Kaieteur News Editorial, Thursday 18 March 2010. Freedom of information.
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/03/18/freedom-of-information/
March 18, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under Editorial
It is absolutely necessary for the government and people of Guyana to pursue greater freedom of information, within reasonable boundaries, if they hope to achieve true democracy and good governance. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights in democratic nations, and are enshrined in Guyana’s constitution. However, these rights are often trampled by persons who want to keep the public in the dark about matters that ought to be exposed in the public’s interest. The truth is for freedom of speech and freedom of the press to be meaningful they must be complemented with freedom of information.
Those who draw a shroud of secrecy over vital information about public issues for partisan reasons, deny the people of Guyana their right to be fully informed about matters that deeply affect their lives.
This was one of the issues determined by the courts when Vieira Communications moved to the courts to challenge the seizure of its radio transmitting equipment.
The court found that by not granting radio licences the government was denying the rights of the people. When the question of additional radio licences first surfaces, Prime Minister Sam Hinds admitted that to relax the monopoly was to threaten the very existence of the state owned radio station; that the station could not compete.
Since the ruling of the court, no new radio station has emerged. But this is not because people have not made applications for such licences.
Any nation that is in fact on the road to democracy cannot steer clear of enacting and enforcing powerful legislation to guarantee freedom of information, as a catalyst for genuinely free speech and free media.
Unfortunately, persons in Guyana, particularly officials who are involved in activities that affect the public welfare, can easily block or delay access to information about their activities and steep their actions in secrecy and evasion.
Many officials bluntly refuse to reveal information on public issues, even when their refusal clearly compromises the public interest. In many cases, they do so without giving any reason and it is difficult to hold them accountable. That is the reason why there is a move to have a Freedom of Information Act. Not surprisingly, this piece of promised legislation is failing to see the light of day.
The first time it was tabled the government with its parliamentary majority said that it would not support the legislation. It was the same when the parliamentary opposition sought to introduce the Broadcast Legislation. The government said that it was not prepared to support the legislation.
Guyana cannot progress towards democracy without facilitating a flow of public information that enhances democratic rights. This means ensuring that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure informed debate on public issues, exposure of wrongdoings, protection of the public from danger, accountability for public funds, etc.
It is essential that there is reasonable access to information to make certain that the public is not misled, authorities properly discharge their responsibilities, and the Guyanese people are dealt with fairly.
Of course, there must be appropriate grounds for refusing information. Clearly, there cannot be total freedom of information regarding national security matters, certain court proceedings and police activities. Also, there would be restrictions related to information whose disclosure is prohibited by particular laws. Furthermore, citizens must have reasonable rights to privacy and the withholding of personal information, but this exemption should be flexible, particularly with respect to officials acting in official capacities.
It would be practical for exemptions to the public’s right to freedom of information, to be subjected to the public interest test. If disclosure would clearly be beneficial to the public’s interest, then the onus should be on the person or agency seeking secrecy to show why information should not be disclosed. It would be useful to establish a carefully constituted, independent authority with the power to compel disclosure of information in the public’s interest.
Guyana should definitely move towards greater disclosure of information on public issues and progressively enact appropriate legislation to facilitate this.
ENDS
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Stabroek News Editorial. 21 March 2010. Self image.
Stabroek News Editorial. 21 March 2010. Self image. http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/editorial/03/21/self-image/
By Stabroek staff | March 21, 2010 in Editorial
Political arrangements in Guyana are complicated, and have been made even more complicated by the new provisions for local government elections which contain elements of both a constituency and a proportional representation system. Those new provisions have already been passed by the National Assembly (albeit not with the backing of the opposition), and would technically make possible the holding of local government elections whenever the government so decides. However, should such elections be held at this point, for example, it would be in a context where the actual form of local government which we will eventually end up with has not yet been fully clarified.
The story behind the proposals to reform local government is a long and convoluted one. However, it has two consistent threads: one is the determination of the ruling party to maintain central government control over local authorities, and the other, is the insistence of the opposition that power should be devolved from the centre to the various local bodies. The PPP are obviously not seized of the notion that at some point in the future they might be voted out of office, and that if that came to pass, a decentralized system would be to their advantage. As such, therefore, they have proved quite obdurate in their approach, if not manipulative, and it will not be easy for them to persuade anyone that they have been acting entirely in good faith in the last few years.
The story begins in 2001, when President Jagdeo and then Leader of the Opposition Desmond Hoyte agreed on the setting up of a Local Government Task Force, to be jointly chaired by the two major parties. The principle to which these two parties, as well as those which came into Parliament after the 2006 election, committed themselves, was that local government elections which had been postponed since 1997 should be held under a reformed system. While the meetings (originally intended to last only a year) were not without their periods of interruption, the task force did get under way, and went on to sit for around eight years without achieving accord in certain critical areas.
Now it might be thought by the casual observer that the way for them to have proceeded would have been to create a single omnibus piece of legislation covering all aspects of local government. In fact, what was done was to negotiate the provisions of five separate bills, or amendments to existing acts. These were the Fiscal Transfers Bill, the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, the Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Bill, the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Bill and the Local Government Commission Bill. (The last two have since been passed by the National Assembly without opposition support.) This approach with its implications for logical order has allowed room for all kinds of manoeuvrings, to which we will return later.
