Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

Trump’s tariffs: Robbed by the contract, robbed by the data, robbed by the tariff

The 38% tariff on Guyana’s exports to the United States is among the highest announced by President Donald Trump late last week. The number is half of the 76% that Trump’s economic advisers have calculated as the actual value of the tariff disparity between the USA and Guyana. However, what began as a comparison of tariff rates between the USA and individual countries soon evolved into something more complex – one that included non-tariff barriers, such as exchange rate manipulation, import controls, and phytosanitary measures. Finally, if anything can be called definitive under a mercurial and erratic figure like Trump, it is that the tariff was calculated based on US trade statistics.

The formula used is the higher of ten percent or the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total value of US imports from that country. For example, if the US has a $100 million trade deficit and imports $250 million in goods, the resulting tariff is 40% which is higher than the default 10%. However, if the deficit is only $10 million, the percentage would be 4%, and the 10% minimum would be applicable. It is mind-boggling that the country with the world’s largest number of Nobel laureates in economics would rely on what is worse than voodoo economics.

The Economist, a highly respected weekly, described the move as “the most profound, harmful, and unnecessary economic error in the modern era.” Others have been more cutting. The London Observer labeled the tariffs “fundamentally wrong, brutal, and paranoid,” while The Atlantic suggested that understanding them requires insight into Trump’s mind alone. Among the absurdities: the inclusion of the Heard and McDonald Islands – uninhabited volcanic outcrops mostly home to penguins and, in another case, a few U.S. military personnel.

Guyana compared

Guyana, like Trinidad and Suriname, is part of CARICOM’s Common External Tariff and VAT system. Yet while our neighbours face only a 10% tariff, Guyana’s is a staggering 38%. Why the disparity? The answer lies in how the U.S. counts oil.

Our largest export to the U.S. is crude oil, totaling several billion U.S. dollars. In 2023, ExxonMobil alone accounted for nearly US$5 billion. And yet Guyana neither owns nor controls this oil – it is extracted and exported by foreign companies under a contract that leaves us with little revenue and even less control. This is reminiscent of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, which were encouraged by the U.S. to replace China as low-cost producers. So much for believing that America is ever a friend.

Stabroek News on Friday carried the government’s announcement that crude petroleum, gold, and aluminum are exempt from the Trump tariff. Unlike the government, I take no comfort in that unsourced information. These are not Guyanese exports in any meaningful sense. Our country does not export petroleum products to the U.S.; ExxonMobil and Hess do. The same applies to bauxite ore and gold. Unless the 38% is reduced to 10%, there is no benefit to our genuine local exporters – of seafood, rum, lumber, and other products.

Opportunity for renegotiation of the 2016

Petroleum Agreement

Guyana is not the villain here. We are the victim –  first of a contract, then of a misrepresentation, and now of a penalty. We must assert our sovereignty, protect our economy, and demand accuracy and fairness. We have been and continue to be robbed, once by the 2016 PSA, then by the statistical misrepresentation of our exported products, and now, a third time, by a tariff rooted in that fiction.

If the last is rectified, our exporters will face a 10% tariff and struggle to remain competitive. At 38%, they’re either out of the U.S. market or out of business. In light of this fundamental shift, we should now assert our right to call for renegotiation – not just of the tariff, but of the petroleum agreement that underpins this entire distortion.

Renegotiate the tariff

International media have reported that more than fifty countries have requested meetings with the U.S. Admi-nistration to negotiate their assigned tariffs. Guyana must join that effort –  perhaps through CARICOM – but with a competent team and accurate data. We must ensure that the value of oil exports by foreign companies is excluded from the balance of trade figures used by the USA to compute the tariff it will impose on Guyana.

Here’s the key distinction: Exemption refers to any product that escapes the tariff. The oil exported by Exxon and Hess is not Guyanese in any economic sense. Exclusion means not counting it in the equation since it inflates our true surplus and wrongly triggers penalties. What Guyana truly needs is exclusion, not exemption. Our politicians and negotiators must be clear and uncompromising in this matter. If they do not, we will be negotiating from a position of weakness.

The broader picture

Trump’s tariff policy reveals a deeper strategic miscalculation. The United States helped create and benefited most from the post-war global trade architecture, including the WTO, GATT, and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment. That system fostered prosperity and stability. Now, Trump seeks to unravel it.

