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
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
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/
Sunday, December 6, 2009
David Clarke
David Clarke
Posted By Stabroek staff On December 6, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 6 Comments
“…when you finish writing your memoir I would like to read it,” said US Judge Raymond Dearie to David Clarke prior to sentencing him. Well wouldn’t we all. However, no doubt we need not hold our collective breaths; there will be no reminiscences emanating from that quarter any time soon – at least not on any of the subjects in which most of the citizens of the Co-operative Republic have an interest. Mr Clarke’s testimony, the local wags presume, might be needed again by the federal authorities, in which case discretion will be forced upon him. In any case, he may also have personal safety issues to consider.
Judge Dearie appears to have been impressed by the defendant – one presumes because he did not fit the profile of the average drug trafficker who normally passes through his courtroom. “This is a remarkable case,” he observed, apparently repeating at other points that it was one of the more interesting ones which had come before him. While it was clearly a remarkable case for the judge, it was even more so for Guyanese, who knew – and still know – hardly anything about either the former major or his trafficking activities. Neither the GDF nor the Government of Guyana saw fit to even inform them that he had been indicted by the United States in 2006, and that he had voluntarily turned himself in; the information that he was incarcerated in the US on drug charges was revealed much later by this newspaper.
It was that revelation which miraculously unsealed the President’s lips, since he then informed the press that when Mr Clarke had been in charge of Operation Tourniquet in Buxton during the notorious years of 2002-03, the then captain had been in league with the criminals. “… the information on Clarke came from people whom I know in Buxton,” he said, “And I would never ever, ever betray their confidence because they told me this in confidence.” It might be added that Mr Roger Khan had made a similar accusation, but against this has to be juxtaposed the fact that the US considered that he and the former army officer were co-conspirators in the export of drugs. This appeared to receive confirmation when Mr Simels (Mr Khan’s former attorney) identified Mr Clarke as the prime candidate for ‘neutralization’ because he was a critical witness in the case against his client.
Whatever he was doing when based in Buxton, Mr Clarke, who reiterated his apologies to his family and the American people when he spoke in court, directed not a word of contrition towards his homeland and his Guyanese compatriots, whose trust he had betrayed and who had provided the opportunities for him to rise – opportunities, it must be said, which he had squandered.
Mr Clarke is now free because of time served, and what is more surprising, he is not to be deported. For the gossips in this country that means that he was very helpful to the prosecution, and/or as suggested above, that his evidence might be required in other cases. And according to the federal prosecutor Ms Shannon Jones, Mr Clarke’s brother and a dozen others were sheltering in Guyana out of reach of the US authorities. If the President signs the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Bill into law, then that could allow the institution of extradition proceedings potentially with results more palatable to American justice than what obtains at present. We can only wait and see whether the long arm of US law will be in fact be able to reach directly into Guyana at last.
But we come to a more fundamental point, and that is that the highest profile Guyanese criminals risk facing justice in the United States, but not in Guyana. The government can talk blue cheese about its commitment to fighting narcotics trafficking, and it can churn out as many drug master plans as it pleases, but in the end it has produced zilch in terms of results. The only thing our local drug barons have to fear is that they will end up in a federal courtroom, because the probability that they will ever have to defend themselves in the High Court on Avenue of the Republic is so low as to be almost non-existent. And the worst of it is the government seems totally unconcerned about this.
And there is the extraordinary silence on the part of the administration about what has emerged from these New York trials in general, and from this last one in particular. Apart from the President’s brief interlude of garrulousness occasioned by the revelation from Stabroek News that Mr Clarke was being held in the United States, the authorities here have been silent on the case. What was so secret about the army officer’s arrest that the citizenry could not be told? And why were proceedings not instituted against him here? Mr Jagdeo’s remarks about protecting his Buxton sources (it must have come as a surprise in many quarters that he personally knows people in Buxton who would give him sensitive information of that kind), surely makes no sense. Ways could have been found to pursue investigations without the source of the information ever being disclosed.
If on the basis of intelligence received law enforcement cannot build a case that someone is in league with criminals then something is really wrong. As it was, Mr Clarke was allowed to remain in the army, although the President did block his promotion and recalled him in the middle of a training stint in the US, of all places. The fact that he was put on trial in the United States, Mr Jagdeo thought, vindicated his actions re the recall, etc. Well, not quite. With all that information to which the President was privy and which the joint services could have followed up, he still ended up being held on an American indictment and not on a Guyanese warrant. This seems to be an instance of total incompetence on the part of the authorities; other than that, they open themselves to the accusation that they did not want to arrest him for some reason. And if they didn’t want to pursue a case against him, then why not? Clearly there is a lot more yet to be uncovered in this matter.
Last week Parliament passed the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, which makes it easier for Guyana to seek help from Commonwealth countries or other countries with which Guyana has a treaty concerning such assistance. As PNCR MP Debra Backer commented, this was the second time round for this bill, which had been passed unanimously by the House in March 2006, but which had not received presidential assent.
So now three-and-a-half years later, it has made its second entrance, and presumably the President has every intention of signing it this time, although he never explained why he didn’t sign it on the first occasion. While as Ms Backer said, it will enable the government to seek information on the drug cases against Roger Khan, David Clarke and others, whether it actually acts is another matter entirely. As in the case of Mr Clarke’s memoir, no one should hold their breath.
6 Comments (Open | Close)
6 Comments To "David Clarke"
#1 Comment By La Dorada On December 6, 2009 @ 6:38 am
Prez didn’t sign the Bill. Hmmm, must be just one of those things….like the marriage certificate.
