Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

Business Commentary Part 33: Manifestos Beyond Oil: Breaking the Mold

Business and economic commentary by Christopher Ram

Introduction

Five political parties – the PPP/C, APNU, AFC, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) and For-ward Guyana Movement (FGM) – have published their September 1 elections manifesto. Last Friday’s Business and Economic Commentary carried a summary of their proposals for oil and gas. An analysis of the other critical sections follows below.

Overview

None of the parties put any numbers to their proposals. Guyana’s 2025 budget is already financed 27% by borrowings and 39% by oil revenues. APNU promises a $400,000 tax threshold, AFC $250,000, WIN a PAYE cut to 20%, and PPP/C and FGM more relief and “tax justice.” These will have a significant impact on the country’s financial capacity and sustainability and would usually require careful consideration, including tax reform, of which WIN makes a single reference.

Welfare payments stand out in the manifestos. Cash transfers, stipends, subsidies, pensions and the loss-making GuySuCo will all be generously financed. None of the parties explain how this army of citizens will be moved off welfare and into high-paying jobs. Without investment in high-value industries – technology, advanced agriculture, services, renewables and the human capital to drive these – the danger is that Guyana risks becoming a society of handouts, propped up by oil until the wells run dry.

Cost of Living and the Minimum Wage

The parties treat the cost-of-living crisis as an auction of handouts. PPP/C points to grants and subsidies; APNU adds free meals and annual transfers; WIN throws in a “Thrive Grant” and scaled salary hikes. The AFC is quieter but more substantive. None tackles the real drivers of high prices: import dependence, monopoly markets, and weak consumer protection.

Meanwhile, Guyana lives with two minimum wages – one higher for the public sector, and the other for the private sector at barely US$300 per month: unacceptably and unlivably low. Without recognising this distinction, APNU promises $200,000, WIN speaks vaguely of engaging the private sector, AFC supports a “living wage,” and PPP/C hides behind tax relief. FGM mentions fairness but offers no specifics. Both sets of workers shop at the same market, ride on the same minibus and face the same household expenses. It is time that Guyana confronts the need for a unified, decent wage floor.

Institutions and Accountability

The PPP/C promises consultations (again) on constitutional reform, digitised registries, and stronger procurement, but says little about freeing GECOM, and the ERC from stifling government control to make them more effective. APNU pledges to “give teeth” to watchdogs, committing to involve civil society, but avoids specifics on their independence. The AFC nods to commissions while WIN is most detailed, proposing new judicial and rights appointments, a new electoral oversight body, and stronger Integrity and Procurement Commissions.

FGM promises to depoliticise the ERC, re-establish SARA, create an anti-corruption commission, and guarantee independent judicial appointments.

Campaign finance is addressed only by WIN, while all are silent on state media independence. But no one, it seems, wants political party regulation.

Article 77A of the Constitution, which obliges Parliament to guarantee resources for local democratic organs, receives minimal attention. Regions and Local councils remain beggars at the gate, dependent on governmental largesse. Electoral reform to allow independents into geographic constituencies is likewise avoided.

State media continue as weapons of the government of the day, taxpayers funding their own exclusion. With its abuse a daily feature, their omission is a major disappointment. 

Crime and Security

Citizens live in daily fear of crime: those who can afford it secure within gated communities. The Guyana Police Force needs not only reform but independence from the politicians. The PPP/C points to more patrols and equipment but avoids the harder issues of trust in the police and corruption in law enforcement. APNU promises “safe communities” while AFC mentions reform, and WIN and FGM speak broadly of justice. None addresses corruption, the deficit of professionalism in policing or the delays in the courts.

The NIS and Pensions

All the parties speak about pensions – the PPP/C boasting of increases to the old-age pension, APNU and WIN committing $100,000 a month, AFC and Forward Guyana Movement (FGM) invoking “living wages.” Yet the National Insurance Scheme (NIS), the contributory backbone of social security, is ignored. Not a word on the age-old problem of independence, missing contribution records, inadequate benefits, and the endless struggles to place the Scheme on a certain and sustainable trajectory.   