Particularly in its latter phases, the task force was subject to various delays, the key ones of which could be laid at the door of PPP Co-Chair Clinton Collymore. Whatever his intentions, he conveyed the distinct impression that first, he was attempting to stall proceedings, and then that he wanted to transfer the deliberations to a forum where his party exercised greater control. In October 2008, for example, he had written a memorandum recommending that owing to a deadlock on the task force, the remaining issues should be taken up by Cabinet. The opposition objected vehemently, not least because he had no authority to do this, and was acting in defiance of the terms of reference under which the task force had been set up. He was forced to retreat on that occasion; however, undaunted, in April of last year he unilaterally ended the discussions, because, he said, members were split on the agenda for their work.
While he was on no more solid ground than he had been on the first occasion, nevertheless, thereafter, the President moved local government reform to the parliamentary theatre where three of the bills are now mired in Select Committee. In brief, the opposition are not represented on the committee because they have refused to take up their seats there. They have said that the understanding with the ruling party was that the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, which as explained above would make possible the holding of elections, was intended to reflect all of the amendments to the different local government bills when the work on these had been completed.
The government, however, did not table all the bills in the National Assembly simultaneously; they tabled the above-mentioned bill first. According to the opposition, they then used this as an excuse to depart from the agreed agenda for the consideration of the bills in the Select Committee, arguing that they should be reviewed in the sequence in which they had been tabled in Parliament. Since they have a majority, this deviation from the agenda presented no problem for them. After the PPP/C members in the Select Committee had finished with the bill, it went to the House, where government members alone passed it without, as said above, support from the opposition.
The same fate befell the Local Government Commission Bill, which had always been a matter of contention. Under the existing law, the Minister of Local Government has considerable direct control over local authorities, and the proposal was, among other things, to transfer various of those powers to a commission. Under the new legislation, that has been done; the problem is that the government, to all intents and purposes, is responsible for the appointment of all six members of the new commission. Whereas previously, therefore, there was direct control by central government (through the agency of the Local Government Minister), now there is indirect control (mostly through the agency of the President) – a small change of emphasis, perhaps, but certainly not one of substance.
We are now left with three bills outstanding for the Select Committee’s consideration, one of which is of a particularly contentious nature, and that is the Fiscal Transfers Bill. As things stand central government has a great measure of control over the purse strings of the local authorities, and for obvious reasons, the ruling party has shown no enthusiasm for relinquishing this. Financial independence on the part of the regions and councils, etc, would imply some degree of independence of decision-making, something which has always been anathema to the ruling party. In its current format in the Select Committee, the new bill would still allocate the Minister of Local Government considerable discretion.
It is at this point that it might just have crossed the minds of the PPP/C, that their intractability may have a price which is too high to pay. If they use their majority in the House to ram through the remaining legislation, or if they hold local government elections with the Fiscal Transfers Bill especially still outstanding, they run a very real risk of presiding over a flawed election in some sense, particularly if it were held without the co-operation of all segments of the opposition. This would reflect badly in the international arena, not on the opposition, but on the government. We reported an unnamed PPP official last week as saying that the party wanted to avoid “controversy” in relation to the election. We can read this, no doubt, as meaning that they do not want to be bracketed in a category which has a less than democratic patina. A controversial election, in other words, would undermine their own self image.
Perhaps this is the reason the President met with the Leader of the Opposition the week before last, and undertook to have his concerns discussed at the level of the PPP Central Committee. One can only hope that PPP General Secretary Ramotar’s disingenuous remarks about who was responsible for the delays notwithstanding, the rest of the Central Committee has a better grasp of what is at issue, and even at this late stage commits itself to genuine devolution.
By Stabroek staff | March 21, 2010 in Editorial
Political arrangements in Guyana are complicated, and have been made even more complicated by the new provisions for local government elections which contain elements of both a constituency and a proportional representation system. Those new provisions have already been passed by the National Assembly (albeit not with the backing of the opposition), and would technically make possible the holding of local government elections whenever the government so decides. However, should such elections be held at this point, for example, it would be in a context where the actual form of local government which we will eventually end up with has not yet been fully clarified.
The story behind the proposals to reform local government is a long and convoluted one. However, it has two consistent threads: one is the determination of the ruling party to maintain central government control over local authorities, and the other, is the insistence of the opposition that power should be devolved from the centre to the various local bodies. The PPP are obviously not seized of the notion that at some point in the future they might be voted out of office, and that if that came to pass, a decentralized system would be to their advantage. As such, therefore, they have proved quite obdurate in their approach, if not manipulative, and it will not be easy for them to persuade anyone that they have been acting entirely in good faith in the last few years.
The story begins in 2001, when President Jagdeo and then Leader of the Opposition Desmond Hoyte agreed on the setting up of a Local Government Task Force, to be jointly chaired by the two major parties. The principle to which these two parties, as well as those which came into Parliament after the 2006 election, committed themselves, was that local government elections which had been postponed since 1997 should be held under a reformed system. While the meetings (originally intended to last only a year) were not without their periods of interruption, the task force did get under way, and went on to sit for around eight years without achieving accord in certain critical areas.
