Author: ChrisRam

Posted on

Distorting history by PPP

Last Sunday, on our way to the Whim APNU+AFC rally, our group stopped at Babu John, Corentyne for the benefit of those who had not previously visited the gravesites of Dr Cheddi and Mrs Janet Jagan. The site was well kept and we were encouraged by a goatherd watching his flock to shed our deference and enter the enclosure.

While Dr Jagan’s place in Guyana’s independence and anti-colonial struggle cannot be disputed, not everyone accepts him as the Father of the Nation. Neither the National Assembly nor the constitution, the voice of the people, grants such a unique accolade to anyone, and it is hardly up to a political party to make such a determination for inscription on his tombstone. But our visit also revealed issues that were beyond opinion or truth.

The tombstone of Dr Jagan describes him as the Founder of the PPP in 1950 and that of Mrs Jagan describes her as the Founder of the PPP in 1951. They cannot both be right! Indeed, they are both wrong.

The founding of the PPP was preceded by the setting up in 1946 of the Political Affairs Committee, credit for the founding of which is attributed by Dr Jagan in the West on Trial to himself, Mrs Jagan, Ashton Chase and Mr HJM Hubbard. That committee began political work around the country and soon, nationalists like Martin Carter and Eusi Kwayana (then Sydney King), were actively involved.

Two parallel developments at the time were the formation of two Discussion Circles, one in Buxton chaired by Kwayana and the other in Kitty chaired by Dr Jagan. Among the leading personalities in the Buxton Circle were Byron Lewis and Edmond Forde, who still lives in Buxton, Sewe Sankar Sanjogee (Sadhu) and Rampersaud Sawh, both of Vigilance. The two circles met on different evenings of the week (Friday and Sunday respectively) and Jagan and Kwayana occasionally exchanged visits on behalf of their respective circles.

It was the Buxton Circle, at a meeting chaired by Kwayana, which passed a resolution that a political party be formed to represent the workers and the peasants of Guyana. A similar resolution was later passed by the Kitty Circle at its meeting chaired by Dr Jagan.

In the meantime, additional persons had joined the PAC, including Martin Carter, ‘Boysie’ Ram Karran and Kwayana. In January 1950, approximately twenty persons comprising members of the PAC, members of the two Discussion Circles and other persons, including IVO Cendrecourt and Frank Van Sertima, gathered at the Progressive High School in Regent Street and formed the PPP. There was no single founder as both headstones erroneously claim.

I am sure that the conflicting and misleading headstones were not intended to rewrite history. But even innocent errors must be corrected, since juxtaposed, they make nonsense.

Two other points were noted by the group I was in. If this is intended to be a national site then for the nation’s sake, replace the colours of the PPP with those of the country. The second is the awful and backward state of the sanitary facilities. There are only pit latrines, some of which are still under “construction”, and none of which has running water. Using them sickens the stomach. The only source of water is the ubiquitous black tank located to the northern side of the platform about fifty yards away from the latrines.

The PPP encourages diplomats, international visitors, persons from around the country, and most of all ladies, to mark the death anniversary of Dr Jagan at Babu John. It is a disgrace, embarrassment and insult to expose them to such unhygienic and undignified conditions. It is too, an insult to the memory of Dr and Mrs Jagan, and conveys an impression of Berbicians that is wholly undeserved. Something has to be done to fix this grave indecency.

I made a bet with two members of the group that once the matters are raised publicly, the General Secretary of the party will quickly take action to fix both the historical errors and the physical [in]conveniences. He may even seek a more embracing solution by facilitating the establishment of a Jagan Foundation, one of the functions of which can be the management of Babu John (Mr Nandlall, please note, and stop the revisionist attempt in relation to the spelling).

Posted on

Police should have been called in immediately over forgeries at registries

I understand from the article ‘Probe underway at Deeds, Supreme Court registries over forged documents’ carried in the Stabroek News of March 30, 2015 that the investigation referred to is an internal investigation. Apart from the seriousness of the apparent improprieties, the matters involved high profile companies with serious reputational risks at stake.

The report suggests that the relevant authorities accept that a fraud was committed but first want to determine whether any staff member may have been involved. That is troubling. I am not aware that the registries have the capacity to carry out fraud investigations and indeed whether it is proper for them to do so. Not surprisingly, such internal investigations seldom seem to produce any results or effect.

Because of the seriousness of the matters and to ensure that there is no tampering with records or potential witnesses the police ought to have been called in immediately and certainly no later than the date when the court decided that documents submitted to it should not be treated as valid.

I certainly hope there is no further delay and that the police are called in immediately.

Posted on

Caution: Bridge Company helping to sink leaking NIS

Introduction
Recently the NIS has made news on two scores: the first that it will not receive any dividends on its investment in preference shares in the Berbice Bridge Company Inc., and the second that there are more than 1,500,000 contributions which have not been credited to the workers’ account.

