Auditor General report …Finance Ministry seeks to defend irregularity
Kaieteur News. August 9, 2008 | News
http://www.kaieteurnews.com/?p=4361
The Finance Ministry last evening issued a statement seeking to discredit an article published in yesterday’s issue of Kaieteur News titled ‘Govt. abuses Public funds… billions unaccounted for —Auditor General’
The Ministry described the article as misleading.
It added that the conclusion reached in the story can only be based on a complete lack of understanding of the issues raised by the AG’s report, or a deliberate distortion of these issues.
Regarding the statements in the article citing Government abuse, the Auditor General report states, under the heading Contingencies Fund: “The Contingencies Fund continued to be abused, with amounts drawn from the Fund being utilised to meet expenditure which did not meet the eligibility criteria as defined in the Act.
According to the statement, amounts totalling $3.945 billion were drawn from the Fund by way of 138 advances. As at 31 December 2006, forty-nine of these advances, totalling $1.721 billion, remained outstanding.”
As it relates to the outstanding $1.721B cited, the Finance Ministry said that: “In fact, there is absolutely nothing irregular about contingency fund advances that remain outstanding at the end of the year.”
It added that, at any one point in time during the fiscal year, there may be Contingency Fund advances outstanding, and where Contingency Fund advances are approved close to the end of the year, such advances may remain outstanding at the end of the year until they are cleared by a supplementary appropriation act.
“This, indeed, was the case with the advances outstanding at the end of 2006, which were cleared by a supplementary appropriation act approved shortly thereafter…The Auditor General’s statement on the amounts outstanding at the end of the year can, by no stretch of the imagination, be extended to be interpreted as an irregularity in relation to these amounts.”
The ministry’s statement added that the same is the case with a number of other issues that were reported on by the Auditor General and which were distorted by the Kaieteur News story in a sensational manner.
There was, however, no specific mention of the so-called other statements that were distorted.
The statement did not comment on the other discrepancies and findings by the Auditor General. It did not comment on the monies paid for the purchase of arms and ammunition in 2003 that continue to be missing, or the monies spent by the Health Ministry.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Privatization forum fell well short of expectations
Privatization forum fell well short of expectations
Posted By Staff On August 1, 2008 @ 5:08 am In Business
http://www.stabroeknews.com/business/privatization-forum-fell-well-short-of-expectations/
Last Tuesday’s forum on Guyana’s Privatization and Taxation Policies organized by the Privatization Unit in collaboration with the Guyana Office for Investment and the Guyana Revenue Authority was intended to enable discourse between the state agencies responsible for taxation, investment and privatization and particularly – though not exclusively – the private sector. There could have been no other reason for the forum since most, if not all, of what was said by the Heads of the organizing agencies was actually replicated in documents distributed during the seminar.
The speakers – the respective Heads of the Privatization Unit, Go-Invest and the GRA - were informative – rather than inspiring – even through none of them said anything particularly ground-breaking and all of them went to a great deal of trouble to make the point about how well their respective agencies were pursuing their mandates.
And despite the vicious downpour that preceded the start of the seminar a healthy number (in excess of sixty) of the “captains” of industry and the “admirals” of business turned up and listened to presentations on the laws and regulations governing privatization, taxation and investment. The substance of which, presumably, they would have been familiar with long prior to the seminar.
It is of course no secret that there are differences between the state sector and the business community in matters relating to privatization, taxation and investment and that these issues have come to light over time. Sections of the private sector hold the view, for example, that the Privatization Unit is – as Private Sector Commission Chairman Captain Gerry Gouveia put it – “not even-handed.” More recently, issues like the Queens Atlantic deal have raised further questions about privatization
On the issue of taxation the private sector has made no secret of the fact that the business sector is seriously overtaxed and it will be recalled, of course, the government and the private sector have clashed repeatedly over the issues of Value Added Tax and Corporate taxes.
Given the multiplicity of issues in the state/business sector, therefore, one would have been entitled to expect an interesting, even vigorous debate on those issues. It may have been infinitely wiser, for example- given the fact a programe of such magnitude was squeezed into about five and a half hours - to reduce the forum to a single major opening presentation, leaving the rest of the programme to discourses on half a dozen or so issues agreed upon jointly by the state sector entities and the private sector.
Long before the major presentations were completed it was clear that the assembled audience had had enough and the urgings of the moderator notwithstanding, that expected discourse between the various stakeholders and the panel was reduced largely to a brisk exchange between Christopher Ram and selected members of the panel, chiefly Head of the Privatization Unit Winston Brassington over issues pertaining to the transparency of some privatization deals and whether or not monies accruing from privatization have all been deposited in the Consolidated Fund.
In sum it would be entirely fair to say that if the purpose of the forum was to deepen the level of discourse between the state and the private sectors on issues of privatization, taxation and investment then it was – in that particular respect, an underachievement. Christopher Ram and the Actuary Patrick van Beek being the exceptions, not a single other businessman raised a single issue, concern or query.
In the final analysis and while it can be argued that the forum could have been structured differently it has to be said that the business sector – outside of its PSC representatives – showed no inclination whatsoever – to engage the state sector officials on these issues despite some obvious prodding from Mr. Ram to persuade the PSC to take a publicly robust position on the much talked-about 16 per cent VAT rate. And at the end of the proceedings some of the attendees could be heard expressing disappointment with the forum without, it appears, recognizing that at least some of the fault for the disappointment was theirs.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/business/privatization-forum-fell-well-short-of-expectations/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Posted By Staff On August 1, 2008 @ 5:08 am In Business
http://www.stabroeknews.com/business/privatization-forum-fell-well-short-of-expectations/
Last Tuesday’s forum on Guyana’s Privatization and Taxation Policies organized by the Privatization Unit in collaboration with the Guyana Office for Investment and the Guyana Revenue Authority was intended to enable discourse between the state agencies responsible for taxation, investment and privatization and particularly – though not exclusively – the private sector. There could have been no other reason for the forum since most, if not all, of what was said by the Heads of the organizing agencies was actually replicated in documents distributed during the seminar.
The speakers – the respective Heads of the Privatization Unit, Go-Invest and the GRA - were informative – rather than inspiring – even through none of them said anything particularly ground-breaking and all of them went to a great deal of trouble to make the point about how well their respective agencies were pursuing their mandates.
