Category: Business and Economic Commentary

Business and economic commentary by Christopher Ram

Introduction

In a letter in the Stabroek News of 11 January 2025, spurred by the tragic death of the Chinese rigger at the Demerara Harbour Bridge (DBH), I noted that the many injuries and fatalities that occur annually in mining pits, construction sites, and factories across Guyana underscore the widespread neglect of workplace safety. A few days later, a stevedore died while working at John Fernandes Limited Wharf.

While the Occupational Safety and Health Division of the Ministry of Labour has been forthcoming about their investigation into the death of the stevedore at John Fernandes Wharf, there is a parallel legal requirement that seems to have escaped public attention. Under Guyana’s Coroners Act, any unnatural death – which includes workplace fatalities – requires investigation by a coroner, either through an inquest with a jury or an inquiry without one. My attempts to ascertain from the relevant Magistrate’s office whether either form of investigation has been initiated for either death have been unsuccessful, with calls unreturned. This silence is particularly concerning given that the Act requires the coroner to “forthwith cause due investigation to be made” when such deaths occur.

Curiously, neither the press, which initially reported these deaths, nor trade unions have followed up on whether these legally mandated investigations are taking place. Media coverage typically ends with Ministry of Labour announcements, overlooking the crucial role of coroner’s investigations in ensuring public accountability for workplace deaths. This oversight by the press and organized labour effectively shields employers from public scrutiny.

Legislative framework

In 1997, Guyana passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, designed to “Improve working conditions and the environment with an emphasis on prevention rather than cure.” Yet, the culture of unsafe workplace conditions is widespread and worsening. A couple of weeks ago, at a construction site in Ogle, East Coast Demerara, I witnessed a worker climbing the boom of a huge crane without headgear or harness.

The gap between law and practice is stark. While the Ministry of Labour actively investigates workplace deaths, the parallel legal requirement for coroner’s investigations appears neglected. The Coroners Act provides a crucial framework requiring post-mortem examinations, witness testimony, and detailed documentation – elements that could strengthen accountability and workers’ compensation claims. However, these mandated procedures often fall victim to resource constraints.

Poor enforcement

Poor enforcement and inadequate resources explain much of this gap. The Ministry of Labour and Regional Administrations lack the necessary resources to enforce compliance with safety legislation. The magistracy, required by the Coroners Act to investigate every unnatural death, appears similarly constrained. Consequently, workers’ lives remain at risk in a system that has not evolved to meet the complexities of modern employment relationships, particularly in the country’s booming construction sector and extractive industries.

A significant legislative gap exists in cases where principal employers contract out work. This loophole allows businesses to disclaim responsibility, leaving employees at the mercy of subcontractors who often operate in the informal sector. In such cases, the absence of proper coroner’s investigations means that the chain of responsibility remains unexamined and unrecorded.

The compensation system is equally problematic. While the law requires compensation for workplace injuries and deaths, many contractors fail to secure adequate insurance coverage, or any at all. Victims’ families must navigate a convoluted process without the benefit of findings from proper coroner’s investigations that could support their claims.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Four areas require urgent attention. First, while the Ministry of Labour provides information about workplace fatality investigations, the parallel requirement for coroner’s investigations must be honoured. Second, the Coroners Act must be fully implemented, with adequate funding and staffing. The current situation, where attempts to confirm whether legally required investigations are taking place meet with silence, is unacceptable. Third, the entire system of apportioning legal liability between primary and secondary contractors must be addressed. Fourth, the adequacy of insurance coverage against injury and death at the workplace must be addressed. 

Trade unions, consumer rights advocates and civil society generally must educate themselves about existing legal frameworks, including the Coroners Act, and use these tools to demand accountability. Workers must be educated about their rights and encouraged to report unsafe conditions without fear of retaliation. Most importantly, the press must follow workplace death cases beyond initial Ministry of Labour statements and demand to know whether legally required coroner’s investigations are held.

By Christopher Ram

Introduction

Paul Cheong, appointed Chief Executive Officer of GuySuCo just over a year ago, has been pitching a vision for the sugar industry that sounds remarkably familiar: more investment in machinery, expanded packaging facilities, upgraded logistics, drone technology, and greater mechanisation to make up for a shrinking labour force. It all sounds promising: until we go behind the numbers.

