Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

Columns #’s 150 and 151 of my oil and gas feature Road to First Oil published in the Stabroek News, have generated a flurry of responses. On 05-01-25, the PNCR issued a statement responding to Column # 150. On the same day, the Stabroek News carried a letter by Mr Kit Nascimento responding to Column # 151 which accused President Irfaan Ali and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo of reneging on their pre-election commitment to renegotiate the “lopsided” 2016 Petroleum Agreement signed by the Granger Administration. One day later, there were two additional letters in the Stabroek News, including one by PPP/C MP Attorney-at-Law Mr. Sanjeev Datadin. With your kind permission, I wish to address the PNCR statement followed by the letters by Messrs. Datadin and Nascimento.

Column # 150 expressed my view that the PNCR’s leader’s failure “to articulate any coherent position on renegotiation, … to effectively challenge the government’s reversals, and apparent disinterest in the technical details of oil governance suggests a profound lack of understanding or a deliberate abdication of responsibility”. My conclusion was based on engagements with Mr. Norton as a guest on my TV programme Plain Talk and several polite exchanges.

In its response to my critique, the PNCR’s Statement lists earlier press statements on the Agreement referring to the Party’s 20-point agenda which it claims addresses renegotiation. That word does not appear anywhere in the agenda. Disappointingly, instead of confronting the lopsided Agreement head-on, the Statement retreats into vague promises about establishing an Advisory Team of professionals within 90 days of taking office. Quoting Mr. Norton’s generalities about “getting as much as possible” for Guyana hardly constitutes a coherent policy. Their defensiveness only confirms the validity of my comments on his weak opposition to the Agreement.

I remind Mr. Norton of my earlier advice: read Raphael Trotman’s book, ‘From Destiny to Prosperity’, and join him in calling for a Commission of Inquiry into the extension of the 1999 Agreement – into a 2016 Agreement – through a dubious Bridging Deed. Second, join the rest of Guyana in calling on the Ali Administration to immediately initiate renegotiation procedures under Article 32.1 of the Agreement.

Mr. Datadin

But for two grave errors in Mr. Datadin’s letter, his sarcasm and arrogance would disqualify his letter as worthy of a response. For someone who sneers at “second-rate texts,” his confusion between renegotiation and stability provisions in the Agreement is remarkable, and between renegotiation and setting aside – distinctions that should be elementary to an MP with an LLM in oil and gas law. His claim that public advocacy constitutes “duress” is equally bewildering. By Datadin’s logic, not only is Parliament set aside, but so too is the public.

That Mr. Datadin would misrepresent these basic principles while ingratiating himself with ExxonMobil by offering unsolicited but incorrect legal advice raises troubling questions about his motives. One wonders whether his eagerness to defend manifestly unfair terms stems from some form of ethical flexibility. Instead of conflating Local Content requirements with fair PSA terms, he could explain what the Granger administration surrendered in exchange for the renegotiation and amendment of 26th. April 2019. Or is it that with all his learning he is unaware of such amendment and modification?

Mr. Nascimento

Mr. Kit Nascimento writes not as an independent voice but as a paid public relations advisor to the President – a fact he conveniently omits. This is the same Mr. Nascimento who waged a relentless campaign against Cheddi and Janet Jagan throughout their lives, on one occasion cruelly twisting Dr. Jagan’s words to paint him as a racist – a history that makes his current defence of the PPP/C administration both ironic and telling. This context matters because it exposes how his positions are driven by political expedience rather than principle.

While Mr. Nascimento argues from his privileged position that ExxonMobil would refuse any request for renegotiation, he either deliberately misleads or displays stunning ignorance – the Agreement itself provides for renegotiation, and Exxon cannot refuse to engage in good-faith discussions. His confusion extends to defending contradictory positions: VP Jagdeo claims the renegotiation commitments never included the 2016 Agreement, while President Ali points to changed circumstances. They appear unable to synchronise their excuses.

General

This is not about point-scoring or abstract debate. It is about numbers and money, real money. With proven reserves of 13 to 15 billion barrels yet to be produced, securing a modest additional US$5 per barrel through improved terms — whether through royalty, profit share, or taxation – would generate between US$65 billion and US$75 billion in additional revenue for Guyana. This translates to US$81,250 – US$93,750 per citizen – money that would allow acceleration of physical and social infrastructure, higher salaries for our nurses, teachers, police and public servants, dignified old age pensions, and intergenerational savings.