And despite the vicious downpour that preceded the start of the seminar a healthy number (in excess of sixty) of the “captains” of industry and the “admirals” of business turned up and listened to presentations on the laws and regulations governing privatization, taxation and investment. The substance of which, presumably, they would have been familiar with long prior to the seminar.
It is of course no secret that there are differences between the state sector and the business community in matters relating to privatization, taxation and investment and that these issues have come to light over time. Sections of the private sector hold the view, for example, that the Privatization Unit is – as Private Sector Commission Chairman Captain Gerry Gouveia put it – “not even-handed.” More recently, issues like the Queens Atlantic deal have raised further questions about privatization
On the issue of taxation the private sector has made no secret of the fact that the business sector is seriously overtaxed and it will be recalled, of course, the government and the private sector have clashed repeatedly over the issues of Value Added Tax and Corporate taxes.
Given the multiplicity of issues in the state/business sector, therefore, one would have been entitled to expect an interesting, even vigorous debate on those issues. It may have been infinitely wiser, for example- given the fact a programe of such magnitude was squeezed into about five and a half hours - to reduce the forum to a single major opening presentation, leaving the rest of the programme to discourses on half a dozen or so issues agreed upon jointly by the state sector entities and the private sector.
Long before the major presentations were completed it was clear that the assembled audience had had enough and the urgings of the moderator notwithstanding, that expected discourse between the various stakeholders and the panel was reduced largely to a brisk exchange between Christopher Ram and selected members of the panel, chiefly Head of the Privatization Unit Winston Brassington over issues pertaining to the transparency of some privatization deals and whether or not monies accruing from privatization have all been deposited in the Consolidated Fund.
In sum it would be entirely fair to say that if the purpose of the forum was to deepen the level of discourse between the state and the private sectors on issues of privatization, taxation and investment then it was – in that particular respect, an underachievement. Christopher Ram and the Actuary Patrick van Beek being the exceptions, not a single other businessman raised a single issue, concern or query.
In the final analysis and while it can be argued that the forum could have been structured differently it has to be said that the business sector – outside of its PSC representatives – showed no inclination whatsoever – to engage the state sector officials on these issues despite some obvious prodding from Mr. Ram to persuade the PSC to take a publicly robust position on the much talked-about 16 per cent VAT rate. And at the end of the proceedings some of the attendees could be heard expressing disappointment with the forum without, it appears, recognizing that at least some of the fault for the disappointment was theirs.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/business/privatization-forum-fell-well-short-of-expectations/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Brassington confirms QA II rent at $12 -17 million annually
Business Page - Brassington confirms QA II rent at $12 -17 million annually
Posted By Christopher Ram On August 10, 2008 @ 5:09 am In Features, Sunday
http://www.stabroeknews.com/features/business-page-brassington-confirms-qaii-rent/
Brassington confirms QA II rent at $12 -17 million annually
Introduction
Contradicting several earlier statements about the rent the Government would be getting from the lease of 20 acres of land to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. (QA II ), Executive Head of the Privatisation Unit and the state-owned company NICIL, Winston Brassington, in an e-mail to me last week confirmed that the rent is “between 12 -17 M per annum Yrs 2-5 and in Yr 6 (2013) it will be approximately G$45 M.”
You may very well wonder how Mr. Brassington would rent 20 acres of the most valuable land in Guyana and not know the rent by a margin of close to 50%. Having advised the Privatisation Board that the rent is $12 million only to be publicly corrected that at the rate per square foot specified in a leaked document authored by him, the amount has to be $18 million, Mr. Brassington needs to give himself ample wriggle room. This is as astounding as it is dangerous from the person who this country has placed in a position where he negotiates individually with all sorts of investors and other persons doing business with Guyana. He travelled often to Russia to negotiate with Rusal before another give-away of our country’s non-renewable resources and was mainly instrumental in the purchase of generating sets for GPL late last year costing millions of US Dollars. His recommendations are accepted by the Privatisation Board and Cabinet with the same conviction that a fundamentalist Christian would accept the Bible.
Half true
The answer about the rent came in response to persistent efforts to have Mr. Brassington confirm a number of matters that have surfaced since the tax concessions to QA II became an issue on June 5, 2008. These questions included the price and proceeds from the sale of land to Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) and the date of payment by John Fernandes Limited (JFL) of the sum of $320 million for land sold to that company in 2007. Mr. Brassington confirmed that GBTI paid G$201 M but in relation to the timing of the JFL proceeds he would only say that the “JFL transaction was only completed in March 2008”, which can lead to the inference that no monies were received until 2008. In fact there were two payments made by JFL in 2007 and the balance paid in 2008.
Mr Brassington has refused to answer my follow-up questions particularly about the correctness of the Privatisation Unit holding on to money that should properly have been paid into the Consolidated Fund and for information on the expenses incurred and dividends paid by the Privatisation Unit (PU). In fact all that was new from Mr. Brassington during the week was a press report of him saying that “previous privatisation processes have created ad hoc accounting processes in Guyana.” His incorrect line has been that the proceeds of privatisation have to pass through NICIL, a limited liability company which he claims incorrectly can only pay dividends into the Consolidated Fund after its accounts are audited. It seems that Mr. Brassington does not appreciate that interim dividends are permitted under corporate law and it is not unusual for companies to pay more than one such dividend during the year as Banks DIH has been doing over the past couple of years.
More abuse of the Consolidated Fund
Only monies legally due to NICIL or any of its subsidiaries would be subject to Brassington’s accounting but certainly not monies due directly to the Government such as on the sale of property including shares, land and other assets not owned by NICIL or its subsidiaries. At least some of the land sold to JFL falls into this category and the proceeds should have been paid into the Fund but are instead retained by the PU/NICIL under the control of Mr Brassington.
Mr Brassington refused to provide me with the names of the directors of NICIL or copies of its audited financial statements for the year 2006 while noting that the 2007 accounts are with the Auditor General for audit. NICIL as a company operating under the Companies Act 1991 has been in breach of that Act with respect to the filing of any annual return to the Registrar of Companies as it is required to do nor are its financial statements and reports tabled in the National Assembly.
Such disregard for the country’s supreme and other laws, for good conduct, transparency and truth would in any society where the rule of law prevails, have resulted in the most severe sanctions against those responsible. The political opposition and so-called civil society including the accounting and legal professions have a public duty to act to stop this lawlessness. What is the meaning and relevance of the Constitution and the laws if professionals could ignore them if only to show loyalty and obedience to the politicians?