Mr. Cheong does not come to the job with a record of high-level managerial experience in agribusiness or complex state enterprises. In fact, his most recent outing was as Chair of the Private Sector Commission, during a period marked by accelerating dysfunction and declining public credibility in that organisation. That track record does little to inspire confidence in his ability to navigate the far more challenging terrain of GuySuCo.

While he cannot be blamed for the more structural issues at the Corporation, he does not escape responsibility for some of the poor results. Undeterred by reality, he now has even more billions to be poured into capital works, as though the problem were a lack of equipment rather than failed leadership and flawed strategy.

Dream on

This is a rerun of the same movie.  New CEO promising transformation but leaving a final scene worthy of cinematic metaphor: not a triumphant turnaround, but a graveyard of expensive, inappropriate equipment. Rerun the cycle. If this is Paul Cheong’s plan for GuySuCo’s revival, it is not a business strategy – it is wishful thinking dressed up in technical jargon. This journey into fantasyland costs the country huge sums. According to Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha, since the return of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) to power in 2020, over $28 billion to improve productivity across the sector, including $13.3 billion for 2025 alone. That is a staggering number and suggests caution. But then Cheong was on the PPP/C list that had the crazy idea of reopening the shuttered estates.

Mr. Cheong speaks of progress: of drones, of predictive maintenance, of Brazilian partnerships. But GuySuCo’s past is littered with announcements just like these, each one arriving with a price tag and disappearing into the black hole of unmeasured outcomes. He cannot explain what portion of the 2025 Government subsidy has been spent and the expected returns. But he sails on: no one to account to.

GuySuCo does not suffer from a lack of equipment. It suffers from a lack of accountability, transparency, and leadership grounded in agronomic and financial reality. Every season of mismanagement, every dollar wasted on ill-timed or ill-considered machinery, moves us further from viability and deeper into a pit of public debt.

At what point does a government say “enough”? When will taxpayers, especially the unemployed, underpaid, and underserved in other sectors – demand a stop to this endless bail-out of an industry whose cost of production exceeds the world market price by a factor of two times? To put this in stark terms: it would be cheaper to import sugar than to continue producing it under these circumstances.

Not my first run

This is not the first time I have spoken out on the state of the sugar industry.

In 2010, I wrote a five-part series titled GuySuCo Needs Drastic Surgery to Ensure Survival, dissecting the corporation’s finances, its bloated costs, and the strategic failures behind the Skeldon debacle. Then Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud took objection. Then in 2015, I appeared before the Parvattan Commission of Inquiry, urging a rational, evidence-based approach to reform – one that acknowledged the industry’s structural weaknesses rather than papering over them with politics.

And here we are again in 2025 – fifteen years later – confronting the same old story: poor decision-making, political interference, the appointment of the wrong people, and the removal of those who dared to speak the truth or ask the hard questions.

GuySuCo has become a theatre of dysfunction. The PPP/C government, which campaigned on the promise to reopen shuttered estates, has in fact overseen their further decay. That promise was never rooted in economic realism – it was a political slogan, not a viable plan. What followed has been an even greater politicisation of the industry, with President Irfaan Ali taking a direct hand in operations and appointments. Square pegs have been forced into triangular holes, and capable professionals have been sidelined in favour of loyalists. Promises are recycled. Excuses are reissued. Capital is burned. And accountability is nowhere in sight. Losses mount.

Conclusion

The sugar industry once built this country. It was the backbone of our economy, our employment, and our exports. But it must not now become the millstone around our necks – dragging down our national finances, distorting our development priorities, and draining our public resources.

But it secures the PPP/C electoral support. That is the only thing that matters.

Introduction

As Guyana’s economy expands at an unprecedented pace, driven by transformative oil revenues and ambitious infrastructure development, hundreds of billions of dollars in both recurrent and capital budget expenditures annually fall within the purview of the Public Procurement Commission (PPC). This massive scale of public spending, coupled with citizens’ constitutional right to access information about these procurement decisions through the Commission of Information, makes the oversight role of both bodies more critical than ever.

