Stabroek News letter, 13 January 2009. The proposed Hope Canal is not the best option to drain the conservancy. http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/the-proposed-hope-canal-is-not-the-best-option-to-drain-the-conservancy/
Dear Editor,
I refer to the President’s recent announcement to construct the Hope Canal to prevent water being released from the EDWC to the Mahaica Creek that causes flooding to the residents.
Extensive studies in the ’60s were carried out by the Hydraulics Division to determine the best location to drain the EDWC and it was determined that the Land of Canaan Sluice (LOC) was the best location and option since an Atlantic relief would likely be subject to some tidal lock which be undesirable for a spillway operation, ie the discharge sluice at the sea wall end could only work on a tidal basis some 6 hours a day discharging a pittance daily.
The LOC, built in the ’60s, is a 5-door high sill sluice, and can discharge 2000 cusecs working on a 24-hour basis independent of the tide, and was built specially to drain the EDWC. Since 1970 the conservancy has not been maintained, and today has reached a critical stage of siltation and vegetation inhibiting its storage capacity.
The proposed works related to the Hope Canal would be extensive. The canal has to be a high level canal with some 80 ft bed width, some 10 miles long - not 6 miles according to the President – and would require the construction of 2 large sluices at the EDWC and through the existing sea defences, several bridges over the canal, a bridge at the roadway, access roads, etc. The canal and outlet has to be designed to discharge at least 2000 cusecs.
I doubt very much whether the inlet sluice at the conservancy can provide 2000 cusecs from the EDWC at the moment, due to its silted state. Extensive modelling and dredging works have to be carried out to obtain the 2000 cusecs required from the EDWC.
The cost in my opinion would far exceed the $3B quoted by the President. I doubt whether Guyana has the local engineering expertise to design and construct such a project.
I would suggest the government as a cheaper alternative improve the capacity of the LOC which is only operating around 40% efficiency, by redesigning and re-constructing the inlet channel and canal inlet and also awaiting the studies and modelling works to be undertaken shortly for the EDWC (reference an article in GC, 11.1.09) and then and carry out the works recommended by the consultants if feasible.
The release of water from the EDWC via the Maduni and Lama sluices cannot cause the flooding in the Mahaicony/Abary areas, only in the Mahaica area.
I started the MMA scheme and designed and supervised the construction of the 7-door Abary Control Sluice. Information was passed on to the authority that the sluice must release a certain amount of water daily so as to keep the Abary River alive. This was how the scheme was designed. Water to this date some 30 years later still has not been released, resulting in the Abary becoming so silted for some 45 miles from the conservancy to its mouth, that it would be impossible to dredge it to bring it back alive. The sluice also appears to be non functional.
Over the last few years the writer wrote several letters about this problem only to be responded to by the authority that the river was alive and free flowing with water.
The bottom line is the Abary River cannot carry its share of the drainage load and hence the water has nowhere to go but to the Mahaicony, resulting in constant flooding whenever there is heavy rainfall.
Continuation of the scheme as proposed by the President would not prevent this from happening, and could make matters worse by silting the Mahaicony as well if the second stage is similarly maintained as the first.
Yours faithfully,
Malcolm Alli
35 Comments (Open | Close)
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Hope Canal could worsen the conservancy problem, not improve it.
Stabroek News letter, 07 February 2009. The Hope Canal could worsen the conservancy problem, not improve it. http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/the-hope-canal-could-worsen-the-conservancy-problem-not-improve-it/
Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Mr R Seegobin’s letter in SN dated February 3, (‘The model and risk analysis are everything to the Hope Canal project’) which identifies the essential parameters for hydrological modelling of the EDWC to determine the proposed additional capacity of the conservancy flood relief as well as where to locate the canal.
We are not sure if the writer has actually worked with reservoir modelling for low-level lands. Modelling for multiple outlets into tidal and non-tidal areas is not simple. Although many of the parameters could be gathered from old maps and existing data if they can still be found, a lot of new surveys will have to be undertaken. A key parameter is the storage-elevation curve of the conservancy, which must be revised to account for sedimentation over the last 100 years and fix the various capacity limits of its volume.
An old capacity curve from 1950 was used by the Hydraulics Division in the 1970s, but this needs to be thoroughly revised. Hydrographic surveys as well as a Lidar survey of the catchment areas above water will also have to be done.
Not much is mentioned about his risk analysis details, an exercise which has rarely (if ever) been used in Guyana. A lot of dam safety protocols have to be included in this, but where is the dam safety analysis for this aging liability? Management of this conservancy is also essential in any flood hazard reduction measures, and nothing has really been achieved in this sector to establish rule curves on supply and demand of water. No one has a grasp on how much water is really needed for this conservancy and what its inter-year distribution is. Can its full supply level be reduced substantially year round? Has the conservancy ever been annually cleaned of all weeds and silt to facilitate east-west water passage?
The condition of the reservoir must be a realistic input to the model since it impacts on output.
In addition to hydraulic modelling of the conservancy there must be hydraulic analysis of the water conveyance works throughout the conservancy to the river and the sea. Some hydrologic models can handle channel routing in their routines, but the conservancy in the coastal plain cannot be modelled in sufficient detail using nodes and storage points. The complementary hydraulic analysis of the system is the key to a search for the least-cost solution to the flooding problem. Substantial surveys have to be undertaken to establish the variables needed to design any improvement works. Surprisingly, work has yet to be completed to establish the hydraulic capacity of the existing Land of Canaan (LOC) canal and its conservancy supply. This may be a bit complicated for local engineers and most of it should have been done since the problem started.
The UN in 2006 made some excellent recommendations about measures needed to decrease the hazard level of the conservancy for the short, medium and long terms, but implementation progress in this area has been dismal.
Pictures of the conservancy dam show a badly deteriorated eastern section of the dam compared to the 1970s. Successive government engineering interventions since the 1990s have apparently aggravated the dam condition. In short, these so called improvements have been based on poor engineering judgement and are now liabilities. No new information has really been collected about the physical characteristics of the reservoir, despite all the problems encountered to date. The hydraulic capacity of the burrow trench, the nature of any internal cross dams and the capacity of the relief outlets have not been firmly established.