Now it might be thought by the casual observer that the way for them to have proceeded would have been to create a single omnibus piece of legislation covering all aspects of local government. In fact, what was done was to negotiate the provisions of five separate bills, or amendments to existing acts. These were the Fiscal Transfers Bill, the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, the Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Bill, the Local Authorities (Elections) (Amendment) Bill and the Local Government Commission Bill. (The last two have since been passed by the National Assembly without opposition support.) This approach with its implications for logical order has allowed room for all kinds of manoeuvrings, to which we will return later.
Particularly in its latter phases, the task force was subject to various delays, the key ones of which could be laid at the door of PPP Co-Chair Clinton Collymore. Whatever his intentions, he conveyed the distinct impression that first, he was attempting to stall proceedings, and then that he wanted to transfer the deliberations to a forum where his party exercised greater control. In October 2008, for example, he had written a memorandum recommending that owing to a deadlock on the task force, the remaining issues should be taken up by Cabinet. The opposition objected vehemently, not least because he had no authority to do this, and was acting in defiance of the terms of reference under which the task force had been set up. He was forced to retreat on that occasion; however, undaunted, in April of last year he unilaterally ended the discussions, because, he said, members were split on the agenda for their work.
While he was on no more solid ground than he had been on the first occasion, nevertheless, thereafter, the President moved local government reform to the parliamentary theatre where three of the bills are now mired in Select Committee. In brief, the opposition are not represented on the committee because they have refused to take up their seats there. They have said that the understanding with the ruling party was that the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, which as explained above would make possible the holding of elections, was intended to reflect all of the amendments to the different local government bills when the work on these had been completed.
The government, however, did not table all the bills in the National Assembly simultaneously; they tabled the above-mentioned bill first. According to the opposition, they then used this as an excuse to depart from the agreed agenda for the consideration of the bills in the Select Committee, arguing that they should be reviewed in the sequence in which they had been tabled in Parliament. Since they have a majority, this deviation from the agenda presented no problem for them. After the PPP/C members in the Select Committee had finished with the bill, it went to the House, where government members alone passed it without, as said above, support from the opposition.
The same fate befell the Local Government Commission Bill, which had always been a matter of contention. Under the existing law, the Minister of Local Government has considerable direct control over local authorities, and the proposal was, among other things, to transfer various of those powers to a commission. Under the new legislation, that has been done; the problem is that the government, to all intents and purposes, is responsible for the appointment of all six members of the new commission. Whereas previously, therefore, there was direct control by central government (through the agency of the Local Government Minister), now there is indirect control (mostly through the agency of the President) – a small change of emphasis, perhaps, but certainly not one of substance.
We are now left with three bills outstanding for the Select Committee’s consideration, one of which is of a particularly contentious nature, and that is the Fiscal Transfers Bill. As things stand central government has a great measure of control over the purse strings of the local authorities, and for obvious reasons, the ruling party has shown no enthusiasm for relinquishing this. Financial independence on the part of the regions and councils, etc, would imply some degree of independence of decision-making, something which has always been anathema to the ruling party. In its current format in the Select Committee, the new bill would still allocate the Minister of Local Government considerable discretion.
It is at this point that it might just have crossed the minds of the PPP/C, that their intractability may have a price which is too high to pay. If they use their majority in the House to ram through the remaining legislation, or if they hold local government elections with the Fiscal Transfers Bill especially still outstanding, they run a very real risk of presiding over a flawed election in some sense, particularly if it were held without the co-operation of all segments of the opposition. This would reflect badly in the international arena, not on the opposition, but on the government. We reported an unnamed PPP official last week as saying that the party wanted to avoid “controversy” in relation to the election. We can read this, no doubt, as meaning that they do not want to be bracketed in a category which has a less than democratic patina. A controversial election, in other words, would undermine their own self image.
Perhaps this is the reason the President met with the Leader of the Opposition the week before last, and undertook to have his concerns discussed at the level of the PPP Central Committee. One can only hope that PPP General Secretary Ramotar’s disingenuous remarks about who was responsible for the delays notwithstanding, the rest of the Central Committee has a better grasp of what is at issue, and even at this late stage commits itself to genuine devolution.
GAPA has been resuscitated to misinform farmers and create confusion
Kaieteur News letter. 21 March 2010. GAPA has been resuscitated to misinform farmers and create confusion. http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/03/21/gapa-has-been-resuscitated-to-misinform-farmers-and-create-confusion/
March 21, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under Letters
Dear Editor,
The article appearing in newspapers of 16 March, 2010, based on a press release from GAPA, describes the Guyana Agricultural Producers Association as a non-governmental group, when in fact it was launched as a PPP front group in the latter part of the 1070’s.
I was one of the leading members of the group. At the time I was also the General Secretary of the Guyana Cane Farmers Association and shared the same office facilities with GAPA and the Guyana Rice Producers Association. We were also a PPP front organisation, but we offered vibrant mass support to all cane farmers in the country, backed by the PPP and its organ, the Mirror newspaper.
Under the instruction of Dr Jagan, in the latter part of the 1970’s, the group was headed by the veteran PPP Organiser, Pariag Sukhai, who later became a Member of Parliament. The sole intention of GAPA was to assist small farmers engaged in cash crop farming to demand better prices and farming conditions from the PNC dictatorship.
