right thing. Rational argument in Guyana these days is like the tree falling in the forest.
#2 Comment By Doctor Watson On May 25, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Stabroek News needs to declare what financial interest the newspaper and its directors have in this court case.Gino Persaud and Mr. Jonas of the law firm De Caries have been retained by the GRA in this case.
Moderator’s note: The newspaper has no financial interest in this case. De Caires, Fitzpatrick and Karran is the law firm that represents Stabroek News. Mr Timothy Jonas is a member of the board of Guyana Publications Inc, publishers of the Stabroek News and Sunday Stabroek. In his role as Director he is not involved in the editorial side of the newspaper.
#3 Comment By Andy On May 25, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Extracted: “Otherwise, this investigation choreographed by President Jagdeo on April 7th last year will implode into nothingness and add to the image of the country as one lacking in transparency and riddled with corruption.”
We have read, heard and debated about a criminalized state and a failed state, but what more is required to cast Guyana’s government as a criminally corrupt? A country cannot be riddled with corruption unless the government facilitates the corruption, which then makes the government criminally corrupt! Am I right or wrong?
#4 Comment By Milton Bruce On May 25, 2009 @ 10:45 am
It is unfortunate SN that your Editorial comprehensively laid out will attract no attention from the public so required. The PPP government’s attempt to degrade SN has resonated with their constutuency, therefore a public outcry and outrage against such blatant malfesance will not get the time of day. Which other newspaper in Guyana will attempt such an expose? None!! SN can only continue to publish the facts and the truth, knowing quite well that punishment with the withdrawl of advertising (again)or the closing down like Chanel 6 is the perogative of the Government.
#5 Comment By Carl Anderson On May 25, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Doctor Watson, what is your point?
#6 Comment By Jackie On May 26, 2009 @ 7:13 am
Milton, there are too many like Dr Watson in Guyana. Seems to them that corruption is acceptable, therefore outcry by SN or anyone else seems pointless… what a mess my homeland has become!
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/05/25/fidelity-farce/
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 25, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 6 Comments
Just over a year ago, on April 7, President Jagdeo sounded off on what he said was orchestrated fraud at Customs involving Fidelity Inc and employees of the GRA. He sternly warned that there would be hell to pay and all the culpable would be held accountable. An investigating panel was duly convened, headed by the Auditor General, Mr Deodat Sharma.
Even then, there had been great skepticism about President Jagdeo’s declarations. Other major investigations especially where senior government functionaries or persons believed to be close to the government were involved have fallen away through a combination of rigmarole proceedings and twisted decisions. The duty-free concessions scam which had ensnared a senior Ministry of Finance official comes to mind right away. Yet, many in the public were prepared to give this investigation a chance because in a democratic society no matter how challenged our investigating institutions and dispensers of justice are they must be allowed to operate without hindrance so that the public can judge them by their fruits.
Unfortunately, this long drawn out process to investigate Fidelity and its intersections with corruption at the GRA has descended into a well-knotted farce that will require much undoing but which undoing is mandatory if this society truly aspires to a rules-based and ordered existence.
The discontinuation by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the charges against the Fidelity Head Mr Safeek has occasioned much consternation on the street. It was always felt that in an investigation of this order it would have defied logic that charges could have been preferred against a dozen customs employees and two customs brokers but that the company itself which potentially would have profited the most from the transactions would be completely unscathed. Such an outcome would suggest that the brokers and the customs employees operated this scam in such a manner that they didn’t require the blandishments of the company. The whole thing strains credulity.
Unless, of course, this is the local version of the yet-to-be-tested plea bargaining legislation. That is, the small people would be prosecuted on the evidence of those of means. It’s actually supposed to be the other way around so even if this was the upshot of the discontinuation of the charges against Fidelity it would be the most perverse use of this law. There isn’t even a sign that perhaps someone more senior in the ranks of the GRA could be targeted in a plea deal which would at least be more palatable to the public.
Thus far, there is no real light on the plea bargaining except for an offhand remark by President Jagdeo at the conference of Caribbean police commissioners in Georgetown earlier this month. It was he who first revealed a plea bargain in relation to the Fidelity case. How he knew about the plea bargaining should be explained as not even the special prosecutor assigned to the Fidelity case had been shown the courtesy to be properly notified by the DPP’s Chambers of the discontinuation of the charges and to be advised of the reasons for the decision. More importantly, the public – either through the media or through the DPP’s Chambers itself – must be told explicitly why the charges were discontinued by the DPP against Fidelity and how exactly the plea bargaining legislation will be employed in this case.
Otherwise, this investigation choreographed by President Jagdeo on April 7th last year will implode into nothingness and add to the image of the country as one lacking in transparency and riddled with corruption. It must be remembered that it was the team headed by the Auditor General which was entrusted by President Jagdeo with the task of deciding what had transpired in the polar beer scam and to present the basis for an ensuing prosecution. Whether or not the Auditor General engaged in overreach by recommending charges against not only the customs officers but Fidelity is beside the point. What the Auditor General presented was a credible enough depiction of what transpired to warrant charges against the main players who were embroiled in a conspiracy to defraud the Treasury.
There were telling findings which would now raise questions about the DPP’s decision to discontinue charges. For the purposes of valuation, the polar beer in question had been listed by Fidelity at a value of US$2.15 per case. The Auditor General’s team, following a visit to Venezuela, determined that Fidelity had been sold the beer at US$4.40 per case. Could the broker alone have been complicit in this deceit?
It was held by the Auditor General’s team that customs duties totalling $321.5M were allegedly evaded by Fidelity and that the requisite fines should be paid by it. Further, the probe team maintained that Fidelity submitted false documents during the investigations, and therefore recommended that the relevant charges be instituted against the importer for producing false documents to the task force with the intention of misleading it.
Telling
There was a particularly telling sequence of documentation presented by Kong Inc which was said to have sold the polar beer to Fidelity. Kong was supposed to have purchased its beer from Refrescos San Jose C.A located in Venezuela.
The Auditor General’s team was however unable to verify the existence of this company. Further, shipping records in Venezuela showed that exports were made to Fidelity and not Kong Inc. though Fidelity had insisted that Kong imported the polar beer from Venezuela.
A certificate of registration was produced for Refrescos San Jose C.A by Fidelity Investment, which stated that the company was registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on July 31, 2008, but customs records showed that Kong Inc made purchases from the company in 2007. When confronted with this, a second certificate of registration was produced by Fidelity, which showed that the company was registered in July 2007. However, the task force’s report pointed out that the first invoice from the mysterious Refrescos was dated even before this – June 22, 2007. Said the report: “This clearly proves that (Fidelity or someone on its behalf) fabricated the invoices produced to GRA via customs declarations and the invoice produced to the task force”. Could a broker acting on behalf of Fidelity have been capable of such paperwork or even been a part of the process at the time?
Further, the task force found that the exporter’s stamp, ‘Refrescos San Jose, C.A’, were all evident on the invoices produced by the importer, however it pointed out that the stamps were in a particular angle, adding that “it would be almost impossible for a person manually shipping a document, to do so at a particular angle every time”. Also, the invoices on ten customs declarations had signatures of the Export Manager of the Exporter which appeared to be different, although the same name was signed, the report said.
Such exquisite sameness and artfulness could not have been the work of a broker only.
It must also be recalled that on January 15, 2008 a team of customs officers had raided Fidelity and found in excess of 73,000 cases of polar beer for which no import documents could be produced.
The Internal Affairs Department of the GRA then conducted its own investigation and arrived at the following conclusions on March 28, 2008:
The polar beer had been smuggled into the country;
Some of the beer was smuggled via trawlers and discharged at a Parika landing;
The rest of the beer was illegally brought in at the rear of containers which were declared to contain only aerated beverages. How could a broker or brokers with a handful of customs officers alone been responsible for this mess of pottage?
The Chambers of the DPP has a lot of explaining to do. The Criminal Procedure (Plea Bargaining and Plea Agreement) Bill 2008 makes arrangements for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or any prosecutor, police prosecutor or attorney authorized by the DPP and the accused to enter into a plea agreement.
The explanatory memorandum of the bill says the proposed law “seeks to reward a person who has entered into a plea agreement and is cooperating with law enforcement authorities or whose cooperation is beneficial to the administration of criminal justice.”
Clause 5 of the bill says that a prosecutor who improperly induces an accused person to participate in plea bargaining is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment of five years.
Clause 8 says that a prosecutor shall obtain the views of the victim or a relative of the victim before concluding the plea bargaining unless the circumstances make it impracticable to do so.
Clause 17 states that a judge or magistrate may reject a plea agreement if he/she considers it is not in the interest of justice. Legal aid may also be granted to an accused in relation to the conduct of plea bargaining.
This Act extends much greater powers to the Chambers of the DPP and by its very nature there is a concomitant obligation on the Chambers to act judiciously and with clarity and equanimity while ensuring that the public in whose interest these functions are being discharged is kept well in the loop. The public awaits the explanation.
6 Comments (Open | Close)
6 Comments To "Fidelity farce"
#1 Comment By bull#%@# detector On May 25, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Excellent laying out of the evidence incriminating Fidelity. Sadly even such a clear explanation will not move the powers that be to do the right thing. Rational argument in Guyana these days is like the tree falling in the forest.
#2 Comment By Doctor Watson On May 25, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Stabroek News needs to declare what financial interest the newspaper and its directors have in this court case.Gino Persaud and Mr. Jonas of the law firm De Caries have been retained by the GRA in this case.
Moderator’s note: The newspaper has no financial interest in this case. De Caires, Fitzpatrick and Karran is the law firm that represents Stabroek News. Mr Timothy Jonas is a member of the board of Guyana Publications Inc, publishers of the Stabroek News and Sunday Stabroek. In his role as Director he is not involved in the editorial side of the newspaper.
#3 Comment By Andy On May 25, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Extracted: “Otherwise, this investigation choreographed by President Jagdeo on April 7th last year will implode into nothingness and add to the image of the country as one lacking in transparency and riddled with corruption.”
We have read, heard and debated about a criminalized state and a failed state, but what more is required to cast Guyana’s government as a criminally corrupt? A country cannot be riddled with corruption unless the government facilitates the corruption, which then makes the government criminally corrupt! Am I right or wrong?
#4 Comment By Milton Bruce On May 25, 2009 @ 10:45 am
It is unfortunate SN that your Editorial comprehensively laid out will attract no attention from the public so required. The PPP government’s attempt to degrade SN has resonated with their constutuency, therefore a public outcry and outrage against such blatant malfesance will not get the time of day. Which other newspaper in Guyana will attempt such an expose? None!! SN can only continue to publish the facts and the truth, knowing quite well that punishment with the withdrawl of advertising (again)or the closing down like Chanel 6 is the perogative of the Government.
#5 Comment By Carl Anderson On May 25, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Doctor Watson, what is your point?
#6 Comment By Jackie On May 26, 2009 @ 7:13 am
Milton, there are too many like Dr Watson in Guyana. Seems to them that corruption is acceptable, therefore outcry by SN or anyone else seems pointless… what a mess my homeland has become!
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/05/25/fidelity-farce/
Gov’t has not leased or sold million acres at Lethem –Go-Invest
Gov’t has not leased or sold million acres at Lethem –Go-Invest
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 23, 2009 @ 5:13 am In Local News | 4 Comments
Government says that it has never leased or sold to anyone or any company one million acres of land in the Rupununi, Region Nine or any part of Guyana “and has no intention of doing so”.
A press release from the Guyana Office for Investment (Go-Invest) yesterday referred to a report regarding a claim by a Barbadian businessman that he owned one million hectares of land in Lethem.
The release went on to say, “the government of Guyana would like to make it explicitly clear to the general public that it has never leased or sold to any person or company one million acres of land in Rupununi, Region 9 or any part of Guyana and has no intention of doing so”.
An article in the Trinidad Guardian and reprinted in this newspaper said that Barbadian billionaire Kyffin Simpson, the chairman of Interamericana Trading Corporation, the Simpson Group of Companies and the SOL Group, told a news conference in Boa Vista, Brazil, that he owned one million hectares of arable land in (the Lethem area) and he wanted to purchase an equal amount of arable land in Bon Fim, Brazil.
Simpson was part of an international team of investors who visited Boa Vista recently and who were reported to be interested in acquiring land and looking at the possibility of linking up with business partners for agricultural projects on both sides of the Brazil/Guyana border.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/23/gov%e2%80%99t-has-not-leased-or-sold-million-acres-at-lethem-%e2%80%93go-invest.html
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 23, 2009 @ 5:13 am In Local News | 4 Comments
Government says that it has never leased or sold to anyone or any company one million acres of land in the Rupununi, Region Nine or any part of Guyana “and has no intention of doing so”.
A press release from the Guyana Office for Investment (Go-Invest) yesterday referred to a report regarding a claim by a Barbadian businessman that he owned one million hectares of land in Lethem.
The release went on to say, “the government of Guyana would like to make it explicitly clear to the general public that it has never leased or sold to any person or company one million acres of land in Rupununi, Region 9 or any part of Guyana and has no intention of doing so”.
An article in the Trinidad Guardian and reprinted in this newspaper said that Barbadian billionaire Kyffin Simpson, the chairman of Interamericana Trading Corporation, the Simpson Group of Companies and the SOL Group, told a news conference in Boa Vista, Brazil, that he owned one million hectares of arable land in (the Lethem area) and he wanted to purchase an equal amount of arable land in Bon Fim, Brazil.
Simpson was part of an international team of investors who visited Boa Vista recently and who were reported to be interested in acquiring land and looking at the possibility of linking up with business partners for agricultural projects on both sides of the Brazil/Guyana border.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/23/gov%e2%80%99t-has-not-leased-or-sold-million-acres-at-lethem-%e2%80%93go-invest.html
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sugar row erupts- Guyana disputes EU stand
Guyana Chronicle top story, Sunday 24 May 2009
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html
Sugar row erupts- Guyana disputes EU stand
THE Guyana Government is challenging a claim by the European Union that a late submission of a plan for some six million Euros in support of the local sugar industry led to the loss of the crucial aid.
In a statement issued late Friday, it argued that the Guyana Sugar Corporation’s business plan was submitted to the European Commission within an extended deadline of March 31 last year and that the community should proceed with the aid.
The government said it was concerned about the EU’s public pronouncements on the issue last week and outlined its position.
“The undisputed fact of the matter is that GuySuCo did prepare its business plan by the extended deadline, and the plan was approved by its board on 29th March 2008. This fact was communicated to the EC Delegation by the government in its application for the release of the variable tranche,” it said.
Upon the request of the delegation, the government said it subsequently submitted further evidence that the business plan was approved by GuySuCo’s board, via a letter of certification from GuySuCo’s Company Secretary.
“There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that the condition, as spelt out in the financing agreement, was met,” the government stated.
It added that in response to the EC Delegation’s indication that they also required a copy of the plan, it explained to them that the document that had been approved by the GuySuCo Board of Directors was under review by Cabinet, so as to ensure consistency with national macroeconomic objectives.
“Following completion of the Cabinet review, the plan was provided to the EC Delegation in June 2008. The EU subsequently took the position that the submission of the business plan in June 2008 rather than by 31st March 2008 constituted non-achievement of the indicator.”
The government said it challenged this interpretation of the EC that the indicator was not met at the level of the local delegation as well as the EU headquarters via letter from the Ministry of Finance and through Guyana’s Ambassador in Brussels.
According to the government, it made the case for the reversal of the commission’s decision to withhold funding since its considered position is that the conditions as described in the financing agreement were met.
The government argued that its assertion in this matter is simple.
“The fact that the EC Delegation received the plan in June 2008, after Cabinet had completed its review, does not alter the fact that the condition was met by virtue of the plan having been approved by the GuySuCo Board of Directors by 31st March 2008. The EU continues to disagree and has withheld the funding,” it reported.