The Minister of Agriculture has decided that the Hope Canal is the best option for additional relief, but perhaps he ought to be cautious about his decision and the technical advice on which it is based. High water problems in the sector can be caused by several factors, but generally if the burrow trench and surface weeds are cleared then internal water slopes can be very shallow. If he thinks this should be a solution then see what will happen when the government tries to tack on the Mahaicony conservancy to the Abary conservancy and then discharge the total spill flows of both into the Berbice River.
A relief canal to the Atlantic is not without problems and liability. How much pegasse is in the land between the conservancy and the crown dams as well as Hope Estate, and can it support a large canal? This will have to be a ‘fill’ canal since land levels along the canal alignment are as low as 52.00 GD. Once such a canal is built then its embankments become an extension of the conservancy dam. One of the authors worked in the then British Guiana during construction of the Land of Canaan sluice and questioned the technical soundness and safety of constructing a 2000 cusecs relief structure through the existing conservancy dam in the Hope area. Few Guyanese would remember the Bonasika sluice fiasco of the Boeraserie conservancy. Hydraulic losses along the Hope canal route will have to be accounted for and include friction losses and head losses at the intake structure, a bridge at the public road and the outlet structure through the sea defences. Their sum amounts to the total head that will drive the canal flow. The objective is to make sure that the relief canal at the sea is independent of high tides and its discharge is 24 hours per day like the LOC. If the Hope Canal has to work with even a short tide lock period (where spring tides are higher than the canal tail water level) then this will become a white elephant.
A quick estimate by the authors indicates that with a 65 ft canal bottom and a conservancy flood level of 58.00 GD after deducting all losses, the water level at the outlet could be 54.50 GD and this could require some tidal closure.
Our point is that a decision for a Hope Canal outlet instead of adopting a holistic approach and analysis, can worsen the conservancy problem instead of improving it, especially after spending some $3B plus.
Yours faithfully,
Malcolm Alli
Mike Ragwen
Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Mr R Seegobin’s letter in SN dated February 3, (‘The model and risk analysis are everything to the Hope Canal project’) which identifies the essential parameters for hydrological modelling of the EDWC to determine the proposed additional capacity of the conservancy flood relief as well as where to locate the canal.
We are not sure if the writer has actually worked with reservoir modelling for low-level lands. Modelling for multiple outlets into tidal and non-tidal areas is not simple. Although many of the parameters could be gathered from old maps and existing data if they can still be found, a lot of new surveys will have to be undertaken. A key parameter is the storage-elevation curve of the conservancy, which must be revised to account for sedimentation over the last 100 years and fix the various capacity limits of its volume.
An old capacity curve from 1950 was used by the Hydraulics Division in the 1970s, but this needs to be thoroughly revised. Hydrographic surveys as well as a Lidar survey of the catchment areas above water will also have to be done.
Not much is mentioned about his risk analysis details, an exercise which has rarely (if ever) been used in Guyana. A lot of dam safety protocols have to be included in this, but where is the dam safety analysis for this aging liability? Management of this conservancy is also essential in any flood hazard reduction measures, and nothing has really been achieved in this sector to establish rule curves on supply and demand of water. No one has a grasp on how much water is really needed for this conservancy and what its inter-year distribution is. Can its full supply level be reduced substantially year round? Has the conservancy ever been annually cleaned of all weeds and silt to facilitate east-west water passage?
The condition of the reservoir must be a realistic input to the model since it impacts on output.
In addition to hydraulic modelling of the conservancy there must be hydraulic analysis of the water conveyance works throughout the conservancy to the river and the sea. Some hydrologic models can handle channel routing in their routines, but the conservancy in the coastal plain cannot be modelled in sufficient detail using nodes and storage points. The complementary hydraulic analysis of the system is the key to a search for the least-cost solution to the flooding problem. Substantial surveys have to be undertaken to establish the variables needed to design any improvement works. Surprisingly, work has yet to be completed to establish the hydraulic capacity of the existing Land of Canaan (LOC) canal and its conservancy supply. This may be a bit complicated for local engineers and most of it should have been done since the problem started.
The UN in 2006 made some excellent recommendations about measures needed to decrease the hazard level of the conservancy for the short, medium and long terms, but implementation progress in this area has been dismal.
Pictures of the conservancy dam show a badly deteriorated eastern section of the dam compared to the 1970s. Successive government engineering interventions since the 1990s have apparently aggravated the dam condition. In short, these so called improvements have been based on poor engineering judgement and are now liabilities. No new information has really been collected about the physical characteristics of the reservoir, despite all the problems encountered to date. The hydraulic capacity of the burrow trench, the nature of any internal cross dams and the capacity of the relief outlets have not been firmly established.
The Minister of Agriculture has decided that the Hope Canal is the best option for additional relief, but perhaps he ought to be cautious about his decision and the technical advice on which it is based. High water problems in the sector can be caused by several factors, but generally if the burrow trench and surface weeds are cleared then internal water slopes can be very shallow. If he thinks this should be a solution then see what will happen when the government tries to tack on the Mahaicony conservancy to the Abary conservancy and then discharge the total spill flows of both into the Berbice River.
A relief canal to the Atlantic is not without problems and liability. How much pegasse is in the land between the conservancy and the crown dams as well as Hope Estate, and can it support a large canal? This will have to be a ‘fill’ canal since land levels along the canal alignment are as low as 52.00 GD. Once such a canal is built then its embankments become an extension of the conservancy dam. One of the authors worked in the then British Guiana during construction of the Land of Canaan sluice and questioned the technical soundness and safety of constructing a 2000 cusecs relief structure through the existing conservancy dam in the Hope area. Few Guyanese would remember the Bonasika sluice fiasco of the Boeraserie conservancy. Hydraulic losses along the Hope canal route will have to be accounted for and include friction losses and head losses at the intake structure, a bridge at the public road and the outlet structure through the sea defences. Their sum amounts to the total head that will drive the canal flow. The objective is to make sure that the relief canal at the sea is independent of high tides and its discharge is 24 hours per day like the LOC. If the Hope Canal has to work with even a short tide lock period (where spring tides are higher than the canal tail water level) then this will become a white elephant.
A quick estimate by the authors indicates that with a 65 ft canal bottom and a conservancy flood level of 58.00 GD after deducting all losses, the water level at the outlet could be 54.50 GD and this could require some tidal closure.