Access to Information

On access to information, the PPP/C promises “greater access” but only after the elections, while APNU speaks of implementing the Act and appointing an independent Commissioner. The AFC goes further, pledging to publish all contracts, permits, licences, EIAs and feasibility studies within a week of approval, while WIN proposes amending the Act to impose time limits and make the Commissioner answerable to Parliament.

FGM is the boldest, promising full transparency – from contracts and expenditures to the daily schedules of officials.

Inclusion and Rights

On gender, disability, and social inclusion, the manifestos offer warm words but insufficient machinery. Equal pay is not enforced, persons with disabilities are treated as charity, not rights, and targets or quotas are absent. On the environment, the AFC stands out. 

Conclusion

The PPP/C has governed for 28 of the past 33 years. It has controlled the machinery of state, dictated and increased borrowings, and spending on what it considers as priorities. But its refusal to embrace action that touches on democracy – access to information, campaign finance rules, independence and the efficient functioning of constitutional bodies – betrays something deeper: a party that treats openness as an existential danger. It does not hesitate to label every civil society organisation – even the Carter Center – as political. Such an obsession with power does not inspire comfort. 

APNU and the AFC carry their own stain: neither has apologised for the attempt to rig the 2020 elections. APNU’s flagship pledge to lift the tax-free allowance from $130,000 to $400,000 per month is hard to justify. The AFC – once the hope for the breakup of the duopoly PPP and PNC by whatever names – has lost its national authority. Yet, its manifesto offers some bold initiatives.

WIN has produced a commendable manifesto with the novel idea of a Transportation Authority and a reference to tax reform. Its challenge will be to assemble a team to carry out its ambitious programme. FGM has also produced a noteworthy manifesto – which it describes as a Contract – with ideas and programmes that can move Guyana forward.

Realistically, these smaller parties have no chance of winning the Presidency/Executive but their lack of governmental experience should not be held against them. Their contribution in an inclusive National Assembly will help take Guyana forward.

PS: I had promised to deal this week with the parallel economy. That will appear next week. 

Posted on

The PPP/C’s campaign has suffered degradation in standards in contrast to an issues based opposition

Dear Editor,

The PPP/C’s elections campaign has taken a nasty turn. One arm has leaned on disguised vote-buying and selective, distorted facts. Another has descended into language so coarse and abusive as to be unprintable. It is not confined to fringe voices. Leonard Craig, Joseph Hamilton, and even the Vice President himself have joined in.

Minister Vindhya Persaud, to her credit, spoke out against the conduct. But hers was a lone voice, quickly drowned by the noise of the campaign. The party or its women’s arm took no corrective action. GECOM, which is supposed to safeguard fairness, has remained silent. The Ethnic Relations Commission, which had only weeks ago promoted a code of conduct, also looked away.

What is even more striking is who has been asked to carry the harshest lines. It is not the party’s leadership, but campaigners given licence to say what the leaders will not. Their role is clear: to reach certain voters while proving their loyalty and securing their place. They are being used, while the leadership hides its hands.

The problem runs deeper. The PPP continues to shelter individuals facing serious criminal charges, including sexual misconduct. When vulgarity, falsehoods, and compromised candidates are tolerated, the damage goes beyond politics. It corrodes society itself. It lowers standards, teaches the young that indecency is strength, and normalises such behaviour.

Some argue these tactics come from desperation or fear of the opposition. But fear cannot justify filth. The contrast between them is clear: opposition parties, even the one most vilified, are running restrained campaigns, focusing on issues more than personalities. They have shown that an election can be fought without dragging the nation into the gutter.

This matters because once such behaviour is accepted, it is not easily reversed. Today it is vulgar language, tomorrow it may be worse – harming members of the opposition and their supporters. If standards collapse, elections will no longer be contests of ideas but battles of abuse. That is the road the PPP/C is taking the nation. 

This is not healthy politics. It is distortion and vulgarity, a degradation of our society and its standards. Decent voters should recoil – and show their disapproval come September 1.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

GECOM should address this matter of domicile in relation to Commonwealth citizens

Dear Editor,

There has been much debate – and concern – about the conditions which Commonwealth citizens must meet to qualify to vote in Guyana’s elections. This issue is addressed in Article 59 of the Constitution of Guyana which states:

“Subject to the provisions of article 159 (being registered as an elector), every person may vote at an election if he or she is of the age eighteen years or upwards and is either a citizen of Guyana or a Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana.” Emphasis added.