Deja vu
Two years ago, this column was very critical of Mr. Brassington’s conduct in its March 12, 2006 issue when it wrote about the improper means and tactics applied to corral workers’ funds of the National Insurance Scheme and depositors’ funds of the New Building Society for the Berbice Bridge. I reported then that Mr Brassington even sought to have me postpone an article and give him time to get some necessary paperwork done by the NIS! The necessary paperwork was a letter enclosing, among other things, an irrevocable special power of attorney and requesting the NIS’s co-operation in having the voluminous agreement and four schedules signed one day later. The Privatisation Board was given the same or less time to endorse Mr Brassington’s recommendations on the QA II deal.
Just as an aside, in that March 12 article one of the subheadings was Making the unlawful lawful as we see with the QA II tax holiday law!
For all the vast proceeds from privatization that are now being boasted about, only $7.3 million was paid into the Consolidated Fund in 2006, $1.4 million in 2006. The manner of drawing up the National Estimates does not allow the reader to determine how much was paid in in 2007 or is budgeted to be paid in in 2008. Where then is the GBTI money and the JFL funds amounting to more than half a billion dollars? Is this another Lotto Fund scandal where the money is used for all sorts of unauthorized payments such as the $20 million to Courtney Benn Construction for breach of contract relating to works for the Kingston phantom hotel?
The tax seminar
Mr Brassington obviously enjoys the confidence of the President and with his control of perhaps hundreds of millions of public funds he was indeed well-placed to organise the Taxation Seminar last month. While the Seminar scored poorly on organizational arrangements – a head table of 13, no recording and just one microphone for 200 persons – it was certainly well orchestrated and controlled. The seminar was organised for a Cabinet Day so that after the Finance Minister had left the meeting with his two colleagues from Cabinet and the Privatisation Board there was no one authorised to answer questions on policy from an audience consisting of several state executives and accountants anxious to learn the tax system. Mr. Brassington gloated over the $24 billion proceeds from privatization since 1994 when he took over but he did not say that in the process the nation lost control of several key assets including Bauxite to Rusal which we then turn around and give a tax holiday! That is hardly how successful privatisations are measured.
Much was said too about transparency but let us not forget that had information not been leaked to the press there would have been no Seminar. In my contribution during the Question and Answer session I pointed to an apparent conspiracy by the PU, Go-Invest and the company to misrepresent information fed to the public on the QA II investment, drawing attention to some of the statements made by Messrs. Brassington and Da Silva and how they differ from the facts that have surfaced from documents written by Mr. Brassington and agreements signed between the QA II group and the Government.
I pointed out too that Mr. Brassington’s creative explanation for the charge to JFL compared with the rent agreed to be paid by QA II, led to no other conclusion but that the PU either overcharged JFL or was undercharging QA II.
At the Seminar, Mr. Brassington lavishly praised for their contribution to the success of the privatisation programme the Privatisation Board made up of three Cabinet Ministers including the Minister of Finance who chairs the Board, and representatives from labour, business and consumers. My enquiries suggest that even allowing for the imbalance of the political influence Mr. Brassington gets the Board to arrive at a desired result by submitting to them his recommendations often with no more than a few hours notice. I understand too that the Board has dispensed with its sub-committee that had as its principal responsibility the examination of proposals and tenders and has transferred this task entirely to Mr. Brassington with whatever political input and direction that may apply.
Different rules
Astoundingly, in a recent article in the Kaiteur News Mr. Brassington is quoted as saying that “Previous privatisation processes have created ad hoc accounting processes in Guyana” and that “What you did not have was adherence under the law of how you distribute a company’s assets.”
That this statement would have been made at a Seminar to disabuse accountants of their ignorance of the tax laws was outstanding for its sheer arrogance and uninformed ignorance! It is Mr. Brassington who does not understand the law and who created these “ad hoc” and unconstitutional arrangements that are so blatantly abused by the PU/NICIL. Has Mr. Brassington ever read the relevant sections of the Constitution or the financial rules or sought guidance on how these operate?
Where is the Auditor General?
As a non-statutory body, the Privatisation Unit is no more than part of the Ministry of Finance and so it has sought legal cover under NICIL, the state-owned company that Mr. Brassington operates without observance of the laws. Money that should constitutionally be placed into the Consolidated Fund are spent by the PU/NICIL as it now likes to call itself, to create a huge bureaucracy including legal expertise, and to by-pass the parliamentary process for authorizing the expenditure of public funds.
These are matters so significant that one would have expected the Auditor General to have paid particular attention to it and to comment critically thereon. These funds are on the same level as the Lotto Funds in that they are public monies that are required to be deposited in the Consolidated Fund under Article 216 of the Constitution. The Lotto Funds are too infamous to miss while equally huge sums of a similar nature go unnoticed by the Audit Office. In fact that Office should feel accused by Brassington’s claim of “ad hoc accounting processes”.
Conclusion – many cheques but few balances
It is clear that far from being efficient and transparent, the privatisation process is shrouded in secrecy and is managed without regard for elementary rules of good governance, the rule of law and knowledge of accounting. Much of the resources of this country have been given away in many cases for a pittance, in a process involving many cheques but few balances. This Unit and NCIL under Mr. Winston Brassington ought to be investigated by the Economics Affairs Sub-Committee of the National Assembly.
If that body fails to act, then some public-spirited citizen(s) should invoke the provisions of the Companies Act and demand an investigation of the operations of NICIL and its alliance with Mr. Brassington’s Privatisation Unit. We should not simply excuse and exonerate public officials’ improper and unlawful acts by attributing those acts to unaccountable politicians. They must be held equally accountable and culpable.
Next week we will look at the role of Go-Invest, the other partner in the saga
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/features/business-page-brassington-confirms-qaii-rent/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Posted By Christopher Ram On August 10, 2008 @ 5:09 am In Features, Sunday
http://www.stabroeknews.com/features/business-page-brassington-confirms-qaii-rent/
Brassington confirms QA II rent at $12 -17 million annually
Introduction
Contradicting several earlier statements about the rent the Government would be getting from the lease of 20 acres of land to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. (QA II ), Executive Head of the Privatisation Unit and the state-owned company NICIL, Winston Brassington, in an e-mail to me last week confirmed that the rent is “between 12 -17 M per annum Yrs 2-5 and in Yr 6 (2013) it will be approximately G$45 M.”