Our point is that a decision for a Hope Canal outlet instead of adopting a holistic approach and analysis, can worsen the conservancy problem instead of improving it, especially after spending some $3B plus.
Yours faithfully,
Malcolm Alli
Mike Ragwen
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Supporting our claim about weak governance
Supporting our claim about weak governance
February 7, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Letters
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/02/07/supporting-our-claim-about-weak-governance/
Dear Editor,
While the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) does not expect the Government of Guyana to be enthused by our pointing out the governance short-comings that caused the prolongation of recent floods, a more constructive response would have been appropriate.
Rather than challenge the failings we pointed out or take issue with the recommendations, Dr. Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat chose to make sweeping attacks on the credibility of the GHRA, calling the statement “grossly inaccurate”. Indeed the only specific his statement refers to is that we referred to the National Emergency Organising ‘Committee’ as a ‘Council’.
While the GHRA’s interest lies in promoting discussion of its seven proposals to strengthen governance, Dr. Luncheon has obliged us to provide some of the specifics which establish the validity of our claim about weak governance. Since they are already in the public domain we list them in summary form.
The state of unpreparedness of the CDC for weeks after the flood occurred is well established.
Senior political figures rather than disaster relief and technical agencies determined the course of the flood response.
Insufficient warning to farmers in the Mahaica and Mahaicony Creeks of the intention to open the Maduni/Lama locks prevented them taking remedial actions.
The continued presence of illegal structures from the Greenfield reserve hampered de-silting operations.
Illegal structures on reserve lands threaten efficient drainage all over the coastal areas – witness Montrose last Easter from which no lessons seem to be learnt.
Efforts to remove the fishermen from the Greenfield koker outfall simply petered out when they refused to cooperate.
The koker at the head of the Ann’s Grove access road, renovated at the cost of $6 million, is a white elephant.
Many secondary D&I contracts have been awarded to groups and individuals without reference to NDCs or even the RDC.
Since 2007, changes in the manner of collecting rates and rents have weakened villages’ control over their backlands.
The governance recommendations set out in the statement are summarized as follows:
1. Communities should be systematically involved in all important decisions that affect them.
2. Local knowledge on D&I issues is frequently superior to external expertise and should be recognised as such.
3. The Civil Defence Commission should be de-centralised and should report to Parliament.
4. Compensation for agricultural losses should be far more systematic than that signified by an allocation of G$100 million.
5. Presentation of meteorological information in a modern graphic, user-friendly fashion should be priority in times of flood-threats.
Executive Committee
GHRA
February 7, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Letters
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/02/07/supporting-our-claim-about-weak-governance/
Dear Editor,
While the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) does not expect the Government of Guyana to be enthused by our pointing out the governance short-comings that caused the prolongation of recent floods, a more constructive response would have been appropriate.
Rather than challenge the failings we pointed out or take issue with the recommendations, Dr. Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat chose to make sweeping attacks on the credibility of the GHRA, calling the statement “grossly inaccurate”. Indeed the only specific his statement refers to is that we referred to the National Emergency Organising ‘Committee’ as a ‘Council’.
While the GHRA’s interest lies in promoting discussion of its seven proposals to strengthen governance, Dr. Luncheon has obliged us to provide some of the specifics which establish the validity of our claim about weak governance. Since they are already in the public domain we list them in summary form.
The state of unpreparedness of the CDC for weeks after the flood occurred is well established.
Senior political figures rather than disaster relief and technical agencies determined the course of the flood response.
Insufficient warning to farmers in the Mahaica and Mahaicony Creeks of the intention to open the Maduni/Lama locks prevented them taking remedial actions.
The continued presence of illegal structures from the Greenfield reserve hampered de-silting operations.
Illegal structures on reserve lands threaten efficient drainage all over the coastal areas – witness Montrose last Easter from which no lessons seem to be learnt.
Efforts to remove the fishermen from the Greenfield koker outfall simply petered out when they refused to cooperate.
The koker at the head of the Ann’s Grove access road, renovated at the cost of $6 million, is a white elephant.
Many secondary D&I contracts have been awarded to groups and individuals without reference to NDCs or even the RDC.
Since 2007, changes in the manner of collecting rates and rents have weakened villages’ control over their backlands.
The governance recommendations set out in the statement are summarized as follows:
1. Communities should be systematically involved in all important decisions that affect them.
2. Local knowledge on D&I issues is frequently superior to external expertise and should be recognised as such.
3. The Civil Defence Commission should be de-centralised and should report to Parliament.
4. Compensation for agricultural losses should be far more systematic than that signified by an allocation of G$100 million.
5. Presentation of meteorological information in a modern graphic, user-friendly fashion should be priority in times of flood-threats.
Executive Committee
GHRA
Friday, February 6, 2009
Tough new money laundering law to take force soon - President signals
Guyana Chronicle top story, Friday 06 February 2009
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html
Tough new money laundering law to take force soon
- President signals
By Sharief Khan
PRESIDENT Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday signalled he is intent on pushing the
country's tough new law against money laundering to plug loopholes exploited
particularly by those who have illegally acquired huge assets.
He said the new act is before Parliament and he has told Finance Minister,
Dr Ashni Singh, to wrap up the discussions at the level of the Select
Committee and have the law passed soon because it has been there too long.
"We found the older law has some loopholes, especially in terms of seizure
of assets, and we are plugging those holes through the new act", Mr. Jagdeo
said at a press conference at his official State House residence.
Money laundering is the practice of engaging in finance/financial
transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of
illegally gained money, and is a main operation of the underground economy
around the world.
The issue of seizing assets garnered through the narcotics trade here
surfaced with the high-profile interception in Canada and the Caribbean in
December of cocaine shipments from Guyana.
Collaboration between the local Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), police
and army and American, British and Canadian agencies has led to the
unravelling of narcotics trafficking networks based here and the Guyana
Revenue Authority is looking into assets drug barons may have acquired
through money laundering and other means, officials said.
Mr. Jagdeo yesterday raised the delay in enacting the new tough anti-money
laundering law while noting that Guyana's financial system is in good
health.
He said the International Monetary Fund found, through intrusive inspection,
that Guyana's financial sector is in good health.
"We're not perfect but our financial system is essentially in good shape",
he reported.
He said that in his meetings on coping with the international financial
meltdown which is worsening, he has been arguing for a global governance
structure.
