Category: Letters to the editor

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

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

Jagdeo desecrated Babu John with a racist speech

In his desecration speech at Babu John on Sunday, May 8, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo said that the opposition “consistently shout about the racism of the PPP but they practise racism. They whisper campaigns…” Jagdeo thinks he is being clever by couching his racism in accusations of racism by “the opposition.” The specifics of what he had to say about the opposition constituted naked racism.

Someone needs to remind Mr Jagdeo that not only does the constitution not protect any person from “hate speeches or other expressions, in whatever form, capable of exciting hostility or ill will against any person or class of persons,” but that the Representation of the People Act (the elections act) makes it a criminal offence by any person who (a) makes or publishes or causes to be made or published any statement; or (b) takes any action, which results or can result in racial or ethnic violence or hatred among the people.

Such conduct constitutes an indictable offence for which the penalty is a fine of one hundred thousand dollars together with imprisonment for two years.

Explosive and racist speech is the last thing Guyana needs in an elections season.

It must surely be time to stamp out racism. Mr Jagdeo’s speech is a good place to start.

Posted on

The Consolidated Fund is not a medical insurance pool for ministers and their families

The first hint that the government was financing cosmetic treatment for those close to the party arose out of Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s astonishing conversation with the Kaieteur News reporter a couple of months ago. What we did not know until we learnt of Pauline Sukhai’s designer mouth job was that the scheme might even extend to visits to the manicurist.

The health of every citizen is, of course, important and there should be no trivializing. Ironically, the health minister’s reimbursement of a medication bill for $1,000 does exactly that, which is regrettable since every employer has a duty to provide a minimum standard of health coverage for its employees. I believe too that a government has a duty to provide medical service to its people.

What I certainly do not subscribe to is the suggestion that the Consolidated Fund is some contrived pool of insurance for ministers, their families, their friends, members of the judiciary and ranking members of the Audit Office. Sadly, that is exactly how it now appears following the leak of information on the secret scheme operated by the Cabinet.

The publication of the information is a triumph of the people versus the state. That bit of enterprise is worth more that the entire budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Information. Predictably, the PPP/C assumed the role of victim when the information was revealed by our more enterprising media. Happily, what the PPP/C did of course was to confirm the veracity of the information and plead then patient confidentiality to justify their rape of the public purse.

I believe the reporting of the information by the press reflected responsible and commendable journalism. I saw nothing to support the claim of breach of patient confidentiality but rather I saw a significant step in support of whistleblowing legislation. Later this week too, the press provided us with information on a scheme by the Cabinet to transfer money properly payable into the Consolidated Fund to a project under the control of the Housing Ministry. The press played a big hand in causing the government to rethink its position and at week’s end it seemed to be totally confused. Two strikes for the press.

It was perhaps coincidental but it was July last year that I had cause to write a letter to the press in which I questioned the role of Cabinet in adjudicating over the health issues of citizens. My letter was prompted by the death of a family member, 57-year old Basdeo Gobin, who died while his application for assistance languished among Cabinet’s papers. The letter was carried in the Stabroek News of July 21, 2014 under the caption ‘Why does Cabinet have to deliberate on cases of persons needing urgent medical help?’

The same Cabinet that failed to respond to a request for a contribution to the cost of a heart operation which might have saved the life of a poor man, could pay for all sorts of vanity expenditure for ministers and senior party members. This is socialism that even George Orwell could not predict: where all people are equal, some are more equal than others, and a handful are more equal than all combined.

On the list of beneficiaries are the Prime Minister and his wife, ministers, former ministers, presidential advisers, senior government auditor and the wife of a minister, a sitting judge of the Court of Appeal and the country’s attorney general. Despite all the questions asked, no one has put in the public domain the rules and the procedures for the government medical assistance scheme and indeed the relationship between that scheme and the medical scheme offered by the National Insurance Scheme.

I am aware of the convention that judges do not engage in public exchanges and I do respect that. But I believe that when a sitting judge seeks out discretionary benefits from the executive, whether in the form of medical assistance or other facilities, they run the serious and real risk of compromising not just themselves but the entire judiciary.

My question to Justice B S Roy is whether he considered the implications of accepting discretionary benefits from the Cabinet of Guyana. I would ask the same question of Mrs Gitanjali Singh, the Deputy Auditor General in the Audit Office, who the public believe is already compromised by remaining with the Audit Office while her husband is the Minister of Finance.

Additional questions I would have for Mrs Singh are whether a) she is aware of any documentation to regulate the operation of the scheme; b) the specific source of the funds; c) the specific bank account from which the payment is made; d) confirmation that it is not one of the many slush funds operated out of the Office of the President; and e) whether she can give the public a single instance of the annual report of the Audit Office commenting on this scheme.

I would also ask the following questions of both Justice Roy and Mrs Singh:

– Would they have accepted the benefits if they knew that the information would become public?
– Was the right of access to the scheme part of their compensation package?
– Should such payments not be covered by personal insurance?
– Did they decide not to have medical insurance?
– Do they consider it fair to expect taxpayers to meet their medical bills because they choose not to have medical insurance?
– What was the procedure they employed in accessing the benefits?
– Was the amount paid the full amount spent by them?
– Was it a requirement that they meet part of the costs of their medical expenses?
– Do they believe that the scheme should be revamped?
– Do they believe that every person should have the same rights and privileges under the scheme?

Finally, a question to Mr Nandlall. He had said in the press that he had paid back the $4 million he received from the scheme. Would he confirm that he has in fact done so and explain why he would return money to which he was entitled?