#2 Comment By MXQBH On December 6, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Blue cheese! Very bad metaphor, ed-op writer. I can think of some more appropriate metaphors, non even vaguely edible, but not blue cheese. Blue cheese is considered a delightful delicacy among cheeese aficionados.
#3 Comment By Raj On December 6, 2009 @ 9:41 am
SN go after this story and expose it for all its worth. A key piece of the government role is when Khan told Simels to nutralize Clarke but don’t kill his mother because the government will be upset. Why would Khan say that if the government is not complicit in Khan/Clarke association or at least know something.
#4 Comment By Carl On December 6, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Lest it seems that David Clarke or Roger Khan voluntarily chose to apologize only to Americans for their crimes, I’d like to advise readers that an apology to the U.S. is required as part of a plea deal.
Besides, no criminal would apologize for crimes committed in a jurisdiction in which he/she is yet to be charged. After all, almost everyone always claims to be innocent after being charged with a crime. And neither Clarke nor Khan is ready to offer apologies that could be immediately construed as guilt.
#5 Comment By Blackrattlesnake On December 6, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
La Dorada…..the Prez always on the move…..he’s jetsetter with plenty frequent flyer miles…..Guyana is where he changes his suitcases and clothes……no time for trivial things like signing stuff here……as a ‘finance’ man…..his pens are only for signing ‘money’ matters.
#6 Comment By Blackrattlesnake On December 6, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
MXQBH….them really meant to use the expression…’talk til them blue in the face’…..proof-reader lapse…..
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/12/06/david-clarke/
Posted By Stabroek staff On December 6, 2009 @ 5:01 am In Editorial | 6 Comments
“…when you finish writing your memoir I would like to read it,” said US Judge Raymond Dearie to David Clarke prior to sentencing him. Well wouldn’t we all. However, no doubt we need not hold our collective breaths; there will be no reminiscences emanating from that quarter any time soon – at least not on any of the subjects in which most of the citizens of the Co-operative Republic have an interest. Mr Clarke’s testimony, the local wags presume, might be needed again by the federal authorities, in which case discretion will be forced upon him. In any case, he may also have personal safety issues to consider.
Judge Dearie appears to have been impressed by the defendant – one presumes because he did not fit the profile of the average drug trafficker who normally passes through his courtroom. “This is a remarkable case,” he observed, apparently repeating at other points that it was one of the more interesting ones which had come before him. While it was clearly a remarkable case for the judge, it was even more so for Guyanese, who knew – and still know – hardly anything about either the former major or his trafficking activities. Neither the GDF nor the Government of Guyana saw fit to even inform them that he had been indicted by the United States in 2006, and that he had voluntarily turned himself in; the information that he was incarcerated in the US on drug charges was revealed much later by this newspaper.
It was that revelation which miraculously unsealed the President’s lips, since he then informed the press that when Mr Clarke had been in charge of Operation Tourniquet in Buxton during the notorious years of 2002-03, the then captain had been in league with the criminals. “… the information on Clarke came from people whom I know in Buxton,” he said, “And I would never ever, ever betray their confidence because they told me this in confidence.” It might be added that Mr Roger Khan had made a similar accusation, but against this has to be juxtaposed the fact that the US considered that he and the former army officer were co-conspirators in the export of drugs. This appeared to receive confirmation when Mr Simels (Mr Khan’s former attorney) identified Mr Clarke as the prime candidate for ‘neutralization’ because he was a critical witness in the case against his client.
Whatever he was doing when based in Buxton, Mr Clarke, who reiterated his apologies to his family and the American people when he spoke in court, directed not a word of contrition towards his homeland and his Guyanese compatriots, whose trust he had betrayed and who had provided the opportunities for him to rise – opportunities, it must be said, which he had squandered.
Mr Clarke is now free because of time served, and what is more surprising, he is not to be deported. For the gossips in this country that means that he was very helpful to the prosecution, and/or as suggested above, that his evidence might be required in other cases. And according to the federal prosecutor Ms Shannon Jones, Mr Clarke’s brother and a dozen others were sheltering in Guyana out of reach of the US authorities. If the President signs the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Bill into law, then that could allow the institution of extradition proceedings potentially with results more palatable to American justice than what obtains at present. We can only wait and see whether the long arm of US law will be in fact be able to reach directly into Guyana at last.
But we come to a more fundamental point, and that is that the highest profile Guyanese criminals risk facing justice in the United States, but not in Guyana. The government can talk blue cheese about its commitment to fighting narcotics trafficking, and it can churn out as many drug master plans as it pleases, but in the end it has produced zilch in terms of results. The only thing our local drug barons have to fear is that they will end up in a federal courtroom, because the probability that they will ever have to defend themselves in the High Court on Avenue of the Republic is so low as to be almost non-existent. And the worst of it is the government seems totally unconcerned about this.
And there is the extraordinary silence on the part of the administration about what has emerged from these New York trials in general, and from this last one in particular. Apart from the President’s brief interlude of garrulousness occasioned by the revelation from Stabroek News that Mr Clarke was being held in the United States, the authorities here have been silent on the case. What was so secret about the army officer’s arrest that the citizenry could not be told? And why were proceedings not instituted against him here? Mr Jagdeo’s remarks about protecting his Buxton sources (it must have come as a surprise in many quarters that he personally knows people in Buxton who would give him sensitive information of that kind), surely makes no sense. Ways could have been found to pursue investigations without the source of the information ever being disclosed.