You may very well wonder how Mr. Brassington would rent 20 acres of the most valuable land in Guyana and not know the rent by a margin of close to 50%. Having advised the Privatisation Board that the rent is $12 million only to be publicly corrected that at the rate per square foot specified in a leaked document authored by him, the amount has to be $18 million, Mr. Brassington needs to give himself ample wriggle room. This is as astounding as it is dangerous from the person who this country has placed in a position where he negotiates individually with all sorts of investors and other persons doing business with Guyana. He travelled often to Russia to negotiate with Rusal before another give-away of our country’s non-renewable resources and was mainly instrumental in the purchase of generating sets for GPL late last year costing millions of US Dollars. His recommendations are accepted by the Privatisation Board and Cabinet with the same conviction that a fundamentalist Christian would accept the Bible.
Half true
The answer about the rent came in response to persistent efforts to have Mr. Brassington confirm a number of matters that have surfaced since the tax concessions to QA II became an issue on June 5, 2008. These questions included the price and proceeds from the sale of land to Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI) and the date of payment by John Fernandes Limited (JFL) of the sum of $320 million for land sold to that company in 2007. Mr. Brassington confirmed that GBTI paid G$201 M but in relation to the timing of the JFL proceeds he would only say that the “JFL transaction was only completed in March 2008”, which can lead to the inference that no monies were received until 2008. In fact there were two payments made by JFL in 2007 and the balance paid in 2008.
Mr Brassington has refused to answer my follow-up questions particularly about the correctness of the Privatisation Unit holding on to money that should properly have been paid into the Consolidated Fund and for information on the expenses incurred and dividends paid by the Privatisation Unit (PU). In fact all that was new from Mr. Brassington during the week was a press report of him saying that “previous privatisation processes have created ad hoc accounting processes in Guyana.” His incorrect line has been that the proceeds of privatisation have to pass through NICIL, a limited liability company which he claims incorrectly can only pay dividends into the Consolidated Fund after its accounts are audited. It seems that Mr. Brassington does not appreciate that interim dividends are permitted under corporate law and it is not unusual for companies to pay more than one such dividend during the year as Banks DIH has been doing over the past couple of years.
More abuse of the Consolidated Fund
Only monies legally due to NICIL or any of its subsidiaries would be subject to Brassington’s accounting but certainly not monies due directly to the Government such as on the sale of property including shares, land and other assets not owned by NICIL or its subsidiaries. At least some of the land sold to JFL falls into this category and the proceeds should have been paid into the Fund but are instead retained by the PU/NICIL under the control of Mr Brassington.
Mr Brassington refused to provide me with the names of the directors of NICIL or copies of its audited financial statements for the year 2006 while noting that the 2007 accounts are with the Auditor General for audit. NICIL as a company operating under the Companies Act 1991 has been in breach of that Act with respect to the filing of any annual return to the Registrar of Companies as it is required to do nor are its financial statements and reports tabled in the National Assembly.
Such disregard for the country’s supreme and other laws, for good conduct, transparency and truth would in any society where the rule of law prevails, have resulted in the most severe sanctions against those responsible. The political opposition and so-called civil society including the accounting and legal professions have a public duty to act to stop this lawlessness. What is the meaning and relevance of the Constitution and the laws if professionals could ignore them if only to show loyalty and obedience to the politicians?
Deja vu
Two years ago, this column was very critical of Mr. Brassington’s conduct in its March 12, 2006 issue when it wrote about the improper means and tactics applied to corral workers’ funds of the National Insurance Scheme and depositors’ funds of the New Building Society for the Berbice Bridge. I reported then that Mr Brassington even sought to have me postpone an article and give him time to get some necessary paperwork done by the NIS! The necessary paperwork was a letter enclosing, among other things, an irrevocable special power of attorney and requesting the NIS’s co-operation in having the voluminous agreement and four schedules signed one day later. The Privatisation Board was given the same or less time to endorse Mr Brassington’s recommendations on the QA II deal.
Just as an aside, in that March 12 article one of the subheadings was Making the unlawful lawful as we see with the QA II tax holiday law!
For all the vast proceeds from privatization that are now being boasted about, only $7.3 million was paid into the Consolidated Fund in 2006, $1.4 million in 2006. The manner of drawing up the National Estimates does not allow the reader to determine how much was paid in in 2007 or is budgeted to be paid in in 2008. Where then is the GBTI money and the JFL funds amounting to more than half a billion dollars? Is this another Lotto Fund scandal where the money is used for all sorts of unauthorized payments such as the $20 million to Courtney Benn Construction for breach of contract relating to works for the Kingston phantom hotel?
The tax seminar
Mr Brassington obviously enjoys the confidence of the President and with his control of perhaps hundreds of millions of public funds he was indeed well-placed to organise the Taxation Seminar last month. While the Seminar scored poorly on organizational arrangements – a head table of 13, no recording and just one microphone for 200 persons – it was certainly well orchestrated and controlled. The seminar was organised for a Cabinet Day so that after the Finance Minister had left the meeting with his two colleagues from Cabinet and the Privatisation Board there was no one authorised to answer questions on policy from an audience consisting of several state executives and accountants anxious to learn the tax system. Mr. Brassington gloated over the $24 billion proceeds from privatization since 1994 when he took over but he did not say that in the process the nation lost control of several key assets including Bauxite to Rusal which we then turn around and give a tax holiday! That is hardly how successful privatisations are measured.
Much was said too about transparency but let us not forget that had information not been leaked to the press there would have been no Seminar. In my contribution during the Question and Answer session I pointed to an apparent conspiracy by the PU, Go-Invest and the company to misrepresent information fed to the public on the QA II investment, drawing attention to some of the statements made by Messrs. Brassington and Da Silva and how they differ from the facts that have surfaced from documents written by Mr. Brassington and agreements signed between the QA II group and the Government.
I pointed out too that Mr. Brassington’s creative explanation for the charge to JFL compared with the rent agreed to be paid by QA II, led to no other conclusion but that the PU either overcharged JFL or was undercharging QA II.
At the Seminar, Mr. Brassington lavishly praised for their contribution to the success of the privatisation programme the Privatisation Board made up of three Cabinet Ministers including the Minister of Finance who chairs the Board, and representatives from labour, business and consumers. My enquiries suggest that even allowing for the imbalance of the political influence Mr. Brassington gets the Board to arrive at a desired result by submitting to them his recommendations often with no more than a few hours notice. I understand too that the Board has dispensed with its sub-committee that had as its principal responsibility the examination of proposals and tenders and has transferred this task entirely to Mr. Brassington with whatever political input and direction that may apply.