Unfortunately, the current PPC has failed to meet even the minimum standards of competence, accountability and integrity. They are made worse by a web of conflicts that undermine the very foundations of constitutional governance. This failure is particularly damning when contrasted with the exemplary work of the previous Corbin-Gopaul PC which included two persons with earned PhD’s, two with Masters – one in finance and one in Procurement – and the fifth person with both engineering and legal professional qualifications. They produced a comprehensive body of work, including a strategic plan, detailed investigation reports, policy guidance to procuring entities, an employee handbook that any organisation in Guyana would consider exemplary, and proactive correspondence addressing systemic procurement issues. They demonstrated courage and independence by compelling a senior Minister to appear before them in their investigation into drug purchases at the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation.  

PPP/C’s failure

Fifteen years after the Constitution mandated a Procurement Commission and 13 years after the Procurement Act during which oversight under successive PPP/C Administrations was troublingly inadequate, the first Commission was appointed by President Granger in 2016, comprising the persons identified above. Mrs. Carol Corbin gave up a secure position at the CARICOM Secretariat and, supported by a team that met all the Constitution requirements, began discharging their constitutional duties. Commencing with no fixed place of abode, the Commission’s legacy includes strengthening Guyana’s entire public procurement framework and establishing proper rules of procedure, work that demonstrated the transformative potential of competent constitutional oversight.

The current Commission, headed by Ms. Chase and Vice-chair Berkley Wickham, a former Head of the National Procurement and Tender Administration (NPTAB), represents this standard’s complete antithesis. NPTAB was the subject of adverse criticisms during Mr. Wickham’s tenure there.

Egregious conflicts

At the centre of this institutional failure lies an extraordinary conflict of interest that spans both the Procurement and the Information Commissions. Ms. Chase continues to engage in private legal practice despite holding a full-time constitutional post, most troublingly serving as legal counsel for the Commissioner of Information in both his official and personal capacity. This interlocking relationship creates obvious consequences for the independence and effectiveness of both bodies, even if they were otherwise operating competently.

Under the Access to Information Act, the Commissioner exercises certain functions over the PPC. Without compromising both offices, the Chairperson cannot act as legal counsel for the very official to whom her Commission is answerable in a statutory relationship. Indeed, the PPC is also subject to the Commission of Information, exacerbating the conflicts and effectively neutering both institutions’ capacity to meet their intended purposes.

Ms. Chase’s position seems irretrievably egregious. Her relationship with Ramson appears to breach the PPC’s Code and the Code of Conduct under the Legal Practitioners Act, which prohibits attorneys from engaging in behaviour that undermines the dignity of the profession or the administration of justice.

This raises serious doubts about the judgment of both these senior lawyers.

Performance

The investigative record of the current PPC in its first year is equally indefensible. Only two of the ten complaints noted in its first-year report tabled in the National Assembly seem to have been satisfactorily concluded. The procedures for one were not followed, and there was no evidence of procedures being followed in another. Two were awaiting further information, and four were stalled pending the receipt of legal advice. Not only was the advice received several weeks before the end of the reporting period, but it was also months before the report’s submission date.

The Commission’s failure to act on these seems to evidence a high level of dysfunction. Even more astonishing is that legal advice was sought on a foundational issue: whether the Commission could investigate matters that predated its appointment. Any competent body or legal professional should resolve this basic jurisdictional point without external input. This contrasts with the previous Commission’s proactive investigations into major contracts like the New Demerara River Bridge feasibility study, their oversight of pharmaceutical procurement, and their systematic approach to addressing procurement irregularities across government agencies.

The report fails to note critical information, including contract values, procurement methods and the basis of selection. A separate compliance review of twelve projects is similarly limited, omitting the names of contractors, values and timelines. I would not wish to bore readers with another set of contrasts except to state that those set the benchmark for thoroughness and transparency.

Beyond these procedural and ethical failings, the Commission’s internal structure appears designed to obstruct functionality. The offices once assigned to Commissioners were repurposed, leaving Commissioners without a dedicated workspace. It is unacceptable and confidence-destroying for a constitutional body to operate in this manner, notably when the previous Commission had established proper operational procedures and professional standards, which the current Commission bizarrely sought to criticise in its first annual report. 

Conclusion

The current Commission’s term expires in about six weeks. We look forward to seeing the reports for the twelve months to July 2024 and 2025 to measure the decline. Commissioner Ramson appears entrenched for life – or at least as long as the PPP remains in power. There is little to look forward to there.