Article 159 (3) goes on to provide in a roundabout, double negative way that a person shall not be so qualified unless he or she is a non-citizen Commonwealth citizen domiciled and resident in Guyana and has been so resident for a period of one year before the qualifying date. While 159 (3) not only appears to offer some clarification – and is by international standards quite liberal – the requirement of domicile qualifies the one-year residency which is not further defined. It does not say that residency means continuous, or if not continuous, for one year during the past X or Y years.

Unlike domicile, residency is often a practical rather than a strictly legal matter. Domicile on the other hand, is a very strict concept. A person is born with a domicile which is called his domicile of origin. That status can be changed to another domicile, known as a domicile of choice, but the conditions are onerous, as ruled in a UK tax case. In that case, a man born in Halifax, Canada in 1910 who served in the RAF from 1932 to 1959 married an English woman in 1946 and lived in England for decades but always intended to return to Canada if his wife died before him.

The tax authorities claimed that he had acquired a domicile of choice in England where he intended to reside indefinitely, if not perpetually. And that his intention to return to Canada if his wife died was too uncertain to negative the acquisition of domicile of choice. The Chancery Division of the High Court agreed with the tax authorities, but its decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which held that since the taxpayer intended to return to Canada if he survived his wife, he had not acquired an English domicile.

If we apply that principle to the Bajan who is a permanent employee with CARICOM in Guyana but who intends eventually to leave Guyana, that person would be resident in Guyana during that time but not domiciled and resident in Guyana. The same would be true of the Trinidadian or Indian or Bangladeshi construction or oil sector worker.

Even if such a person was mistakenly registered as a voter, the Constitution states that that person is not eligible to vote in our elections. If GECOM had improperly registered that person, it must take corrective action and ensure that the person does note vote. I cannot see how to allow an unqualified person to vote would be the lesser of two evils.

GECOM should address this matter to remove any lingering concerns citizens and the parties might have.    

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

2025 Manifestos – This time it is the PPP/C’s Record on the Line

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded – Column 167

Introduction

The electorate in 2020 punished APNU+AFC for the lopsided 2016 Petroleum Agreement, revealed to the public only long after it had been signed in June 2016. Civil society was relentless, and the Ali–Jagdeo ticket was brutal and emphatic. They pledged to review and renegotiate the Agreement. They would establish an independent Petroleum Commission. They promised better contract administration.

Five years later, the debate has come full circle. This column looks specifically at the oil and gas sections of the manifestos of the PPP/C, APNU, AFC, WIN, and the Forward Guyana Movement, now offered up to the public. The focus is on what each party promises, what has been delivered, and which proposals stand up to scrutiny.

PPP/C: Spin Versus Reality

The PPP/C takes a dual approach. A review, nay boast of its achievements and a promise of what is yet to come. So, it highlights its legislative action: a new 2021 Natural Resource Fund Act, the 2023 Petroleum Activities Act to replace the age-old Petroleum Exploration and Production Act, and a new model Production Sharing Agreement with less outrageous fiscal terms for future blocks. It boasts about US$3.1 billion in the NRF which is in fact overstated by the amount of taxes it has paid on behalf of the oil companies but which it refuses to disclose. Boasts about 1,000 local firms registered under the Local Content Act which it promised to revise since 2023 but did not. Then it conflates these with stalled progress on the Wales Gas-to-Energy project which is being done without a feasibility study or a disclosed cost.

Nowhere does the manifesto admit that none of these touch the 2016 deal that lies at the heart of the controversy. The government promised renegotiation in 2020 but never tried. Contract administration has been poor: no audit completed on time, the first audit mishandled, and relinquishment deadlines allowed to drift. The Petroleum Commission, once sold as a centrepiece of independent oversight, has been quietly abandoned.

Even the NRF reform was shallow. Transfers are set by a simplistic formula based on percentages of the fund’s balance, ensuring political control rather than professional management. What the PPP/C calls reform is, in truth, centralisation of power in the hands of politicians.

It faces a huge trust deficit to explain the reality that its government campaigned as a reformer but governed as a dormouse and apologist.

APNU: Renegotiation and Fiscal Rules

APNU overlooks its primary role in the 2016 Agreement and has been annoyingly ambivalent about the Agreement and the PPP/C’s management of the oil sector for five years.