Different rules
Astoundingly, in a recent article in the Kaiteur News Mr. Brassington is quoted as saying that “Previous privatisation processes have created ad hoc accounting processes in Guyana” and that “What you did not have was adherence under the law of how you distribute a company’s assets.”
That this statement would have been made at a Seminar to disabuse accountants of their ignorance of the tax laws was outstanding for its sheer arrogance and uninformed ignorance! It is Mr. Brassington who does not understand the law and who created these “ad hoc” and unconstitutional arrangements that are so blatantly abused by the PU/NICIL. Has Mr. Brassington ever read the relevant sections of the Constitution or the financial rules or sought guidance on how these operate?
Where is the Auditor General?
As a non-statutory body, the Privatisation Unit is no more than part of the Ministry of Finance and so it has sought legal cover under NICIL, the state-owned company that Mr. Brassington operates without observance of the laws. Money that should constitutionally be placed into the Consolidated Fund are spent by the PU/NICIL as it now likes to call itself, to create a huge bureaucracy including legal expertise, and to by-pass the parliamentary process for authorizing the expenditure of public funds.
These are matters so significant that one would have expected the Auditor General to have paid particular attention to it and to comment critically thereon. These funds are on the same level as the Lotto Funds in that they are public monies that are required to be deposited in the Consolidated Fund under Article 216 of the Constitution. The Lotto Funds are too infamous to miss while equally huge sums of a similar nature go unnoticed by the Audit Office. In fact that Office should feel accused by Brassington’s claim of “ad hoc accounting processes”.
Conclusion – many cheques but few balances
It is clear that far from being efficient and transparent, the privatisation process is shrouded in secrecy and is managed without regard for elementary rules of good governance, the rule of law and knowledge of accounting. Much of the resources of this country have been given away in many cases for a pittance, in a process involving many cheques but few balances. This Unit and NCIL under Mr. Winston Brassington ought to be investigated by the Economics Affairs Sub-Committee of the National Assembly.
If that body fails to act, then some public-spirited citizen(s) should invoke the provisions of the Companies Act and demand an investigation of the operations of NICIL and its alliance with Mr. Brassington’s Privatisation Unit. We should not simply excuse and exonerate public officials’ improper and unlawful acts by attributing those acts to unaccountable politicians. They must be held equally accountable and culpable.
Next week we will look at the role of Go-Invest, the other partner in the saga
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/features/business-page-brassington-confirms-qaii-rent/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
PPP Congress - Stabroek News Editorial.
PPP Congress - Stabroek News Editorial
http://www.stabroeknews.com/editorial/ppp-congress-2/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
Posted By Staff On August 10, 2008 @ 5:01 am In Editorial
Nobody expects the PPP when talking among themselves to be open-minded and imaginative, let alone to delineate a vision for the future which soars above the present grubby realities, but did their senior spokesmen really have to address the party cohorts in quite such tawdry and misconceived terms last weekend? There was the General Secretary of the party, Mr Donald Ramotar, delivering the report from the Central Committee, waxing lyrical on the virtues of the now disbanded Target Special Squad (TSS). Never mind that evidence was given to a US grand jury concerning the corrupt activities of some members of that squad, or that it became associated with what is known in international parlance as “extra-judicial killings.” All of that, it seems, was irrelevant – and unproblematic – as long as it was killing “criminals.”
Mr Ramotar told the cadres that a similar unit to the defunct TSS was “urgently” needed, raising the inevitable question as to whether the governing party is really committed to the kind of professional policing which the British had in mind when they involved themselves in the Security Sector Reform Action Plan. The thought would not be dispelled after the General Secretary expanded on the theme of crime and politics, telling his audience that the PNC was appeasing its extremist elements; that by implication the main opposition would be the beneficiary of the action of the criminals; that Mr Corbin was “making concessions” to the “extremists”; and that the AFC’s position approximated to that of the PNCR. As such, he had no difficulty concluding that the PPP could not give in to demands for political unity when it was widely believed that criminals were executing a political programme.
Well the rest of the population might be completely in the dark as to the precise nature of the political programme the criminals have in mind, since none of them has promulgated any coherent ideology or even given a brief exposition of their political ends, but that small detail aside, the General Secretary managed to convey the unambiguous message that any discussions with the opposition on any topic whatsoever, but more particularly on security, were unwelcome. So, therefore, one must presume that when the government held its meetings with national stakeholders on security matters in the wake of the Lusignan and Bartica killings, it did so in a cynical frame of mind. Other than that, the Central Committee’s report to the membership reflected nothing more than a cynical approach to keep the constituency solid with the traditional anti-PNC rhetoric. Or again, perhaps there was a measure of cynicism on both occasions. Either way, it is no doubt significant that the governing party announced last week that they were pulling out of the US Embassy-sponsored Guyana Civil-Military Relations Conference.
As it is, the party has provided itself with the ultimate excuse for not talking to anybody, for not listening to anybody, and for indulging itself in the conviction that it has a monopoly on understanding and insight. By extension it appears to consider it has the right to implement whatever measures it sees fit, other viewpoints with a rational foundation notwithstanding. It is not the recommended way to run any democracy, let alone one in a divided society such as this.
Of course what the party membership heard last Saturday was not very different from what the PPP had said before; it was just that it was expressed in more explicit and if it might be said, rather more crass language. One wondered just how many of the faithful seriously believed some of the political analysis; surely the Central Committee with its command of electoral arithmetic could not have been unaware, for example, that “many” PNCR supporters did not go over to the PPP in 2006 as their report claimed. While percentage-wise the party’s majority was greater than in 2001, the absolute number of votes it received was lower than in the preceding election. In addition, the well-publicised fact that in the last general election turnout was lower than usual in traditional PNC constituency areas does not seem to have troubled the Central Committee one jot when it drew up its report. While there was the concession that other voters “who are still in transition have stopped at the AFC,” it was thought that with hard work the PPP could attract many of these into its ranks. Surely, one would have thought, when the governing party holds conversations with its own, a greater convergence between analysis and reality would have underpinned the exchanges.
But no, as far as can be discerned not even a hint of uncertainty appears to have entered the discussion framework that perhaps, just perhaps, for example, the party strategy on crime has been a dismal failure; that the voting population is as divided as ever; or that there is genuine dissatisfaction with the government among significant segments of the society. As long as there is no expectation of being voted out of office, of course, there is no need for introspection or to confront weaknesses or mistakes. The Central Committee can cruise along in propaganda mode – with one caveat. With migration rates being what they are, nowadays the PPP needs some help from the Amerindian vote to get into government, and that at least was one reality which appears to have been recognized, albeit indirectly.