Guyana, he stressed, will not be spared the consequences of the crisis,
particularly in the real sector, as global demand dries up on some
commodities.
"We need a global governance structure to make sure we have global financial
stability because national regulatory structures, as strong as they may,
cannot effectively deliver global financial stability because there is so
much cross-border transaction that needs to be captured, measured and
reported on..."
"We are still open to this...we are examining the situation", he said.
The President, who was at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland last week, said the talks focused broadly on two areas of
significant concern to Guyana - climate change; and the global financial
crisis and how to exit this crisis with the minimum of consequences for the
peoples of the world.
He noted that many world leaders are excessively focused on the domestic
issue of job creation and getting their economies going because of the
severe impact of the crisis.
He pointed out that soaring employment in many developed countries is
leading to protests against foreign workers and that "a healthy dose of
xenophobia is developing" in the developed world.
"Many of the countries are seemingly going down the path of protectionism
although they used to lecture the world about the benefits of open trade and
free trade. When they are faced with problems, they want to shut the door to
free, multilateral trade and foreign workers", he said.
He said that in Davos, he wanted to shift the focus "about how we're going
to get out of this crisis", adding that all agreed there that it will get
significantly worse before it gets better and it's already bad.
Mr. Jagdeo said many people agreed in principle that the situation warrants
a combination of collective efforts around the world and national stimulus
packages combined with monetary policy, and a loosening up of liquidity in
the system to get out of this crisis.
"This was a very healthy debate and the benefit of Davos was that many of
the policymakers got together, shared experiences and (what's needed now) is
coordinated action by many countries to overcome the impact of the crisis,
to bolster global demand" which can mean increasing production, he said.
http://www.guyanachronicle.com/topstory.html
Tough new money laundering law to take force soon
- President signals
By Sharief Khan
PRESIDENT Bharrat Jagdeo yesterday signalled he is intent on pushing the
country's tough new law against money laundering to plug loopholes exploited
particularly by those who have illegally acquired huge assets.
He said the new act is before Parliament and he has told Finance Minister,
Dr Ashni Singh, to wrap up the discussions at the level of the Select
Committee and have the law passed soon because it has been there too long.
"We found the older law has some loopholes, especially in terms of seizure
of assets, and we are plugging those holes through the new act", Mr. Jagdeo
said at a press conference at his official State House residence.
Money laundering is the practice of engaging in finance/financial
transactions in order to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of
illegally gained money, and is a main operation of the underground economy
around the world.
The issue of seizing assets garnered through the narcotics trade here
surfaced with the high-profile interception in Canada and the Caribbean in
December of cocaine shipments from Guyana.
Collaboration between the local Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), police
and army and American, British and Canadian agencies has led to the
unravelling of narcotics trafficking networks based here and the Guyana
Revenue Authority is looking into assets drug barons may have acquired
through money laundering and other means, officials said.
Mr. Jagdeo yesterday raised the delay in enacting the new tough anti-money
laundering law while noting that Guyana's financial system is in good
health.
He said the International Monetary Fund found, through intrusive inspection,
that Guyana's financial sector is in good health.
"We're not perfect but our financial system is essentially in good shape",
he reported.
He said that in his meetings on coping with the international financial
meltdown which is worsening, he has been arguing for a global governance
structure.
Guyana, he stressed, will not be spared the consequences of the crisis,
particularly in the real sector, as global demand dries up on some
commodities.
"We need a global governance structure to make sure we have global financial
stability because national regulatory structures, as strong as they may,
cannot effectively deliver global financial stability because there is so
much cross-border transaction that needs to be captured, measured and
reported on..."
"We are still open to this...we are examining the situation", he said.
The President, who was at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland last week, said the talks focused broadly on two areas of
significant concern to Guyana - climate change; and the global financial
crisis and how to exit this crisis with the minimum of consequences for the
peoples of the world.
He noted that many world leaders are excessively focused on the domestic
issue of job creation and getting their economies going because of the
severe impact of the crisis.
He pointed out that soaring employment in many developed countries is
leading to protests against foreign workers and that "a healthy dose of
xenophobia is developing" in the developed world.
"Many of the countries are seemingly going down the path of protectionism
although they used to lecture the world about the benefits of open trade and
free trade. When they are faced with problems, they want to shut the door to
free, multilateral trade and foreign workers", he said.
He said that in Davos, he wanted to shift the focus "about how we're going
to get out of this crisis", adding that all agreed there that it will get
significantly worse before it gets better and it's already bad.
Mr. Jagdeo said many people agreed in principle that the situation warrants
a combination of collective efforts around the world and national stimulus
packages combined with monetary policy, and a loosening up of liquidity in
the system to get out of this crisis.
"This was a very healthy debate and the benefit of Davos was that many of
the policymakers got together, shared experiences and (what's needed now) is
coordinated action by many countries to overcome the impact of the crisis,
to bolster global demand" which can mean increasing production, he said.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Full-time MPs
Kaieteur News editorial, Tuesday 03 February 2009
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/02/03/full-time-mps/
Full-time MPs
Last Friday, in a speech at a function organised by the Guyana Manufacturing
and Services Association Ltd (GMSA), the Speaker of the National Assembly,
Mr Harinarayan (Ralph) Ramkarran, suggested that the time has come for
Guyana to consider having full-time Members of Parliament (MPs).
Dealing with the specific topic, 'The National Assembly as a facilitator and
promoter of investment and business activities in Guyana', he argued that,
"The establishment of strong and independent relationships between business
organisations and Parliamentary committees is proper and desirable, as it is
the duty of all stakeholders on both sides to seek out opinions and to offer
opinions."
He proposed that the vehicle for the dialogue between the business and
political communities may be the Economic Services Committee.
Mr Ramkarran was, of course, alluding to one of the four sectoral committees
in Parliament that had been established to enable the Legislative branch to
"scrutinize" the activities of the Executive. The others are the Natural
Resources, Social Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
Their mandate spanned the gamut of governmental initiative, and had been the
result of great struggle in the effort to enlarge the democratic process in
Guyana.
The Opposition had long complained that they were locked out from the
day-to-day workings of governance, and were thus reduced to playing, at
best, an auditing role in the Public Accounts Committee, and at worst,
making noises in the National Assembly during debates that inevitably
amounted to naught, as the Government always had the numbers to carry the
argument and the day.