To put this in perspective, the US$5 adjustment amounts to less than 12 US cents per gallon. The potential additional revenue represents schools unbuilt, hospitals unstaffed, infrastructure unrealised and savings for future generations forgone. These are the real stakes in this discussion.

The Guyanese people deserve better than recycled excuses and defeatist rhetoric. They deserve leaders who will fight for their interests, not cower behind geopolitical fears or blame predecessors. Until such leadership emerges, this debate will continue – because the people of Guyana expect their leaders to fight for their rights and for the billions being recklessly given up.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The President’s much-publicised $1 million donation to the Dharm Shala raises more questions than it answers, highlighting not generosity, but an embarrassing lack of substance in addressing the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.

Forget that we boast of being the fastest-growing economy, transforming Guyana into one of the wealthy nations in the world. Consider instead the reality at the Dharm Shala’s two facilities – one in Albouystown, Georgetown, and the other in Berbice -where approximately 60 permanent residents are cared for 365 days a year, alongside drop-in visitors. This translates to over 65,000 meals annually. The State’s $1 million will certainly not cover one meal per day per year for each resident and one wonders where the President expects the balance will come from. And this is before accommodation, clothing, caregiving, utilities, maintenance, and administrative costs.

This raises a barrage of questions. What were the President’s advisers thinking when they recommended a $1 million donation as a gesture of support in this season of caring and sharing? What exactly did they expect this sum to cover? A few months of electricity bills? Repairs to the aging building and leaking roof? Or a mere fraction of the costs for one day’s meals?

The glaring inadequacy of this token donation is further magnified by the media circus surrounding it. The newspaper coverage, complete with cameras and photo opportunities, seems worth more than the donation itself. Was this a genuine attempt to assist the poor and destitute or simply a photo opportunity cloaked as charity?

But a larger question remains: After more than 100 years of dedicated service by the Ramsaroop family, why is the Dharm Shala left to scrape together donations for survival? Why has successive government after government failed to provide the sustained support this institution desperately needs? Surely, it is time for the state to step in and assume responsibility for funding this national treasure, ensuring it is properly resourced to continue its vital mission with dignity and respect to the beneficiaries.

Instead of lauding the President’s token gesture, the Department of Public Information would do better to highlight the unique vision, sacrifices, and commitment of the Ramsaroop family, who have done what successive governments have failed to do – care for the most vulnerable among us without cost or publicity.

Five years after the first discovery of oil is more than opportune for the government to commit to integrating the Dharm Shala into the national welfare system, either through direct funding or meaningful annual subventions.

If a nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable, then this donation is an embarrassment and a disgrace. The poor of our country deserve better.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

To the Editor,

The government’s proposed amendments to the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act (the Act) should cause concern among property owners, legal practitioners and citizens. While the Bill seeks to address specific issues, it fails to modernise the framework to respect the Constitution and reflect fairness, transparency, and equity.

Even though no individual property owner should be permitted to obstruct critical national development projects unreasonably, this legitimate concern must be balanced against the constitutional rights of citizens and principles of fair compensation. The solution lies not in maintaining an antiquated framework that undervalues private property rights, but in establishing a modern, equitable system that serves both public and private interests.

In my 22 March 2024 column in the Stabroek News “Time for a Fairer Compulsory Acquisition”, I advocated for positive reforms that balance development needs with property owners’ constitutional rights. This Bill represents the opposite of such reform, retaining and reinforcing outdated practices and failing to address the inherent inequities in compulsory acquisition.

The principal legislation is rooted in the misconception that “market value” without more represents fair compensation. Compulsory acquisition, by its very nature, deprives citizens of their property involuntarily. As such, compensation must reflect not just the property’s market value but the forced nature of the transaction, including the psychological pain of disposition. Fair compensation should include a premium—no less than 25% above market value – to account for this dispossession, a principle recognised in progressive jurisdictions worldwide, including India. A simple amendment to section 19 of the Act would address the problem.