Pariag, who is still alive, can attest to this fact, since he became its first President. It was not legally incorporated, as the Guyana Rice Producers Association and was therefore not held accountable by law.
GAPA was resuscitated by the Ameridian Minister Pauline Sukhai and Robert Persuad last year to enhance the image of the Jagdeo- Persaud regime, to actively misinform farmers and create confusion among the farming community.
This current outfit has become part of the Stalinist method of misrule and control by the powers that be. It does not matter which vehicle the Jagdeo regime uses to spread its lies and misinformation, people will not buy its propaganda. The reality is - a major crisis is going to face the country soon and no amount of smoke screen will blow things away.
Already the cost of living is reaching a high point and the blame is solidly placed on the arrogant and talkative Minister of Agriculture and those officials in the Ministry of Agriculture due to their failure to pump water in all the conservancies in the latter part of last year, which would have prevented the current hardships facing all farmers and consequently all workers and all citizens.
We do not have the same crisis in neighbouring Suriname, why? Because of the level of importance shown by those who are in government. Where – then - does the buck stops? Certainly the Jagdeo administration must be held to account and specifically his inexperienced relative, Montgomery Robert Persaud. All will agree that such levels of incompetence will not be tolerated in other countries. The Minister would have been out of a job, but here, the person is promoted to higher office.
The unwarranted attack on the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) General Secretary Norris Witter, claiming that he has been attempting to politicize the national response to the global El Nino phenomenon, is a vain attempt to divert the nation’s attention from the appalling mishandling of the current weather situation. The workers will be faced with severe food shortages and high prices and it is the role and duty of the trade union leaders to defend the welfare and well-being of its members and society at large.
M. Jinnah Rahman
March 21, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under Letters
Dear Editor,
The article appearing in newspapers of 16 March, 2010, based on a press release from GAPA, describes the Guyana Agricultural Producers Association as a non-governmental group, when in fact it was launched as a PPP front group in the latter part of the 1070’s.
I was one of the leading members of the group. At the time I was also the General Secretary of the Guyana Cane Farmers Association and shared the same office facilities with GAPA and the Guyana Rice Producers Association. We were also a PPP front organisation, but we offered vibrant mass support to all cane farmers in the country, backed by the PPP and its organ, the Mirror newspaper.
Under the instruction of Dr Jagan, in the latter part of the 1970’s, the group was headed by the veteran PPP Organiser, Pariag Sukhai, who later became a Member of Parliament. The sole intention of GAPA was to assist small farmers engaged in cash crop farming to demand better prices and farming conditions from the PNC dictatorship.
Pariag, who is still alive, can attest to this fact, since he became its first President. It was not legally incorporated, as the Guyana Rice Producers Association and was therefore not held accountable by law.
GAPA was resuscitated by the Ameridian Minister Pauline Sukhai and Robert Persuad last year to enhance the image of the Jagdeo- Persaud regime, to actively misinform farmers and create confusion among the farming community.
This current outfit has become part of the Stalinist method of misrule and control by the powers that be. It does not matter which vehicle the Jagdeo regime uses to spread its lies and misinformation, people will not buy its propaganda. The reality is - a major crisis is going to face the country soon and no amount of smoke screen will blow things away.
Already the cost of living is reaching a high point and the blame is solidly placed on the arrogant and talkative Minister of Agriculture and those officials in the Ministry of Agriculture due to their failure to pump water in all the conservancies in the latter part of last year, which would have prevented the current hardships facing all farmers and consequently all workers and all citizens.
We do not have the same crisis in neighbouring Suriname, why? Because of the level of importance shown by those who are in government. Where – then - does the buck stops? Certainly the Jagdeo administration must be held to account and specifically his inexperienced relative, Montgomery Robert Persaud. All will agree that such levels of incompetence will not be tolerated in other countries. The Minister would have been out of a job, but here, the person is promoted to higher office.
The unwarranted attack on the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) General Secretary Norris Witter, claiming that he has been attempting to politicize the national response to the global El Nino phenomenon, is a vain attempt to divert the nation’s attention from the appalling mishandling of the current weather situation. The workers will be faced with severe food shortages and high prices and it is the role and duty of the trade union leaders to defend the welfare and well-being of its members and society at large.
M. Jinnah Rahman
Saturday, March 13, 2010
$172Munaccounted for overseas travels up to 2006
$172Munaccounted for overseas travels up to 2006
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/03/13/172munaccounted-for-overseas-travels-up-to-2006/
March 13, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under News
- Finance Ministry fails to submit list of outstanding advances
Several weeks after the Ministry of Finance was mandated to submit a list of all outstanding conference advances, there is still to be compliance with the order.
When the Public Accounts Committee met in early February the officials were unable to provide the information and as such were mandated to provide the information by February 15.
To date this order has been not been complied with. Checks with the Committees Division of the Parliament of Guyana confirmed this but this newspaper was reliably informed that there has been an extension.
The matter is expected to come up for hearing on Monday when the Public Accounts Committee meets again.
On the date that the order was granted, the PAC was at the time scrutinising the expenditures of the Finance Ministry when it was pointed out that on a yearly basis there are several advances made to officials for overseas trips but it is never attested to on the Ministry’s books upon their return.
Shadow Finance Minister, Winston Murray, who is also a member of that Committee, said that in the interest of transparency and accountability this should be done because it is taxpayers’ monies that are handed over to the public officials without any account of what happens to it.