In the Sectoral Committees, while the Government still retained 5-4
majorities, the Chairs are rotated annually between the Government and the
Opposition. This was not an inconsiderable gain for the Opposition in
ensuring that matters of its concern were placed on the agenda - and also
fairly ventilated.
The smaller number of members in the Committees also fostered a more
collegial atmosphere that eschewed the endemic compulsion for grandstanding
present in the Parliamentary debates.
With the authority to invite any member of the Government - and even state
institutions such as the police - to present testimony on issues before
them, combined with its power to hire experts to advise them, the Sectoral
Committees were indeed potentially powerful tools to deepen democracy and
accountability in our land.
So why have we not seen more results from this initiative? The Speaker
pointed to two constraints in his presentation: the need for "larger and
better trained staff" and "full-time Members of Parliament (MPs)". On the
latter, he was unequivocal that it "must be on the agenda, if Parliamentary
oversight, which is being increasingly seen as the key to the development of
accountability, is to be effective."
We agree. To continue with the present system is not only to ensure that its
encounters with civil organisations, such as the GMSA, are spasmodic and
inevitably desultory, and to deepen the prevalent sentiment in the wider
society that Parliament is just an empty "talk shop".
Most members of the public are unaware that the salaries of the MPs, who are
grandiosely trumpeted as representing their views in the "highest forum in
the land" and "the highest lawmaking body," are just a token stipend because
they are supposed to be just "part timers".
Maybe this might have been the case when all MPs had to do was show up at
the thirty or so annual sittings that had become the norm in the past. But
with the increased utilisation of the committee system - not just the four
sectoral ones, but the myriad standing committees such as Constitutional
Reform, and special committees to review contentious legislation etc., the
demands on part-timers are just too onerous: even with the nominal "top-up"
that committee members receive.
The Speaker recognised the funding constraints that bedevil this and any
administration, and suggested that we may begin by hiring full-time MPs for
the chairs and deputy chairs of the sectoral committees and possibly the
Public Accounts Committee.
We respectfully suggest that we should bite the bullet and make all MPs
full-timers. Because there are at present enough committees in Parliament to
occupy every MP, the gain to better governance will be immeasurable as we
develop experts in every field of national endeavour, as is evident, for
instance, in the US Congressional Committee system.
We take our hats off to the Speaker for raising this issue.
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/02/03/full-time-mps/
Full-time MPs
Last Friday, in a speech at a function organised by the Guyana Manufacturing
and Services Association Ltd (GMSA), the Speaker of the National Assembly,
Mr Harinarayan (Ralph) Ramkarran, suggested that the time has come for
Guyana to consider having full-time Members of Parliament (MPs).
Dealing with the specific topic, 'The National Assembly as a facilitator and
promoter of investment and business activities in Guyana', he argued that,
"The establishment of strong and independent relationships between business
organisations and Parliamentary committees is proper and desirable, as it is
the duty of all stakeholders on both sides to seek out opinions and to offer
opinions."
He proposed that the vehicle for the dialogue between the business and
political communities may be the Economic Services Committee.
Mr Ramkarran was, of course, alluding to one of the four sectoral committees
in Parliament that had been established to enable the Legislative branch to
"scrutinize" the activities of the Executive. The others are the Natural
Resources, Social Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
Their mandate spanned the gamut of governmental initiative, and had been the
result of great struggle in the effort to enlarge the democratic process in
Guyana.
The Opposition had long complained that they were locked out from the
day-to-day workings of governance, and were thus reduced to playing, at
best, an auditing role in the Public Accounts Committee, and at worst,
making noises in the National Assembly during debates that inevitably
amounted to naught, as the Government always had the numbers to carry the
argument and the day.
In the Sectoral Committees, while the Government still retained 5-4
majorities, the Chairs are rotated annually between the Government and the
Opposition. This was not an inconsiderable gain for the Opposition in
ensuring that matters of its concern were placed on the agenda - and also
fairly ventilated.
The smaller number of members in the Committees also fostered a more
collegial atmosphere that eschewed the endemic compulsion for grandstanding
present in the Parliamentary debates.
With the authority to invite any member of the Government - and even state
institutions such as the police - to present testimony on issues before
them, combined with its power to hire experts to advise them, the Sectoral
Committees were indeed potentially powerful tools to deepen democracy and
accountability in our land.
So why have we not seen more results from this initiative? The Speaker
pointed to two constraints in his presentation: the need for "larger and
better trained staff" and "full-time Members of Parliament (MPs)". On the
latter, he was unequivocal that it "must be on the agenda, if Parliamentary
oversight, which is being increasingly seen as the key to the development of
accountability, is to be effective."
We agree. To continue with the present system is not only to ensure that its
encounters with civil organisations, such as the GMSA, are spasmodic and
inevitably desultory, and to deepen the prevalent sentiment in the wider
society that Parliament is just an empty "talk shop".
Most members of the public are unaware that the salaries of the MPs, who are
grandiosely trumpeted as representing their views in the "highest forum in
the land" and "the highest lawmaking body," are just a token stipend because
they are supposed to be just "part timers".
Maybe this might have been the case when all MPs had to do was show up at
the thirty or so annual sittings that had become the norm in the past. But
with the increased utilisation of the committee system - not just the four
sectoral ones, but the myriad standing committees such as Constitutional
Reform, and special committees to review contentious legislation etc., the
demands on part-timers are just too onerous: even with the nominal "top-up"
that committee members receive.
The Speaker recognised the funding constraints that bedevil this and any
administration, and suggested that we may begin by hiring full-time MPs for
the chairs and deputy chairs of the sectoral committees and possibly the
Public Accounts Committee.
We respectfully suggest that we should bite the bullet and make all MPs
full-timers. Because there are at present enough committees in Parliament to
occupy every MP, the gain to better governance will be immeasurable as we
develop experts in every field of national endeavour, as is evident, for
instance, in the US Congressional Committee system.
We take our hats off to the Speaker for raising this issue.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Accountability across the board
Accountability across the board
Posted By Staff On February 2, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 4 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/editorial/accountability-across-the-board/print/
As the Sunday Stabroek editorial of January 25th noted, President Jagdeo’s ultimatum on January 19th that MPs deliver up returns to the Integrity Commission in two weeks was quite puzzling and as time ticks by it seems it was a fit of pique prompted by the PNCR’s jibe that a forensic scrutiny of finances should apply not only to customs officers.