If on the basis of intelligence received law enforcement cannot build a case that someone is in league with criminals then something is really wrong. As it was, Mr Clarke was allowed to remain in the army, although the President did block his promotion and recalled him in the middle of a training stint in the US, of all places. The fact that he was put on trial in the United States, Mr Jagdeo thought, vindicated his actions re the recall, etc. Well, not quite. With all that information to which the President was privy and which the joint services could have followed up, he still ended up being held on an American indictment and not on a Guyanese warrant. This seems to be an instance of total incompetence on the part of the authorities; other than that, they open themselves to the accusation that they did not want to arrest him for some reason. And if they didn’t want to pursue a case against him, then why not? Clearly there is a lot more yet to be uncovered in this matter.
Last week Parliament passed the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, which makes it easier for Guyana to seek help from Commonwealth countries or other countries with which Guyana has a treaty concerning such assistance. As PNCR MP Debra Backer commented, this was the second time round for this bill, which had been passed unanimously by the House in March 2006, but which had not received presidential assent.
So now three-and-a-half years later, it has made its second entrance, and presumably the President has every intention of signing it this time, although he never explained why he didn’t sign it on the first occasion. While as Ms Backer said, it will enable the government to seek information on the drug cases against Roger Khan, David Clarke and others, whether it actually acts is another matter entirely. As in the case of Mr Clarke’s memoir, no one should hold their breath.
6 Comments (Open | Close)
6 Comments To "David Clarke"
#1 Comment By La Dorada On December 6, 2009 @ 6:38 am
Prez didn’t sign the Bill. Hmmm, must be just one of those things….like the marriage certificate.
#2 Comment By MXQBH On December 6, 2009 @ 7:47 am
Blue cheese! Very bad metaphor, ed-op writer. I can think of some more appropriate metaphors, non even vaguely edible, but not blue cheese. Blue cheese is considered a delightful delicacy among cheeese aficionados.
#3 Comment By Raj On December 6, 2009 @ 9:41 am
SN go after this story and expose it for all its worth. A key piece of the government role is when Khan told Simels to nutralize Clarke but don’t kill his mother because the government will be upset. Why would Khan say that if the government is not complicit in Khan/Clarke association or at least know something.
#4 Comment By Carl On December 6, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Lest it seems that David Clarke or Roger Khan voluntarily chose to apologize only to Americans for their crimes, I’d like to advise readers that an apology to the U.S. is required as part of a plea deal.
Besides, no criminal would apologize for crimes committed in a jurisdiction in which he/she is yet to be charged. After all, almost everyone always claims to be innocent after being charged with a crime. And neither Clarke nor Khan is ready to offer apologies that could be immediately construed as guilt.
#5 Comment By Blackrattlesnake On December 6, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
La Dorada…..the Prez always on the move…..he’s jetsetter with plenty frequent flyer miles…..Guyana is where he changes his suitcases and clothes……no time for trivial things like signing stuff here……as a ‘finance’ man…..his pens are only for signing ‘money’ matters.
#6 Comment By Blackrattlesnake On December 6, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
MXQBH….them really meant to use the expression…’talk til them blue in the face’…..proof-reader lapse…..
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/editorial/12/06/david-clarke/
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Finance Minister seeking another US$25M from nation's coffers
Kaieteur News news item, Friday 04 December 2009 - "Finance Minister seeking another US$25M from nation's coffers …to extend fence, build roads, fuel for joint operations, etc" - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/12/04/finance-minister-seeking-another-us25m-from-nation%e2%80%99s-coffers/
By Gary Eleazar
Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, by way of two supplementary papers tabled in the National Assembly, is seeking another $4,677,208,405 (the equivalent of US$25M) from the nation’s coffers.
Dr Singh yesterday tabled the documents asking that it be debated at the next sitting of the House.
According to financial paper three with the schedule of supplementary provision on the current and capital estimates totaling $2.2B, some $28M was allocated in the voted provision in this year’s budget, and now the Guyana Defence Force is gearing to receive another $22M for the extension of a fence at Camp Groomes on the Soesdyke Linden Highway.
The GDF is also slated for an additional $135M under ‘Legend’ fuel and lubricants and it is explained that the money is required to meet additional expenditure.
The Defence Force will also be receiving under the description “other” an additional $273.8M
And this too is listed to meet expenditure for joint operations.
Added to the $14.5M that was given to Office of the President for the purchase of equipment another $5.6M is being requested.
The Public Works Ministry is also slated to benefit from some $1.2B in addition to the $67M it had already received.
Office of the President-Presidential Advisory is in line for a generous boost of $50M in addition to its original allocation of 413.6M.
The document that was tabled by Dr Singh stated that the money is to meet expenditure in relation to the Office of Climate Change and the Low Carbon Development Strategy.
The Agriculture sector is also slated for just under half off a billion dollars with $10M of that identified for hinterland communities affected by El Nino.
Included too in that sum is the $400M that will be going to the Guyana Rice Development Board which was announced earlier this year by head of State Bharrat Jagdeo to assist rice farmers.
Another $40M will be shared between the National Agriculture Research Institute and the New Guyana Marketing Corporation.
On the supplementary provision of the capital estimates on financial paper four, the Guyana Sugar Corporation will be the beneficiaries of another $1.4B in addition to the $1.8B for the construction of the packaging plant at Enmore.
The two papers make their way to the House shortly after the National Assembly approved more than $2B in addition to what was voted for in the 2009 Budget.
The Minister in August successfully tabled the First Schedule of Supplementary Provision on the current and Capital Estimates totaling $247.4 million for the period from July 16 to December 31 this year.
The monies requested at that time for current estimates included funds for the Amerindian Affairs Ministry for items such as rental of buildings, print and non print materials, fuel and lubricants, vehicles spares and services, other transport travel and postage, electricity charges, training (including Scholarships) and another item line named ‘other’.
As it relates to the rental of buildings, no money was voted for in the budget and the Finance Minister had sought some $2.5M on their behalf.