He questioned, also, why it is that the Ministry does not clear old advances before issuing new ones to the officials to travel again.
This, he suggested, must be done in order to ensure transparency, and questioned what happens to the money, “has it gone into their pockets?”
Murray was adamant that while this could very well not be the case until the accounts are straightened out then that inference could fairly be drawn.
“This is public money given to public officials to go overseas,” Murray reiterated.
According to the 2006 Auditor General report, “Conference advances continued to be uncleared long after they have been granted.”
It was pointed out that at the time of that audit, in March 2007, there were 377 advances totaling $91.1M for the years 2003 to 2005 that remained unclear.
During the period under review, namely 2006, according to the Conference Advances Register, amounts totaling $180.103M were expended on 287 overseas conferences and official visits of which 131 advances totaling $57.603M remained outstanding at the time of reporting.
The following year’s report stated that the Conference Advances Register revealed that for 2007 there were 138 advances totaling $51.239M, which were still to be cleared.
This was compounded by the fact that 195 advances totaling $64.973M for the years 2004 to 2006 are still to be cleared.
The Ministry at that time had stated that while some of the recipients were tardy in clearing their advances, others had submitted documentation to clear their advances, but due to the Department’s staffing situation, there were delays.
It was further stated that the delinquent officers were written to, requesting them to submit documentation to clear their advances.
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/03/13/172munaccounted-for-overseas-travels-up-to-2006/
March 13, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under News
- Finance Ministry fails to submit list of outstanding advances
Several weeks after the Ministry of Finance was mandated to submit a list of all outstanding conference advances, there is still to be compliance with the order.
When the Public Accounts Committee met in early February the officials were unable to provide the information and as such were mandated to provide the information by February 15.
To date this order has been not been complied with. Checks with the Committees Division of the Parliament of Guyana confirmed this but this newspaper was reliably informed that there has been an extension.
The matter is expected to come up for hearing on Monday when the Public Accounts Committee meets again.
On the date that the order was granted, the PAC was at the time scrutinising the expenditures of the Finance Ministry when it was pointed out that on a yearly basis there are several advances made to officials for overseas trips but it is never attested to on the Ministry’s books upon their return.
Shadow Finance Minister, Winston Murray, who is also a member of that Committee, said that in the interest of transparency and accountability this should be done because it is taxpayers’ monies that are handed over to the public officials without any account of what happens to it.
He questioned, also, why it is that the Ministry does not clear old advances before issuing new ones to the officials to travel again.
This, he suggested, must be done in order to ensure transparency, and questioned what happens to the money, “has it gone into their pockets?”
Murray was adamant that while this could very well not be the case until the accounts are straightened out then that inference could fairly be drawn.
“This is public money given to public officials to go overseas,” Murray reiterated.
According to the 2006 Auditor General report, “Conference advances continued to be uncleared long after they have been granted.”
It was pointed out that at the time of that audit, in March 2007, there were 377 advances totaling $91.1M for the years 2003 to 2005 that remained unclear.
During the period under review, namely 2006, according to the Conference Advances Register, amounts totaling $180.103M were expended on 287 overseas conferences and official visits of which 131 advances totaling $57.603M remained outstanding at the time of reporting.
The following year’s report stated that the Conference Advances Register revealed that for 2007 there were 138 advances totaling $51.239M, which were still to be cleared.
This was compounded by the fact that 195 advances totaling $64.973M for the years 2004 to 2006 are still to be cleared.
The Ministry at that time had stated that while some of the recipients were tardy in clearing their advances, others had submitted documentation to clear their advances, but due to the Department’s staffing situation, there were delays.
It was further stated that the delinquent officers were written to, requesting them to submit documentation to clear their advances.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Guyana up slightly in global competitiveness
Guyana up slightly in global competitiveness
Posted By Stabroek staff On March 11, 2010 @ 5:11 am In Local News | 11 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/03/11/guyana-up-slightly-in-global-competitiveness/
Guyana has moved up slightly on the Global Competitive-ness Index (GCI) 2009-2010 list, ranking 104 out of 133 countries in the annual report released by the World Economic Forum.
Last year the country had placed 115 out of 134 countries while in the 2007-2008 report it recorded a ranking of 126 out of 131.
The GCI listing is based on individual countries’ performance which is measured using 12 pillars as well as looking at the impact on business related issues such as crime, corruption, taxation, bureaucracy, inflation and stability among others.
The top ten ranked countries according to the report are Switzerland, the United States of America, Singapore, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Canada and the Netherlands.
The 12 pillars on which the index is built are institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication and innovation.
In the broad categorization of “basic requirements” which comprise the pillars of Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability and Health and Primary Educa-tion, Guyana ranked 105 out of the 134 countries with the average score of 3.69.
Under the category of “Institutions” Guyana scored 3.32 and recorded a rank of 103 while for the category of Infrastructure it scored 3.03 and achieved a rank of 91 out of 133 countries. Guyana also ranked 127 for macroeconomic stability achieving a score of 3.00. Under Health and primary education Guyana reach scored 5.41, which placed it at 67 of the 133 countries.