If we can take it at its word, it will “get a better deal within two years.” It proposes an autonomous Petroleum Commission, professional advisory teams, fiscal rules to discipline savings and spending, and publication of all contracts.

This is right in principle. Guyana cannot rely on future agreements alone while the Stabroek PSA drains the treasury. Codified fiscal rules would add stability and protect future generations. The challenge, however, is feasibility. Exxon is unlikely to accept changes easily, and legal routes are narrow. APNU may risk overpromising, but it at least faces the reality of the 2016 deal and couples renegotiation with stronger institutions.

AFC: Oversight and Environment First

Ironically, the AFC, whose top leader Raphael Trotman signed the 2016 Agreement and whose current leader and presidential candidate is a key professional service provider to the oil companies, offers the most detailed timetable. Within 30 days it would initiate renegotiation; within 60 days establish a Petroleum Commission. It pledges to enforce ring-fencing, ban routine flaring and produced-water dumping, and require full liability insurance for spills. It also promises quarterly NRF reporting with civil society oversight.

The manifesto’s strength is its seriousness about oversight and environment. By focusing on insurance and liability, it addresses the gravest risk – that a spill could cripple the country. Its emphasis on transparency and civil society participation aligns with international best practice.

The weakness is ambition. Attempting renegotiation, regulatory reform, and NRF overhaul simultaneously may overwhelm capacity. Yet of all the manifestos, the AFC’s is the most technically robust and grounded in the mechanics of sound petroleum management.

These provisions bear the unmistakable hand of Dr. Vince Adams, arguably the most accomplished Guyanese petroleum environment specialist.  

WIN: Transparency and Renewables

While not the most technically sound or complete set of policy proposals, WIN relies on its appeal and offers a people-centred focus. It promises full publication of all extractive contracts, strict ring-fencing, and transparent monitoring of oil revenues. More strikingly, it proposes a bold national wind and solar programme to complement gas-to-shore, reduce tariffs by up to 70%, and end chronic blackouts.

WIN’s vision and its perceived authenticity seem to resonate with the ordinary voters. Households care as much about electricity bills and reliability as they do about royalty rates. Tying petroleum wealth to cheaper, cleaner power connects oil policy directly to daily life. The weakness is feasibility — financing and executing such an ambitious renewable rollout will be difficult. Still, WIN adds a valuable emphasis on sustainability and transparency.

Forward Guyana Movement: Linking Oil to Governance

The Forward Guyana Movement situates oil inside a broader governance reset: shared power, zero tolerance for corruption, audited NRF accounts, and movement toward a National Oil Company. It emphasises that without tackling corruption and exclusion, no resource management system will succeed.

This perspective is valid. Oil cannot be insulated from Guyana’s wider governance challenges. The weakness is that the manifesto offers fewer technical details compared with the AFC or WIN. But its central message – that petroleum governance is an offshoot of political governance – is important.

Conclusion: Rating the Promises

My assessment is that the AFC’s proposals come out tops, followed by the APNU, WIN and FGM with the PPP/C’s suffering from a betrayal of trust and a promise of more of the same.

 The electorate’s decision will determine whether Guyana continues with political control dressed up as reform, or whether it begins the hard work of building professional institutions and securing a fairer share of its oil wealth.

Posted on

Oil as an election issue

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana must become oil-minded – Column 166

Today’s column compares the role of oil and the 2016 Petroleum Agreement in the 2025 election campaign and in 2020, the first year of oil production. Then Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali were seeking to unseat the APNU + AFC Coalition. The Agreement was released to the public on 28 December 2017, but its terms were hotly debated and Jagdeo was violently opposed to every aspect about the contract.

Critics could hammer its poor terms and secrecy, link it to Raphael Trotman’s signature, and fold it into a wider indictment: APNU+AFC had lost a no-confidence motion in December 2018, refused to call elections on time, and then – when elections were finally held – spent five months trying to rig the results. With its 2% royalty, sweeping tax exemptions, lack of ring-fencing, and a year of secrecy before disclosure, it was the PPP/C’s sharpest weapon against the APNU+AFC coalition.

In that climate, the oil contract symbolised incompetence, impunity, and contempt for the rule of law. It was political dynamite.