Since the PPP has no faults, clearly, the problems the government faces are caused by the independent media – at least that was the thesis promoted by President Jagdeo, Mr Ramotar and Dr Roger Luncheon. The Head of the Presidential Secretariat, while not mentioning names, talked about media which were “enemies of the PPP,” and that they would have to be dealt with or “left unbridled” they would remain “a permanent thorn in the side” of the party until 2011 (the next general election). He also referred to the need for “media management,” although exactly what he intended by that phrase was not explained and presumably only time will tell what the party has in mind, if anything. After sixteen years in office it seems, the PPP resists the notion that criticism from the media and elsewhere is part and parcel of democratic practice, and that contrary to the beliefs of its hierarchy, the intrinsic definition of a critic – media or otherwise – does not include the association of “enemy” and particularly not of “unpatriotic.” Patriotism has not been cornered by the PPP.
The most extraordinary event at the conference came at the end in the form of the political declaration. As we reported on Monday, Ms Indra Chanderpal explained, among other things, that the party was ready to engage with the PNCR, the AFC or any other opposition group so inclined, to discuss areas of disagreement and policies in order to arrive at unified positions for the benefit of the people. So did the conference in the back rooms away from the public floor quietly reject the analysis of Mr Ramotar et al, indicating there is some level of true debate going on in the party after all, or was the declaration only for public consumption thus representing the final act of cynicism?
As a kind of codicil to all of this, it has to be said that the PPP/C did support Mr Corbin’s parliamentary motion on the late President Forbes Burnham on Thursday. It was certainly the correct gesture, and they should be commended for giving their backing to the motion, because given our history it must have been a difficult thing for them to do. However, in the end, historians will make their own judgements on Mr Burnham and the past, irrespective of what the politicians say, and what is important now is how the PPP deals with the opposition and civil society on the substantive issues which affect us today. All the same, is the motion evidence that it is the political declaration of the congress which will guide the party in its approach, and not the report of the Central Committee? How it deals with the opposition over the extension of Parliament and the five bills will no doubt clarify everything.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/editorial/ppp-congress-2/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/editorial/ppp-congress-2/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
Posted By Staff On August 10, 2008 @ 5:01 am In Editorial
Nobody expects the PPP when talking among themselves to be open-minded and imaginative, let alone to delineate a vision for the future which soars above the present grubby realities, but did their senior spokesmen really have to address the party cohorts in quite such tawdry and misconceived terms last weekend? There was the General Secretary of the party, Mr Donald Ramotar, delivering the report from the Central Committee, waxing lyrical on the virtues of the now disbanded Target Special Squad (TSS). Never mind that evidence was given to a US grand jury concerning the corrupt activities of some members of that squad, or that it became associated with what is known in international parlance as “extra-judicial killings.” All of that, it seems, was irrelevant – and unproblematic – as long as it was killing “criminals.”
Mr Ramotar told the cadres that a similar unit to the defunct TSS was “urgently” needed, raising the inevitable question as to whether the governing party is really committed to the kind of professional policing which the British had in mind when they involved themselves in the Security Sector Reform Action Plan. The thought would not be dispelled after the General Secretary expanded on the theme of crime and politics, telling his audience that the PNC was appeasing its extremist elements; that by implication the main opposition would be the beneficiary of the action of the criminals; that Mr Corbin was “making concessions” to the “extremists”; and that the AFC’s position approximated to that of the PNCR. As such, he had no difficulty concluding that the PPP could not give in to demands for political unity when it was widely believed that criminals were executing a political programme.
Well the rest of the population might be completely in the dark as to the precise nature of the political programme the criminals have in mind, since none of them has promulgated any coherent ideology or even given a brief exposition of their political ends, but that small detail aside, the General Secretary managed to convey the unambiguous message that any discussions with the opposition on any topic whatsoever, but more particularly on security, were unwelcome. So, therefore, one must presume that when the government held its meetings with national stakeholders on security matters in the wake of the Lusignan and Bartica killings, it did so in a cynical frame of mind. Other than that, the Central Committee’s report to the membership reflected nothing more than a cynical approach to keep the constituency solid with the traditional anti-PNC rhetoric. Or again, perhaps there was a measure of cynicism on both occasions. Either way, it is no doubt significant that the governing party announced last week that they were pulling out of the US Embassy-sponsored Guyana Civil-Military Relations Conference.
As it is, the party has provided itself with the ultimate excuse for not talking to anybody, for not listening to anybody, and for indulging itself in the conviction that it has a monopoly on understanding and insight. By extension it appears to consider it has the right to implement whatever measures it sees fit, other viewpoints with a rational foundation notwithstanding. It is not the recommended way to run any democracy, let alone one in a divided society such as this.
Of course what the party membership heard last Saturday was not very different from what the PPP had said before; it was just that it was expressed in more explicit and if it might be said, rather more crass language. One wondered just how many of the faithful seriously believed some of the political analysis; surely the Central Committee with its command of electoral arithmetic could not have been unaware, for example, that “many” PNCR supporters did not go over to the PPP in 2006 as their report claimed. While percentage-wise the party’s majority was greater than in 2001, the absolute number of votes it received was lower than in the preceding election. In addition, the well-publicised fact that in the last general election turnout was lower than usual in traditional PNC constituency areas does not seem to have troubled the Central Committee one jot when it drew up its report. While there was the concession that other voters “who are still in transition have stopped at the AFC,” it was thought that with hard work the PPP could attract many of these into its ranks. Surely, one would have thought, when the governing party holds conversations with its own, a greater convergence between analysis and reality would have underpinned the exchanges.
But no, as far as can be discerned not even a hint of uncertainty appears to have entered the discussion framework that perhaps, just perhaps, for example, the party strategy on crime has been a dismal failure; that the voting population is as divided as ever; or that there is genuine dissatisfaction with the government among significant segments of the society. As long as there is no expectation of being voted out of office, of course, there is no need for introspection or to confront weaknesses or mistakes. The Central Committee can cruise along in propaganda mode – with one caveat. With migration rates being what they are, nowadays the PPP needs some help from the Amerindian vote to get into government, and that at least was one reality which appears to have been recognized, albeit indirectly.