The signs are not good. Trump is doubling down, and reversing his executive order would deflate the tough-guy image he cultivates. We should expect inflation, a dip in oil prices, and a period of economic turbulence. Global trade infrastructure will need to be rethought – and re-fought.

Conclusion

Guyana must resist being cast as a trade surplus villain when, in truth, it is a victim of a flawed contract and misleading data. We must demand a new conversation – one grounded in economic reality and national dignity. This is a moment for clarity, courage, and collective action. “The question, then, is not whether we respond – but whether we are ready to do so with courage, clarity and competence.

Posted on

Counterproductive for gov’t officials to vilify organisations dedicated to advancing human rights and transparency

Dear Editor,

I am writing regarding Vice President Jagdeo’s recent attacks on the GHRA and the Red Thread at Babu Jaan and Minister McCoy’s subsequent defence of these partisan statements.

As we aspire to be “One Guyana”, it is counterproductive for government officials to vilify organisations dedicated to advancing human rights and transparency for all Guyanese. In any circumstance, political leaders – junior and senior – have a responsibility to unify rather than propagate division. When the Vice President labels respected civil society organisations or individuals as “haters,” they undermine the collaborative spirit necessary for our nation’s progress.

Mr. Jagdeo’s characterisation of GHRA and the Red Thread as “PPP haters” misunderstands their vital role. What the Vice President labels as “hate” is the necessary work of independent oversight that these organisations provide, regardless of which party holds power. Their critical stance does not make them enemies of the state; it makes them essential participants in our democratic discourse.

I also note the profound irony in Minister McCoy’s accusation of “duplicity” when defending statements made at an explicitly partisan political rally. This blurring of lines between party and state is precisely what civil society organisations stand against. Sadly, this is not the first occasion on which Vice President Jagdeo has used the Babu Jaan gathering for pointed attacks on perceived enemies, nor is this Jagdeo-McCoy dynamic an isolated incident.

The hypocrisy extends to financial accountability. NGOs operate with minimal funding from credible international sources, for which they provide comprehensive accounting and reporting. Contrastingly, political parties in Guyana face no such scrutiny, receiving funds from undisclosed sources without any legal requirement for transparency. More concerning, those who finance the ruling party are frequently rewarded with lucrative government contracts – a more significant threat to our democracy and our society than the operations of civil society organisations.

I have two simple questions for Mr. Kwame McCoy.

One, why is it that in the more than 25 years of the PPP government since 1992 they have never introduced legislation for regulating political parties?

And two why have they not triggered campaign financing legislation? Is it to hide the sources and disbursement of moneys?

This moment demands unity as Guyana faces territorial threats from Venezuela. National cohesion is not achieved by attacking or silencing critics but by embracing diverse voices that strengthen our democracy. Civil society organisations foster the democratic culture, a critical element in our national defense against external threats.

President Ali’s “One Guyana” initiative can only succeed if it embraces rather than alienates independent voices. A genuinely unified Guyana requires substantive respect for diverse perspectives, including those that hold power accountable.

Mr Jagdeo can make a more significant contribution to the country by moving beyond divisive rhetoric and embracing the inclusive dialogue that “One Guyana” purports to represent.

Respectfully,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

The Tax Certificate mystery

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana must become oil-minded. Column 155

Introduction

The controversy over tax certificates issued to oil companies continues unabated. On March 17, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance responded to the Oil and Gas Governance Network’s information request by suggesting that tax details could be found in Commercial Registry filings – a claim I discredited in my March 21 column as both factually incorrect and legally flawed.

Now, the overzealous Joel Bhagwandin has entered the fray with a March 25 letter attempting to “simplify” what he calls an “unnecessarily complicated” issue. In his quest for simplicity, however, Bhagwandin has simplified reality itself away. He states that “the profit share paid to the Government is treated as the taxes paid by the US oil companies, and it is this sum that the tax certificate in question is based on.” The vacuity of this statement is quite remarkable. If profit oil magically transforms into tax certificates, surely this fiscal alchemy must leave some trace in our public accounts? Yet the National Estimates show no such entries, and it would be helpful if Mr. Bhagwandin could say where these are concealed. 