According to the report under the Efficiency Indica-tors the country achieved a rank of 107 with an average of 3.40. In the category of Higher Education and training the country pegged a score of 3.81 which placed it 78. Guyana recorded a rank of 96 and achieved a score of 3.91 for its Goods Market Efficiency. In the category of Labour Market Efficiency, the country scored 4.06 and achieved a ranking of 99. Financial Market Sophisti-cation saw the country ranking 94 with a score of 3.12 while under the category of Market Size, the country ranked 129 with its score of 1.78.
Under the broad grouping of Innovation and Sophisti-cation Factors the country recorded a rank of 110 with its score of 3.06. In the pillars which contribute to this category: “Business Sophisti-cation” and “Innovation”, Guyana ranked 94 and 121 respectively with respective scores of 3.60 and 2.52.
Concerning the Latin American and the Caribbean, the report said that several countries are realizing important advances “in the midst of a major external shock on export demand and financing availability, brought about by the current global economic crisis and lower commodity prices. The report said that this reflects the “rather strong footing of most of the countries in the region that enables them to weather the crisis, thanks to sounder macro-economic fundamentals achieved in recent years especially in the areas of reduced debt levels and increased foreign currency reserves”. The report said that although the average Gross Domestic Project (GDP) for the region was expected to contract by 1.9 percent during 2009, it is projected to start growing again in 2010 at 3.1 percent, which is a rate higher than the projected average world growth for 2010 which is 1.9 percent.
Posted By Stabroek staff On March 11, 2010 @ 5:11 am In Local News | 11 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/stories/03/11/guyana-up-slightly-in-global-competitiveness/
Guyana has moved up slightly on the Global Competitive-ness Index (GCI) 2009-2010 list, ranking 104 out of 133 countries in the annual report released by the World Economic Forum.
Last year the country had placed 115 out of 134 countries while in the 2007-2008 report it recorded a ranking of 126 out of 131.
The GCI listing is based on individual countries’ performance which is measured using 12 pillars as well as looking at the impact on business related issues such as crime, corruption, taxation, bureaucracy, inflation and stability among others.
The top ten ranked countries according to the report are Switzerland, the United States of America, Singapore, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Canada and the Netherlands.
The 12 pillars on which the index is built are institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication and innovation.
In the broad categorization of “basic requirements” which comprise the pillars of Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability and Health and Primary Educa-tion, Guyana ranked 105 out of the 134 countries with the average score of 3.69.
Under the category of “Institutions” Guyana scored 3.32 and recorded a rank of 103 while for the category of Infrastructure it scored 3.03 and achieved a rank of 91 out of 133 countries. Guyana also ranked 127 for macroeconomic stability achieving a score of 3.00. Under Health and primary education Guyana reach scored 5.41, which placed it at 67 of the 133 countries.
According to the report under the Efficiency Indica-tors the country achieved a rank of 107 with an average of 3.40. In the category of Higher Education and training the country pegged a score of 3.81 which placed it 78. Guyana recorded a rank of 96 and achieved a score of 3.91 for its Goods Market Efficiency. In the category of Labour Market Efficiency, the country scored 4.06 and achieved a ranking of 99. Financial Market Sophisti-cation saw the country ranking 94 with a score of 3.12 while under the category of Market Size, the country ranked 129 with its score of 1.78.
Under the broad grouping of Innovation and Sophisti-cation Factors the country recorded a rank of 110 with its score of 3.06. In the pillars which contribute to this category: “Business Sophisti-cation” and “Innovation”, Guyana ranked 94 and 121 respectively with respective scores of 3.60 and 2.52.
Concerning the Latin American and the Caribbean, the report said that several countries are realizing important advances “in the midst of a major external shock on export demand and financing availability, brought about by the current global economic crisis and lower commodity prices. The report said that this reflects the “rather strong footing of most of the countries in the region that enables them to weather the crisis, thanks to sounder macro-economic fundamentals achieved in recent years especially in the areas of reduced debt levels and increased foreign currency reserves”. The report said that although the average Gross Domestic Project (GDP) for the region was expected to contract by 1.9 percent during 2009, it is projected to start growing again in 2010 at 3.1 percent, which is a rate higher than the projected average world growth for 2010 which is 1.9 percent.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
PM rethinks discussing President’s overseas expenditures
News news item, Tuesday 16 February 2010. PM rethinks discussing President’s overseas expenditures
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/02/16/pm-rethinks-discussing-president%e2%80%99s-overseas-expenditures/
February 16, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under News
A statement by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds during the wrapping up of his presentation in the House last evening on the 2010 budget debates sparked a temporary bout of confusion when he attempted to defend the expenditures of President Bharrat Jagdeo’s overseas trips.
The moment the Prime Minister made mention of the fact that he wanted to address the issue, it immediately enticed the opposition to trigger a barrage of solicitations calling for him to disclose the expenditures.
At this point in time, Speaker of the House, Ralph Ramkarran, cautioned the Prime Minister that should he tread that path, then it would open the ‘flood gates’ and allow the opposition to voice their position on the issue unhindered and it would only be fair.
This seemingly stumped the Prime Minister on how to proceed with the matter and after some amount of visual consultation with his colleagues and a gesture by Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh, to the effect that he should not venture down that path, Hinds skirted the issue and took his seat.
The Prime Minister told the House that the President had many obligations which caused him to travel and meet with other leaders and potential investors.