It also contended that there is “absolutely no requirement” in the sugar accompanying measures financing agreement for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme (PRSP) to be submitted for the purpose of qualifying for sugar sector budget support.
“The PRSP cannot therefore be used by the EC as a basis for withholding sugar sector budget support,” it said.
It added that there is, however, a requirement related to the PRSP under the General Budget Support Programme, which states: “Satisfactory progress should be made in the establishment of a second generation poverty reduction strategy drawing from lessons learnt from the first PRSP.”
“Clearly, from this language, there is no requirement for the PRSP to be completed and approved by Cabinet or by any other authority for satisfactory progress to have been made and for the condition to be met.
“Nevertheless, for the purposes of supporting Government’s application for disbursement under the general budget support programme, the Cabinet-approved draft of the PRSP was submitted to the EC Delegation with a confirmatory letter from the Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon. The fact therefore is that, with regards to the general budget support programme, Government has submitted a second generation PRSP approved by Cabinet and has therefore demonstrated satisfactory progress. At the same time, Government shared the document with the joint donor group for their consideration and comments. Because of this further consultative process of the Government, the EC Delegation has determined that this indicator is not met and that the Delegation is not in receipt of the ‘final version’ of the PRSP.”
The government said it has consistently reaffirmed that there is no requirement for a final version, and that the requirement of satisfactory progress has been adequately demonstrated by the submission of a draft approved by Cabinet to the Delegation.
Its case is that there are, therefore, three simple points to be made in this matter.
** Firstly, there are two separate financing agreements, one for general budget support and one for sugar sector support.
** Secondly, the PRSP is not a prerequisite for the release of the sugar sector support because it is not a condition in that financing agreement.
** Thirdly, in any event, satisfactory progress has been made on the PRSP and this progress is in full compliance with the condition stipulated in the general budget support financing agreement.
According to the Guyana Government, it should be added that these developments on the part of the EC represent a fundamental departure from the principles of the budget support mode for delivering aid.
The understanding, it said, has always been that budget support emphasises the achievement of certain specified results, and is disbursed when these results are achieved.
“If the results are achieved early, i.e., before any timeline that might be specified, then the disbursement is made early. If the results are achieved later, then the disbursement is made at that later time. The current position of the EC on this matter, suggesting that funds are lost because certain deadlines were not achieved in their interpretation, departs significantly from this principle.”
The government said it will continue to assert that the conditions discussed above were achieved, for the reasons outlined above, and that the disbursements should be made to Guyana as soon as possible.
It said it has also noted that during the early rounds of provision of budget support by the EU to Guyana, disbursements were made promptly and in full.
“It is a striking coincidence that most of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of EU budget support came shortly after Government adopted a position that was critical of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) that was concluded between the EU and negotiators for CARIFORUM. Government would hope that the difficulties currently being experienced in securing delivery of promised budget support is not somehow connected with the critique of the EPA, and will continue to argue that the anticipated budget support must be delivered in accordance with the financing agreements.”
The small Alliance For Change party yesterday claimed that the loss of the EU support vindicates its charge about the ineptitude and incompetence of those in charge of the sugar industry.
“This utterly casual and lackadaisical performance by the Government and its surrogate company will break the back of this most important industry,” it stated.
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html
Sugar row erupts- Guyana disputes EU stand
THE Guyana Government is challenging a claim by the European Union that a late submission of a plan for some six million Euros in support of the local sugar industry led to the loss of the crucial aid.
In a statement issued late Friday, it argued that the Guyana Sugar Corporation’s business plan was submitted to the European Commission within an extended deadline of March 31 last year and that the community should proceed with the aid.
The government said it was concerned about the EU’s public pronouncements on the issue last week and outlined its position.
“The undisputed fact of the matter is that GuySuCo did prepare its business plan by the extended deadline, and the plan was approved by its board on 29th March 2008. This fact was communicated to the EC Delegation by the government in its application for the release of the variable tranche,” it said.
Upon the request of the delegation, the government said it subsequently submitted further evidence that the business plan was approved by GuySuCo’s board, via a letter of certification from GuySuCo’s Company Secretary.
“There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that the condition, as spelt out in the financing agreement, was met,” the government stated.
It added that in response to the EC Delegation’s indication that they also required a copy of the plan, it explained to them that the document that had been approved by the GuySuCo Board of Directors was under review by Cabinet, so as to ensure consistency with national macroeconomic objectives.
“Following completion of the Cabinet review, the plan was provided to the EC Delegation in June 2008. The EU subsequently took the position that the submission of the business plan in June 2008 rather than by 31st March 2008 constituted non-achievement of the indicator.”
The government said it challenged this interpretation of the EC that the indicator was not met at the level of the local delegation as well as the EU headquarters via letter from the Ministry of Finance and through Guyana’s Ambassador in Brussels.
According to the government, it made the case for the reversal of the commission’s decision to withhold funding since its considered position is that the conditions as described in the financing agreement were met.
The government argued that its assertion in this matter is simple.
“The fact that the EC Delegation received the plan in June 2008, after Cabinet had completed its review, does not alter the fact that the condition was met by virtue of the plan having been approved by the GuySuCo Board of Directors by 31st March 2008. The EU continues to disagree and has withheld the funding,” it reported.
It also contended that there is “absolutely no requirement” in the sugar accompanying measures financing agreement for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme (PRSP) to be submitted for the purpose of qualifying for sugar sector budget support.
“The PRSP cannot therefore be used by the EC as a basis for withholding sugar sector budget support,” it said.
It added that there is, however, a requirement related to the PRSP under the General Budget Support Programme, which states: “Satisfactory progress should be made in the establishment of a second generation poverty reduction strategy drawing from lessons learnt from the first PRSP.”
“Clearly, from this language, there is no requirement for the PRSP to be completed and approved by Cabinet or by any other authority for satisfactory progress to have been made and for the condition to be met.
“Nevertheless, for the purposes of supporting Government’s application for disbursement under the general budget support programme, the Cabinet-approved draft of the PRSP was submitted to the EC Delegation with a confirmatory letter from the Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon. The fact therefore is that, with regards to the general budget support programme, Government has submitted a second generation PRSP approved by Cabinet and has therefore demonstrated satisfactory progress. At the same time, Government shared the document with the joint donor group for their consideration and comments. Because of this further consultative process of the Government, the EC Delegation has determined that this indicator is not met and that the Delegation is not in receipt of the ‘final version’ of the PRSP.”
The government said it has consistently reaffirmed that there is no requirement for a final version, and that the requirement of satisfactory progress has been adequately demonstrated by the submission of a draft approved by Cabinet to the Delegation.
Its case is that there are, therefore, three simple points to be made in this matter.
** Firstly, there are two separate financing agreements, one for general budget support and one for sugar sector support.
** Secondly, the PRSP is not a prerequisite for the release of the sugar sector support because it is not a condition in that financing agreement.
** Thirdly, in any event, satisfactory progress has been made on the PRSP and this progress is in full compliance with the condition stipulated in the general budget support financing agreement.
According to the Guyana Government, it should be added that these developments on the part of the EC represent a fundamental departure from the principles of the budget support mode for delivering aid.
The understanding, it said, has always been that budget support emphasises the achievement of certain specified results, and is disbursed when these results are achieved.
“If the results are achieved early, i.e., before any timeline that might be specified, then the disbursement is made early. If the results are achieved later, then the disbursement is made at that later time. The current position of the EC on this matter, suggesting that funds are lost because certain deadlines were not achieved in their interpretation, departs significantly from this principle.”
The government said it will continue to assert that the conditions discussed above were achieved, for the reasons outlined above, and that the disbursements should be made to Guyana as soon as possible.
It said it has also noted that during the early rounds of provision of budget support by the EU to Guyana, disbursements were made promptly and in full.
“It is a striking coincidence that most of the difficulties encountered in the implementation of EU budget support came shortly after Government adopted a position that was critical of the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) that was concluded between the EU and negotiators for CARIFORUM. Government would hope that the difficulties currently being experienced in securing delivery of promised budget support is not somehow connected with the critique of the EPA, and will continue to argue that the anticipated budget support must be delivered in accordance with the financing agreements.”
The small Alliance For Change party yesterday claimed that the loss of the EU support vindicates its charge about the ineptitude and incompetence of those in charge of the sugar industry.
“This utterly casual and lackadaisical performance by the Government and its surrogate company will break the back of this most important industry,” it stated.
Poverty Reduction paper stalled in National Assembly - Dr Luncheon
Kaieteur News news item, Friday 22 May 2009
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/05/22/poverty-reduction-paper-stalled-in-national-assembly-dr-luncheon/
Poverty Reduction paper stalled in National Assembly - Dr Luncheon
May 22, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under News
‘There is growing sense of ‘frustration’ for those who have to implement agreements’
By Tusika Martin
The Poverty Reduction paper has already been approved by Cabinet but parliamentary consideration of the document is yet to be concluded, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, said yesterday.
Dr. Luncheon was responding to European Commission Ambassador to Guyana, Geert Heikens, who said on Wednesday that 12 million Euros is being withheld from the General Budget Support because of lack of approval by Cabinet of the Poverty Reduction paper.
Yesterday Dr. Luncheon lashed out that the European Commission, pointing out that there is a growing sense of the barriers, additional hoops and hurdles that have been brought into being.
This, he said, has ultimately led to a growing sense of ‘frustration’ by those who have to implement these agreements.
Dr. Luncheon added that the issues need to be looked at holistically. There is a continuum that arouses nations to higher levels of consternation, he added.
“Cabinet endorsed the document…the paper was sent to parliament, the forum at which the document is accepted…we took it to parliament to ensure that our love and appreciation of the paper is brought to the attention of parliamentarians and they would endorse it,” Dr. Luncheon said.
This anticipation has not yet been achieved, he said.
On Wednesday, Ambassador Heikens said that if criteria were not met under the European Development Fund, then finances would not be disbursed.
He noted that the General Budget support for Guyana was 40 million Euros, however, Cabinet has not disbursed 12 million Euros since the Commission is awaiting the approval for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
The Ambassador claimed that an area of concern for the commission is the slow pace of meeting the criteria thus resulting in the delay in disbursement of funds.
Once such incident was highlighted earlier in the week, when Minister of Agriculture, Robert Persaud, called for more flexibility from Brussels in the allocation of grants.
This call came in light of Guyana losing 6M Euros in budgetary support, during 2007/2008, because of late submission of the sugar action plan and an expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011.
In explaining how Guyana lost the money, Ambassador Heikens disclosed that Guyana was aware that both the sugar action plan and the expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011 were due by January 2008.
According to Heikens, he took the courtesy of extending that deadline until the end of March 2008, but the Guyana Sugar Corporation did not submit the plan.
It was not until July 2008, Ambassador Heikens said, that the plan was finally submitted, but by that time it was too late.
That money, he said, will not be recovered. No one provided the commission with an explanation of the reasons for the late submission, he said.
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/05/22/poverty-reduction-paper-stalled-in-national-assembly-dr-luncheon/
Poverty Reduction paper stalled in National Assembly - Dr Luncheon
May 22, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under News
‘There is growing sense of ‘frustration’ for those who have to implement agreements’
By Tusika Martin
The Poverty Reduction paper has already been approved by Cabinet but parliamentary consideration of the document is yet to be concluded, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger Luncheon, said yesterday.
Dr. Luncheon was responding to European Commission Ambassador to Guyana, Geert Heikens, who said on Wednesday that 12 million Euros is being withheld from the General Budget Support because of lack of approval by Cabinet of the Poverty Reduction paper.
Yesterday Dr. Luncheon lashed out that the European Commission, pointing out that there is a growing sense of the barriers, additional hoops and hurdles that have been brought into being.
This, he said, has ultimately led to a growing sense of ‘frustration’ by those who have to implement these agreements.
Dr. Luncheon added that the issues need to be looked at holistically. There is a continuum that arouses nations to higher levels of consternation, he added.
“Cabinet endorsed the document…the paper was sent to parliament, the forum at which the document is accepted…we took it to parliament to ensure that our love and appreciation of the paper is brought to the attention of parliamentarians and they would endorse it,” Dr. Luncheon said.
This anticipation has not yet been achieved, he said.
On Wednesday, Ambassador Heikens said that if criteria were not met under the European Development Fund, then finances would not be disbursed.
He noted that the General Budget support for Guyana was 40 million Euros, however, Cabinet has not disbursed 12 million Euros since the Commission is awaiting the approval for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
The Ambassador claimed that an area of concern for the commission is the slow pace of meeting the criteria thus resulting in the delay in disbursement of funds.
Once such incident was highlighted earlier in the week, when Minister of Agriculture, Robert Persaud, called for more flexibility from Brussels in the allocation of grants.
This call came in light of Guyana losing 6M Euros in budgetary support, during 2007/2008, because of late submission of the sugar action plan and an expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011.
In explaining how Guyana lost the money, Ambassador Heikens disclosed that Guyana was aware that both the sugar action plan and the expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011 were due by January 2008.
According to Heikens, he took the courtesy of extending that deadline until the end of March 2008, but the Guyana Sugar Corporation did not submit the plan.
It was not until July 2008, Ambassador Heikens said, that the plan was finally submitted, but by that time it was too late.
That money, he said, will not be recovered. No one provided the commission with an explanation of the reasons for the late submission, he said.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
EC funds lost after key sugar plan submitted six months late
EC funds lost after key sugar plan submitted six months late
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 21, 2009 @ 5:37 am In Local News | 7 Comments
- Ambassador
Guyana will most likely not be able to regain any of the 6 million euros ($1.6 billion) that it lost in budgetary support from the European Commission (EC) after the late submission of a sugar action plan.
Geert Heikens [1]
Geert Heikens
Ambassador of the Euro-pean Commission to Guyana Ambassador Geert Heikens told reporters yesterday that to the best of his knowledge, the sum of money lost is not retrievable. He also said that as far as he is aware, the Government of Guyana did not give any reason for the delay in the submission of its action plan.
According to the ambassador, Guyana failed to meet all the necessary criteria, which he stated was interpreted with some form of flexibility. Heikens said that one such criterion was that GuySuCo had to approve its business plan before 1st January 2008. He said that the body had been given an extension up to March 31, 2008 but he said this plan was only received some time in July, when it was too late.
The ambassador also explained that the sector had to present an expenditure framework for sugar between the period 2009-2011 which was not met.
He said that the total envelope for 2007 which had to be paid in 2008 was 34 million euros but he stated that 6 million of this was not disbursed.
Persaud on Tuesday told this newspaper that he believed that the lost funds were still accessible. Speaking during a break at the ACP sugar conference, the minister said that Guyana is currently negotiating with the EU delegate here to access the remaining tranche from 2007/2008, but would not elaborate on the status of the talks.
Guyana is not the only country facing the same problem with disbursements, Persaud said. He stated that the current forum at the sugar conference has been used by other ACP countries to raise similar concerns about the accompanying measures provided by the EU as preferences for the region’s sugar erodes.
Heikens, however, emphasized that the country’s sugar sector will continue to benefit from continued support in the near future.
Meanwhile, the ambassador outlined the importance of political co-operation between the Government and the EC and said that there exists a healthy relationship between the two bodies. He, however, underscored the importance of political dialogue and according to him such dialogue should take place at least once a year where issues such as human rights, democracy and rule of law are discussed. In June/July, the EC is expected to host its first political dialogue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The ambassador also underscored the EC’s dedication to development co-operation with Guyana and the region. He disclosed that the Ninth European Development Fund (EDF) is near completion and the money allocated was valued at almost 62 million euros. The amount in the Tenth EDF is 55.4 million euros.