I was disappointed rather than shocked when I saw Ms. Doreen Nelson, General Manager of the NIS, sitting passively next to her Chairman Dr. Roger Luncheon announcing that persons were not coming forward to help clear up the contribution mess in the NIS. Ms. Nelson knows that his statement contradicts the experiences of many contributors who try, sometimes for years, to persuade the NIS that the contributions recorded in its records are less, sometimes significantly so, than the actual contributions they have made over their decades of working life and contributions.

A client has been engaged in frustrating correspondence for more than four years persuading the management of the Scheme that his entitlement is a pension rather than an Old Age grant. I myself have had fifteen telephone calls to Ms. Nelson over the matter and all I hear is that the NIS is looking into it. Frustrated with the delay, the poor fellow travelled to Guyana from the USA over the Christmas holidays only to be told that it was Christmas time and the matter would have to wait until the holidays were over!

I reported this to the General Manager several weeks ago. She said that was not good.
Continue reading “Caution: Bridge Company helping to sink leaking NIS”

Posted on

DDL Annual Report 2014

The Stabroek News article on the performance of DDL for the year 2014 (S/N 03-24-15 DDL’s after-tax profit up 38.4%) comes three days before the annual general meeting (AGM) of the company. DDL has three institutional investors holding more than 5% of its issued shares – Trust Company (Guyana) Limited (20.58%), with which it shares some common directors, Secure International Finance Co Ltd (18.32%), a Beharry Group company, and the NIS (8%).

In most western countries the directors of public companies respect, if not fear, their institutional investors. Those directors are mindful of the consequences on share value of the disposal of a significant block of shares by any dis-satisfied institutional investor. To avoid that, it is very common for them to meet with their institutional investors before any major decision or action.

In those countries too, annual reports are expected to comply not only with laws but also with regulations and best practices. By contrast, Guyana companies seem less interested and are willing to take more risks with disclosure while institutional investors are perhaps the most silent group of shareholders, never asking a single question of the directors, or ever trying to influence company decisions. The casual observer can be forgiven for believing that there is some unwritten, unholy understanding by institutional investors not to interfere in the company’s business.

Consequently, the responsibility to carry out the searching analysis of the annual reports of public companies falls on the press since the small shareholder seldom has the expertise to do so for herself. The task is even greater when the company fails to meet the disclosure requirements of the law and regulations, or where its reporting is contradictory, or sometimes clouded in strange language.

For these reasons shareholders and the public would have appreciated reading beyond all the positives disclosed in the DDL Chairman’s report. I have always faulted this company for the ambiguity and confusion caused by its deliberate or inadvertent choice of words in reporting on its performance. For example, readers are often left wondering whether references to performance are to volumes or value, and are confused by the unexplained relationship between the Chairman’s statement that in Caribbean markets the brands experienced growth of 28% while the financial statements disclose a decline in revenue of 24%.

Shareholders would also like to know, and have a right to adequate explanation for growth of 25% in the US market but a fall in profits from $36 million to $2 million, and why the already statutorily inadequate information given for the US subsidiary is not given for the Canadian subsidiary for which all the reader is told is that DDL’s brands increased by 35%.

The Companies Act requires the directors of holding companies to give a report on the affairs of their subsidiaries – not just the after-tax profits of a select few. It says a lot about DDL’s disclosure policies that NICIL, hardly ever considered a model of accounting and reporting, has better disclosures on its subsidiaries than DDL does.

Posted on

Atlantic Hotel Inc: Lies and deception from Brassington.

– total audit of project needed

The known…
Even as the construction of the Marriott Hotel nears completion and the opening soon but uncertain, the role of Winston Brassington, Chairman and CEO of Atlantic Hotel Inc., continues to raise serious questions about his honesty and integrity and those he retains to speak for him. Indeed as recent as Sunday January 18, I have had cause to expose the lack of integrity on his part and that of his spokesperson Mr. Kit Nascimento when they created a fictional column for me.

It is public knowledge that the hotel’s construction has been financed mainly from the proceeds of the sale of Government shares in the Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Company Ltd. and from other public resources diverted to or vested in the company through means that many consider completely illegal. It is also public knowledge that the National Assembly passed a motion on December 17, 2012 that, among other things, neither NICIL nor Atlantic Hotel Inc. incur further expenditure on the Hotel Project without the authorisation and approval of the National Assembly. Needless to say, the directors and officers of NICIL and AHI have ignored that motion.

It is known that the Hotel has been granted concessions rare to any entity in Guyana – even Queens Atlantic, Jagdeo’s people. Those concessions, in addition to land at below market price, are no more than crude government subsidies. It is also known that the contractor has been allowed, illegally, exemptions from the laws of Guyana which even the diplomatic community does not enjoy. Central to and facilitating every well-known violation associated with the company is Winston Brassington. See Soul for Sale series of articles on chrisram.net beginning February 17, 2013.
Continue reading “Atlantic Hotel Inc: Lies and deception from Brassington.”