Confusion

He compounds his error by claiming that “the profit share due to the Government is reported on the financial statements as the oil companies’ tax liabilities.” One wonders which financial statements Bhagwandin has been reading – certainly not those filed by Guyana’s oil companies. These documents show no such thing. The companies recognise only their portion of profit oil as income, and certainly no evidence of the Government’s share being recorded as tax liabilities.

He also appears to be confused about the distinction between payment “on behalf of” and payment “in lieu of” – two distinct legal concepts. Article 15.4 of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement states that “a sum equivalent to the tax assessed… will be paid by the Minister to the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority on behalf of the Contractor.” A payment “on behalf of” is one you make for someone who remains obligated to pay; a payment “in lieu of” substitutes for the original obligation. His quotation is correct but is totally misconstrued. The Agreement specifies the former, while Bhagwandin’s explanation suggests the latter.

Magic wand

This is not merely semantic. The distinction determines whether actual money must change hands or whether profit oil can be waved about like a magic wand to conjure tax certificates. Bhagwandin correctly notes that this arrangement exists to satisfy US tax laws but fails to follow his logic to its conclusion – if certificates satisfy US tax authorities, they must represent actual transactions, not paper fiction.

The government finds itself in a legal and accounting quagmire of its own making. Unable to reconcile the requirements of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement with proper financial management, it deploys surrogates to confuse rather than clarify. The 2021 Natural Resource Fund Act further complicates matters. Because its framework for payments out of oil revenues does not permit this tax arrangement, it does not mean that the Government no longer has any such obligation. Exxon wants every drop of blood, sorry oil, and has been insisting on that certificate. After all, as the mantra goes, it is all about sanctity of contract.

The Commissioner of Information has become the Commissioner of No Information – deflecting, ducking, and dodging legitimate inquiries. In response to my formal request for details about these certificates, the Commissioner questioned whether I had searched for “critical financial records” – whatever that means – instead of addressing the substance of my questions. Corporate filings at the Commercial Registry could not possibly contain information about tax certificates issued by the Guyana Revenue Authority. We are, therefore, left with no evidence of tax payments and no information on tax certificates. 

Conclusion

It may seem to some that in a petroleum bubble, opacity, obfuscation, dereliction, over-simplification and incompetence do no harm. In fact, they are critical ingredients of the resource curse for the country. Dismissing unusual and complex fiscal arrangements as “simple matters” does severe damage to those they seek to help, to themselves and to their reputation. Let us get back to these straightforward questions that require direct answers.

What is the amount of corporation tax paid by the Minister of Natural Resources on behalf of the oil companies from 2021 to 2024?

Are these payments reflected in the revenue of the Guyana Revenue Authority and the Consolidated Fund?

What is the exact value of tax certificates issued to each oil company since production began?

If the GRA did not issue the certificates, who did?

Now, that is simple.

Posted on

Gender Equality and Article 29 – A broken constitutional promise

Business and Economic Commentary

Introduction

It took 136 years for the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry to elect a woman – Mrs. Kathy Smith – as its President. While that milestone is welcome, it underscores just how far Guyana still has to go in honouring its constitutional promise to women. While considerably younger, the more powerful Private Sector Commission does everything to sideline women as its leader. The promise of equality enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution of Guyana, is a distant dream. This is what Article 29 states.

“Women’s participation in the various management and decision-making processes, whether private, public or state, shall be encouraged and facilitated by laws enacted for that purpose or otherwise.”

It does not need to be elevated to a fundamental right: there is an article against any form of discrimination. It is not aspirational: it is binding. And yet, over 40 years since an equivalent provision was included in the controversial Constitution in 1980, its implementation has moved incredibly slowly. This may have explained the choice of the topic by acting Chancellor Yonette Cummings-Edwards in a lecture honouring Dame Desiree Bernard, the first woman judge, first woman Chancellor of the Judiciary, and the first woman on the Caribbean Court of Justice. It was an occasion for reflection – and lament.

Progress and reality  

During the 1990s, Guyana saw a brief but hopeful period of progressive legislative reform. This included the landmark Domestic Violence Act of 1996, the Equal Rights Act, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1995, and the first serious efforts to address sexual harassment and gender-based violence. These measures, hard-won through years of advocacy and the leadership of Cheddi Jagan, suggested the beginning of a new era. But the momentum has faded, almost standing still. Since the early 2000s, little legislative advancement has addressed gender inequality. The silence around Article 29 is part of that broader stagnation.