For the Ministry of Health, in addition to the $7.3M voted for the maintenance of buildings, an additional $30M was received and it is said to be used for the refurbishing of offices, electrical installation and plumbing to existing buildings to house staff of the Ministry of Health that formerly occupied the building that was destroyed by fire.
Under the Agency, Guyana Defence Force Defence Headquarters, below the description of ‘other’ an initial $350,000 was voted and another $115M was sought to meet expenditure for joint operations.
Under capital estimates, a total of $93.9M was allocated to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Amerindian Affairs and Education.
There was also the second supplementary provision paper for the period ending yesterday for $2.5B.
Out of that the Finance Ministry secured some $473M for the Guyana Sugar Corporation.
That was in addition to the more than $1.8B that was already been provided to GuySuCo for additional inflows.
The Ministry of Agriculture received $125M which went to hydrometeorology and provided for additional inflows.
The Ministry of Public Works and Communication benefited from more than $700M for various projects that target sea defences, roads and government buildings.
The Ministry of Education under that second supplementary paper received an additional $573M in addition to the $497.7M it had already received for the BEAMS programme.
The Ministry of Housing at that time was provided with $400M as was expected, given that President Jagdeo had earlier in the year announced the Low Cost Housing programme revolving fund and the money has been identified for this purpose.
By Gary Eleazar
Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, by way of two supplementary papers tabled in the National Assembly, is seeking another $4,677,208,405 (the equivalent of US$25M) from the nation’s coffers.
Dr Singh yesterday tabled the documents asking that it be debated at the next sitting of the House.
According to financial paper three with the schedule of supplementary provision on the current and capital estimates totaling $2.2B, some $28M was allocated in the voted provision in this year’s budget, and now the Guyana Defence Force is gearing to receive another $22M for the extension of a fence at Camp Groomes on the Soesdyke Linden Highway.
The GDF is also slated for an additional $135M under ‘Legend’ fuel and lubricants and it is explained that the money is required to meet additional expenditure.
The Defence Force will also be receiving under the description “other” an additional $273.8M
And this too is listed to meet expenditure for joint operations.
Added to the $14.5M that was given to Office of the President for the purchase of equipment another $5.6M is being requested.
The Public Works Ministry is also slated to benefit from some $1.2B in addition to the $67M it had already received.
Office of the President-Presidential Advisory is in line for a generous boost of $50M in addition to its original allocation of 413.6M.
The document that was tabled by Dr Singh stated that the money is to meet expenditure in relation to the Office of Climate Change and the Low Carbon Development Strategy.
The Agriculture sector is also slated for just under half off a billion dollars with $10M of that identified for hinterland communities affected by El Nino.
Included too in that sum is the $400M that will be going to the Guyana Rice Development Board which was announced earlier this year by head of State Bharrat Jagdeo to assist rice farmers.
Another $40M will be shared between the National Agriculture Research Institute and the New Guyana Marketing Corporation.
On the supplementary provision of the capital estimates on financial paper four, the Guyana Sugar Corporation will be the beneficiaries of another $1.4B in addition to the $1.8B for the construction of the packaging plant at Enmore.
The two papers make their way to the House shortly after the National Assembly approved more than $2B in addition to what was voted for in the 2009 Budget.
The Minister in August successfully tabled the First Schedule of Supplementary Provision on the current and Capital Estimates totaling $247.4 million for the period from July 16 to December 31 this year.
The monies requested at that time for current estimates included funds for the Amerindian Affairs Ministry for items such as rental of buildings, print and non print materials, fuel and lubricants, vehicles spares and services, other transport travel and postage, electricity charges, training (including Scholarships) and another item line named ‘other’.
As it relates to the rental of buildings, no money was voted for in the budget and the Finance Minister had sought some $2.5M on their behalf.
For the Ministry of Health, in addition to the $7.3M voted for the maintenance of buildings, an additional $30M was received and it is said to be used for the refurbishing of offices, electrical installation and plumbing to existing buildings to house staff of the Ministry of Health that formerly occupied the building that was destroyed by fire.
Under the Agency, Guyana Defence Force Defence Headquarters, below the description of ‘other’ an initial $350,000 was voted and another $115M was sought to meet expenditure for joint operations.
Under capital estimates, a total of $93.9M was allocated to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Amerindian Affairs and Education.
There was also the second supplementary provision paper for the period ending yesterday for $2.5B.
Out of that the Finance Ministry secured some $473M for the Guyana Sugar Corporation.
That was in addition to the more than $1.8B that was already been provided to GuySuCo for additional inflows.
The Ministry of Agriculture received $125M which went to hydrometeorology and provided for additional inflows.
The Ministry of Public Works and Communication benefited from more than $700M for various projects that target sea defences, roads and government buildings.
The Ministry of Education under that second supplementary paper received an additional $573M in addition to the $497.7M it had already received for the BEAMS programme.
The Ministry of Housing at that time was provided with $400M as was expected, given that President Jagdeo had earlier in the year announced the Low Cost Housing programme revolving fund and the money has been identified for this purpose.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Crime is the main deterrent to investment in Guyana - AFC
Kaieteur News news item, Tuesday 01 December 2009 - "Crime is the main deterrent to investment in Guyana - AFC" - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/12/01/crime-is-the-main-deterrent-to-investment-in-guyana-afc/
Opposition parliamentary party, the Alliance For Change (AFC) is insisting that crime is the main deterrent to investments in Guyana.
This is despite claims otherwise by the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, Donald Ramotar, has described the AFC’s negative position on investors coming into Guyana as “absolute nonsense.”