The issue of the President’s overseas trips and the expenditure attached to them has been a bone of contention between the Opposition and the ruling party.
Only recently, politician and former Minister in the Guyana Government, Dr Richard Van-West Charles, said that President Bharrat Jagdeo needs to report more often to Parliament, especially as it relates to his overseas visits and their expenditures.
This, Van West Charles said, was particularly important, given that the members of the National Assembly have to approve the monies that he uses for his many overseas trips.
He said that the President has visited a great deal of countries but he has failed to inform the Members of Parliament exactly what has transpired on the trips overseas.
The Office of the President, specifically President Bharrat Jagdeo, has also come under fire in the media as it relates to the cost/benefits of his many trips overseas.
Leader of the Alliance for Change, Raphael Trotman, had charged that the President’s overseas trips over the past two and a half years, cost close to G$1B [USD 5 million].
This has since been refuted by Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh, who placed the figure of the expenses of the entire Government at about G$200M [USD 1 million], adding that a quick perusal of the estimates laid in the National Assembly could verify this.
Trotman has since said that he is standing by his position as it relates to the President’s expenditure.
In recent times, President Jagdeo has been to Iran, Kuwait, Dubai and Libya among numerous other state visits.
ENDS
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/02/16/pm-rethinks-discussing-president%e2%80%99s-overseas-expenditures/
February 16, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under News
A statement by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds during the wrapping up of his presentation in the House last evening on the 2010 budget debates sparked a temporary bout of confusion when he attempted to defend the expenditures of President Bharrat Jagdeo’s overseas trips.
The moment the Prime Minister made mention of the fact that he wanted to address the issue, it immediately enticed the opposition to trigger a barrage of solicitations calling for him to disclose the expenditures.
At this point in time, Speaker of the House, Ralph Ramkarran, cautioned the Prime Minister that should he tread that path, then it would open the ‘flood gates’ and allow the opposition to voice their position on the issue unhindered and it would only be fair.
This seemingly stumped the Prime Minister on how to proceed with the matter and after some amount of visual consultation with his colleagues and a gesture by Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh, to the effect that he should not venture down that path, Hinds skirted the issue and took his seat.
The Prime Minister told the House that the President had many obligations which caused him to travel and meet with other leaders and potential investors.
The issue of the President’s overseas trips and the expenditure attached to them has been a bone of contention between the Opposition and the ruling party.
Only recently, politician and former Minister in the Guyana Government, Dr Richard Van-West Charles, said that President Bharrat Jagdeo needs to report more often to Parliament, especially as it relates to his overseas visits and their expenditures.
This, Van West Charles said, was particularly important, given that the members of the National Assembly have to approve the monies that he uses for his many overseas trips.
He said that the President has visited a great deal of countries but he has failed to inform the Members of Parliament exactly what has transpired on the trips overseas.
The Office of the President, specifically President Bharrat Jagdeo, has also come under fire in the media as it relates to the cost/benefits of his many trips overseas.
Leader of the Alliance for Change, Raphael Trotman, had charged that the President’s overseas trips over the past two and a half years, cost close to G$1B [USD 5 million].
This has since been refuted by Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh, who placed the figure of the expenses of the entire Government at about G$200M [USD 1 million], adding that a quick perusal of the estimates laid in the National Assembly could verify this.
Trotman has since said that he is standing by his position as it relates to the President’s expenditure.
In recent times, President Jagdeo has been to Iran, Kuwait, Dubai and Libya among numerous other state visits.
ENDS
Friday, January 22, 2010
The constitution continues to be flouted in respect of the presidential assent
The constitution continues to be flouted in respect of the presidential assent
Posted By Stabroek staff On January 22, 2010 @ 5:06 am In Letters | 6 Comments
Dear Editor,
In a recent interview on Plain Talk, I asked the Prime Minister in his capacity as Leader of the National Assembly whether he was concerned about bills being passed by the National Assembly and not being assented to within the period (twenty-one days) required by the constitution. This problem first surfaced in a big way in 2006. The Prime Minister estimated these to be “about six.”
I knew that was not correct and visited the Parliament Office on Tuesday January 12, requesting an update on 2009 bills not assented to. I was asked to come back later in the day. After making several attempts to contact the person her supervisor told me that the information could not be made available to me.
In any case it was public knowledge that for 2006 ten bills lapsed because of presidential inaction and from records we maintain at Ram & McRae, I was aware that for 2009 only, twenty-six of forty bills had been published in the Official Gazette. What surprised me not a little is that after my enquiries there appeared a flurry of activities involving “the printers” and I wondered whether there was any mischief afoot, even though the Gazette in which the legislation is published had already had moved on to 2010.
It was a shock, but not a surprise, therefore, to receive this past Wednesday several Extraordinary Gazettes containing legislation that dates back, in some cases, several months.
This information provides clear evidence that the constitution continues to be flouted by the President with the tacit or expressed agreement, or neglect of the National Assembly. And even if we assume that the backdated publication is constitutional and legitimate, that leaves eight bills passed in 2009 by the National Assembly which the President has not dealt with in compliance with the constitution.