The statistics tell the story. Only two of the thirteen companies listed on the Guyana Stock Exchange are chaired by women, one effectively non-trading, and the other of comparatively small capitalisation but as well led as any of the others. Women lead only three of fourteen key public agencies and account for only 19% of Guyana’s ambassadors. The private sector is even more male-dominated, with almost all leading business organisations headed by men.

Only nine of the forty-two recently reviewed companies, agencies and missions had women in top leadership roles – just 21%. Politically, the imbalance is more severe: the five top government positions are held by men, and every major political party—PPP/C, PNCR, AFC, WPA, and ANUG—is male-led. It will take a more scientific analysis to determine any link between gender and the state of politics and governance in Guyana. Even in professions like law and accountancy, where women now match or exceed men in numbers, leadership remains overwhelmingly male. Women are often confined to leadership in “care” sectors or social organisations, reinforcing outdated ideas about their appropriate role in public life.

Two ironies in the judiciary stand out. First, the Chancellor and the Chief Justice – both distinguished and experienced women – remain in acting positions, their appointments blocked by the refusal of a single man, the President, to confirm them. Second, at the Chancellor’s lecture, sponsored by the Guyana Associa-tion of Women Judges, only one of six male judges of the Court attended. Their absence said more than words could.

Other salient concerns

But the failure to honour Article 29 is about exclusion, fear, silence, and even danger. Domestic violence and femicide are endemic in Guyana. Even women in high office face indignity. Sitting in the front row of UG’s main lecturer theatre was Ms. Priya Manickchand, Minister of Education having been  publicly berated by the President – an incident still proudly displayed on his Facebook page. No Cabinet colleague, male or female, defended her. To her discredit, she stood there and took it, some days later posing with the President.

Beyond politics

Contrast that with the case of a male Minister in the Cabinet who was accused and exonerated of heinous sexual misconduct. Female colleagues expressed disgust privately but said nothing publicly, fearing retaliation or isolation. That man is now being rehabilitated by the male leadership of the Government. In Guyanese politics, showing moral independence -especially if you are a woman – is often interpreted as disloyalty. Speaking out can mean career exile, character attacks, and personal risk. This toxic culture rewards silence and punishes principles.

The problem, of course, extends beyond politics. Our social and economic landscape often forces women into conformity – staying in abusive relationships, remaining silent at work, or avoiding leadership ambitions – because of financial dependency, social norms, or fear of ostracism. To our country’s discredit, for too many women, the stark choice is between survival and self-expression.

Conclusion

If Article 29 is to mean anything, Guyana must move beyond lip service and take concrete action. Laws must be passed to give teeth to its command, and institutions and individuals must be held accountable for promoting – not just permitting – women’s leadership. Cultural change must follow, breaking the social norms that silence women or push them into submission for the sake of survival.

Chancellor Cummings-Edwards asked: “Have we arrived?” Her reply: “We are there, but there is still more to go.” I must respectfully express my doubts. When leadership remains overwhelmingly male, when women are berated in public and silenced in private, and when a promise like Article 29 goes unfulfilled for decades, the journey has barely begun.

Until women are no longer blocked, silenced, or punished for leading, Article 29 will remain not just a broken promise – but a standing indictment of Guyana’s democratic conscience and of our society.  

Posted on

The Ministry of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs has it all wrong

Every Man, Woman and Child in Guyana Must Become Oil-Minded -Column 154

Introduction

By its very name, the Ministry of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs should defend and advance democracy, promote and ensure transparency, and strengthen and enforce accountability. Regrettably, the Ministry, in pursuit of the party’s agenda, is increasingly a convenient vehicle for political deflection and democratic reversal, where Parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp for government (read Party) plans and governance is engineered to serve narrow interests rather than the public good.

This was evident in a recent response from the Ministry, which, rather offensively, dismissed a legitimate request by OGGN, a civil society organisation, for information about oil tax payments and access to information. It would have been to its credit if it had simply advised the OGGN of the statutory framework for accessing public information. Instead, it misrepresented the law, ignored glaring conflicts of interest, and deflected the issue of accountability.

