Author: Christopher Ram

Posted on

President Ramotar’s public and private statements regarding his appointment of Ramson Snr raise questions of public trust in office

Dear Editor,

I write to clarify the statement attributed to former President Donald Ramotar in your story “Gov’t does not intervene in work of Commissioner of Information – President,” which appeared in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. This is what Mr. Ramotar is quoted to have said on being contacted by the Sunday Stabroek: “I appointed him [Charles Ramson, Snr.] on the insistence of the Opposition because they put in the constitution this aspect of Access to Information,” and that [like the current President], “he too was not aware of protests against Ramson.”

Editor, it is against my personal values to share private conversations publicly, and I do so now only because a constitutional matter of public interest is at stake. When public figures make statements that directly contradict the truth, personal preferences must give way to broader interests.

I speak with Mr. Ramotar several times per week, sharing views on international and national matters and about our respective activities and can categorically state that the protests over the past three weeks have been a regular topic of our conversations. In the latter regard, Mr. Ramotar specifically explained the origin of the Access to Information Act, stating that pressure from the diplomatic community forced the matter to the Cabinet and that it was Dr. Roger Luncheon, then Head of the Presidential Secretariat, who put forward Ramson’s name, without objection from anyone present.

As an aside, the Access to Information Act was to give effect to Article 146 of our Constitution. It speaks volumes that the Former President admitted to me that the Act was introduced at the behest of the international community. This admission leads me to infer why the current administration is so dismissive of civil society’s call for the Government to act on the gross failure over several years of the Commissioner of Information, Mr. Ramson, to do his job. 

This direct contradiction between what Mr. Ramotar stated privately in our conversations and what he has now claimed publicly raises disturbing questions about the credibility, integrity and moral values of those who serve at every level of government.

The importance of truthfulness from presidents, vice presidents, ministers, heads of government agencies, and other government functionaries cannot be overstated. The higher we go, the greater the duty. Public trust in our institutions depends fundamentally on the honesty and integrity of those who lead them. When public figures deliberately misrepresent facts, they undermine the very foundation of public confidence in our democratic system, erode institutional credibility, damaging the social contract between government and citizens.

If we are to build and maintain trust between the government and citizens, statements made by current and former officials must reflect the truth, not convenient narratives that shift with the political winds.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Posted on

NIS one-off payments are a tiny fraction of what workers are rightfully owed

Dear Editor,

I am writing concerning the announcement of a “one-off cash grant” by the NIS for persons who have attained pensionable age but with between 500 and 749 contributions, one short of the number for a lifetime pension. The “award” was posted on the Facebook page of Dr. Ashni Singh, a Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, including the National Insurance Scheme. These awards reveal the government’s startling insensitivity and callousness toward our nation’s retired workers.

For workers who have between 500-549 contributions recorded by NIS (representing approximately 10-11 years of labour at 50 contributions per year), the government offers $260,000. This sounds substantial until one realizes it amounts to just $84.80 per day when spread across the average 8.4-year pension term (from age 60 to the average pensioner’s age of 68.4 years). Continuing with these derisory awards, we note the following:

– Those with 550-599 contributions receive $390,000 ($127.20 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

– Those with 600-699 contributions receive $520,000 ($169.60 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

– Those with 700-749 contributions receive $650,000 ($212.00 daily for the rest of their expected lives)

These individuals dedicated over a decade to formal employment, dutifully making their NIS contributions, “awarded” what can only be described as a pittance in return. Many have contributed far more than what appears in their official records, victims of an inefficient system that has repeatedly failed to document workers’ contributions properly. This administrative failure represents 28 years of abysmal oversight – 24 years under PPP administrations and 4 years under the Coalition Government. For nearly three decades, successive governments have allowed the NIS to deteriorate, ignoring actuarial recommendations, neglecting their responsibility to ensure proper record-keeping of workers’ contributions while expecting these workers to fund the system.

What makes this situation particularly galling is its presentation and timing. The government’s announcement features the President’s image more prominently than the actual awards, suggesting that these meagre sums should be received as generous gifts rather than the rightful entitlements they represent. Although these payments were announced several months ago, the timing of their implementation now – with such prominent political imagery – can only be interpreted as an undisguised attempt to bamboozle voters, using pensioners’ rightful entitlements as political currency for the upcoming elections.

Adding further insult to injury, these paltry payments are financed from a $10 billion allocation in the 2025 Budget. This substantial sum represents about 40% of the total amount paid to all 40,327 full pensioners by the NIS in 2022. Rather than using these funds to improve the lives of all pensioners meaningfully, the government has chosen to distribute them as politically timed handouts, creating the illusion of generosity while shortchanging those who have contributed to our nation’s development.

Rather than taking responsibility for successive governments’ collective failure to provide proper oversight and implement necessary reforms, the current administration now presents these derisory payments as some gift when they represent a tiny fraction of what workers are rightfully owed after decades of governmental incompetence.

Sincerely,

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.