Whatever his motivation, President Jagdeo was clearly out of order and his administration is now attempting to retrieve the situation aided by responsible and mature responses by the Parliamentary opposition.
Let us be crystal clear here. The entire country wants to see accountability to the highest degree but it wants to see it across the board and relative to every single public official. It dosen’t want President Jagdeo to cherry-pick which of the public officials should be held accountable.
If President Jagdeo’s demarche on the MPs was to have credibility the net should have been cast far wider. The President could have said that in light of the PNCR’s call he would enquire from the Integrity Commission whether each and every one of the public officers falling under its jurisdiction including the opposition MPs had filed their respective returns and if they weren’t he would urge the Commission to take the necessary steps. Even that would have been too heavy-handed as this commission is intended to function independently of any direction but at least the public would have been more sympathetic.
The more telling point is that if the Integrity Commission had been functioning there would have been no need for President Jagdeo to even trouble himself with this ill-considered ultimatum. The Commission would have been receiving reams of returns, would have been convening inquiries of various types and would have been tendering the relevant reports to the Office of the President so that President Jagdeo would have been well aware of the extent of compliance.
Clause 19 of the Act says that where a person within the ambit of the Act fails to file a declaration or to furnish particulars, the Commission or the President as the case may be shall publish the fact in the Official Gazette and in a daily newspaper. In the 11 years that the Commission has been in existence it is unclear if this has ever been done. It is a remarkable record. Dozens of public officials have apparently complied scrupulously with the tenets of the legislation. It is more likely the case that public officials have paid very little attention to the Commission and that in its state of suspended animation the Commission has not bothered to fuss over it.
Under Clause 22, defaulters are liable to prosecution but there is no evidence that the necessary processes have been pursued for charges to be brought. Remarkable indeed.
Clause 30 permits the Commission on the receipt of compelling complaints from members of the public to initiate public sittings to hear arguments. None has been convened as far as we can tell.
Because we are a society filled with persons prone to offering inducements, Clause 32 sets out what public officials must do in relation to gifts they receive. The Commission has the authority to order that gifts deemed to be inducements be delivered to the minister with responsibility for finance. Again there is no evidence of this and if the Commission had been functioning energetically the President would have been in possession of the various reports.
But that has not been the case and the person who has to be blamed for it is President Jagdeo. The Commission was simply not operating at an adequate level. The Chairman, Bishop George, had tendered his resignation two years ago. How could this small body properly function without a Chairman? Any why did the President not attempt to find a new candidate in the last two years? Clause 5 (2) of the Integrity Commission Act says simply that “The Chairman or any other member may resign by letter addressed to the President”. Matter finished. Whether the Chairman had been bullied out of the position as President Jagdeo contended is immaterial. President Jagdeo’s obligation was to get cracking on finding a replacement.
Interestingly consultations have suddenly been held between PM Hinds, performing the functions of President, and the Opposition Leader Mr Corbin on two new candidates. This consultation with the Opposition Leader should have been done a long time ago and might have rendered unnecessary the long-delayed case that was brought by the PNCR against the old Integrity Commission.
One wonders though whether this consultation is adequate and would be immune to legal challenges in the future as it was not held by President Jagdeo. Whatever the outcome, we hope that the appointments of the new members of the Commission will comply with the requirements set out in the Act. The only other reservation would be why go through this exercise if there is to be a total revamping of the Commission in line with the Bradford report as pointed out by the AFC. Is this report another example of the wasteful consultancies funded by multilateral institutions that the government still indulges and then criticizes conveniently? Before the recomposing of the Commission is finalized the government and Parliament need to be very clear about the Bradford Report and what has been agreed.
And we shouldn’t stop at the Integrity Commission. The President has a knack for making the right noises about some accountability mechanisms while ignoring others or working against them. In the middle of the dolphin export scam, this administration hounded out from office the best Auditor General the country had seen in a while so that it could prevent any embarrassing disclosures about this case. Why the Presidential advisor who was ensnared in the dolphin business was not immediately banished from any role in public life remains unclear.
Further, the ruling party has stood in the way of the appointment of the critical Public Procurement Commission which is intended to oversee the channelling of contracts worth billions of dollars through the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board. Why has this government been so cavalier about this?
Are the President and his government interested in exposing and prosecuting the networks of drug dealers that have given this country a notorious image for sending cocaine abroad in all manner of items? If so why then has the anti-money laundering legislation never been used and why has the Financial Intelligence Unit not functioned robustly?
Is the President really interested in probing the rampage of the death squads and the people who financed them? Is he interested in holding his government fully accountable for what happened during this period?
Finally, the most productive way to ensure transparency across the board is to empower the average citizen to police their governors and public officials. Is President Jagdeo now prepared to support the straight-forward but effective Freedom of Information legislation that has been lying in Parliament for too long or will his acolytes barefacedly tell the House that the country is not ready for it as they did on the recent motion for live, unedited broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings?
If the President is serious about ensuring accountability and transparency in this country there are myriad areas for him to act and to act decisively.
Posted By Staff On February 2, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 4 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/editorial/accountability-across-the-board/print/
As the Sunday Stabroek editorial of January 25th noted, President Jagdeo’s ultimatum on January 19th that MPs deliver up returns to the Integrity Commission in two weeks was quite puzzling and as time ticks by it seems it was a fit of pique prompted by the PNCR’s jibe that a forensic scrutiny of finances should apply not only to customs officers.
Whatever his motivation, President Jagdeo was clearly out of order and his administration is now attempting to retrieve the situation aided by responsible and mature responses by the Parliamentary opposition.
Let us be crystal clear here. The entire country wants to see accountability to the highest degree but it wants to see it across the board and relative to every single public official. It dosen’t want President Jagdeo to cherry-pick which of the public officials should be held accountable.
If President Jagdeo’s demarche on the MPs was to have credibility the net should have been cast far wider. The President could have said that in light of the PNCR’s call he would enquire from the Integrity Commission whether each and every one of the public officers falling under its jurisdiction including the opposition MPs had filed their respective returns and if they weren’t he would urge the Commission to take the necessary steps. Even that would have been too heavy-handed as this commission is intended to function independently of any direction but at least the public would have been more sympathetic.