Law is the bedrock, information is the oxygen

The Ministry knows that law – including the Constitution – is the bedrock of governance and that information is the oxygen of democracy. Without compliance and sanctions, laws become hollow instruments, existing on paper but non-existent in practice. Given its mandate, the Ministry should ensure these principles are applied in every sphere of government. It should strengthen mechanisms allowing free and open access to information – not shielding the government from scrutiny. Instead, it has chosen to defend a system in which:

The Commissioner of Information is neither independent nor effective. In the meme “family, favourites and friends”, the Commissioner’s son is a minister, his wife chairs the Teaching Service Commission, and his office is his home! A more egregious combination of conflicts is hard to imagine.

Just coincidentally, the Commission has not filed an annual report since 1996!

Parliament is merely a tool for government use, convened when an appropriation bill is needed, or legislation passed to fulfill some international obligation or domestic unavoidable need. Under this form of governance, parliament can never function as a meaningful check on executive power. And, of course, in another part of the tripod, the Speaker’s role appears to be to restrict and, as necessary, prevent meaningful debate.

Proper governance is practically absent, with constitutional safeguards twisted to accommodate political interests. The all-important Judicial Service Commission and, to a lesser extent, the Constitutional Reform Commission stand as examples of how institutions meant to strengthen democracy can be sidelined and manipulated.

The Integrity Commission, often held up by the Ministry as a bastion of accountability and guarantee against governmental corruption, has never filed an annual report of its performance. Currently chaired by the wife of a late PPP/C Minister, the Commission has been filing annual audited financial statements that are only part of the annual reporting process.

Troublingly, this Commission seems to be operating as a mere repository with no sample audits or reviews undertaken by the Commission.

A weak and ineffective Access to Information System

The Ministry must be in self-delusion to think that Guyana’s Access to Information framework has served any purpose other than its own or can somehow be compared with that of Canada. It knew about the weaknesses in the Act before its introduction when the Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc. raised concerns in 2011. Yet, no amendment has been made to ensure its proper implementation, let alone strengthen the law.

This impotence starkly contrasts with Canada, which has continuously improved its own Act, most notably through Bill C-58 in 2019, which expanded the law’s scope, strengthened the powers of the Information Commissioner and introduced mandatory proactive disclosure obligations.

While Canada refined its legislation to promote openness, Guyana’s Access to Information framework remains stagnant and ineffective. The claim that Guyana’s Act was “modeled wholesale” on Canada’s is false in many fundamental respects:

Canada’s system is decentralised, meaning requests go directly to the government agency holding the records. Guyana’s centralised model forces everything through the Commissioner of Information, frustrating the process to make it non-operational.

Canada’s Commissioner of Information has enforcement powers and can order disclosures. Guyana’s Commissioner lacks meaningful authority and serves more as a postbox than an active entity.

Canada’s Office of Commissioner of Information has an active website full of information, advice and assistance. That of the Guyana Commissioner does not even have a letterhead, much less a website, and an “office” inaccessible to the public.

False Claims, Misdirection, and a Lack of Accountability

The Ministry’s response to the Oil and Gas Governance Network (OGGN) was factually incorrect and legally flawed. It claimed that companies in Guyana are required to file their tax returns with the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority. This is false – tax filings are made at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), not the Deeds Registry. Either the Ministry does not understand essential corporate compliance, or it is deliberately misleading the public. That is deliberate prevarication. The issue is not about financial statements but about whether or not certificates of assessment were properly issued, why the payments to support the certificates were made, and how they are accounted for. 

The Ministry is not even responsible for the Access to Information Act. Yet, it attempted to dismiss concerns about transparency while failing to address why the sole Commissioner of Information has been unresponsive and unproductive.

Conclusion

While the Ministry discredited itself with inappropriate language and style, citizens like Anand Goolsarran and Alfred Bhulai and organisations like TIGI and OGGN wait in vain for basic information on the petroleum sector. A Ministry that is properly informed and genuinely committed to governance would facilitate citizens. It would elevate Parliament to its proper role as an oversight body rather than reducing it to a rubber stamp for government approval. Such a Ministry would hold other ministers accountable for legal obligations, including filing annual reports as required by law. It would treat transparency as a fundamental democratic value rather than a threat to be contained.