He said that a large percentage of this money goes towards general budget support. For the ninth EDF almost 40 million went to the budget, the ambassador said. However, he said 12 million euros has not been disbursed as yet since the body is awaiting approval of cabinet of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and waiting for implementation of rules regarding public finance management system, which were described as imperative.
Additionally, he said that in the Ninth EDF, a significant part of the sum of money also goes to sea defence. He said that contracts worth about 17 million euros will be signed in relation to this particular aspect. For the tenth EDF, 30 million euros was set aside towards budgetary allocations while 15 million has been set aside for sea defence, Heikens disclosed.
Christopher Inglebrecht, Head of the Technical Sector of the Delegation of the European Commission, explained that these projects are undertaken in partnership with the government. He said critical areas would be identified and presented to the delegation. He said the body had to selective and prioritise the work that needed to be done based on proper assessments.
Speaking at the regional level, the ambassador disclosed that 165 million euros has been set aside in the Tenth EDF for the region. He also disclosed that a substantial amount of money has been set aside to help countries in the region towards the implementation of the Economic Part-nership Agreement (EPA).
Heikens, meanwhile, stated that when it came to regional programmes, there was some concern at the speed at which some projects were implemented.
Meanwhile, when asked if additional financial aid could be supplied, in the light of concerns raised recently about more funding being required in some areas, the ambassador said additional aid was not possible but the commission is looking at mechanisms to disburse the funds at a quicker pace. He agreed that the process to access and to disburse funds could be simplified but pointed out that adhering to the current procedures “was not all that difficult.” He also emphasized that the money provided by the EDF is secured.
The press conference was held at the Delegation of European Commission’s Office at Sendall Place. Shar-ing the head table with the ambassador were Inglebrecht, Head of the Technical Sector, the Dele-gation’s Agro-Economist Giampiero Muci and Ewout Sandker, Head of the Regional Sector.
7 Comments (Open | Close)
7 Comments To "EC funds lost after key sugar plan submitted six months late"
#1 Comment By Justice On May 21, 2009 @ 6:46 am
The subject minister is always on tv running his mouth, but can’t get the work done. what a complete waste. now we loose much needed funds. the minister told the ACP conference a few days ago that the money can be recoverd and they are currently in negotiation. This was not true! im happy that SN quoted the ambassador
#2 Comment By Brandon Samaroo On May 21, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Persaud is a miserable failure but like all that is the PPP there will be no accountability.
In other countries the minister would resign in shame and disgrace.
In Guyana he would probably get promoted.
But in the end you know whose fault this is? the PNC 28 years mek this happen. I got you covered sase!!
#3 Comment By NeNe On May 21, 2009 @ 8:44 am
What an utter mess!!!
#4 Comment By swami On May 21, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Hello Minister Persaud
Why are you still not firing Finance Director? CEO and Finance Director was incharge of submitting action Plan.
Can you focus on the truth? Where is the last 3 years Audited Financial Statements?
It time for EU/ IADB / world bank and all other donor agency stop funding corrupted GUYSUCO.
Swami
#5 Comment By Desi On May 21, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Since the Minister gat an MBA he shoulda do de wuk heself.
#6 Comment By Justice On May 21, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
the minister does not have a MBA. he got a EMBA. big difference
#7 Comment By Brandon Samaroo(Hail Jagdeo the Dictator) On May 21, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Where is roving reddy and cack eye and the rest of the gang?
Da Silver you out there padna?
Misir? Donald Ramoutar?
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/21/ec-funds-lost-after-key-sugar-plan-submitted-six-months-late/
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 21, 2009 @ 5:37 am In Local News | 7 Comments
- Ambassador
Guyana will most likely not be able to regain any of the 6 million euros ($1.6 billion) that it lost in budgetary support from the European Commission (EC) after the late submission of a sugar action plan.
Geert Heikens [1]
Geert Heikens
Ambassador of the Euro-pean Commission to Guyana Ambassador Geert Heikens told reporters yesterday that to the best of his knowledge, the sum of money lost is not retrievable. He also said that as far as he is aware, the Government of Guyana did not give any reason for the delay in the submission of its action plan.
According to the ambassador, Guyana failed to meet all the necessary criteria, which he stated was interpreted with some form of flexibility. Heikens said that one such criterion was that GuySuCo had to approve its business plan before 1st January 2008. He said that the body had been given an extension up to March 31, 2008 but he said this plan was only received some time in July, when it was too late.
The ambassador also explained that the sector had to present an expenditure framework for sugar between the period 2009-2011 which was not met.
He said that the total envelope for 2007 which had to be paid in 2008 was 34 million euros but he stated that 6 million of this was not disbursed.
Persaud on Tuesday told this newspaper that he believed that the lost funds were still accessible. Speaking during a break at the ACP sugar conference, the minister said that Guyana is currently negotiating with the EU delegate here to access the remaining tranche from 2007/2008, but would not elaborate on the status of the talks.
Guyana is not the only country facing the same problem with disbursements, Persaud said. He stated that the current forum at the sugar conference has been used by other ACP countries to raise similar concerns about the accompanying measures provided by the EU as preferences for the region’s sugar erodes.
Heikens, however, emphasized that the country’s sugar sector will continue to benefit from continued support in the near future.
Meanwhile, the ambassador outlined the importance of political co-operation between the Government and the EC and said that there exists a healthy relationship between the two bodies. He, however, underscored the importance of political dialogue and according to him such dialogue should take place at least once a year where issues such as human rights, democracy and rule of law are discussed. In June/July, the EC is expected to host its first political dialogue with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The ambassador also underscored the EC’s dedication to development co-operation with Guyana and the region. He disclosed that the Ninth European Development Fund (EDF) is near completion and the money allocated was valued at almost 62 million euros. The amount in the Tenth EDF is 55.4 million euros.
He said that a large percentage of this money goes towards general budget support. For the ninth EDF almost 40 million went to the budget, the ambassador said. However, he said 12 million euros has not been disbursed as yet since the body is awaiting approval of cabinet of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and waiting for implementation of rules regarding public finance management system, which were described as imperative.
Additionally, he said that in the Ninth EDF, a significant part of the sum of money also goes to sea defence. He said that contracts worth about 17 million euros will be signed in relation to this particular aspect. For the tenth EDF, 30 million euros was set aside towards budgetary allocations while 15 million has been set aside for sea defence, Heikens disclosed.
Christopher Inglebrecht, Head of the Technical Sector of the Delegation of the European Commission, explained that these projects are undertaken in partnership with the government. He said critical areas would be identified and presented to the delegation. He said the body had to selective and prioritise the work that needed to be done based on proper assessments.
Speaking at the regional level, the ambassador disclosed that 165 million euros has been set aside in the Tenth EDF for the region. He also disclosed that a substantial amount of money has been set aside to help countries in the region towards the implementation of the Economic Part-nership Agreement (EPA).
Heikens, meanwhile, stated that when it came to regional programmes, there was some concern at the speed at which some projects were implemented.
Meanwhile, when asked if additional financial aid could be supplied, in the light of concerns raised recently about more funding being required in some areas, the ambassador said additional aid was not possible but the commission is looking at mechanisms to disburse the funds at a quicker pace. He agreed that the process to access and to disburse funds could be simplified but pointed out that adhering to the current procedures “was not all that difficult.” He also emphasized that the money provided by the EDF is secured.
The press conference was held at the Delegation of European Commission’s Office at Sendall Place. Shar-ing the head table with the ambassador were Inglebrecht, Head of the Technical Sector, the Dele-gation’s Agro-Economist Giampiero Muci and Ewout Sandker, Head of the Regional Sector.
7 Comments (Open | Close)
7 Comments To "EC funds lost after key sugar plan submitted six months late"
#1 Comment By Justice On May 21, 2009 @ 6:46 am
The subject minister is always on tv running his mouth, but can’t get the work done. what a complete waste. now we loose much needed funds. the minister told the ACP conference a few days ago that the money can be recoverd and they are currently in negotiation. This was not true! im happy that SN quoted the ambassador
#2 Comment By Brandon Samaroo On May 21, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Persaud is a miserable failure but like all that is the PPP there will be no accountability.
In other countries the minister would resign in shame and disgrace.
In Guyana he would probably get promoted.
But in the end you know whose fault this is? the PNC 28 years mek this happen. I got you covered sase!!
#3 Comment By NeNe On May 21, 2009 @ 8:44 am
What an utter mess!!!
#4 Comment By swami On May 21, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Hello Minister Persaud
Why are you still not firing Finance Director? CEO and Finance Director was incharge of submitting action Plan.
Can you focus on the truth? Where is the last 3 years Audited Financial Statements?
It time for EU/ IADB / world bank and all other donor agency stop funding corrupted GUYSUCO.
Swami
#5 Comment By Desi On May 21, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Since the Minister gat an MBA he shoulda do de wuk heself.
#6 Comment By Justice On May 21, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
the minister does not have a MBA. he got a EMBA. big difference
#7 Comment By Brandon Samaroo(Hail Jagdeo the Dictator) On May 21, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
Where is roving reddy and cack eye and the rest of the gang?
Da Silver you out there padna?
Misir? Donald Ramoutar?
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/local/05/21/ec-funds-lost-after-key-sugar-plan-submitted-six-months-late/
IMF commends Guyana on maintaining macroeconomic stability- despite external shocks and social pressure
Guyana Chronicle top story, Thursday 21 May 2009
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html
IMF commends Guyana on maintaining macroeconomic stability- despite external shocks and social pressure
GOVERNMENT’S prudent management of the local economy has again been recognised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
According to a report from the concluded Article IV consultation with Guyana, the Institution has commended Government for implementing several policy initiatives that saw the economy maintaining macroeconomic stability, achieving real growth rates and containing inflation, in spite of the global turmoil.
The consultation is part of the institution’s yearly bilateral discussions with countries to provide an assessment of policy initiatives and reports on a country’s economic progress.
Earlier this month, the World Economic Outlook, which presents the IMF’s analysis and projections of economic development, projected Guyana’s economy would grow by 2.604 percent in 2009 and by 3.448 percent in 2010.
The Article IV report stated that despite external shocks and social pressures, macroeconomic stability was preserved in 2008, which the Fund attributed to the administration for actively implementing prudent fiscal and monetary policies.
It is in this regard, the Directors commended the authorities’ commitment to further entrench macroeconomic stability, strengthen the financial system and implement structural reforms.
According to the report, the direct spillovers from the global financial crisis on the banking system have been limited so far. It noted that the banks remain well capitalised and profitable, and the financial system is sound.
Government has been making ample progress in tightening financial legislations with the passage of several significant pieces of legislation. This heightened financial supervision and oversight to limit potential contagion was supported by the institution.
The report stated that the progress being made on the financial sector reforms and on legislation to prevent money laundering and financing of terrorism was welcomed, as Government seeks to strengthen the financial sector.
Policy moves by Government in 2008, were lauded, including that of temporarily reducing the excise taxes on petroleum products as that limited the pass-through of higher international fuel prices to consumers and effectively diffused social pressures while helping to contain inflation.
They applauded the authorities for reinstating the excise taxes in recent months in light of the abatement in international oil prices, to protect the fiscal position.
The administration’s commitment to sustain the fiscal consolidation was commended by the Directors, the report stated. They agreed that a more gradual deficit reduction than previously envisaged is justified in the context of the global slowdown.
Directors hailed the progress made in the area of fiscal reforms, including the successful implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT). However, they cautioned against a further expansion of the list of zero-rated VAT items. Despite that, they noted that the VAT is now well established.
Government also came in for high praises for ensuring a reduction in inflation rate, as the institution supported the administration’s continued vigilance and the readiness to adjust monetary policy to keep inflation low.
In addition, it was noted that exchange rates have been broadly aligned with fundamentals which have served Guyana well, as a stable exchange rate is critical to maintaining macroeconomic stability.
The report contended that Government’s plan to reduce the external current account deficit gradually over the medium-term through the growth of non-traditional exports and the development of petroleum and hydropower resources were commended.
Further structural reforms to sustain growth and make progress on poverty alleviation over the medium-term was encouraged, in addition to addressing the high cost of energy, enhancing private sector participation in the economy and to prepare an appropriate legal framework for future oil revenues, drawing on international experience.
The report highlighted that the recently concluded Berbice River Bridge, a major public-private sector partnership bodes well for increased private sector participation in the economy.
The upcoming finalisation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) to underpin Government’s medium-term plans for poverty alleviation, and achieving the Millennium Development Goals were highly praised by the Directors.
Meanwhile, the IMF is projecting higher growth for Guyana in 2009, with a recovery in sugar output that is expected to offset a slowdown in the other sectors of the economy, while lower oil import prices would compensate for declines in commodity export prices.
Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh commenting on the WEO report said that the projections contained in the outlook suggest that within the halls of those who do the projections, there is the view that Guyana will continue to grow this year albeit somewhat more modestly than what it has been growing in recent years.
Guyana’s economy achieved real growth rate of 3.1 percent in 2008, following rates of 5.1 and 5.4 percent in 2006 and 2007 respectively. (GINA
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html
IMF commends Guyana on maintaining macroeconomic stability- despite external shocks and social pressure
GOVERNMENT’S prudent management of the local economy has again been recognised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
According to a report from the concluded Article IV consultation with Guyana, the Institution has commended Government for implementing several policy initiatives that saw the economy maintaining macroeconomic stability, achieving real growth rates and containing inflation, in spite of the global turmoil.
The consultation is part of the institution’s yearly bilateral discussions with countries to provide an assessment of policy initiatives and reports on a country’s economic progress.
Earlier this month, the World Economic Outlook, which presents the IMF’s analysis and projections of economic development, projected Guyana’s economy would grow by 2.604 percent in 2009 and by 3.448 percent in 2010.
The Article IV report stated that despite external shocks and social pressures, macroeconomic stability was preserved in 2008, which the Fund attributed to the administration for actively implementing prudent fiscal and monetary policies.
It is in this regard, the Directors commended the authorities’ commitment to further entrench macroeconomic stability, strengthen the financial system and implement structural reforms.
According to the report, the direct spillovers from the global financial crisis on the banking system have been limited so far. It noted that the banks remain well capitalised and profitable, and the financial system is sound.
Government has been making ample progress in tightening financial legislations with the passage of several significant pieces of legislation. This heightened financial supervision and oversight to limit potential contagion was supported by the institution.
The report stated that the progress being made on the financial sector reforms and on legislation to prevent money laundering and financing of terrorism was welcomed, as Government seeks to strengthen the financial sector.
Policy moves by Government in 2008, were lauded, including that of temporarily reducing the excise taxes on petroleum products as that limited the pass-through of higher international fuel prices to consumers and effectively diffused social pressures while helping to contain inflation.
They applauded the authorities for reinstating the excise taxes in recent months in light of the abatement in international oil prices, to protect the fiscal position.
The administration’s commitment to sustain the fiscal consolidation was commended by the Directors, the report stated. They agreed that a more gradual deficit reduction than previously envisaged is justified in the context of the global slowdown.
Directors hailed the progress made in the area of fiscal reforms, including the successful implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT). However, they cautioned against a further expansion of the list of zero-rated VAT items. Despite that, they noted that the VAT is now well established.
Government also came in for high praises for ensuring a reduction in inflation rate, as the institution supported the administration’s continued vigilance and the readiness to adjust monetary policy to keep inflation low.
In addition, it was noted that exchange rates have been broadly aligned with fundamentals which have served Guyana well, as a stable exchange rate is critical to maintaining macroeconomic stability.
The report contended that Government’s plan to reduce the external current account deficit gradually over the medium-term through the growth of non-traditional exports and the development of petroleum and hydropower resources were commended.