The implications are more than academic. To force public servants either directly or indirectly to engage in backdating any documents, let alone the Official Gazette, is to make corruption part of their work. Second, it is dangerous for the President to break the very constitution which he took an oath to uphold. Finally, an Act comes into operation on the date of publication. Those Acts published in predated Gazettes are therefore considered to be of retroactive effect, an equally dangerous issue.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
6 Comments (Open | Close)
6 Comments To "The constitution continues to be flouted in respect of the presidential assent"
#1 Comment By james mckoy On January 22, 2010 @ 6:08 am
Mr Ram:
do you think jagdeow cares about the constitution? do you think he gives a hoot about parlaiment? he is a man set in his way, that once he wants something, then we will get it regards of the law.
#2 Comment By West Point Eagle On January 22, 2010 @ 6:32 am
Who guards the constitution? In any right thinking society this cannot happen. Where are the “people”, moreso is there an army?
#3 Comment By Sampson On January 22, 2010 @ 8:01 am
…when the foundation is weak the structure will collapse… explore ways to fix it…
#4 Comment By angel & Demon On January 22, 2010 @ 8:15 am
This is the kind of manipulation of information that is dangerous. And how could the parliament office refuse to provide the required information to Chris Ram. Isn’t parliament in service of the people of Guyana or the executive? And we hear all these cries about freedom of the press and freedom of information. Where are the spinners today?
#5 Comment By Kingshark On January 22, 2010 @ 8:16 am
Jagdeo doesn’t have time for bills and this country he is more outside than inside.All the laws passed in parliament is a waste of time no one enforced it.
#6 Comment By Birdie On January 22, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Mr.Ram,Where are you living?How many times the order of which things
must and should be done, according to Guyanas’Constitution, have been flouted, so to speak.We are not guided by a Constitution;but by an INSTITUTION.
BIRDIE.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/letters/01/22/the-constitution-continues-to-be-flouted-in-respect-of-the-presidential-assent/
Posted By Stabroek staff On January 22, 2010 @ 5:06 am In Letters | 6 Comments
Dear Editor,
In a recent interview on Plain Talk, I asked the Prime Minister in his capacity as Leader of the National Assembly whether he was concerned about bills being passed by the National Assembly and not being assented to within the period (twenty-one days) required by the constitution. This problem first surfaced in a big way in 2006. The Prime Minister estimated these to be “about six.”
I knew that was not correct and visited the Parliament Office on Tuesday January 12, requesting an update on 2009 bills not assented to. I was asked to come back later in the day. After making several attempts to contact the person her supervisor told me that the information could not be made available to me.
In any case it was public knowledge that for 2006 ten bills lapsed because of presidential inaction and from records we maintain at Ram & McRae, I was aware that for 2009 only, twenty-six of forty bills had been published in the Official Gazette. What surprised me not a little is that after my enquiries there appeared a flurry of activities involving “the printers” and I wondered whether there was any mischief afoot, even though the Gazette in which the legislation is published had already had moved on to 2010.
It was a shock, but not a surprise, therefore, to receive this past Wednesday several Extraordinary Gazettes containing legislation that dates back, in some cases, several months.
This information provides clear evidence that the constitution continues to be flouted by the President with the tacit or expressed agreement, or neglect of the National Assembly. And even if we assume that the backdated publication is constitutional and legitimate, that leaves eight bills passed in 2009 by the National Assembly which the President has not dealt with in compliance with the constitution.
The implications are more than academic. To force public servants either directly or indirectly to engage in backdating any documents, let alone the Official Gazette, is to make corruption part of their work. Second, it is dangerous for the President to break the very constitution which he took an oath to uphold. Finally, an Act comes into operation on the date of publication. Those Acts published in predated Gazettes are therefore considered to be of retroactive effect, an equally dangerous issue.
Yours faithfully,
Christopher Ram
6 Comments (Open | Close)
6 Comments To "The constitution continues to be flouted in respect of the presidential assent"
#1 Comment By james mckoy On January 22, 2010 @ 6:08 am
Mr Ram:
do you think jagdeow cares about the constitution? do you think he gives a hoot about parlaiment? he is a man set in his way, that once he wants something, then we will get it regards of the law.
#2 Comment By West Point Eagle On January 22, 2010 @ 6:32 am
Who guards the constitution? In any right thinking society this cannot happen. Where are the “people”, moreso is there an army?
#3 Comment By Sampson On January 22, 2010 @ 8:01 am
…when the foundation is weak the structure will collapse… explore ways to fix it…
#4 Comment By angel & Demon On January 22, 2010 @ 8:15 am
This is the kind of manipulation of information that is dangerous. And how could the parliament office refuse to provide the required information to Chris Ram. Isn’t parliament in service of the people of Guyana or the executive? And we hear all these cries about freedom of the press and freedom of information. Where are the spinners today?
#5 Comment By Kingshark On January 22, 2010 @ 8:16 am
Jagdeo doesn’t have time for bills and this country he is more outside than inside.All the laws passed in parliament is a waste of time no one enforced it.
#6 Comment By Birdie On January 22, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Mr.Ram,Where are you living?How many times the order of which things
must and should be done, according to Guyanas’Constitution, have been flouted, so to speak.We are not guided by a Constitution;but by an INSTITUTION.
BIRDIE.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/letters/01/22/the-constitution-continues-to-be-flouted-in-respect-of-the-presidential-assent/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)