Discussion with Ronald Burch-Smith and Dr. Anand Goolsarran
Subscribe and view more at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PlainTalkbyCR
Forty-four years of the NIS
Introduction
September marked forty-four years since the National Insurance Scheme was launched by Prime Minister Forbes Burnham’s Government. It also marked twenty-one years of the control of the NIS by the PPP/C Government and the Chairmanship of another Forbes, this time bearing the surname Luncheon. The latter and a hard core of directors have led the NIS into a state where the Pension Reserves are now being used up by about two billion dollars per year. The saving grace for the reserves is that short-term and industrial benefits paid out annually are generating surpluses that help to compensate for the reductions in the Pension reserves.
The NIS was established as an actuarial scheme, i.e. one that seeks to balance out its long-term liabilities against its assets and revenues. The way this is achieved is by way of periodic – usually five yearly – evaluations carried out by external independent actuaries. The process is very scientific and involves a review all the data on active and past contributors, past and projected future income and expenses – of which pension benefits are always the more significant item – leading to recommendations generally designed to maintain/restore the actuarial balance of the Scheme.
Continue reading “Forty-four years of the NIS”
Plain Talk: Politics and Parliament – AFC
Discussion on the 10th Parliament with Michael Harrington, Leonard Craig and Frederick Kissoon
Subscribe and view more at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PlainTalkbyCR
The fiasco over at Kingston
Berbice Bridge Company update
In the introduction to last week’s post, I related an exchange of letters I had with the Berbice River Bridge Inc. in which I had requested access to certain public documents of the Berbice Bridge Company Inc. In response to the reply by the Company Secretary of BBCI that I provide justifiable reasons, I indicated that the law did not require me to give any and I restated my request, giving the company two working days to provide me with access. I am pleased to report that within that time, I received a letter from the Company Secretary advising me that the company had been advised that I am entitled to access and could visit the registered office within normal working hours. I commend the directors of the Bridge Company for their responsible action in this matter.Small as that matter may seem, it is a significant development in corporate compliance as companies, their directors and officers become increasingly aware that they are required to comply with the Companies Act to which accountability and transparency are central.
At the time of sending my first letter to BBCI, I also sent similar letters to Mr. Winston Brassington of NICIL and Ms. Marcia Nadir-Sharma of Atlantic Hotel Inc. (AHI). Neither Brassington nor Nadir-Sharma has responded to those letters or reminders sent one week later. In the reminder letter I indicated my intention to pursue the matter as legally advised. The disregard and contempt of the law by Brassington and Nadir-Sharma can no longer be tolerated or excused on the grounds of age, inexperience, incompetence or ignorance.
NICIL and AHI have retained just about every law firm in Georgetown in the belief that they can limit the number of firms professionally free to act against them. So Brassington and Nadir-Sharma, two key officers of these entities, should know that the indemnification provisions of the Companies Act only apply to the director or officer who has acted honestly and had reasonable ground for believing their conduct was lawful.
Contempt for the law is hardly an honest act.
Introduction
Years after spending billions of dollars in clearing prime land contiguous to the Atlantic Ocean and the Demerara River, relocating sewerage lines to allow for construction on the land, and long after signing a construction contract for US$51 million, Atlantic Hotel Inc., a government company decided to have a Feasibility Study of the project done by the Miami-firm CHR Consulting Services Inc.. The report on that study was issued in September 2012. Yet one year later, and only after relentless pressure has AHI, a wholly-owned government company, has provided to the public parts of that report.
The information was released by Winston Brassington just around the same time that he finally conceded in an interview with Johann Earle of the Stabroek News what he was being warned about long before committing more than US$20 billion of public funds in the project: that the project was never as strong as Jagdeo and he had been selling like salesmen of old. In today’s piece I look at the report and discuss it against some of the statements made by Brassington on the hotel construction of which is in progress.
I have no reason to doubt that the consultant preparing the Study is anything but a highly reputable company. Which then raises the question why the (revised?) Executive Summary would fail to mention that the study was conducted in 2010 as Mr. Brassington told the Stabroek News, and refer to the key changes, if any, made to the original report. Another key omission is that no one quite knows what the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Study are and whether this included reproducing copies of all the advertisements by Brassington to demonstrate how transparent the process has been!
Continue reading “The fiasco over at Kingston”
Neither the President nor the AG is the authority for interpretation of the constitution; that is the function of the courts
The letter by Mr Anil Nandlall, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs ‘The President has untrammelled freedom to assent to and withhold assent from Bills’ (Stabroek News, September 30) addresses two principal points: first the presidential assent (or non-assent) of Bills and second, the role of the Attorney General in the process.
On the first Mr Nandlall argues that President Ramotar has an untrammelled right to withhold his assent to Bills, and cites not only the constitutions of India and the USA, and the Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom but also refers to the oath by the President to preserve and protect the Constitution of Guyana.
I disagree both with Mr Nandlall’s arguments and his conclusions. While there is nothing wrong with citing constitutions, cases and laws from other countries, any discussion or debate on the Constitution of Guyana must be guided by its Article 8 which states in simple and clear language: “This Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and, if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
Continue reading “Neither the President nor the AG is the authority for interpretation of the constitution; that is the function of the courts”