Further structural reforms to sustain growth and make progress on poverty alleviation over the medium-term was encouraged, in addition to addressing the high cost of energy, enhancing private sector participation in the economy and to prepare an appropriate legal framework for future oil revenues, drawing on international experience.
The report highlighted that the recently concluded Berbice River Bridge, a major public-private sector partnership bodes well for increased private sector participation in the economy.
The upcoming finalisation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) to underpin Government’s medium-term plans for poverty alleviation, and achieving the Millennium Development Goals were highly praised by the Directors.
Meanwhile, the IMF is projecting higher growth for Guyana in 2009, with a recovery in sugar output that is expected to offset a slowdown in the other sectors of the economy, while lower oil import prices would compensate for declines in commodity export prices.
Minister of Finance Dr Ashni Singh commenting on the WEO report said that the projections contained in the outlook suggest that within the halls of those who do the projections, there is the view that Guyana will continue to grow this year albeit somewhat more modestly than what it has been growing in recent years.
Guyana’s economy achieved real growth rate of 3.1 percent in 2008, following rates of 5.1 and 5.4 percent in 2006 and 2007 respectively. (GINA
Guyana disregarded EU criteria for funds disbursement - Ambassador Heikens
Kaieteur News news item, Thursday 21 May 2009
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/05/21/guyana-disregarded-eu-criteria-for-funds-disbursement-ambassador-heikens/
Guyana disregarded EU criteria for funds disbursement - Ambassador Heikens
If criteria are not met under the European Development Fund, then finances will not be disbursed, European Commission Ambassador Geert Heikens, said yesterday.
The Ambassador was at the time responding to Minister Robert Persaud, who called for more flexibility from Brussels in the allocation of grants.
This call came in light of Guyana losing $6M Euros in budgetary support, during 2007/2008, because of late submission of the sugar action plan and an expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011.
However, Ambassador Heikens set the record straight yesterday by disclosing that Guyana was aware that both the sugar action plan and the expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011 were due by January 2008.
According to Heikens, he took the courtesy of extending that deadline until the end of March 2008, but the Guyana Sugar Corporation did not submit the plan.
It was not until July 2008, Ambassador Heikens said, that the plan was finally submitted, but by that time it was too late.
“I took the liberty of extending it until March 31and had promised to defend it as a criteria being met, but the programme was never approved until July and that was too far behind the agreed criteria.”
Yesterday, he told the media that that money will not be recovered, adding that no one provided the commission with an explanation of the reasons for the late submission.
Often, he said, the EU is criticized for the ending of the protocol, but what is hardly told of, Ambassador Heikens said, is the funding that is being provided to sugar producing countries to assist in the diversification or improvement of the sector.
Guyana, he added, has been given $90M Euros in a 2007-2010 timeframe to support the sector.
The EC formulated its overall response strategy following the submission of the Guyana National Action Plan on sugar in March 2006.
The response strategy embraces all the three main components of the Guyana National Action Plan, namely enhancing the competitiveness and productivity of the sugar sector, as well as encouraging the agricultural diversification and measures to support the implementation of the components of the plan.
Ambassador Heikens said that another criterion that has caused the withholding of funds is the approval of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper by cabinet.
The General Budget support for Guyana was $40M Euros, however according to Heikens, $12M has not been disbursed as yet because the Commission is awaiting the approval by Cabinet for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/05/21/guyana-disregarded-eu-criteria-for-funds-disbursement-ambassador-heikens/
Guyana disregarded EU criteria for funds disbursement - Ambassador Heikens
If criteria are not met under the European Development Fund, then finances will not be disbursed, European Commission Ambassador Geert Heikens, said yesterday.
The Ambassador was at the time responding to Minister Robert Persaud, who called for more flexibility from Brussels in the allocation of grants.
This call came in light of Guyana losing $6M Euros in budgetary support, during 2007/2008, because of late submission of the sugar action plan and an expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011.
However, Ambassador Heikens set the record straight yesterday by disclosing that Guyana was aware that both the sugar action plan and the expenditure framework for sugar for the period 2009-2011 were due by January 2008.
According to Heikens, he took the courtesy of extending that deadline until the end of March 2008, but the Guyana Sugar Corporation did not submit the plan.
It was not until July 2008, Ambassador Heikens said, that the plan was finally submitted, but by that time it was too late.
“I took the liberty of extending it until March 31and had promised to defend it as a criteria being met, but the programme was never approved until July and that was too far behind the agreed criteria.”
Yesterday, he told the media that that money will not be recovered, adding that no one provided the commission with an explanation of the reasons for the late submission.
Often, he said, the EU is criticized for the ending of the protocol, but what is hardly told of, Ambassador Heikens said, is the funding that is being provided to sugar producing countries to assist in the diversification or improvement of the sector.
Guyana, he added, has been given $90M Euros in a 2007-2010 timeframe to support the sector.
The EC formulated its overall response strategy following the submission of the Guyana National Action Plan on sugar in March 2006.
The response strategy embraces all the three main components of the Guyana National Action Plan, namely enhancing the competitiveness and productivity of the sugar sector, as well as encouraging the agricultural diversification and measures to support the implementation of the components of the plan.
Ambassador Heikens said that another criterion that has caused the withholding of funds is the approval of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper by cabinet.
The General Budget support for Guyana was $40M Euros, however according to Heikens, $12M has not been disbursed as yet because the Commission is awaiting the approval by Cabinet for the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The article on Janet Jagan in the Guyana Review had subtle distortions
The article on Janet Jagan in the Guyana Review had subtle distortions
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 17, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Letters | 16 Comments
Dear Editor,
It was quite interesting to read ‘Janet Jagan: politics, party and the pursuit of power’ in the Guyana Review. Interesting, as I sought to understand what appears at first to be an objective piece of work, but has subtle distortions, rendering a preconceived image of a woman whom history has not treated too kindly. While I am in no position to analyse the legacy of Janet Jagan, I am sure that it was much more than just the stable but anachronistic PPP through which she expected to transform society. Were her struggles really about securing power for herself (through her husband and the PPP) to overcome a victim consciousness? And did she really turn a blind eye to race-based politics and violence as is subtly suggested? Some of the themes that seem to stand out in the essay lead me to question the lenses worn by the author of this piece, or maybe it was the victim consciousness lenses that I wore while reading.
Take Janet Jagan’s telegram to her parents in April 1953, which said, “Cheddi, myself and party won overwhelming victory.” Was this really an instinctive prioritization (in 1953) that showed that Janet never saw a difference between herself, her husband and the PPP (including Forbes Burnham and others)? Or was it rather the case of letting her parents know that the marriage and the husband they so disapproved of, as well as the daughter with the rebellious world view, had amounted to something in a British colony? Her parents were not only conservative Jews who opposed the marriage, but they did not see it lasting a year if she migrated to British Guiana. This in itself is very telling of the character of the person that was Janet Jagan. Mrs Jagan would indeed come to view the Jagans as being synonymous with the PPP, but this was a view that was shaped many years later as the PPP struggled not just against imperialism but against division within the party itself, both of which it surmounted.
And then one wonders did Janet Jagan really leave the independent US where Jews were prominent in the civil rights movement because of her father’s hatred for her husband and her different ideological outlook for self-imposed exile in a British colony where political freedom was not even on the agenda and there was serious poverty and unemployment? Or was it really because Cheddi, a non-US citizen, could not take the Illinois exam to practise dentistry in the US nor was he qualified to become a US citizen being classed as an Oriental, and hence her life choices were defined by those circumstances? Then again, how is self-imposed exile reconciled with a ban on her travel to visit her dying father in 1953 and the revocation of her citizenship by the American government during the campaign to get the Jagans and the PPP out of office ‘by hook or by crook’?
I am also intrigued by the author’s perception of what may have led to Janet Jagan’s obstinacy and tenacity. These are characteristic traits that I share. I do not carry a victim consciousness nor feel deficient in any way to harbour it. Janet Jagan was simply always strong willed, taking flying lessons when she was a girl to the fright of her parents. She did not need an incomplete academic record, Leninism or an unorthodox marriage to get there. It was in her make-up to fight for what she believed in to her last breath. Strangely, she did so with the PPP. But on the note of victim consciousness, it seems to be a plague that has hit the entire country. For the PPP and most of the Indian population it is the 28 years of misrule and dictatorship at the hands of the PNC and outside forces, while for the African Guyanese, it is about the sufferings of their ancestors during slavery and their victimization at the hands of the government. Even Indians will have their own victimization stories to tell with Burnham who not only remembered slights but harboured them and repaid them tenfold.
This takes me to the purges the writer alludes to. To imply that the nationalistic movement of the 1950s was “torn asunder” by Janet Jagan’s desire to transform a loose, mass-based, factious, argumentative assemblage into an efficient, monolithic, electoral machine is really taking creativity too far. The split was all about the greed for power! Winston Churchill’s return to office slowed the pace of decolonization and thwarted the nationalistic movement in Guyana. The chain of events associated with this not only saw the suspension of the British Guiana constitution in 1953 but led to political and ethnic fissions not seen earlier. Burnham was led to believe that Guyana would not gain independence with the ‘communist’ Jagan and hence the struggle for control of the PPP. Of course this meant there were two factions, but the political ideology was never different as Burnham proved when he nationalized foreign enterprises and established ties with Cuba and the Soviet Union, reneging on his promises to the USA.
To label the Jagan faction the militants, implies that the Burnham faction was the moderate one. History belies this with the strife and ethnic violence incited by Burnham which remains part of the politics of Guyana until this day. No doubt, the attempted coup for control of the party saw the Jagans becoming tactical, something Janet Jagan became a master at. The forced resignations of Keith and Martin Carter, Sydney King and Rory Westmaas did leave Janet Jagan the most powerful person in the party.
She was not just a tactician, but extremely shrewd and feared nothing more than losing the PPP to disparate individuals. With the PPP victory at the following elections, this no doubt sprouted the symbiotic relationship and view of the Jagans as being synonymous with the PPP. The distrust of and for individuals with strong views, which are contrary to those of the Jagans, also has its genesis in the 1953 period of backstabbing and struggle for supremacy. This explains why democratic centralism remains the party cry long after it remains useful or is compatible with notions of democracy. For me, that is a euphemism for dictatorship because of the way the party machinery works. Will we ever see two PPP presidential candidates facing off in public for popular support? Not with democratic centralism.
That her legacy is interlinked with race-based politics is not in doubt, as we all remember the ‘Apan Jhaat’ cries of her party. But providing the context of events is important so that history is not distorted. The PPP did not start ethnic politics in Guyana but the party has benefited from it and continues to manipulate to benefit from it. No wonder, it will never agree to power-sharing. This is ironic as Dr Jagan was always willing to share in power as he was ‘nationalistic’ and ‘patriotic’ and not power drunk!
Janet Jagan and the PPP’s grave mistake in 1964 was to transform a strike for recognition of GAWU (not achieved until 1976) into political pressure against proportional representation in an environment where the cards were all stacked against the PPP and the Jagans. The CIA was on the ground in a covert operation against the PPP administration, the unions were involved and so were the PNC and the UF. The violence began in March of 1964 and within two months it took on a massive scale. The police force, which had its pulse on the ground, was not effective under Janet Jagan’s control. Ethnic tensions were already high, since the departure of Burnham from the PPP. What the strike on the estates did was to set the ethnic tensions into an inferno as Blacks were brought in as strike-breakers. When this spread out of control across the country, the predominantly black police force no doubt had psychological issues to deal with that had nothing to do with the force’s motto to serve and protect. What decisive action Janet Jagan could have taken in the circumstances is debatable. If Mrs Jagan is to be blamed for not acting decisively, blame also has to be placed with the then Commissioner of Police and even the Governor of the colony who later assumed emergency powers. Mrs Jagan had delegated her authority to call in the troops to the Commissioner of Police to avoid delays, a fatal miscalculation. What role the CIA might have played in the 1964 violence is not clear cut, as the records are still classified and some of them destroyed. Context goes a far way to situate events. The sugar workers’ fight for recognition was also a political fight against the Manpower Citizens Association led by Richard Ishmael who was anti-Jagan/pro-Burnham and was resisting sugar workers’ right to a union of their choice. It was not just Janet Jagan’s darkest hour, but the darkest hour for Guyana. As Ashton Chase then put it, the events in 1964 brought “shame and tragedy” to Guyana. The PPP knew that the pack of cards would come tumbling down, as the externally driven pressure escalated. One is left to wonder if taking advantage of the strike on the sugar estates may have been a temporary act of insanity on the part of the PPP, given that any clashes would only redound to the detriment of its East Indian supporters. Burnham is on record as having said in April 1964 that “If it comes to a showdown, the East Indians must remember that we could do more killing than they could.” (Hugh Tinker, 1977)
And to say that the PPP lost office in the December 1964 elections after all the declassified documents have been released and research has been done, is to dismiss the significance of its ousting from power.
While I differ with the ideology of the Jagans and the PPP, I have enormous respect for Dr and Mrs Jagan and their struggles, fight and sacrifices for Guyana. Their legacies are intertwined in the political history of Guyana, the full political history, not the parts conveniently remembered or nuanced.
Yours faithfully,
Gitanjali Persaud
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 17, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Letters | 16 Comments
Dear Editor,
It was quite interesting to read ‘Janet Jagan: politics, party and the pursuit of power’ in the Guyana Review. Interesting, as I sought to understand what appears at first to be an objective piece of work, but has subtle distortions, rendering a preconceived image of a woman whom history has not treated too kindly. While I am in no position to analyse the legacy of Janet Jagan, I am sure that it was much more than just the stable but anachronistic PPP through which she expected to transform society. Were her struggles really about securing power for herself (through her husband and the PPP) to overcome a victim consciousness? And did she really turn a blind eye to race-based politics and violence as is subtly suggested? Some of the themes that seem to stand out in the essay lead me to question the lenses worn by the author of this piece, or maybe it was the victim consciousness lenses that I wore while reading.
Take Janet Jagan’s telegram to her parents in April 1953, which said, “Cheddi, myself and party won overwhelming victory.” Was this really an instinctive prioritization (in 1953) that showed that Janet never saw a difference between herself, her husband and the PPP (including Forbes Burnham and others)? Or was it rather the case of letting her parents know that the marriage and the husband they so disapproved of, as well as the daughter with the rebellious world view, had amounted to something in a British colony? Her parents were not only conservative Jews who opposed the marriage, but they did not see it lasting a year if she migrated to British Guiana. This in itself is very telling of the character of the person that was Janet Jagan. Mrs Jagan would indeed come to view the Jagans as being synonymous with the PPP, but this was a view that was shaped many years later as the PPP struggled not just against imperialism but against division within the party itself, both of which it surmounted.
And then one wonders did Janet Jagan really leave the independent US where Jews were prominent in the civil rights movement because of her father’s hatred for her husband and her different ideological outlook for self-imposed exile in a British colony where political freedom was not even on the agenda and there was serious poverty and unemployment? Or was it really because Cheddi, a non-US citizen, could not take the Illinois exam to practise dentistry in the US nor was he qualified to become a US citizen being classed as an Oriental, and hence her life choices were defined by those circumstances? Then again, how is self-imposed exile reconciled with a ban on her travel to visit her dying father in 1953 and the revocation of her citizenship by the American government during the campaign to get the Jagans and the PPP out of office ‘by hook or by crook’?
I am also intrigued by the author’s perception of what may have led to Janet Jagan’s obstinacy and tenacity. These are characteristic traits that I share. I do not carry a victim consciousness nor feel deficient in any way to harbour it. Janet Jagan was simply always strong willed, taking flying lessons when she was a girl to the fright of her parents. She did not need an incomplete academic record, Leninism or an unorthodox marriage to get there. It was in her make-up to fight for what she believed in to her last breath. Strangely, she did so with the PPP. But on the note of victim consciousness, it seems to be a plague that has hit the entire country. For the PPP and most of the Indian population it is the 28 years of misrule and dictatorship at the hands of the PNC and outside forces, while for the African Guyanese, it is about the sufferings of their ancestors during slavery and their victimization at the hands of the government. Even Indians will have their own victimization stories to tell with Burnham who not only remembered slights but harboured them and repaid them tenfold.