The previous PPC proved that this institution could excel. The current Commission’s standards represent institutional decline and a betrayal of constitutional principles. The vast resources over which they exercise constitutional and statutory functions make their poor performance too essential to ignore.

Business & Economics Column

Attorney General Anil Nandlall recently conceded that the NIS cash grant “is not the solution” – yet proceeds to promote it anyway. This telling admission encapsulates the government’s approach to the NIS crisis: politically expedient band-aids rather than principled reform.

The proposed one-off grants, ranging from $260,000 to $650,000 for contributors with 500-749 contributions, suffer from critical flaws.

 The NIS Act already provides an Old Age Grant for persons with 50-749 contributions, and it would have been a better solution to amend the Benefits Regulations under the NIS Act for consistency and some degree of permanency.  Second, the flat-rate payments ignore earnings history, violating the principle that benefits should reflect contributions. Third, the arbitrary cutoffs are particularly unjust: contributors with 749 contributions receive substantially less than those with 750.

I have proposed an alternative to the government: calculate benefits as a percentage of what contributors would have received with full contributions, based on their last insurable earnings.

This maintains that benefits should reflect contribution history while providing immediate relief. A crucial virtue of this approach is that it offers continuing benefits for life, rather than a one-off payment that necessities will soon consume amid our high cost of living. My proposal would make this a permanent feature through amended regulations, avoiding future ad-hoc interventions. Almost a week later, the proposal has gone unanswered.

Particularly concerning is that two governments have done little with two consecutive actuarial reports, compounded by the delay in publishing the 2023 Annual Report, which would likely show a dramatic improvement in NIS’s financial position due to oil sector contributions. Such neglect is not even appropriate for a cake shop – let alone the country’s most important social security scheme. Doling out money might have political benefits but is no substitute for management.

The Zainul case and GuySuCo story typify the challenges faced by the NIS over decades. The late GM Patrick Martinborough highlighted this in the only meaningful story ever told of the Scheme in its more than 50-year history. His book, published in 2015, offered the solution that the current Administration seeks.

“Oblivious of that fact, in 2016, the NIS announced a ‘strategy to recover outstanding debts’. Yet the same problems persist nine years later, suggesting these grand pronouncements were nothing more than political theatre to pander to the political directorate, with no serious implementation intention.  Did they check on Zainul’s employer – Toolsie Persaud Limited – whose carpenter employee appears to have kept better records than the company?  

The timing of the cash grant initiative, coming on the heels of another election, raises legitimate questions about whether this is genuine social policy or electoral politics. The optics of distributing cash grants, however inadequate, appear calculated to appeal to voters rather than to implement principled reform of our social security system.  But the politics itself are equally troubling. Nandlall is not even the subject minister responsible for NIS, yet he leads the support cast, having himself been guilty of violations of the Act, which he attributed to “ignorance.”

He must also know that many of the defaulting employers were or are government corporations and political colleagues. This selective accountability undermines enforcement credibility. The same government that threatens prosecution has shown remarkable leniency toward political allies and state entities that violate NIS regulations.

With our oil wealth, Guyana has a historic and unprecedented opportunity to transform NIS into a system worthy of our citizens. We need comprehensive reforms: modernising the NIS Act, restructuring the Board for independence, implementing actuarial recommendations, pursuing all delinquent employers regardless of connections, and establishing systems for reconstructing employment records when employer negligence is proven.

The announcement of the NIS one-off grant may be a done deal. That is a pity since it can be refined. Yet, it represents a missed opportunity for meaningful reform. The benefits to the Administration seem more designed to earn political mileage than to assist the hard-done-by NIS pensioners. The aim is to win another five years while the people of pensionable age get some cash equivalent to just six months’ worth of pension. Not a bad deal.

The Scheme loses reputation, credibility and the opportunity to establish a sound, sustainable framework. The cash grant – a newly discovered panacea for all ailments facing the country – fails to address systemic issues, creates new inequities, and kicks the can down the road.

Guyana needs solutions built on sound principles, not political opportunism and expediency. The question is not whether we can afford a better solution, it is whether we are prepared to expend the energy to analyse the problems and find and implement proper solutions.

The columnist has a long association with NIS reform. He drafted the NIS Act of Grenada (1983), served as the first Chairman of the NIS Board, was a member of President Jagdeo’s NIS Reform Committee (2007), and has represented numerous contributors in pursuing their claims.

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.