Ramotar opined that even though there should be more investors entering Guyana, the absence of large scale investors “has to do with infrastructure”.
This was a response to Chief Executive Officer of the AFC, Peter Ramsaroop, who had said that the current crime situation and general absence of rule of law are warding off any massive investments in the agriculture sector.
Yesterday, the AFC maintained its position. The party said it sees the Diaspora as a key resource for skills, ideas and investments for the development of Guyana.
“The Diaspora is most influenced by crimes. Importantly also, the Diaspora is influenced by the fact that too many crimes/murders are never solved and too few criminals are convicted,” the AFC stated.
These important and valuable Guyanese will never return home as long as there is no credibility in the police, the AFC added.
Crimes also retard business formation, the party said, while it was noted that drug dealers can launder funds while legitimate businesses must borrow from the commercial banks at 15% interest rate.
“Legitimate business folks have also been threatened and killed by the drug pushers,” the AFC claimed.
Crime, the party stated, also destroys and corrupts key institutions that are needed for development; such as the legal institutions.
“Investments are retarded because of the lack of strong laws and the enforcement of these laws. Take for instance the infringement of copyright in Guyana. It has killed the creative and cultural industries. Why write a poem, a song or story when others will abuse them?”
The party said serious crimes also force our people to migrate.
“Many of these Guyanese are educated, technically skilled, investors and entrepreneurs. Therefore, crimes lead to shortage of investors/risk-takers and depletes our human capital,” the AFC stated.
The AFC is of the view that the following are the key binding constraints that impede investments in Guyana: (i) Lack of infrastructure (energy and other infrastructure like farm to market roads). (ii) Lack of reasonable financing. (iii) Crime and the lack of credibility within the police force. (iv) A severe shortage of human capital. (v) Lack of suitable institutions/laws (and the enforcement of these laws) that can stimulate the creative and cultural industries. (vi) A limited role and focus on research and development.
Opposition parliamentary party, the Alliance For Change (AFC) is insisting that crime is the main deterrent to investments in Guyana.
This is despite claims otherwise by the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, Donald Ramotar, has described the AFC’s negative position on investors coming into Guyana as “absolute nonsense.”
Ramotar opined that even though there should be more investors entering Guyana, the absence of large scale investors “has to do with infrastructure”.
This was a response to Chief Executive Officer of the AFC, Peter Ramsaroop, who had said that the current crime situation and general absence of rule of law are warding off any massive investments in the agriculture sector.
Yesterday, the AFC maintained its position. The party said it sees the Diaspora as a key resource for skills, ideas and investments for the development of Guyana.
“The Diaspora is most influenced by crimes. Importantly also, the Diaspora is influenced by the fact that too many crimes/murders are never solved and too few criminals are convicted,” the AFC stated.
These important and valuable Guyanese will never return home as long as there is no credibility in the police, the AFC added.
Crimes also retard business formation, the party said, while it was noted that drug dealers can launder funds while legitimate businesses must borrow from the commercial banks at 15% interest rate.
“Legitimate business folks have also been threatened and killed by the drug pushers,” the AFC claimed.
Crime, the party stated, also destroys and corrupts key institutions that are needed for development; such as the legal institutions.
“Investments are retarded because of the lack of strong laws and the enforcement of these laws. Take for instance the infringement of copyright in Guyana. It has killed the creative and cultural industries. Why write a poem, a song or story when others will abuse them?”
The party said serious crimes also force our people to migrate.
“Many of these Guyanese are educated, technically skilled, investors and entrepreneurs. Therefore, crimes lead to shortage of investors/risk-takers and depletes our human capital,” the AFC stated.
The AFC is of the view that the following are the key binding constraints that impede investments in Guyana: (i) Lack of infrastructure (energy and other infrastructure like farm to market roads). (ii) Lack of reasonable financing. (iii) Crime and the lack of credibility within the police force. (iv) A severe shortage of human capital. (v) Lack of suitable institutions/laws (and the enforcement of these laws) that can stimulate the creative and cultural industries. (vi) A limited role and focus on research and development.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Corrupt politicians and functionaries of the state
Corrupt politicians and functionaries of the state
Posted By Stabroek staff On November 27, 2009 @ 5:06 am In Business | No Comments
It is pretty clear from Transparency Internation-al’s 2009 Global Report on Corruption that the taking of bribes and kickbacks by politicians in developing countries is a well-established and institutionalized practice. In fact, even allowing for the kind of inexactitude that understandably derives from estimates, the figure of between US$20 million and US$40 million is staggering. These sums, the TI report says, must be shared by public officials, expeditors of one sort or another, public officers of limited means who are in fact that people that administer those state services for which people are prepared to pay.
So endemic has corruption become in some countries – frequently, the poorer they are the more corrupt their politicians and public officials tend to be – that some aspiring politicians have actually been known to make significant “investments” in finding themselves in positions of influence. Politicians’ substantive pay is not usually anything to shout about. The “bonus,” the kickback worth several times the salaries of politician lies in the fact that their position of influence allows for the selling of state services at bumper prices. The significance of this, of course, is that it raises serious questions about the motives of so many politicians who use the hustings to proffer altruistic motives for seeking election when in fact their only real motive is to plunder the state.
Over time we in Guyana have come to know of several notorious cases of corrupt politicians in other countries who fabulously enriched themselves at the expense of the state – Jean Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire come readily to mind. Both are said to have plundered their countries mostly by simply possessing state assets and the former, having sufficiently enriched, then assumed the title Emperor Bokassa 1.