This takes me to the purges the writer alludes to. To imply that the nationalistic movement of the 1950s was “torn asunder” by Janet Jagan’s desire to transform a loose, mass-based, factious, argumentative assemblage into an efficient, monolithic, electoral machine is really taking creativity too far. The split was all about the greed for power! Winston Churchill’s return to office slowed the pace of decolonization and thwarted the nationalistic movement in Guyana. The chain of events associated with this not only saw the suspension of the British Guiana constitution in 1953 but led to political and ethnic fissions not seen earlier. Burnham was led to believe that Guyana would not gain independence with the ‘communist’ Jagan and hence the struggle for control of the PPP. Of course this meant there were two factions, but the political ideology was never different as Burnham proved when he nationalized foreign enterprises and established ties with Cuba and the Soviet Union, reneging on his promises to the USA.
To label the Jagan faction the militants, implies that the Burnham faction was the moderate one. History belies this with the strife and ethnic violence incited by Burnham which remains part of the politics of Guyana until this day. No doubt, the attempted coup for control of the party saw the Jagans becoming tactical, something Janet Jagan became a master at. The forced resignations of Keith and Martin Carter, Sydney King and Rory Westmaas did leave Janet Jagan the most powerful person in the party.
She was not just a tactician, but extremely shrewd and feared nothing more than losing the PPP to disparate individuals. With the PPP victory at the following elections, this no doubt sprouted the symbiotic relationship and view of the Jagans as being synonymous with the PPP. The distrust of and for individuals with strong views, which are contrary to those of the Jagans, also has its genesis in the 1953 period of backstabbing and struggle for supremacy. This explains why democratic centralism remains the party cry long after it remains useful or is compatible with notions of democracy. For me, that is a euphemism for dictatorship because of the way the party machinery works. Will we ever see two PPP presidential candidates facing off in public for popular support? Not with democratic centralism.
That her legacy is interlinked with race-based politics is not in doubt, as we all remember the ‘Apan Jhaat’ cries of her party. But providing the context of events is important so that history is not distorted. The PPP did not start ethnic politics in Guyana but the party has benefited from it and continues to manipulate to benefit from it. No wonder, it will never agree to power-sharing. This is ironic as Dr Jagan was always willing to share in power as he was ‘nationalistic’ and ‘patriotic’ and not power drunk!
Janet Jagan and the PPP’s grave mistake in 1964 was to transform a strike for recognition of GAWU (not achieved until 1976) into political pressure against proportional representation in an environment where the cards were all stacked against the PPP and the Jagans. The CIA was on the ground in a covert operation against the PPP administration, the unions were involved and so were the PNC and the UF. The violence began in March of 1964 and within two months it took on a massive scale. The police force, which had its pulse on the ground, was not effective under Janet Jagan’s control. Ethnic tensions were already high, since the departure of Burnham from the PPP. What the strike on the estates did was to set the ethnic tensions into an inferno as Blacks were brought in as strike-breakers. When this spread out of control across the country, the predominantly black police force no doubt had psychological issues to deal with that had nothing to do with the force’s motto to serve and protect. What decisive action Janet Jagan could have taken in the circumstances is debatable. If Mrs Jagan is to be blamed for not acting decisively, blame also has to be placed with the then Commissioner of Police and even the Governor of the colony who later assumed emergency powers. Mrs Jagan had delegated her authority to call in the troops to the Commissioner of Police to avoid delays, a fatal miscalculation. What role the CIA might have played in the 1964 violence is not clear cut, as the records are still classified and some of them destroyed. Context goes a far way to situate events. The sugar workers’ fight for recognition was also a political fight against the Manpower Citizens Association led by Richard Ishmael who was anti-Jagan/pro-Burnham and was resisting sugar workers’ right to a union of their choice. It was not just Janet Jagan’s darkest hour, but the darkest hour for Guyana. As Ashton Chase then put it, the events in 1964 brought “shame and tragedy” to Guyana. The PPP knew that the pack of cards would come tumbling down, as the externally driven pressure escalated. One is left to wonder if taking advantage of the strike on the sugar estates may have been a temporary act of insanity on the part of the PPP, given that any clashes would only redound to the detriment of its East Indian supporters. Burnham is on record as having said in April 1964 that “If it comes to a showdown, the East Indians must remember that we could do more killing than they could.” (Hugh Tinker, 1977)
And to say that the PPP lost office in the December 1964 elections after all the declassified documents have been released and research has been done, is to dismiss the significance of its ousting from power.
While I differ with the ideology of the Jagans and the PPP, I have enormous respect for Dr and Mrs Jagan and their struggles, fight and sacrifices for Guyana. Their legacies are intertwined in the political history of Guyana, the full political history, not the parts conveniently remembered or nuanced.
Yours faithfully,
Gitanjali Persaud
Janet Jagan: politics, party and the pursuit of power
Janet Jagan: politics, party and the pursuit of power
Posted By Stabroek staff On April 30, 2009 @ 5:10 am In Guyana Review | No Comments
Janet Jagan was a household name in this country for over six decades. She helped to establish several political organisations and wielded power and influence through public offices including those of Ambassador to the United Nations and President. But, now that she is gone, what has been her legacy?
A legend in her time [1]
A legend in her time
When the original People’s Progressive Party emerged with a majority in the April 1953 general elections, an ecstatic Janet Jagan sent a Western Union telegram to her parents Charles and Katherine Rosenberg stating, “Cheddi, myself and party won overwhelming victory.” This was an instinctive but interesting prioritisation. Janet Jagan, throughout her long political life, saw no difference between Cheddi Jagan, herself and the party.
Janet Jagan was inspired by a clear vision and driven by a strong sense of mission to change the country. This, she was convinced, could be achieved through political power and she was sure that such power had to be attained and retained by a strong political party. She discovered that her husband’s powerful charismatic appeal, especially among the voting rural masses who cared little for socialist ideology, was a precious political asset. To her, Cheddi Jagan was both a husband and a political partner and she toiled tirelessly to transform him into a cult figure.
Politics
Born Janet Rosenberg in Chicago, Illinois in 1920, her world-view was moulded by the deprivation and discrimination she encountered in post-Depression conditions among the lower classes. A Jew descended from Czechoslovak immigrants, she lived not in a Jewish, but in a predominately Irish, Roman Catholic neighbourhood. Her parents were conservative Republicans but, contrarily, like many other adolescents in post-Depression Illinois, Janet Rosenberg outraged her parents by embracing communism and becoming an active member of the Young Communist League. Her perceptions of society affected her education and, despite attending several colleges, she never completed even her first degree.
While still a student nurse, she met Cheddi Jagan, a dentistry student at Northwestern University Dental School in Illinois in December 1942. Both were interested in the politics of change and the couple married in August 1943. Owing to her father’s hatred of her husband, her adherence to communism which was at variance to her parents’ conservatism, and her own Jewish origins which she thought meant permanent discrimination in Chicago, she chose to leave her country and go into self-imposed exile in a strange land. From the time that she came to British Guiana in December 1943, it was clear that there would be no going back.
Janet Jagan conceded once that her Jewish background had sparked her “interest in the underdog and in helping out the impoverished of the world.” Her political outlook was influenced by her membership of the Young Communist League, ideological adherence to Leninism, innate insecurity, uncompleted academic record and her unorthodox marriage against the wishes of her father. These factors compounded her feelings of victimhood and might have contributed to the obstinacy and tenacity she displayed for the rest of her political life.
Cheddi and Janet Jagan had common political ambitions and quickly sought to create a concrete base on which to construct their organisation. Outsiders – she from Chicago and he from the Corentyne – they knew no one of consequence in Georgetown. The couple actively sought to meet influential labour leaders and to join existing trade unions and social organisations. Jocelyn Hubbard, who would become general secretary of the British Guiana Trades Union Congress, was one of the first and most influential persons to befriend and introduce the Jagans to other liberal persons and trade unionists in Georgetown. They met Ashton Chase and Hubert Critchlow of the British Guiana Labour Union and Dr Joseph Lachhmansingh of the Guiana Industrial Workers’ Union.
On Presidential visit in Caracas [2]
On Presidential visit in Caracas
The Jagans’ quest for political power began when they joined a pre-existing, middle-class discussion group which met at the Public Free Library in Georgetown. He became a member of the British Guiana East Indian Association and the Manpower Citizens Association – the major union in the Indian-based sugar industry. She became field secretary of the British Guiana Clerks’ Association and worked with the British Guiana Labour Union – the major African-based union – to organise and improve the conditions of work for domestics.
These ideas, individuals and institutions contributed to the consolidation of the Political Affairs Committee which was launched in 1946. The Committee was committed “to assist the growth and development of the labour and progressive movements of British Guiana to the end of establishing a strong, disciplined and enlightened party, equipped with the theory of Scientific Socialism.” Led by the Jagans, Jocelyn Hubbard and Ashton Chase, was an important political catalyst. The committee disseminated a newsletter – the PAC Bulletin – edited by Janet Jagan, encouraged public discussion of topical issues, and promoted socialism as an ideology for tackling the country’s problems. By the end of 1949, there were Worker Discussion Circles at Kitty Village and at Buxton Village and the Jagans had become well known in the towns and rural districts.
Janet Jagan joined with Winifred Gaskin, Vesta Lowe, Frances Stafford and several other women to bring the Women’s Political and Economic Organisation into being on 12th July 1946. The organisation’s mission was to ensure the political and economic mobilisation of women in order to promote their economic welfare and their political and social emancipation and betterment. Mrs Jagan was elected its general secretary and began encouraging women to register to vote in the forthcoming 1947 general elections.
She had already built a reputation for social activism and felt confident enough to compete in the elections for the mainly African working class Wortmanville/Werk-en-Rust district in Georgetown. She was unsuccessful but the organisation nevertheless played an important historical role in awakening women’s consciousness and alerting them to their rights. After that organisation was dissolved, Janet Jagan, along with Jane Philips-Gay, Jessica Huntley, and others, transformed the idea into the Women’s Progressive Organisation which was founded on 27th May 1953. She left four days later to attend the Women’s International Democratic Federation’s World Congress of Women in Copenhagen, Denmark.
It is difficult to define Janet Jagan’s real beliefs. Although members of the Political Affairs Committee described their ideology as ‘scientific socialism,’ their practical agenda was liberal, calling merely for the extension of the franchise, internal self-government and opposing the exploitive foreign control of the economy. It was clear, from the start, that Janet Jagan’s work with women, domestics, strikers and other poor people in the 1940s was commendable but not communistic. Her efforts were based on a demonstrable commitment to improving the quality of life of ordinary people. As she herself explained, “Cheddi and I always have believed in socialism…To us that meant getting rid of oppression, so the poor man can get out of this poverty… get the fruits of the country.”
Party
The Jagans were persuaded by William ‘Billy’ Strachan, a Jamaican World War RAF veteran, who was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, to transform the committee into a political party. He also urged them to accept Forbes Burnham, then a law student in London, as one of the party’s leaders. On his return trip to British Guiana, Burnham travelled to Jamaica to study the constitution and structure of the People’s National Party. This enabled him to contribute to the establishment of the People’s Progressive Party in 1950.
The Party’s main objective was to stimulate political consciousness along socialist lines in the quest for “national self-determination and independence [and] the eventual political union of British Guiana with other Caribbean territories.” Significantly, Forbes Burnham was elected Chairman, Clinton Wong, Senior Vice-Chairman, and Cheddi Jagan, second Vice-Chairman and Leader of the Legislative Group, a technical fact that proved problematic later. Janet Jagan was elected the party’s General Secretary, a post she retained for two decades. She maintained her membership of the Party’s Central and Executive Committees until her death.
The pursuit of power and public office were natural concomitants of political organisation. Having failed to win a legislative seat in the 1947 elections, Janet Jagan kept on trying and broke a record by becoming the first woman to be elected to the Georgetown Town Council. Typically, her tenure as a councillor from December 1950 to December 1952 was characterised by an energetic struggle to increase the wages of municipal workers, including Town Council watchmen, even proposing the introduction of lotteries to raise money for that purpose.
Together with Jessie Burnham − Forbes’s sister − and Jane Phillips-Gay, she would be among the first elected women to enter the House of Assembly (i.e., now the National Assembly) in 1953. She was also slated to become this country’s first female minister as her husband, the leader of the PPP’s legislative group, hoped that she would be one of the six ministers selected to the Executive Council. Forbes Burnham, the party’s chairman, however, thought it risky to have two Jagans in the Executive Council and opposed her nomination, preferring to have his more moderate colleagues appointed. As a compromise, Mrs Jagan was elected as Deputy Speaker of the House instead. In any event, the constitution was suspended and the ministers were all expelled by the UK Government four and a half months later.
The crisis in the country unleashed the forces of fission in the party. The PPP, from the start, was nothing more than a collection of factions, often with competing interests. In the main, there was always a Bolshevik or ‘Jaganite’ left-wing faction made up of the likes of Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Brindley Benn, Keith and Martin Carter, Lionel Jeffrey, Sydney King and Richard ‘Rory’ Westmaas, among others. The right-wing or ‘Burnhamite’ faction comprised Forbes Burnham, his wife Sheila and sister Jessie, Joseph Lachhmansingh, Jai Narine Singh, Clinton Wong and others.
There was ideological tension between the two factions. The right-wingers were convinced that it was just a matter of time before the left-wingers employed the democratic device of demoting them by outvoting them at a forthcoming party congress and removing them from executive positions. The party’s arms – the Women’s Progressive Organisation, Demerara Youth Rally and the Pioneer Youth League (the forerunners of the Progressive Youth Organisation) – moreover, were also initially under left-wing control.
Purges
The nationalist movement which was embodied in the original PPP in 1950 was torn asunder in the two ‘Great Purges’ in 1955-1956 which determined the complexion and composition of the PPP up to the present. As the PPP’s first general secretary, it was Janet Jagan’s intention to transform the party from the loose, mass-based, fractious, argumentative assemblage into an efficient, monolithic electoral machine. This was achieved eventually in 1969 when the PPP would declare that it recognised “that a Marxist-Leninist party was essential to the attainment and retention of revolutionary, anti-imperialist political power and the building of a socialist society [and] decided to transform itself from a loose, mass party into a disciplined Leninist-type party.”
As a guide to Janet Jagan’s political philosophy, however, Marxism-Leninism was merely a shibboleth. It was Leninism that mattered, not Marxism. The essence of Janet Jagan’s praxis was the Leninist precept of democratic centralism as a means of exercising control of the party. This meant, mainly, a high degree of centralisation of power and the imposition of discipline within the party hierarchy. That was the purpose of the two great purges.
The opportunity for the first purge, which targetted what Cheddi Jagan called the “right deviationist” faction, was provided by the campaign of civil disobedience in 1954 – a belated protest against the suspension of the constitution and the imposition of a state of emergency in October 1953. Militant elements in the party, some of whom deliberately broke the emergency regulations, were detained, charged, tried and in some cases, imprisoned.
Janet Jagan herself was charged for committing offences related to the emergency regulations; she was convicted and, refusing to pay a fine, served six months in prison. She said later, “We had our choice – a fine or jail. We decided no fines; go to jail, civil disobedience. Cheddi’s father tried to pay my fine. I had to stop him. We were resisting the colonialists.” Imprisonment validated her notion of victimhood and became a badge of honour. Militancy led to violence and, in May 1954, terrorists believed to be linked to the party planted an explosive device that damaged Queen Victoria’s statue in the forecourt of the High Court. This was too much for some moderates and the polarisation of the two factions within the party worsened.