The more telling point is that if the Integrity Commission had been functioning there would have been no need for President Jagdeo to even trouble himself with this ill-considered ultimatum. The Commission would have been receiving reams of returns, would have been convening inquiries of various types and would have been tendering the relevant reports to the Office of the President so that President Jagdeo would have been well aware of the extent of compliance.
Clause 19 of the Act says that where a person within the ambit of the Act fails to file a declaration or to furnish particulars, the Commission or the President as the case may be shall publish the fact in the Official Gazette and in a daily newspaper. In the 11 years that the Commission has been in existence it is unclear if this has ever been done. It is a remarkable record. Dozens of public officials have apparently complied scrupulously with the tenets of the legislation. It is more likely the case that public officials have paid very little attention to the Commission and that in its state of suspended animation the Commission has not bothered to fuss over it.
Under Clause 22, defaulters are liable to prosecution but there is no evidence that the necessary processes have been pursued for charges to be brought. Remarkable indeed.
Clause 30 permits the Commission on the receipt of compelling complaints from members of the public to initiate public sittings to hear arguments. None has been convened as far as we can tell.
Because we are a society filled with persons prone to offering inducements, Clause 32 sets out what public officials must do in relation to gifts they receive. The Commission has the authority to order that gifts deemed to be inducements be delivered to the minister with responsibility for finance. Again there is no evidence of this and if the Commission had been functioning energetically the President would have been in possession of the various reports.
But that has not been the case and the person who has to be blamed for it is President Jagdeo. The Commission was simply not operating at an adequate level. The Chairman, Bishop George, had tendered his resignation two years ago. How could this small body properly function without a Chairman? Any why did the President not attempt to find a new candidate in the last two years? Clause 5 (2) of the Integrity Commission Act says simply that “The Chairman or any other member may resign by letter addressed to the President”. Matter finished. Whether the Chairman had been bullied out of the position as President Jagdeo contended is immaterial. President Jagdeo’s obligation was to get cracking on finding a replacement.
Interestingly consultations have suddenly been held between PM Hinds, performing the functions of President, and the Opposition Leader Mr Corbin on two new candidates. This consultation with the Opposition Leader should have been done a long time ago and might have rendered unnecessary the long-delayed case that was brought by the PNCR against the old Integrity Commission.
One wonders though whether this consultation is adequate and would be immune to legal challenges in the future as it was not held by President Jagdeo. Whatever the outcome, we hope that the appointments of the new members of the Commission will comply with the requirements set out in the Act. The only other reservation would be why go through this exercise if there is to be a total revamping of the Commission in line with the Bradford report as pointed out by the AFC. Is this report another example of the wasteful consultancies funded by multilateral institutions that the government still indulges and then criticizes conveniently? Before the recomposing of the Commission is finalized the government and Parliament need to be very clear about the Bradford Report and what has been agreed.
And we shouldn’t stop at the Integrity Commission. The President has a knack for making the right noises about some accountability mechanisms while ignoring others or working against them. In the middle of the dolphin export scam, this administration hounded out from office the best Auditor General the country had seen in a while so that it could prevent any embarrassing disclosures about this case. Why the Presidential advisor who was ensnared in the dolphin business was not immediately banished from any role in public life remains unclear.
Further, the ruling party has stood in the way of the appointment of the critical Public Procurement Commission which is intended to oversee the channelling of contracts worth billions of dollars through the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board. Why has this government been so cavalier about this?
Are the President and his government interested in exposing and prosecuting the networks of drug dealers that have given this country a notorious image for sending cocaine abroad in all manner of items? If so why then has the anti-money laundering legislation never been used and why has the Financial Intelligence Unit not functioned robustly?
Is the President really interested in probing the rampage of the death squads and the people who financed them? Is he interested in holding his government fully accountable for what happened during this period?
Finally, the most productive way to ensure transparency across the board is to empower the average citizen to police their governors and public officials. Is President Jagdeo now prepared to support the straight-forward but effective Freedom of Information legislation that has been lying in Parliament for too long or will his acolytes barefacedly tell the House that the country is not ready for it as they did on the recent motion for live, unedited broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings?
If the President is serious about ensuring accountability and transparency in this country there are myriad areas for him to act and to act decisively.
There are grave inconsistencies in Govt.’s view of the operations of GuySuCo
There are grave inconsistencies in Govt.’s view of the operations of GuySuCo
February 2, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Letters
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/02/02/there-are-grave-inconsistencies-in-govt%E2%80%99s-view-of-the-operations-of-guysuco/
Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter from Donald Ramotar captioned “Guysuco will rebound”, and Ravi Dev’s article, “Sugar and Trust”, both of which were featured in Kaieteur News edition of 1st February 2009.
I would first like to record my appreciation of Ramotar’s impeccable integrity as a politician — a rather rare quality among some local politicians. However, I have difficulty in accepting Ramotar’s statement as carried in his letter that, “I know that the corporation has been accused of having massive corruption, but I have not seen any evidence of the kind of corruption being spoken about. GuySuCo’s accounts are audited annually. The audits have been done by some of the top accounting firms in the country. At no time did any of those audits show massive corruption in the corporation.”
When Ramotar’s statement is juxtaposed to what was said by the Minister of Agriculture at the press conference at the Office of the President on 14th January 2009, it amounts to grave inconsistencies. In the Minister’s statement that was carried in the SN, “Sugar shake-up”, on 15th February, he stated that: “Commenting on corruption in the industry the internal audits have pointed to practices of malfeasance and corruption. “… just talk to people on the ground and you will hear the most horrid stories.” Ramotar would need the Honourable Minister to share with him the audited reports that expose those practices of malfeasance and corruption, and to endeavour, as a member of the board, to spend more time “on the ground” to hear the same “horrid stories” of corruption as the Minister did. The nation therefore looks forward to the stance of the board of directors on those cases of “corruption and malfeasance” that are in the privileged possession of the Minister.
Secondly, Ramotar spoke about the establishment of an agriculture audit unit that picks up on issues of agriculture and report on them. This is quite a commendable decision by this board to establish such a unit; because, as an agriculture-based entity, proper checks and balances on the various operations ought to be an operational imperative. On the other hand, the Government, having recognised that the East Demerara Estates were performing miserably, appointed a commission of enquiry to investigate the causes behind such decline.