Today, the deal is intact, citizens’ worst fears about the lopsided nature of the Agreement have been proved right. Yet, the political fire is gone – not because the problems have been resolved, but because the ground shifted.

A changed landscape in 2025

Production has more than quadrupled. Prices have stayed steady, revenues have kept flowing, and the budget is now about four times 2020’s size. The PPP/C has used this wealth not to fix the deal, but to bury it under high-visibility spending, ribbon-cuttings, and cash grants with more to come. For many households, a grant feels more important than a royalty clause. Attention has shifted from how the deal was made to how the windfall is distributed.

The opposition is weakened. APNU+AFC cannot credibly attack its own agreement. The scars of the no-confidence saga and the 2020 electoral impasse remain, and leadership changes have not restored trust.

More significantly and inexplicably, the PPP/C changed its tune. In opposition it promised “review and renegotiate.” In government it has refused to release the report on how the deal was signed, avoided investigating Trotman, kept secret the financing of billions in tax concessions, completed no audits of cost claims, stalled on renegotiation, and quietly channeled oil revenues into the much-delayed, over-budget gas-to-energy project. Its language now matches APNU+AFC’s old line: “sanctity of contract” and the Venezuela bogey.  Then of course, the Vice President is the Petroleum Commission.

Several forces have removed the oil contract from Guyana’s political agenda. Direct cash handouts have proven more politically effective than contract debates. When voters receive immediate benefits, arguments about royalty rates lose both urgency and meaning. For many, the fear of antagonising Exxon – and by extension, the Trump administration – has become a new political reality. With Trump’s return to power and his pro-business stance, challenging American oil interests may seem  riskier than defending sovereignty.

The National Assembly has avoided discussion of the petroleum agreement. Neither party shows willingness to reopen the contract, quarantining the issue from debate. Government influence over media has shifted coverage toward positive messaging while marginalizing critics. The transformation has been so complete that even Kaieteur News, once the loudest critic, lost a leading anti-contract journalist to the camp of its defenders.

Years of technical arguments with little change have exhausted commentators and the public. The complexity of petroleum economics has proven difficult to sustain politically. The absence of disasters has weakened reform arguments. Without oil spills, critics’ warnings remain theoretical, removing catalysts for concern.

Broader democratic concerns have overshadowed contract issues. Questions about governance have drawn energy away from petroleum debates toward institutional health. Venezuela’s territorial claims have made ExxonMobil’s presence geopolitically valuable. Challenging the company is seen as undermining security, increasing threats to our territoriality.

With this retreat, Exxon may feel that it has taken ownership of Guyana. 

The consequences of silence

But the PPP/C is as much an asset to and a friend of Exxon as the APNU +AFC has been. Its record on oil governance is no better than APNU+AFC’s: no reform of a widely criticised contract, no completed audits, no accountability for its signing, no delivery of an independent petroleum commission; secrecy over vast tax credits that would wipe out the Natural Resource Fund if properly accounted for. And the control of every aspect of the largest sector of the economy in the grip of one man, in a mutual pact with Exxon.

Each passing year reinforces the belief that nothing can and will be changed. An agreement condemned in 2020 that remains unchanged in 2025 becomes more entrenched with each passing year. And that does not escape the wily eyes of Exxon.

Yet, the fundamental issues remain as they were in 2020. Oil belongs to the people; so do the revenues. Being “oil-minded” does not mean memorising production data – it means looking beyond today’s grants to securing Guyana’s sovereignty and tomorrow’s sustainability. It means insisting on transparency, audits, and investments that outlast the oil era: education, health, infrastructure, and diversification.

Conclusion

The 2016 Petroleum Agreement has not faded because it is no longer an issue. It has lost its sharpness because of the duplicity and the about face of the PPP/C. It has been buried by money, messaging, a weakened opposition, parliamentary silence, media influence, fatigue, democratic erosion, geopolitics, growing evidence of pervasive corruption, and the threats to our democracy.

In 2020, it was a sword. In 2025, neither main party wants to touch it. That is exactly why the people must. Every year of silence makes Exxon’s position more unshakeable and Guyana’s leverage weaker. The window for fair terms is closing with each passing barrel. We must remain oil minded.