The Burnhamite faction tried to forestall the expected eviction with a putsch to displace the militants from the party’s executive in February 1955. This turned out to be unsuccessful. A few weeks later, the Jaganite faction held a party congress in Buxton that was chaired by Sydney King who was still regarded as a militant. A resolution was passed declaring the elections held at the Georgetown conference null and void, and members of the Burnhamite faction – including Forbes Burnham, Clinton Wong, Joseph Lachhmansingh and Jai Narine Singh – were formally expelled from the Party.
With Cheddi [3]
With Cheddi
That done, the stage was set for the second purge which targetted what Cheddi Jagan called the “ultra-left” elements and among whom were Keith and Martin Carter, Lionel Jeffrey, Sydney King and Rory Westmaas. As both Jagans’ movements restricted under the Emergency Regulations, the party took the unusual step of cyclostyling Cheddi Jagan’s address to the 1956 PPP Congress to be read to delegates. A copy was sold to the Chronicle newspaper which made it public knowledge by printing it in full.
The document clearly explained and exposed the Jagans’ mindset, warning that the PPP “must guard against right and left opportunism.” Dr. Jagan attempted to attribute the errors which resulted in the suspension of the Constitution in 1953 to the “ultra-left” who had become “bombastic” and were “attacking everybody at the same time.” He also referred to certain members’ support for British Guiana’s joining the forthcoming Federation of the West Indies as “adventurist.” Darkly, he observed that “feeling as they do a sense of oppression, the Indians are 100 per cent against Federation.” This announcement signalled that the PPP had switched to an anti-Federation position.
Since the gang of four – Keith and Martin Carter, Sydney King and Richard Westmaas –were regarded as the most “bombastic” Marxists in the Party and they also supported entry to the Federation which was one of the original PPP’s founding principles, they understood that Dr. Jagan’s announcement attacked them personally. Their resignation from the party was expected. After these two purges, Janet Jagan’s stature as the party’s most powerful political tactician was uncontestable.
Power
Janet Jagan had both the operational skill and political will to establish her personal supremacy as undisputed manager of the party’s affairs on a day-to-day basis. Her enormous capacity for work was enhanced by her talent for well-timed articles and pamphlets. She had a knack for exerting influence directly in the executive committee and the central committee. The monolithic party that emerged after 1956 was moulded into an efficient electoral engine designed to canvass the party’s constituents and amass votes.
When democratic elections were restored in 1957, Janet Jagan was returned to the Legislative Council by the Essequibo-Pomeroon constituency and appointed Minister of Labour, Health and Housing. Her performance as minister evinced serious attempts to improve living conditions of ordinary folk.
In Labour, for instance, a Shops’ Ordinance was passed in 1958, restricting shop assistants’ working week to 40¾ hours instead of 47 and providing for annual holidays with pay. The Workmen’s Compen-sation Act was also amended to extend protection to domestics and other marginalised workers for the first time. In Health, several cottage hospitals, health centres and maternity and child welfare clinics were constructed in certain rural and riverine districts. In more remote areas, teams of dentists, doctors and dispensers were dispatched to deliver medical care. In Housing, the Rent Restriction Ordinance was extended beyond urban areas and the construction of low-cost, working-class housing was continued. There is little doubt about Janet Jagan’s commitment to improving the quality of life for the most vulnerable.
Her next stint in the cabinet, however, was quite the opposite. After the 1961 general elections, she was nominated to the Senate and replaced the Minister of Home Affairs Claude Christian who had died suddenly in 1963. The next year, in February, the Guiana Agricultural Workers’ Union – a PPP affiliate – started a strike ostensibly to gain recognition in the sugar industry. This soon degenerated into murderous, inter-ethnic violence accompanied by widespread arson and sabotage on the sugar estates. The first murders occurred when terrorists threw a bomb in a lorry taking strikebreakers to work at Tain Village on the Corentyne. Arson, murders and sabotage continued for several months without the Minister of Home Affairs taking decisive action to restore public order and safety. This was her darkest hour. According to Clem Seecharan:
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that much of the racial violence originated from deliberate provocation designed to substantiate the PPP arguments…[V]iolence on the sugar estates continued, directed by strikers at non-strikers and at substitute labour brought in by management – largely African…Intimidation became increasingly terrorist and racial in character until, in mid-May, race rather than union membership or willingness to strike became the issue; this caused the extension of disturbances outside the sugar producing areas.
After the outbreak of violence at Wismar when four persons died, however, Mrs Jagan resigned as Minister of Home Affairs on 1st June to protest the alleged slow response of the police to the incident.
The PPP lost office in the December 1964 general elections and a People’s National Congress-United Force coalition formed the administration. For the next 28 years, Janet Jagan toiled to transform the party into a fully-fledged Marxist-Leninist party. She had to struggle to maintain the production of the Mirror and Thunder periodicals in the face of extreme restrictions on newsprint and other essentials. Eventually, after the restoration of democratic elections, the party returned to office in October 1992 and Cheddi Jagan was sworn in as the fourth president of the Republic.
Janet Jagan returned to prominence as the wife of the head of state. She was appointed Ambassador-at-Large and served briefly as Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the 48th Session of General Assembly from October to December 1993. She was back in the cabinet in March 1997 when her husband died. Under Samuel Hinds’s nine-month administration, she served as First Vice-President and Prime Minister but without a portfolio. Elections fell due in December of that year and, she decided to run for the presidency, a decision that might have been motivated by the need to avoid infighting in the party to succeed Cheddi Jagan.
Her short, troubled tenure as the sixth president was marred by political unrest over the election results and plagued by the paralyzing strike by the Guyana Public Service Union. Although the elections commission declared victory for the PPP, in a supreme anti-climax to her political career, High Court Judge Claudette Singh subsequently declared the results of the 1997 elections vitiated. After only twenty months in office, Janet Jagan decided to resign in August 1999 citing illness.
Legacy
The Jagans have always been at the heart of the PPP. Even after his death in March 1997, Janet Jagan ensured that Cheddi Jagan’s memory was perpetuated by the publication and reprinting of numerous books and his legacy preserved in the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, Cheddi Jagan Research Institute and Cheddi Jagan Dental School.
A great believer in the importance of communication, Janet Jagan contributed countless articles and letters to the press from the earliest days. Most important, in political terms, when the PAC was founded, it was she who became editor of the PAC Bulletin. Similarly, when the PPP was founded, it was she who became editor of the party’s newspaper – Thunder. Later, when the Thunder was converted to a quarterly journal and the Mirror was launched as a commercial newspaper, it was she, again, who became editor and who mobilised reporters at the Mirror newspaper into the Union of Guyanese Journalists, to counter the Guyana Press Association, with herself as its first president.
In the final analysis, Janet Jagan’s life was essentially about building a political party to achieve political power in order to change society. In her 1963 booklet History of the PPP, she wrote “The establishment of a stable, permanent political party was, itself, one of the greatest contributions which the PPP made to this country.” She will be remembered for her pragmatism in sustaining this country’s most formidable political juggernaut. As the party’s General Secretary Donald Ramotar reaffirmed in paying tribute to Janet Jagan, “Her greatest achievement is the PPP which stands as a living monument to her life and work.”
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/guyana-review/04/30/janet-jagan-politics-party-and-the-pursuit-of-power/
Posted By Stabroek staff On April 30, 2009 @ 5:10 am In Guyana Review | No Comments
Janet Jagan was a household name in this country for over six decades. She helped to establish several political organisations and wielded power and influence through public offices including those of Ambassador to the United Nations and President. But, now that she is gone, what has been her legacy?
A legend in her time [1]
A legend in her time
When the original People’s Progressive Party emerged with a majority in the April 1953 general elections, an ecstatic Janet Jagan sent a Western Union telegram to her parents Charles and Katherine Rosenberg stating, “Cheddi, myself and party won overwhelming victory.” This was an instinctive but interesting prioritisation. Janet Jagan, throughout her long political life, saw no difference between Cheddi Jagan, herself and the party.
Janet Jagan was inspired by a clear vision and driven by a strong sense of mission to change the country. This, she was convinced, could be achieved through political power and she was sure that such power had to be attained and retained by a strong political party. She discovered that her husband’s powerful charismatic appeal, especially among the voting rural masses who cared little for socialist ideology, was a precious political asset. To her, Cheddi Jagan was both a husband and a political partner and she toiled tirelessly to transform him into a cult figure.
Politics
Born Janet Rosenberg in Chicago, Illinois in 1920, her world-view was moulded by the deprivation and discrimination she encountered in post-Depression conditions among the lower classes. A Jew descended from Czechoslovak immigrants, she lived not in a Jewish, but in a predominately Irish, Roman Catholic neighbourhood. Her parents were conservative Republicans but, contrarily, like many other adolescents in post-Depression Illinois, Janet Rosenberg outraged her parents by embracing communism and becoming an active member of the Young Communist League. Her perceptions of society affected her education and, despite attending several colleges, she never completed even her first degree.
While still a student nurse, she met Cheddi Jagan, a dentistry student at Northwestern University Dental School in Illinois in December 1942. Both were interested in the politics of change and the couple married in August 1943. Owing to her father’s hatred of her husband, her adherence to communism which was at variance to her parents’ conservatism, and her own Jewish origins which she thought meant permanent discrimination in Chicago, she chose to leave her country and go into self-imposed exile in a strange land. From the time that she came to British Guiana in December 1943, it was clear that there would be no going back.
Janet Jagan conceded once that her Jewish background had sparked her “interest in the underdog and in helping out the impoverished of the world.” Her political outlook was influenced by her membership of the Young Communist League, ideological adherence to Leninism, innate insecurity, uncompleted academic record and her unorthodox marriage against the wishes of her father. These factors compounded her feelings of victimhood and might have contributed to the obstinacy and tenacity she displayed for the rest of her political life.
Cheddi and Janet Jagan had common political ambitions and quickly sought to create a concrete base on which to construct their organisation. Outsiders – she from Chicago and he from the Corentyne – they knew no one of consequence in Georgetown. The couple actively sought to meet influential labour leaders and to join existing trade unions and social organisations. Jocelyn Hubbard, who would become general secretary of the British Guiana Trades Union Congress, was one of the first and most influential persons to befriend and introduce the Jagans to other liberal persons and trade unionists in Georgetown. They met Ashton Chase and Hubert Critchlow of the British Guiana Labour Union and Dr Joseph Lachhmansingh of the Guiana Industrial Workers’ Union.
On Presidential visit in Caracas [2]
On Presidential visit in Caracas
The Jagans’ quest for political power began when they joined a pre-existing, middle-class discussion group which met at the Public Free Library in Georgetown. He became a member of the British Guiana East Indian Association and the Manpower Citizens Association – the major union in the Indian-based sugar industry. She became field secretary of the British Guiana Clerks’ Association and worked with the British Guiana Labour Union – the major African-based union – to organise and improve the conditions of work for domestics.
These ideas, individuals and institutions contributed to the consolidation of the Political Affairs Committee which was launched in 1946. The Committee was committed “to assist the growth and development of the labour and progressive movements of British Guiana to the end of establishing a strong, disciplined and enlightened party, equipped with the theory of Scientific Socialism.” Led by the Jagans, Jocelyn Hubbard and Ashton Chase, was an important political catalyst. The committee disseminated a newsletter – the PAC Bulletin – edited by Janet Jagan, encouraged public discussion of topical issues, and promoted socialism as an ideology for tackling the country’s problems. By the end of 1949, there were Worker Discussion Circles at Kitty Village and at Buxton Village and the Jagans had become well known in the towns and rural districts.
Janet Jagan joined with Winifred Gaskin, Vesta Lowe, Frances Stafford and several other women to bring the Women’s Political and Economic Organisation into being on 12th July 1946. The organisation’s mission was to ensure the political and economic mobilisation of women in order to promote their economic welfare and their political and social emancipation and betterment. Mrs Jagan was elected its general secretary and began encouraging women to register to vote in the forthcoming 1947 general elections.
She had already built a reputation for social activism and felt confident enough to compete in the elections for the mainly African working class Wortmanville/Werk-en-Rust district in Georgetown. She was unsuccessful but the organisation nevertheless played an important historical role in awakening women’s consciousness and alerting them to their rights. After that organisation was dissolved, Janet Jagan, along with Jane Philips-Gay, Jessica Huntley, and others, transformed the idea into the Women’s Progressive Organisation which was founded on 27th May 1953. She left four days later to attend the Women’s International Democratic Federation’s World Congress of Women in Copenhagen, Denmark.
It is difficult to define Janet Jagan’s real beliefs. Although members of the Political Affairs Committee described their ideology as ‘scientific socialism,’ their practical agenda was liberal, calling merely for the extension of the franchise, internal self-government and opposing the exploitive foreign control of the economy. It was clear, from the start, that Janet Jagan’s work with women, domestics, strikers and other poor people in the 1940s was commendable but not communistic. Her efforts were based on a demonstrable commitment to improving the quality of life of ordinary people. As she herself explained, “Cheddi and I always have believed in socialism…To us that meant getting rid of oppression, so the poor man can get out of this poverty… get the fruits of the country.”
Party
The Jagans were persuaded by William ‘Billy’ Strachan, a Jamaican World War RAF veteran, who was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, to transform the committee into a political party. He also urged them to accept Forbes Burnham, then a law student in London, as one of the party’s leaders. On his return trip to British Guiana, Burnham travelled to Jamaica to study the constitution and structure of the People’s National Party. This enabled him to contribute to the establishment of the People’s Progressive Party in 1950.
The Party’s main objective was to stimulate political consciousness along socialist lines in the quest for “national self-determination and independence [and] the eventual political union of British Guiana with other Caribbean territories.” Significantly, Forbes Burnham was elected Chairman, Clinton Wong, Senior Vice-Chairman, and Cheddi Jagan, second Vice-Chairman and Leader of the Legislative Group, a technical fact that proved problematic later. Janet Jagan was elected the party’s General Secretary, a post she retained for two decades. She maintained her membership of the Party’s Central and Executive Committees until her death.
The pursuit of power and public office were natural concomitants of political organisation. Having failed to win a legislative seat in the 1947 elections, Janet Jagan kept on trying and broke a record by becoming the first woman to be elected to the Georgetown Town Council. Typically, her tenure as a councillor from December 1950 to December 1952 was characterised by an energetic struggle to increase the wages of municipal workers, including Town Council watchmen, even proposing the introduction of lotteries to raise money for that purpose.
Together with Jessie Burnham − Forbes’s sister − and Jane Phillips-Gay, she would be among the first elected women to enter the House of Assembly (i.e., now the National Assembly) in 1953. She was also slated to become this country’s first female minister as her husband, the leader of the PPP’s legislative group, hoped that she would be one of the six ministers selected to the Executive Council. Forbes Burnham, the party’s chairman, however, thought it risky to have two Jagans in the Executive Council and opposed her nomination, preferring to have his more moderate colleagues appointed. As a compromise, Mrs Jagan was elected as Deputy Speaker of the House instead. In any event, the constitution was suspended and the ministers were all expelled by the UK Government four and a half months later.
The crisis in the country unleashed the forces of fission in the party. The PPP, from the start, was nothing more than a collection of factions, often with competing interests. In the main, there was always a Bolshevik or ‘Jaganite’ left-wing faction made up of the likes of Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Brindley Benn, Keith and Martin Carter, Lionel Jeffrey, Sydney King and Richard ‘Rory’ Westmaas, among others. The right-wing or ‘Burnhamite’ faction comprised Forbes Burnham, his wife Sheila and sister Jessie, Joseph Lachhmansingh, Jai Narine Singh, Clinton Wong and others.