The commission having completed its investigation, it’s quite unfortunate that no pronouncement has yet been made, either by the company or the Government, on the report of the commission. I do recall sometime ago the chairman of the commission, Vic Oudit, disclosing to the media that mismanagement and lack of attention to the cultivation are the main reasons for the decline of the estates. If the company has failed to act on the report of a government-appointed commission of enquiry, would it, or the board, for that matter, act on the findings of the internal agricultural audit unit?
I wish to commend Ravi Dev on his article that’s very incisive and analytical on the marketing of sugar by GuySuCo, and for his mature and loyal stance by advocating that “the sugar industry is our national patrimony and we can ill afford to try to score political points in this hour of its crisis. We invite all political and civil groupings to get behind the new GuySuCo team as it is assembled.” Indubitably, the sugar company is at a cross road; its very existence is being threatened, and quite undoubtedly, it’s in this poor state at this time not only because of unfavourable weather conditions and strikes, but due also in some significant measure to poor leadership and management by Booker Tate. I agree with Dev that, in the current circumstance, if GuySuCo is to “rebound”, there cannot be room for political grandstanding and hubris.
I think management and the board need to take Dev’s views on the functions, or dysfunctional aspects, of the company’s marketing department on board. Like Dev and other commentators, I also believe that either some form of “malfeasance” is involved by GuySuCo, or it hasn’t done careful planning that caused the unfortunate and rather shameful decision to import sugar from Guatemala for local consumption.
Ramotar has certainly aroused the motivational instincts of the local managers when he admirably stated that he “believe that the vast majority of those people that I came into contact with are people of integrity and a hard working and dedicated group. The local managers are very capable, and all Guyanese should be proud of such a committed group.” The new interim board needs to garner the support of the local managers if its “turn around plan” is to be successful.
Finally, I wish to applaud the unequivocal optimism displayed by both Ramotar and Dev that the sugar industry would remain, and the immediate panacea for its survival, as Dev so eloquently says, is “the time for politics as usual is over”. Ramotar, Dev and other key stakeholders, therefore, would have to be on the same side of the divide for the sake of the survival of the sugar industry.
Parsuram Persaud
Albany,
New York, USA
February 2, 2009 | By knews | Filed Under Letters
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/2009/02/02/there-are-grave-inconsistencies-in-govt%E2%80%99s-view-of-the-operations-of-guysuco/
Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter from Donald Ramotar captioned “Guysuco will rebound”, and Ravi Dev’s article, “Sugar and Trust”, both of which were featured in Kaieteur News edition of 1st February 2009.
I would first like to record my appreciation of Ramotar’s impeccable integrity as a politician — a rather rare quality among some local politicians. However, I have difficulty in accepting Ramotar’s statement as carried in his letter that, “I know that the corporation has been accused of having massive corruption, but I have not seen any evidence of the kind of corruption being spoken about. GuySuCo’s accounts are audited annually. The audits have been done by some of the top accounting firms in the country. At no time did any of those audits show massive corruption in the corporation.”
When Ramotar’s statement is juxtaposed to what was said by the Minister of Agriculture at the press conference at the Office of the President on 14th January 2009, it amounts to grave inconsistencies. In the Minister’s statement that was carried in the SN, “Sugar shake-up”, on 15th February, he stated that: “Commenting on corruption in the industry the internal audits have pointed to practices of malfeasance and corruption. “… just talk to people on the ground and you will hear the most horrid stories.” Ramotar would need the Honourable Minister to share with him the audited reports that expose those practices of malfeasance and corruption, and to endeavour, as a member of the board, to spend more time “on the ground” to hear the same “horrid stories” of corruption as the Minister did. The nation therefore looks forward to the stance of the board of directors on those cases of “corruption and malfeasance” that are in the privileged possession of the Minister.
Secondly, Ramotar spoke about the establishment of an agriculture audit unit that picks up on issues of agriculture and report on them. This is quite a commendable decision by this board to establish such a unit; because, as an agriculture-based entity, proper checks and balances on the various operations ought to be an operational imperative. On the other hand, the Government, having recognised that the East Demerara Estates were performing miserably, appointed a commission of enquiry to investigate the causes behind such decline.
The commission having completed its investigation, it’s quite unfortunate that no pronouncement has yet been made, either by the company or the Government, on the report of the commission. I do recall sometime ago the chairman of the commission, Vic Oudit, disclosing to the media that mismanagement and lack of attention to the cultivation are the main reasons for the decline of the estates. If the company has failed to act on the report of a government-appointed commission of enquiry, would it, or the board, for that matter, act on the findings of the internal agricultural audit unit?
I wish to commend Ravi Dev on his article that’s very incisive and analytical on the marketing of sugar by GuySuCo, and for his mature and loyal stance by advocating that “the sugar industry is our national patrimony and we can ill afford to try to score political points in this hour of its crisis. We invite all political and civil groupings to get behind the new GuySuCo team as it is assembled.” Indubitably, the sugar company is at a cross road; its very existence is being threatened, and quite undoubtedly, it’s in this poor state at this time not only because of unfavourable weather conditions and strikes, but due also in some significant measure to poor leadership and management by Booker Tate. I agree with Dev that, in the current circumstance, if GuySuCo is to “rebound”, there cannot be room for political grandstanding and hubris.
I think management and the board need to take Dev’s views on the functions, or dysfunctional aspects, of the company’s marketing department on board. Like Dev and other commentators, I also believe that either some form of “malfeasance” is involved by GuySuCo, or it hasn’t done careful planning that caused the unfortunate and rather shameful decision to import sugar from Guatemala for local consumption.
Ramotar has certainly aroused the motivational instincts of the local managers when he admirably stated that he “believe that the vast majority of those people that I came into contact with are people of integrity and a hard working and dedicated group. The local managers are very capable, and all Guyanese should be proud of such a committed group.” The new interim board needs to garner the support of the local managers if its “turn around plan” is to be successful.
Finally, I wish to applaud the unequivocal optimism displayed by both Ramotar and Dev that the sugar industry would remain, and the immediate panacea for its survival, as Dev so eloquently says, is “the time for politics as usual is over”. Ramotar, Dev and other key stakeholders, therefore, would have to be on the same side of the divide for the sake of the survival of the sugar industry.
Parsuram Persaud
Albany,
New York, USA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)