In our part of the world we hear rather less of the exploits of corrupt politicians though in some cases patterns of conspicuous consumption and ‘good living’ coincide with entry into politics to provide a dead giveaway. Most of the corruption-related scandals are associated with relationships between public servants and businessmen, the former driven by considerations of both greed and poor pay and the latter by a preparedness to pay well mostly for the privilege of acquiring official favours and circumventing their obligations – mostly financial ones to the state.
An interesting feature of the 2009 TI Corruption Report is the extent to which it lays the blame at the door of the international business community for the scale of corruption in poor countries. Some businesses, it seems, place a high value on corrupting officers of the state and while their respective annual reports and accounts are unlikely to show it, there are numerous cases in which corrupt public servants are on the permanent payrolls of people in the various business communities. Here too, suspicions of corruption invariably envelop public servants whose life styles cannot be sustained on their public service salaries.
Much of this, of course, is familiar to Guyana. Corruption – mostly transactions involving state functionaries and businessmen – has become so commonplace that discussions on the issue tend to dwell on issues of scale rather than whether or not the practice actually exists. Those commentators with an interest in defending the status quo would of course contend that the scale of corrupt practices is rather less than is said to be the case though when one thinks of the opportunities for corrupt practices across the spectrum of state resources and services which are in demand, we can do more than speculate as to the real scale of corruption.
Then there is of course the issue of whether or not our state bureaucracies are not themselves tailor-made for corruption. One can find numerous examples of basic services – licenses, permits, certificates etc, the preparation of which is preceded by fairly routine procedures but the acquisition of which is enmeshed in thickets of bureaucracy that have the effect of inflating the value of these services and attaching bribes and kickbacks to their acquisition. Oddly enough, despite the fact that the complexity of these systems is often linked to corrupt practices, little if any effort is made to render them less complex. Who among us is not familiar with those state agencies that attract long queues, large crowds, endless delays and needless paperwork, all of which, deliberately or otherwise, are tailor-made for corrupt practices.
Interestingly, states on the whole have little appetite for the scandal associated with revelations of corruption, particularly when high officials including politicians are implicated. If finger pointing and suspicion often tends to go in the direction of persons in authority the blanket of guilt all to frequently descends on lesser functionaries who cost the political administration little or not political capital. This too is an issue with which we in Guyana are familiar. Considerations of mistrust hopelessly compromise the credibility of official investigations while suspicions about the veracity of corruption investigations are even more deeply entrenched by the frequent exoneration of those who, ironically, are best-positioned to become involved in corrupt practices.
All of this, of course, amounts to the further weakening of both the economic resilience and moral outlook of countries most prone to corruption. Not only are the state coffers plundered and national resources sold off but – particularly for ordinary people – the cost of living is literally and sometimes significantly inflated by a sudden and unplanned necessity to pay bribes for services provided by the state. From the standpoint of what is perhaps best described as national moral fibre there has long occurred a coming to terms with the reality of bribery and corruption, the acceptance of the practice of kickbacks and backhanders as a norm rather than an aberration. That, perhaps, is the most disturbing thing of all.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/business/11/27/corrupt-politicians-and-functionaries-of-the-state/
Posted By Stabroek staff On November 27, 2009 @ 5:06 am In Business | No Comments
It is pretty clear from Transparency Internation-al’s 2009 Global Report on Corruption that the taking of bribes and kickbacks by politicians in developing countries is a well-established and institutionalized practice. In fact, even allowing for the kind of inexactitude that understandably derives from estimates, the figure of between US$20 million and US$40 million is staggering. These sums, the TI report says, must be shared by public officials, expeditors of one sort or another, public officers of limited means who are in fact that people that administer those state services for which people are prepared to pay.
So endemic has corruption become in some countries – frequently, the poorer they are the more corrupt their politicians and public officials tend to be – that some aspiring politicians have actually been known to make significant “investments” in finding themselves in positions of influence. Politicians’ substantive pay is not usually anything to shout about. The “bonus,” the kickback worth several times the salaries of politician lies in the fact that their position of influence allows for the selling of state services at bumper prices. The significance of this, of course, is that it raises serious questions about the motives of so many politicians who use the hustings to proffer altruistic motives for seeking election when in fact their only real motive is to plunder the state.
Over time we in Guyana have come to know of several notorious cases of corrupt politicians in other countries who fabulously enriched themselves at the expense of the state – Jean Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire come readily to mind. Both are said to have plundered their countries mostly by simply possessing state assets and the former, having sufficiently enriched, then assumed the title Emperor Bokassa 1.
In our part of the world we hear rather less of the exploits of corrupt politicians though in some cases patterns of conspicuous consumption and ‘good living’ coincide with entry into politics to provide a dead giveaway. Most of the corruption-related scandals are associated with relationships between public servants and businessmen, the former driven by considerations of both greed and poor pay and the latter by a preparedness to pay well mostly for the privilege of acquiring official favours and circumventing their obligations – mostly financial ones to the state.
An interesting feature of the 2009 TI Corruption Report is the extent to which it lays the blame at the door of the international business community for the scale of corruption in poor countries. Some businesses, it seems, place a high value on corrupting officers of the state and while their respective annual reports and accounts are unlikely to show it, there are numerous cases in which corrupt public servants are on the permanent payrolls of people in the various business communities. Here too, suspicions of corruption invariably envelop public servants whose life styles cannot be sustained on their public service salaries.
Much of this, of course, is familiar to Guyana. Corruption – mostly transactions involving state functionaries and businessmen – has become so commonplace that discussions on the issue tend to dwell on issues of scale rather than whether or not the practice actually exists. Those commentators with an interest in defending the status quo would of course contend that the scale of corrupt practices is rather less than is said to be the case though when one thinks of the opportunities for corrupt practices across the spectrum of state resources and services which are in demand, we can do more than speculate as to the real scale of corruption.