There was ideological tension between the two factions. The right-wingers were convinced that it was just a matter of time before the left-wingers employed the democratic device of demoting them by outvoting them at a forthcoming party congress and removing them from executive positions. The party’s arms – the Women’s Progressive Organisation, Demerara Youth Rally and the Pioneer Youth League (the forerunners of the Progressive Youth Organisation) – moreover, were also initially under left-wing control.
Purges
The nationalist movement which was embodied in the original PPP in 1950 was torn asunder in the two ‘Great Purges’ in 1955-1956 which determined the complexion and composition of the PPP up to the present. As the PPP’s first general secretary, it was Janet Jagan’s intention to transform the party from the loose, mass-based, fractious, argumentative assemblage into an efficient, monolithic electoral machine. This was achieved eventually in 1969 when the PPP would declare that it recognised “that a Marxist-Leninist party was essential to the attainment and retention of revolutionary, anti-imperialist political power and the building of a socialist society [and] decided to transform itself from a loose, mass party into a disciplined Leninist-type party.”
As a guide to Janet Jagan’s political philosophy, however, Marxism-Leninism was merely a shibboleth. It was Leninism that mattered, not Marxism. The essence of Janet Jagan’s praxis was the Leninist precept of democratic centralism as a means of exercising control of the party. This meant, mainly, a high degree of centralisation of power and the imposition of discipline within the party hierarchy. That was the purpose of the two great purges.
The opportunity for the first purge, which targetted what Cheddi Jagan called the “right deviationist” faction, was provided by the campaign of civil disobedience in 1954 – a belated protest against the suspension of the constitution and the imposition of a state of emergency in October 1953. Militant elements in the party, some of whom deliberately broke the emergency regulations, were detained, charged, tried and in some cases, imprisoned.
Janet Jagan herself was charged for committing offences related to the emergency regulations; she was convicted and, refusing to pay a fine, served six months in prison. She said later, “We had our choice – a fine or jail. We decided no fines; go to jail, civil disobedience. Cheddi’s father tried to pay my fine. I had to stop him. We were resisting the colonialists.” Imprisonment validated her notion of victimhood and became a badge of honour. Militancy led to violence and, in May 1954, terrorists believed to be linked to the party planted an explosive device that damaged Queen Victoria’s statue in the forecourt of the High Court. This was too much for some moderates and the polarisation of the two factions within the party worsened.
The Burnhamite faction tried to forestall the expected eviction with a putsch to displace the militants from the party’s executive in February 1955. This turned out to be unsuccessful. A few weeks later, the Jaganite faction held a party congress in Buxton that was chaired by Sydney King who was still regarded as a militant. A resolution was passed declaring the elections held at the Georgetown conference null and void, and members of the Burnhamite faction – including Forbes Burnham, Clinton Wong, Joseph Lachhmansingh and Jai Narine Singh – were formally expelled from the Party.
With Cheddi [3]
With Cheddi
That done, the stage was set for the second purge which targetted what Cheddi Jagan called the “ultra-left” elements and among whom were Keith and Martin Carter, Lionel Jeffrey, Sydney King and Rory Westmaas. As both Jagans’ movements restricted under the Emergency Regulations, the party took the unusual step of cyclostyling Cheddi Jagan’s address to the 1956 PPP Congress to be read to delegates. A copy was sold to the Chronicle newspaper which made it public knowledge by printing it in full.
The document clearly explained and exposed the Jagans’ mindset, warning that the PPP “must guard against right and left opportunism.” Dr. Jagan attempted to attribute the errors which resulted in the suspension of the Constitution in 1953 to the “ultra-left” who had become “bombastic” and were “attacking everybody at the same time.” He also referred to certain members’ support for British Guiana’s joining the forthcoming Federation of the West Indies as “adventurist.” Darkly, he observed that “feeling as they do a sense of oppression, the Indians are 100 per cent against Federation.” This announcement signalled that the PPP had switched to an anti-Federation position.
Since the gang of four – Keith and Martin Carter, Sydney King and Richard Westmaas –were regarded as the most “bombastic” Marxists in the Party and they also supported entry to the Federation which was one of the original PPP’s founding principles, they understood that Dr. Jagan’s announcement attacked them personally. Their resignation from the party was expected. After these two purges, Janet Jagan’s stature as the party’s most powerful political tactician was uncontestable.
Power
Janet Jagan had both the operational skill and political will to establish her personal supremacy as undisputed manager of the party’s affairs on a day-to-day basis. Her enormous capacity for work was enhanced by her talent for well-timed articles and pamphlets. She had a knack for exerting influence directly in the executive committee and the central committee. The monolithic party that emerged after 1956 was moulded into an efficient electoral engine designed to canvass the party’s constituents and amass votes.
When democratic elections were restored in 1957, Janet Jagan was returned to the Legislative Council by the Essequibo-Pomeroon constituency and appointed Minister of Labour, Health and Housing. Her performance as minister evinced serious attempts to improve living conditions of ordinary folk.
In Labour, for instance, a Shops’ Ordinance was passed in 1958, restricting shop assistants’ working week to 40¾ hours instead of 47 and providing for annual holidays with pay. The Workmen’s Compen-sation Act was also amended to extend protection to domestics and other marginalised workers for the first time. In Health, several cottage hospitals, health centres and maternity and child welfare clinics were constructed in certain rural and riverine districts. In more remote areas, teams of dentists, doctors and dispensers were dispatched to deliver medical care. In Housing, the Rent Restriction Ordinance was extended beyond urban areas and the construction of low-cost, working-class housing was continued. There is little doubt about Janet Jagan’s commitment to improving the quality of life for the most vulnerable.
Her next stint in the cabinet, however, was quite the opposite. After the 1961 general elections, she was nominated to the Senate and replaced the Minister of Home Affairs Claude Christian who had died suddenly in 1963. The next year, in February, the Guiana Agricultural Workers’ Union – a PPP affiliate – started a strike ostensibly to gain recognition in the sugar industry. This soon degenerated into murderous, inter-ethnic violence accompanied by widespread arson and sabotage on the sugar estates. The first murders occurred when terrorists threw a bomb in a lorry taking strikebreakers to work at Tain Village on the Corentyne. Arson, murders and sabotage continued for several months without the Minister of Home Affairs taking decisive action to restore public order and safety. This was her darkest hour. According to Clem Seecharan:
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that much of the racial violence originated from deliberate provocation designed to substantiate the PPP arguments…[V]iolence on the sugar estates continued, directed by strikers at non-strikers and at substitute labour brought in by management – largely African…Intimidation became increasingly terrorist and racial in character until, in mid-May, race rather than union membership or willingness to strike became the issue; this caused the extension of disturbances outside the sugar producing areas.
After the outbreak of violence at Wismar when four persons died, however, Mrs Jagan resigned as Minister of Home Affairs on 1st June to protest the alleged slow response of the police to the incident.
The PPP lost office in the December 1964 general elections and a People’s National Congress-United Force coalition formed the administration. For the next 28 years, Janet Jagan toiled to transform the party into a fully-fledged Marxist-Leninist party. She had to struggle to maintain the production of the Mirror and Thunder periodicals in the face of extreme restrictions on newsprint and other essentials. Eventually, after the restoration of democratic elections, the party returned to office in October 1992 and Cheddi Jagan was sworn in as the fourth president of the Republic.
Janet Jagan returned to prominence as the wife of the head of state. She was appointed Ambassador-at-Large and served briefly as Permanent Representative to the United Nations during the 48th Session of General Assembly from October to December 1993. She was back in the cabinet in March 1997 when her husband died. Under Samuel Hinds’s nine-month administration, she served as First Vice-President and Prime Minister but without a portfolio. Elections fell due in December of that year and, she decided to run for the presidency, a decision that might have been motivated by the need to avoid infighting in the party to succeed Cheddi Jagan.
Her short, troubled tenure as the sixth president was marred by political unrest over the election results and plagued by the paralyzing strike by the Guyana Public Service Union. Although the elections commission declared victory for the PPP, in a supreme anti-climax to her political career, High Court Judge Claudette Singh subsequently declared the results of the 1997 elections vitiated. After only twenty months in office, Janet Jagan decided to resign in August 1999 citing illness.
Legacy
The Jagans have always been at the heart of the PPP. Even after his death in March 1997, Janet Jagan ensured that Cheddi Jagan’s memory was perpetuated by the publication and reprinting of numerous books and his legacy preserved in the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, Cheddi Jagan Research Institute and Cheddi Jagan Dental School.
A great believer in the importance of communication, Janet Jagan contributed countless articles and letters to the press from the earliest days. Most important, in political terms, when the PAC was founded, it was she who became editor of the PAC Bulletin. Similarly, when the PPP was founded, it was she who became editor of the party’s newspaper – Thunder. Later, when the Thunder was converted to a quarterly journal and the Mirror was launched as a commercial newspaper, it was she, again, who became editor and who mobilised reporters at the Mirror newspaper into the Union of Guyanese Journalists, to counter the Guyana Press Association, with herself as its first president.
In the final analysis, Janet Jagan’s life was essentially about building a political party to achieve political power in order to change society. In her 1963 booklet History of the PPP, she wrote “The establishment of a stable, permanent political party was, itself, one of the greatest contributions which the PPP made to this country.” She will be remembered for her pragmatism in sustaining this country’s most formidable political juggernaut. As the party’s General Secretary Donald Ramotar reaffirmed in paying tribute to Janet Jagan, “Her greatest achievement is the PPP which stands as a living monument to her life and work.”
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/guyana-review/04/30/janet-jagan-politics-party-and-the-pursuit-of-power/
Letter did not do justice to the argument
Letter did not do justice to the argument
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 19, 2009 @ 5:03 am In Letters | 1 Comment
Dear Editor,
Gitanjali Persaud in a long letter in the Sunday Stabroek (‘The article on Janet Jagan in the Guyana Review had subtle distortions,’ May 17)) failed to do justice to her argument. First, she did not elucidate on the distortions she claimed existed in the Guyana Review piece. I read that assessment and thought it was fine scholarship. I couldn’t see the faults Ms Persaud saw. But I guess it depends on your perspectives on Janet Jagan. On the passing of Mrs Jagan, the same Ms Persaud wrote a short letter eulogizing Janet Jagan.
There is nothing wrong with that. Throughout history bad leaders have had their warm sides. Adolph Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge who died a few years ago had some nice things to say about Hitler in her autobiography. Mr Burnham’s daughter, Ulele wrote that she was proud to be Burnham’s daughter. In assessing the Jagans and Burnham, one should concentrate on their political life. This is where they rise and fall, not on how many bouquets of flowers they shared out. Secondly, Ms Persaud defeats her own intentions. She set out to praise Mrs Jagan but ended up leaving us with thoughts that make us feel that Mrs Jagan committed enormous sins
About democratic centralism, she wrote: “For me, that is a euphemism for dictatorship… will we ever see two PPP presidential candidates facing off in public for popular support?” If democratic centralism is a euphemism for dictatorship, how then can Mrs Jagan come out untouched in any objective account of the PPP’s destructive role in Guyanese politics? For over sixty years Mrs Jagan was one of the preservers (to use Ms Persaud’s own word) of dictatorship. Surely, Ms Persaud cannot be that naïve to think that over sixty years of dictatorship inside the PPP did not hurt Guyana. On the contrary, it helped to destroy this nation. Surely, Ms Persaud must know that Mrs Jagan presided over a party that has been in power since 1992. What role has democratic centralism played in those years?
Ms. Persaud tells us she is…”left to wonder if taking advantage of the strike on the sugar estates may have been a temporary act of insanity on the part of the PPP, given that any clashes would only redound to the detriment of its East Indian supporters.” Unfortunately, Ms Persaud attributes an irrationality to Dr and Mrs Jagan. She calls it insanity. But if she researches the history of these two politicians, she will see that they were far from insane or irrational. Dr and Mrs Jagan did what they thought was best for the party and its ideology. The consequences for their supporters never figured in their scheme of things. That is why Dr Jagan’s government was harassed in the sixties. That is why he spent 28 years in the political wilderness.
Ms Persaud should ask herself the question if that was the only temporary act of insanity. What about ‘Critical support’ in 1976? What about the plan for a joint slate with the PNC in the 1985 elections? What about the shameless dumping of its courageous ally the WPA after 1992? Ms Persaud conveniently quotes from Hugh Tinker’s book about a violent statement from Mr Burnham on the race question. I hope she is aware that there are books that indict Dr and Mrs Jagan for racial incitement. In particular, she should read the Rupert Roopnaraine interview in Frank Birbalsingh, The PPP of Guyana, 1950 -1992: An Oral History. It is a fine piece of analysis.
Finally, she refers to American documents on the 1964 intrigue against the Jagan government that are yet to be released. We have seen a majority of those declassified materials. What we will never see are such papers from the Cuban archives. Researchers are yet to tap the Russian archives. One wonders what will happen to the image of the Jagans when we see those documents. Dr Jagan was crying wolf about American destabilization of his government while he wilfully participated in the Cold War which India carefully avoided. The same victim in British Guiana was happy to applaud Soviet destabilization of Czechoslovakia. Ms Persaud should do some more research!
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
1 Comment (Open | Close)
1 Comment To "Letter did not do justice to the argument"
#1 Comment By Gitanjali Persaud On May 19, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Mr Kissoon
I did not set out to praise Mrs Jagan as you so claimed. Rather, my argument (seems it was not clear enough) is that her legacy is associated with the full political history of Guyana and not specific events. Taking such a view of history will distort her legacy. I couldn’t care less, whether the full history makes her legacy Machiavellian. Let the facts speak for themselves without us colouring it with our biases and without us giving selective treatment to contextless specific events to render a preconceived image.
Even if the full truth makes her Machiavelli, this cannot mean that I cannot admire her tenacity in fighting for political freedom for Guyana. It means that I am not blind to her faults and blunderings but I am willing to acknowledge her positive contribution as well.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/05/19/letter-did-not-do-justice-to-the-argument/
Posted By Stabroek staff On May 19, 2009 @ 5:03 am In Letters | 1 Comment
Dear Editor,
Gitanjali Persaud in a long letter in the Sunday Stabroek (‘The article on Janet Jagan in the Guyana Review had subtle distortions,’ May 17)) failed to do justice to her argument. First, she did not elucidate on the distortions she claimed existed in the Guyana Review piece. I read that assessment and thought it was fine scholarship. I couldn’t see the faults Ms Persaud saw. But I guess it depends on your perspectives on Janet Jagan. On the passing of Mrs Jagan, the same Ms Persaud wrote a short letter eulogizing Janet Jagan.
There is nothing wrong with that. Throughout history bad leaders have had their warm sides. Adolph Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge who died a few years ago had some nice things to say about Hitler in her autobiography. Mr Burnham’s daughter, Ulele wrote that she was proud to be Burnham’s daughter. In assessing the Jagans and Burnham, one should concentrate on their political life. This is where they rise and fall, not on how many bouquets of flowers they shared out. Secondly, Ms Persaud defeats her own intentions. She set out to praise Mrs Jagan but ended up leaving us with thoughts that make us feel that Mrs Jagan committed enormous sins
About democratic centralism, she wrote: “For me, that is a euphemism for dictatorship… will we ever see two PPP presidential candidates facing off in public for popular support?” If democratic centralism is a euphemism for dictatorship, how then can Mrs Jagan come out untouched in any objective account of the PPP’s destructive role in Guyanese politics? For over sixty years Mrs Jagan was one of the preservers (to use Ms Persaud’s own word) of dictatorship. Surely, Ms Persaud cannot be that naïve to think that over sixty years of dictatorship inside the PPP did not hurt Guyana. On the contrary, it helped to destroy this nation. Surely, Ms Persaud must know that Mrs Jagan presided over a party that has been in power since 1992. What role has democratic centralism played in those years?