Since the PPP has no faults, clearly, the problems the government faces are caused by the independent media – at least that was the thesis promoted by President Jagdeo, Mr Ramotar and Dr Roger Luncheon. The Head of the Presidential Secretariat, while not mentioning names, talked about media which were “enemies of the PPP,” and that they would have to be dealt with or “left unbridled” they would remain “a permanent thorn in the side” of the party until 2011 (the next general election). He also referred to the need for “media management,” although exactly what he intended by that phrase was not explained and presumably only time will tell what the party has in mind, if anything. After sixteen years in office it seems, the PPP resists the notion that criticism from the media and elsewhere is part and parcel of democratic practice, and that contrary to the beliefs of its hierarchy, the intrinsic definition of a critic – media or otherwise – does not include the association of “enemy” and particularly not of “unpatriotic.” Patriotism has not been cornered by the PPP.
The most extraordinary event at the conference came at the end in the form of the political declaration. As we reported on Monday, Ms Indra Chanderpal explained, among other things, that the party was ready to engage with the PNCR, the AFC or any other opposition group so inclined, to discuss areas of disagreement and policies in order to arrive at unified positions for the benefit of the people. So did the conference in the back rooms away from the public floor quietly reject the analysis of Mr Ramotar et al, indicating there is some level of true debate going on in the party after all, or was the declaration only for public consumption thus representing the final act of cynicism?
As a kind of codicil to all of this, it has to be said that the PPP/C did support Mr Corbin’s parliamentary motion on the late President Forbes Burnham on Thursday. It was certainly the correct gesture, and they should be commended for giving their backing to the motion, because given our history it must have been a difficult thing for them to do. However, in the end, historians will make their own judgements on Mr Burnham and the past, irrespective of what the politicians say, and what is important now is how the PPP deals with the opposition and civil society on the substantive issues which affect us today. All the same, is the motion evidence that it is the political declaration of the congress which will guide the party in its approach, and not the report of the Central Committee? How it deals with the opposition over the extension of Parliament and the five bills will no doubt clarify everything.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/editorial/ppp-congress-2/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The tax laws cannot be applied retroactively
The tax laws cannot be applied retroactively
Posted By Administrator On August 7, 2008 @ 5:06 am In Letters | 3 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/the-tax-laws-cannot-be-applied-retroactively/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
Dear Editor,
Your Sunday Business columnist Mr Christopher Ram has provided an invaluable public service through his analysis of the divestment of the Sanata complex and the accompanying investment concessions offered to the investor. From what has been revelaed by Mr Ram, it can be concluded that the property of the people of Guyana has been taken and handed to a private investor through a process that was less than transparent.
To add insult to injury, agreements were signed granting the companies involved tax holidays which were in contravention of the existing laws. A corollary observation is that there seems to be uncertainty as to whether local investors can enjoy similar concessions. The laws of the country have since been amended to regularize the concessions but it must be noted that tax laws cannot be retroactively applied and therefore the agreements signed before the tax laws were amended are invalid. I hope that the opposition which recognizes this will challenge the legality of any tax holiday granted under the agreements signed.
I was surprised that Mr Ram in his analysis omitted to consider whether any due diligence was conducted on Queen’s Atlantic Investments. Before any deal is inked between the government and any investor, the government should examine the financial records of that company to determine the track record of that investor. If, for example, that investor has not been showing a profit for years, then caution needs to be exercised. No tax concessions should be offered to companies which have not been showing profits since it would amount to taxpayers foregoing taxes in order to support an investor which has been in the red. I am sure that as an accountant, Mr Ram can offer his insights as to what degree concessions should be offered to loss-making or non profit-earning entities.
Yours faithfully,
Salman Safee
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/the-tax-laws-cannot-be-applied-retroactively/
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Posted By Administrator On August 7, 2008 @ 5:06 am In Letters | 3 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/the-tax-laws-cannot-be-applied-retroactively/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
Dear Editor,
Your Sunday Business columnist Mr Christopher Ram has provided an invaluable public service through his analysis of the divestment of the Sanata complex and the accompanying investment concessions offered to the investor. From what has been revelaed by Mr Ram, it can be concluded that the property of the people of Guyana has been taken and handed to a private investor through a process that was less than transparent.
To add insult to injury, agreements were signed granting the companies involved tax holidays which were in contravention of the existing laws. A corollary observation is that there seems to be uncertainty as to whether local investors can enjoy similar concessions. The laws of the country have since been amended to regularize the concessions but it must be noted that tax laws cannot be retroactively applied and therefore the agreements signed before the tax laws were amended are invalid. I hope that the opposition which recognizes this will challenge the legality of any tax holiday granted under the agreements signed.
I was surprised that Mr Ram in his analysis omitted to consider whether any due diligence was conducted on Queen’s Atlantic Investments. Before any deal is inked between the government and any investor, the government should examine the financial records of that company to determine the track record of that investor. If, for example, that investor has not been showing a profit for years, then caution needs to be exercised. No tax concessions should be offered to companies which have not been showing profits since it would amount to taxpayers foregoing taxes in order to support an investor which has been in the red. I am sure that as an accountant, Mr Ram can offer his insights as to what degree concessions should be offered to loss-making or non profit-earning entities.
Yours faithfully,
Salman Safee
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/letters/the-tax-laws-cannot-be-applied-retroactively/
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Gov’t to shun US security confab
Gov’t to shun US security confab
Posted By Staff On August 8, 2008 @ 5:10 am In News | 15 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/gov%e2%80%99t-to-shun-us-security-confab/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
The Guyana government will not be taking part in the US Embassy-sponsored Guyana Civil-Military Relations Conference because it does not reflect suitable input from the government, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon said.
Asked at his post-Cabinet press briefing yesterday to confirm if indeed the Guyana government was not taking part in the four-day conference scheduled for the Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir from August 11, 2008, Dr Luncheon said that the government, its departments, agencies, employees and functionaries would not be participating.
He said that the government was “not of the opinion that the actual programme itself reflects a suitable input from the government of Guyana. We questioned the absence of our integral involvement and we would not be participating.”
The four-day conference is the second such event being held under the auspices of the United States Embassy in Guyana, and US Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM).
A US Embassy release said the objective of the conference is to expand the understanding of defence strategy and the role of non-traditional actors in security policy. Topics for discussion include the rule of law and its relationship to security implementation mechanisms, strategic resource prioritization and management, public diplomacy, and other leadership concepts necessary for establishing security in a democratic society.