Then there is of course the issue of whether or not our state bureaucracies are not themselves tailor-made for corruption. One can find numerous examples of basic services – licenses, permits, certificates etc, the preparation of which is preceded by fairly routine procedures but the acquisition of which is enmeshed in thickets of bureaucracy that have the effect of inflating the value of these services and attaching bribes and kickbacks to their acquisition. Oddly enough, despite the fact that the complexity of these systems is often linked to corrupt practices, little if any effort is made to render them less complex. Who among us is not familiar with those state agencies that attract long queues, large crowds, endless delays and needless paperwork, all of which, deliberately or otherwise, are tailor-made for corrupt practices.
Interestingly, states on the whole have little appetite for the scandal associated with revelations of corruption, particularly when high officials including politicians are implicated. If finger pointing and suspicion often tends to go in the direction of persons in authority the blanket of guilt all to frequently descends on lesser functionaries who cost the political administration little or not political capital. This too is an issue with which we in Guyana are familiar. Considerations of mistrust hopelessly compromise the credibility of official investigations while suspicions about the veracity of corruption investigations are even more deeply entrenched by the frequent exoneration of those who, ironically, are best-positioned to become involved in corrupt practices.
All of this, of course, amounts to the further weakening of both the economic resilience and moral outlook of countries most prone to corruption. Not only are the state coffers plundered and national resources sold off but – particularly for ordinary people – the cost of living is literally and sometimes significantly inflated by a sudden and unplanned necessity to pay bribes for services provided by the state. From the standpoint of what is perhaps best described as national moral fibre there has long occurred a coming to terms with the reality of bribery and corruption, the acceptance of the practice of kickbacks and backhanders as a norm rather than an aberration. That, perhaps, is the most disturbing thing of all.
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/business/11/27/corrupt-politicians-and-functionaries-of-the-state/
“Small and medium enterprises: challenges in combating corruption
“Small and medium enterprises: challenges in combating corruption
Posted By Stabroek staff On November 27, 2009 @ 5:02 am In Business | No Comments
By Elaine Burns
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are of huge importance to the global economy, representing over 95 per cent of businesses worldwide and even more than 99 per cent of the business sector in countries such as Belgium, Greece, Italy and South Korea. Operating, as many do, in difficult developing markets and supporting major industries as crucial links in their supply chains, SMEs are vulnerable to the threat of corruption. As a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)/World Bank survey has revealed, more than 70 per cent of SMEs perceive corruption as an impediment to their business, compared to around 60 per cent of large companies.
What can an SME do to avoid bribery when a customs official demands a bribe in order to allow the import of a perishable product? Where can a supplier get help when the buyer for a major retailer expects ‘encouragement’ when awarding contracts? Assisting SMEs to resist corruption is an essential component of any comprehensive anti-corruption initiative and can prevent them from becoming the weakest link.
SMEs can be as small as a sole trader or a family business of twenty, but they can also reach the size of a company with several hundred employees. Each of these categories of SME, however, whatever its size or structure, faces four main challenges, albeit to varying extents.
* It is possible that the culture of bribery may be so much a part of the business scene that SMEs are under pressure to submit or fail. In some contexts bribery may be seen as just another business device, a necessary short cut that would be an overwhelming challenge to the company to counter. A business run on bribery is not only acting illegally, however, but also exposing itself to penalties. Such vulnerabilities can further increase the pressure on SMEs to succumb to the demands of corruption.
* SMEs may often not recognise or understand the complexities or grey areas of corruption. There may be uncertainty as to when a gift or entertainment is intended as inducement; when a donation to a political party or charity might be used as a bribe; and what the consequences of undetected conflicts of interest could be. An OECD analysis of some major export countries, for example, reports that even when SMEs represented the majority of exporting businesses they still tended to be poorly informed about anti-bribery laws.
* Limited resources are also a major challenge. The amount of people, time and money needed to create anti-bribery programmes will generally be more restricted than in larger organisations, but there is already considerable pressure on many SMEs just to make enough profit to survive, let alone find additional resources to resist corruption.
* SMEs have little support when dealing with extortion – demands for money, goods or services – and as a result they are often unable to offer much resistance. While there may be good intentions and good practice among many SMEs, there are few networks of support for such organisations and little consistency in anti-bribery measures.
In order to meet the specific challenges above, SMEs need to be made aware of the clear margins of corruption, be provided with knowledge on how to resist it and be supported in doing so. As an incentive to resist bribery, businesses need to understand the damage that it causes – such as loss of control and reputation and potential penalties and convictions – as well as recognise that the money paid in bribes has a direct impact on the economic availability of companies, by eating away at the bottom line. Furthermore, as the wider business environment becomes more aware of the risks involved in corruption, SMEs need to catch up: a reputation for integrity and anti-bribery activism is becoming increasingly important in making companies attractive to financial institutions and in the selection processes for becoming part of supply chains for larger companies.
As such, it is essential that SMEs begin tackling the issue of corruption in a concerted and coordinated fashion. In order to do this, they will need support from governments, primarily through the committed enforcement of anti-bribery legislation, and also from government procurement agencies, which can establish integrity pacts for bidders and contractors as agreements on transparency and accountability prior to entering into contracts with SMEs. Incentives from banks, such as a favourable interest rate for businesses that have implemented anti-bribery plans, could also encourage SMEs to invest in anti-corruption initiatives. Importantly, assistance from large companies, which can use their experience in supporting their suppliers through training and resources, would help SMEs prepare for bribery situations.
There is also assistance being offered by civil society. Transparency International has recently developed a tool for use by SMEs that sets out clear guidance and gives practical examples of the issues involved and how to set up an anti-bribery programme.