Ms. Persaud tells us she is…”left to wonder if taking advantage of the strike on the sugar estates may have been a temporary act of insanity on the part of the PPP, given that any clashes would only redound to the detriment of its East Indian supporters.” Unfortunately, Ms Persaud attributes an irrationality to Dr and Mrs Jagan. She calls it insanity. But if she researches the history of these two politicians, she will see that they were far from insane or irrational. Dr and Mrs Jagan did what they thought was best for the party and its ideology. The consequences for their supporters never figured in their scheme of things. That is why Dr Jagan’s government was harassed in the sixties. That is why he spent 28 years in the political wilderness.
Ms Persaud should ask herself the question if that was the only temporary act of insanity. What about ‘Critical support’ in 1976? What about the plan for a joint slate with the PNC in the 1985 elections? What about the shameless dumping of its courageous ally the WPA after 1992? Ms Persaud conveniently quotes from Hugh Tinker’s book about a violent statement from Mr Burnham on the race question. I hope she is aware that there are books that indict Dr and Mrs Jagan for racial incitement. In particular, she should read the Rupert Roopnaraine interview in Frank Birbalsingh, The PPP of Guyana, 1950 -1992: An Oral History. It is a fine piece of analysis.
Finally, she refers to American documents on the 1964 intrigue against the Jagan government that are yet to be released. We have seen a majority of those declassified materials. What we will never see are such papers from the Cuban archives. Researchers are yet to tap the Russian archives. One wonders what will happen to the image of the Jagans when we see those documents. Dr Jagan was crying wolf about American destabilization of his government while he wilfully participated in the Cold War which India carefully avoided. The same victim in British Guiana was happy to applaud Soviet destabilization of Czechoslovakia. Ms Persaud should do some more research!
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
1 Comment (Open | Close)
1 Comment To "Letter did not do justice to the argument"
#1 Comment By Gitanjali Persaud On May 19, 2009 @ 6:09 am
Mr Kissoon
I did not set out to praise Mrs Jagan as you so claimed. Rather, my argument (seems it was not clear enough) is that her legacy is associated with the full political history of Guyana and not specific events. Taking such a view of history will distort her legacy. I couldn’t care less, whether the full history makes her legacy Machiavellian. Let the facts speak for themselves without us colouring it with our biases and without us giving selective treatment to contextless specific events to render a preconceived image.
Even if the full truth makes her Machiavelli, this cannot mean that I cannot admire her tenacity in fighting for political freedom for Guyana. It means that I am not blind to her faults and blunderings but I am willing to acknowledge her positive contribution as well.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/05/19/letter-did-not-do-justice-to-the-argument/
Monday, May 18, 2009
Let history be the judge of this Govt.’s record, not some chimera
Let history be the judge of this Govt.’s record, not some chimera
May 18, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Letters
Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr. Emile Mervin’s letter of May 14, 2009 in the Kaieteur News, with the caption ‘No amount of ‘spin’ can make the President appear any less autocratic.’
Mr. Mervin seems to be a victim of double standards here. Here he goes trying to lecture me on my letter as a spin piece; that notion of spin has to be his chimera. Also, Mr. Mervin fails to identify the broken promises which he motioned in his previous letter. And he fails to say anything about the raucous PNCR ad with the caption ‘JAGDEO – SELFISH AND SHAMELESS’.
Discrediting debt relief is inappropriate and should be deemed a transgression, especially when the evidence shows how it made a difference to the social services sector. And apprizing people of facts of how Guyana managed to attain substantial debt relief is not a spin; the only person guilty of such is Mr. Mervin himself, in his attempt to dissuade facts into a pipe dream.
Sustaining the eligibility criteria set out by international lending agencies, such as, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) is not an easy accomplishment. Debt relief became necessary by virtue of the state of the economy in 1992. What the PNC bequeathed to the PPP/C in 1992 was horrifying.
The country was bankrupt in 1991; Reporting on the PNC ruling years, the World Bank in its 1994 Report noted: “Economic performance worsened significantly… Demand management policies were expansionary, the real exchange rate appreciated, the country lost competitiveness, the balance of payments came under pressure, and the government relied increasingly on price controls and quantitative restrictions on trade.
This further reduced overall economic activity, while spawning a parallel market for foreign exchange that fed inflation; the country’s infrastructure became dilapidated, real incomes dropped sharply, and the government became increasingly unable to provide basic social services”.
In the context of these PNC’s economic failures, the PPP/C early in its Administration had inherited practically zero funds to service the huge external debt burden of US$2.1B and develop the social services sector; and so debt relief became a desired option. Eventually, HIPC and Enhanced-HIPC superseded the traditional debt relief packages.
There is a view that debt relief constitutes begging, an indictment of Guyana’s poverty, and that debt relief is automatically available; a totally incorrect view. In order to be considered for HIPC assistance, a country must experience an unsustainable debt burden; have a track record of reform and good policies as determined by the IMF and the World Bank. Generally, good governance and sound macroeconomic fundamentals become key intervening variables in securing debt relief.
IMF Executive Board Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair Takatoshi Kato noted in February 2006: “Guyana has continued to make progress under the PRGF arrangement. The exchange rate remained stable, the external current account position was better than anticipated, and the structural reform agenda moved ahead…The 2005 macroeconomic program was on track, seen in particular in a solid fiscal performance…”
Here is some information on the annual average foreign Direct Investment flows (in millions of dollars) from 1994 through 2007: 1994-107, 1995-74, 1996-93, 1997, 53, 1998-47, 1999-48, 2000-67, 2001-56, 2004-30, 2005-77, 2006-102, and 2007-152.
Media front. And Guyana is witnessing today increasing media freedom within a democratic political framework, meaning that that this country can boast of explicit free press and free speech. The international
Freedom House ranks Guyana’s status on freedom as ‘free’ on civil liberties and political rights; Guyana has over 23 TV stations, three daily newspapers, use of the internet unrestricted, and a barrage of magazines, etc, where there is no application of censorship.
Most recently, the newspapers carried the PNCR’ advertisement captioned ‘JAGDEO – SELFISH AND SHAMELESS’; if the President were autocratic and there were no freedom of the press, then this ad would not have seen the light of day. And perhaps, the time has now come where media houses and journalists, in their modus operandi, need to provide greater weighting to their responsibilities and obligations than to their rights. If President Jagdeo were autocratic, would he have allowed such an advertisement in the newspapers?
Feed, House and Clothe (FCH) front. Guyana under Burnham experienced serious economic failures in executing its development plans; and the ‘Feed, House and Clothe the Nation’ Development Plan remained a catchword without producing substance; the 7-year Development Plan (1966-1972) buckled in 1969; and the third Development Plan (1978-81) increased the debt burden accompanied by little or no industrialisation. It is not surprising that development plans faltered; the reason probably has to do with Hoyte’s claim in 1981 that the economy ‘was disastrous’, and the New Nation (the PNC’s mouthpiece) noted that the economy was ‘tottering on the brink of collapse’.
However, the Jagdeo Initiative on Agriculture (JIA) was established achieve and sustain food security; subsequently, the Government unleashed the JIA principles to cushion the effects of the 2008 global food and fuel crisis, not only in Guyana but across the region. This initiative has received support from Caribbean Leaders vis-à-vis a CARICOM investment forum and the ongoing ‘Grow More Food’ campaign. Think for a moment about the PPP/C record over these last 14 years amid a PNC legacy of economic failures and the absence of fundamental human rights. Here is a sample of achievements: -
Guyana is free; President’s powers reduced; opposition participation through parliamentary sectoral committees, parliamentary management committee, standing committee on constitutional reform; oversight committee, Public Accounts Committee, constitutional commissions, the President’s consultation with Leader of the Opposition on some appointments; Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) now US$71 million for 1993 through 2005 compared to US$2.6 million between 1982 and 1992; sustained macroeconomic stability through reduced inflation now 8% compared to 101% in 1991; reduced interest rates, stable exchange rate, consistently reduced budget and balance of payments deficits; increased per capita income now US$900 compared to US$231 in 1991; increased disposable incomes evidenced through the importation of 85,000 motor cars, etc.; increased minimum wage now US$124 compared to US$22 in 1991; increased production in all agricultural sectors; growing service industries; upgrading CJIA and Ogle airports; housing boom – 70,000 house lots, 35,000 titles, 7% mortgage interest rate; 85% access to water compared to 40% in 1992; increased CXC performance now 80% compared to 47% in 1991; university education expanded into Berbice; more trained teachers, now 56% compared to 35% in 1991; greater secondary school enrolment now 72% compared to 35% in 1991; 84 new schools built; health physical infrastructures rebuilt – new hospitals at New Amsterdam, Georgetown, and Kamarang; high immunization rates among children now 95% compared to 65% in 1991; Infant Mortality Rate now 48 per 1,000 compared to 120 per 1,000 in 1991; maternal mortality rate now 11 per 1,000 compared to 34 per 1,000 in 1991; Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV/AIDS now with 73 sites; the 1951 Amerindian Act revised; 50 Amerindian communities obtained titles and demarcation; $1 billion on the President’s Youth Award, President’s Youth Choice Initiative Program, Youth Entrepreneurial Skills Training Program, and Youth Empowerment.
Let history be the judge of this Government’s record, not some chimera.
Prem Misir
May 18, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Letters
Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr. Emile Mervin’s letter of May 14, 2009 in the Kaieteur News, with the caption ‘No amount of ‘spin’ can make the President appear any less autocratic.’
Mr. Mervin seems to be a victim of double standards here. Here he goes trying to lecture me on my letter as a spin piece; that notion of spin has to be his chimera. Also, Mr. Mervin fails to identify the broken promises which he motioned in his previous letter. And he fails to say anything about the raucous PNCR ad with the caption ‘JAGDEO – SELFISH AND SHAMELESS’.
Discrediting debt relief is inappropriate and should be deemed a transgression, especially when the evidence shows how it made a difference to the social services sector. And apprizing people of facts of how Guyana managed to attain substantial debt relief is not a spin; the only person guilty of such is Mr. Mervin himself, in his attempt to dissuade facts into a pipe dream.
Sustaining the eligibility criteria set out by international lending agencies, such as, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) is not an easy accomplishment. Debt relief became necessary by virtue of the state of the economy in 1992. What the PNC bequeathed to the PPP/C in 1992 was horrifying.
The country was bankrupt in 1991; Reporting on the PNC ruling years, the World Bank in its 1994 Report noted: “Economic performance worsened significantly… Demand management policies were expansionary, the real exchange rate appreciated, the country lost competitiveness, the balance of payments came under pressure, and the government relied increasingly on price controls and quantitative restrictions on trade.
This further reduced overall economic activity, while spawning a parallel market for foreign exchange that fed inflation; the country’s infrastructure became dilapidated, real incomes dropped sharply, and the government became increasingly unable to provide basic social services”.
In the context of these PNC’s economic failures, the PPP/C early in its Administration had inherited practically zero funds to service the huge external debt burden of US$2.1B and develop the social services sector; and so debt relief became a desired option. Eventually, HIPC and Enhanced-HIPC superseded the traditional debt relief packages.
There is a view that debt relief constitutes begging, an indictment of Guyana’s poverty, and that debt relief is automatically available; a totally incorrect view. In order to be considered for HIPC assistance, a country must experience an unsustainable debt burden; have a track record of reform and good policies as determined by the IMF and the World Bank. Generally, good governance and sound macroeconomic fundamentals become key intervening variables in securing debt relief.
IMF Executive Board Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair Takatoshi Kato noted in February 2006: “Guyana has continued to make progress under the PRGF arrangement. The exchange rate remained stable, the external current account position was better than anticipated, and the structural reform agenda moved ahead…The 2005 macroeconomic program was on track, seen in particular in a solid fiscal performance…”
Here is some information on the annual average foreign Direct Investment flows (in millions of dollars) from 1994 through 2007: 1994-107, 1995-74, 1996-93, 1997, 53, 1998-47, 1999-48, 2000-67, 2001-56, 2004-30, 2005-77, 2006-102, and 2007-152.
Media front. And Guyana is witnessing today increasing media freedom within a democratic political framework, meaning that that this country can boast of explicit free press and free speech. The international
Freedom House ranks Guyana’s status on freedom as ‘free’ on civil liberties and political rights; Guyana has over 23 TV stations, three daily newspapers, use of the internet unrestricted, and a barrage of magazines, etc, where there is no application of censorship.
Most recently, the newspapers carried the PNCR’ advertisement captioned ‘JAGDEO – SELFISH AND SHAMELESS’; if the President were autocratic and there were no freedom of the press, then this ad would not have seen the light of day. And perhaps, the time has now come where media houses and journalists, in their modus operandi, need to provide greater weighting to their responsibilities and obligations than to their rights. If President Jagdeo were autocratic, would he have allowed such an advertisement in the newspapers?
Feed, House and Clothe (FCH) front. Guyana under Burnham experienced serious economic failures in executing its development plans; and the ‘Feed, House and Clothe the Nation’ Development Plan remained a catchword without producing substance; the 7-year Development Plan (1966-1972) buckled in 1969; and the third Development Plan (1978-81) increased the debt burden accompanied by little or no industrialisation. It is not surprising that development plans faltered; the reason probably has to do with Hoyte’s claim in 1981 that the economy ‘was disastrous’, and the New Nation (the PNC’s mouthpiece) noted that the economy was ‘tottering on the brink of collapse’.
However, the Jagdeo Initiative on Agriculture (JIA) was established achieve and sustain food security; subsequently, the Government unleashed the JIA principles to cushion the effects of the 2008 global food and fuel crisis, not only in Guyana but across the region. This initiative has received support from Caribbean Leaders vis-à-vis a CARICOM investment forum and the ongoing ‘Grow More Food’ campaign. Think for a moment about the PPP/C record over these last 14 years amid a PNC legacy of economic failures and the absence of fundamental human rights. Here is a sample of achievements: -
Guyana is free; President’s powers reduced; opposition participation through parliamentary sectoral committees, parliamentary management committee, standing committee on constitutional reform; oversight committee, Public Accounts Committee, constitutional commissions, the President’s consultation with Leader of the Opposition on some appointments; Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) now US$71 million for 1993 through 2005 compared to US$2.6 million between 1982 and 1992; sustained macroeconomic stability through reduced inflation now 8% compared to 101% in 1991; reduced interest rates, stable exchange rate, consistently reduced budget and balance of payments deficits; increased per capita income now US$900 compared to US$231 in 1991; increased disposable incomes evidenced through the importation of 85,000 motor cars, etc.; increased minimum wage now US$124 compared to US$22 in 1991; increased production in all agricultural sectors; growing service industries; upgrading CJIA and Ogle airports; housing boom – 70,000 house lots, 35,000 titles, 7% mortgage interest rate; 85% access to water compared to 40% in 1992; increased CXC performance now 80% compared to 47% in 1991; university education expanded into Berbice; more trained teachers, now 56% compared to 35% in 1991; greater secondary school enrolment now 72% compared to 35% in 1991; 84 new schools built; health physical infrastructures rebuilt – new hospitals at New Amsterdam, Georgetown, and Kamarang; high immunization rates among children now 95% compared to 65% in 1991; Infant Mortality Rate now 48 per 1,000 compared to 120 per 1,000 in 1991; maternal mortality rate now 11 per 1,000 compared to 34 per 1,000 in 1991; Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV/AIDS now with 73 sites; the 1951 Amerindian Act revised; 50 Amerindian communities obtained titles and demarcation; $1 billion on the President’s Youth Award, President’s Youth Choice Initiative Program, Youth Entrepreneurial Skills Training Program, and Youth Empowerment.
Let history be the judge of this Government’s record, not some chimera.
Prem Misir
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)