Invitees will include regional and national security sectors, members of Parliament, active duty and retired members of the Guyana Defence Force, representatives of the British and Canadian High Commissions, regional military leaders, members of academia, media executives, and other relevant public and private sector representatives who have an important stake in security issues.
The Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) at National Defense University (NDU) in Washington, D.C. will facilitate the overall agenda for the conference with assistance from the US Military Liaison Office and the Guyana-based Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS).
The release said the conference was being held following the success of the first one in December 2007.
The conference, described as non-partisan and apolitical, is intended to facilitate an emerging national and regional public-private partnering process with the goal of defining and addressing relevant security challenges that the United States, Guyana, and its Caribbean neighbours continue to face, the release said. It noted too that in a world of limited resources, such challenges to public defence and security require a broad dialogue, fresh approaches, and meaningful action.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/gov%e2%80%99t-to-shun-us-security-confab/
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Posted By Staff On August 8, 2008 @ 5:10 am In News | 15 Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/gov%e2%80%99t-to-shun-us-security-confab/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
The Guyana government will not be taking part in the US Embassy-sponsored Guyana Civil-Military Relations Conference because it does not reflect suitable input from the government, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon said.
Asked at his post-Cabinet press briefing yesterday to confirm if indeed the Guyana government was not taking part in the four-day conference scheduled for the Grand Coastal Inn, Le Ressouvenir from August 11, 2008, Dr Luncheon said that the government, its departments, agencies, employees and functionaries would not be participating.
He said that the government was “not of the opinion that the actual programme itself reflects a suitable input from the government of Guyana. We questioned the absence of our integral involvement and we would not be participating.”
The four-day conference is the second such event being held under the auspices of the United States Embassy in Guyana, and US Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM).
A US Embassy release said the objective of the conference is to expand the understanding of defence strategy and the role of non-traditional actors in security policy. Topics for discussion include the rule of law and its relationship to security implementation mechanisms, strategic resource prioritization and management, public diplomacy, and other leadership concepts necessary for establishing security in a democratic society.
Invitees will include regional and national security sectors, members of Parliament, active duty and retired members of the Guyana Defence Force, representatives of the British and Canadian High Commissions, regional military leaders, members of academia, media executives, and other relevant public and private sector representatives who have an important stake in security issues.
The Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) at National Defense University (NDU) in Washington, D.C. will facilitate the overall agenda for the conference with assistance from the US Military Liaison Office and the Guyana-based Institute of Security and International Studies (ISIS).
The release said the conference was being held following the success of the first one in December 2007.
The conference, described as non-partisan and apolitical, is intended to facilitate an emerging national and regional public-private partnering process with the goal of defining and addressing relevant security challenges that the United States, Guyana, and its Caribbean neighbours continue to face, the release said. It noted too that in a world of limited resources, such challenges to public defence and security require a broad dialogue, fresh approaches, and meaningful action.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/gov%e2%80%99t-to-shun-us-security-confab/
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
State institutions need to be more vigorous
State institutions need to be more vigorous-GHRA tells UN expert on minority affairs
Posted By Staff On August 7, 2008 @ 5:13 am In News | No Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/state-institutions-need-to-be-more-vigorous/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) says that many societal issues would be better handled if the institutions of the state are more vigorous and it has raised this concern with United Nations Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall.
In an invited comment about the meeting GHRA co-president Mike McCormack told Stabroek News that the association also apprised McDougall and her team about a survey which it had conducted which found that there was a sense of “futurelessness” particularly among youths. He said the survey also found that over 48% of the youth population studied were either planning to leave Guyana or expected to leave in another year.
McCormack said that he told the UN expert that there was a certain level of predictability in the general elections in the country and a sense of there being no incentive in it for any normal kind of participation in political life. He also broached an issue he termed ‘executive lawlessness’; pointing to the number of extra-judicial executions and the many investigations that are launched yet bear no fruit.
To this end too, he noted that though some efforts have been made to implement constitutional mechanisms, they have lapsed.
Accordingly the co-president said he has told McDougall of the association’s position that many minority issues could be better dealt with if the state institutions were more vigorous; pointing to the judicial system and parliament. McCormack contends that once mechanisms are vigorously implemented they could provide proper redress and reduce discontent to persons, especially those in conflict situations.
McCormack said he also raised the numerous torture allegations and ongoing probes with the UN expert. He said the fact that nothing has come out of these investigations points either to a weakness in the system or it just being a mechanism to deflect focus from the issues in the hope that something else comes up.
McCormack said the meeting with McDougall was timely and important especially since the team aimed to meet with several other groups which would present a wide range of perspectives on matters important to Guyana.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/state-institutions-need-to-be-more-vigorous/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Posted By Staff On August 7, 2008 @ 5:13 am In News | No Comments
http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/state-institutions-need-to-be-more-vigorous/
- Stabroek News - http://www.stabroeknews.com -
The Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) says that many societal issues would be better handled if the institutions of the state are more vigorous and it has raised this concern with United Nations Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall.
In an invited comment about the meeting GHRA co-president Mike McCormack told Stabroek News that the association also apprised McDougall and her team about a survey which it had conducted which found that there was a sense of “futurelessness” particularly among youths. He said the survey also found that over 48% of the youth population studied were either planning to leave Guyana or expected to leave in another year.
McCormack said that he told the UN expert that there was a certain level of predictability in the general elections in the country and a sense of there being no incentive in it for any normal kind of participation in political life. He also broached an issue he termed ‘executive lawlessness’; pointing to the number of extra-judicial executions and the many investigations that are launched yet bear no fruit.
To this end too, he noted that though some efforts have been made to implement constitutional mechanisms, they have lapsed.
Accordingly the co-president said he has told McDougall of the association’s position that many minority issues could be better dealt with if the state institutions were more vigorous; pointing to the judicial system and parliament. McCormack contends that once mechanisms are vigorously implemented they could provide proper redress and reduce discontent to persons, especially those in conflict situations.
McCormack said he also raised the numerous torture allegations and ongoing probes with the UN expert. He said the fact that nothing has come out of these investigations points either to a weakness in the system or it just being a mechanism to deflect focus from the issues in the hope that something else comes up.
McCormack said the meeting with McDougall was timely and important especially since the team aimed to meet with several other groups which would present a wide range of perspectives on matters important to Guyana.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/state-institutions-need-to-be-more-vigorous/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2008 Stabroek News. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)