Bribery can also be resisted in imaginative, cost-effective ways. In some countries, SMEs have formed cooperatives in order to fight corruption through mutual support and by developing their own collective anti-corruption plans. When one voice may be insubstantial or ineffective, many are strong. In another initiative, sponsored by the Danish International Development Agency through the Confederation of Tanzanian Industries, SMEs in Tanzania fought back against fraudulent tax demands by referring them to a dedicated phone number manned by a small staff who deluged callers with questions concerning the demands, requiring names, reference numbers, department heads and telephone numbers, until the scam eventually stopped, drowned out by the detai1. With all this activity, the OECD statement in its Anti-Bribery Convention, that ‘corruption is no longer business as usual’, is starting to become more convincing, even in the complex environment in which SMEs work.?
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/business/11/27/%e2%80%9csmall-and-medium-enterprises-challenges-in-combating-corruption/
Posted By Stabroek staff On November 27, 2009 @ 5:02 am In Business | No Comments
By Elaine Burns
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are of huge importance to the global economy, representing over 95 per cent of businesses worldwide and even more than 99 per cent of the business sector in countries such as Belgium, Greece, Italy and South Korea. Operating, as many do, in difficult developing markets and supporting major industries as crucial links in their supply chains, SMEs are vulnerable to the threat of corruption. As a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)/World Bank survey has revealed, more than 70 per cent of SMEs perceive corruption as an impediment to their business, compared to around 60 per cent of large companies.
What can an SME do to avoid bribery when a customs official demands a bribe in order to allow the import of a perishable product? Where can a supplier get help when the buyer for a major retailer expects ‘encouragement’ when awarding contracts? Assisting SMEs to resist corruption is an essential component of any comprehensive anti-corruption initiative and can prevent them from becoming the weakest link.
SMEs can be as small as a sole trader or a family business of twenty, but they can also reach the size of a company with several hundred employees. Each of these categories of SME, however, whatever its size or structure, faces four main challenges, albeit to varying extents.
* It is possible that the culture of bribery may be so much a part of the business scene that SMEs are under pressure to submit or fail. In some contexts bribery may be seen as just another business device, a necessary short cut that would be an overwhelming challenge to the company to counter. A business run on bribery is not only acting illegally, however, but also exposing itself to penalties. Such vulnerabilities can further increase the pressure on SMEs to succumb to the demands of corruption.
* SMEs may often not recognise or understand the complexities or grey areas of corruption. There may be uncertainty as to when a gift or entertainment is intended as inducement; when a donation to a political party or charity might be used as a bribe; and what the consequences of undetected conflicts of interest could be. An OECD analysis of some major export countries, for example, reports that even when SMEs represented the majority of exporting businesses they still tended to be poorly informed about anti-bribery laws.
* Limited resources are also a major challenge. The amount of people, time and money needed to create anti-bribery programmes will generally be more restricted than in larger organisations, but there is already considerable pressure on many SMEs just to make enough profit to survive, let alone find additional resources to resist corruption.
* SMEs have little support when dealing with extortion – demands for money, goods or services – and as a result they are often unable to offer much resistance. While there may be good intentions and good practice among many SMEs, there are few networks of support for such organisations and little consistency in anti-bribery measures.
In order to meet the specific challenges above, SMEs need to be made aware of the clear margins of corruption, be provided with knowledge on how to resist it and be supported in doing so. As an incentive to resist bribery, businesses need to understand the damage that it causes – such as loss of control and reputation and potential penalties and convictions – as well as recognise that the money paid in bribes has a direct impact on the economic availability of companies, by eating away at the bottom line. Furthermore, as the wider business environment becomes more aware of the risks involved in corruption, SMEs need to catch up: a reputation for integrity and anti-bribery activism is becoming increasingly important in making companies attractive to financial institutions and in the selection processes for becoming part of supply chains for larger companies.
As such, it is essential that SMEs begin tackling the issue of corruption in a concerted and coordinated fashion. In order to do this, they will need support from governments, primarily through the committed enforcement of anti-bribery legislation, and also from government procurement agencies, which can establish integrity pacts for bidders and contractors as agreements on transparency and accountability prior to entering into contracts with SMEs. Incentives from banks, such as a favourable interest rate for businesses that have implemented anti-bribery plans, could also encourage SMEs to invest in anti-corruption initiatives. Importantly, assistance from large companies, which can use their experience in supporting their suppliers through training and resources, would help SMEs prepare for bribery situations.
There is also assistance being offered by civil society. Transparency International has recently developed a tool for use by SMEs that sets out clear guidance and gives practical examples of the issues involved and how to set up an anti-bribery programme.
Bribery can also be resisted in imaginative, cost-effective ways. In some countries, SMEs have formed cooperatives in order to fight corruption through mutual support and by developing their own collective anti-corruption plans. When one voice may be insubstantial or ineffective, many are strong. In another initiative, sponsored by the Danish International Development Agency through the Confederation of Tanzanian Industries, SMEs in Tanzania fought back against fraudulent tax demands by referring them to a dedicated phone number manned by a small staff who deluged callers with questions concerning the demands, requiring names, reference numbers, department heads and telephone numbers, until the scam eventually stopped, drowned out by the detai1. With all this activity, the OECD statement in its Anti-Bribery Convention, that ‘corruption is no longer business as usual’, is starting to become more convincing, even in the complex environment in which SMEs work.?
Article printed from Stabroek News: http://www.stabroeknews.com
URL to article: http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/business/11/27/%e2%80%9csmall-and-medium-enterprises-challenges-in-combating-corruption/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)