In 1990, the formal role of the Chief Valuation Officer (CVO) in executing the application of the Act was officially eliminated. Yet, the Government has continued to present the CVO, cloaked with the air of officialdom, at meetings with citizens whose property it intends to acquire under the Act at deflated values. Since the CVO is a government employee, the perception of bias and impartiality is inescapable. Modern legislation across jurisdictions provides for a Board or Panel of Assessors for valuation purposes.

A caring Government would not make a 1914 legislation more oppressive and backward but would embrace reforms that ensure:

1. Compensation includes a compulsory acquisition premium above market value.
2. Valuations are conducted transparently and independently of State influence.
3. Public confidence is restored in the fairness of the process.
4. Transparency and public disclosure.

As Guyana undergoes transformative economic development, we must ensure that national progress does not come at the cost of citizens’ rights. The Bill represents a crude and cynical reaction by the executive to a ruling by a judge of the High Court against the Government in a compulsory acquisition case. If there is a measure of perverse fairness in this retrograde step, its victims will be government supporters and non-supporters.

If that is not bad enough, it appears to be an attempt by the Executive to override a first-instance court decision, bypassing the normal appellate process. More troubling still is the possibility that this legislation could be applied retroactively to matters already before the Courts. Such an approach strikes at the heart of the rule of law and the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It sets a dangerous precedent where dissatisfied with judicial decisions, the Executive might routinely resort to legislative amendments rather than pursuing proper legal appeals.

This Bill should be withdrawn forthwith.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Ram

Dear Editor,

The Government often touts its extensive and expensive infrastructure projects as one of its key achievements. Yet despite billions of dollars being spent each year, the quality of road management remains deplorable and dangerous, contributing significantly to the high level of accidents and deaths on our roads.

Every month, about a thousand new vehicles are added to our roads, a large number of them converging daily on the capital city. This influx, compounded by poorly maintained infrastructure, is causing unbearable traffic jams costing countless man-hours, waste fuel, and further harm the environment. Many of the commercial vehicles, too large for the narrow, deteriorating roads, contribute to the worsening road and traffic situation. The absence of proper planning and management to accommodate this growing traffic volume is glaring.

Just after 6 PM this past Sunday (a non-working, non-school day), I experienced firsthand the unacceptable state of road conditions between Waterloo Street in Georgetown, where I work, and Ogle on the lower East Coast Demerara, where I live. Along Carifesta Avenue, only a couple of streetlights were functioning, leaving much of the road in darkness. On the East Coast Highway, the medians are poorly marked, forcing drivers to navigate treacherous conditions, compounded by oncoming vehicles blinding them with high beams. I even had to turn on my hazard lights due to the poor visibility and dangers on the road!

The situation on the Railway Embankment Road from Turkeyen to Ogle is even worse. Potholes and unevenness are common, large unlit vehicles are parked  on both sides, encroaching on the roads, while the traffic lights at the junction of Embankment Road and Ogle Airstrip Road have been non-functional for several days. To make matters worse, the Airstrip Road itself is in a terrible state of disrepair.

Meanwhile, our political leaders, who are quick to celebrate multi-billion-dollar road projects, are chauffeured around, some with sirens, and seem uncaring of the everyday frustrations faced by the average road user. They remain detached from the reality of those who navigate these poorly managed roads daily. Despite all the funds spent, it is clear that the core issues — maintenance, proper planning, and traffic management — are being neglected, by all state agencies involved.

New roads alone, without proper management, will not solve the growing crisis. The Office of the President, where much of the planning resides, along with the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Housing, and the police, must bear responsibility for the consequences of their poor planning, coordination, and execution. The State, through its incompetence, failures, and inattention, is directly responsible for the hazards that road users face daily. I urge the relevant authorities to not only focus on building new roads but to ensure the effective management, maintenance, and long-term planning of our existing infrastructure. Immediate action is critical to prevent further loss of life, productivity, and resources. It is time the authorities address these issues so that the citizens of this country no longer have to suffer in silence.

Finally, I take this opportunity to appeal to my fellow citizens, who daily endure similar challenges in other parts of the country, to speak out and let our politicians hear their voices. If we fail to act, we will have no one but ourselves to blame when this crisis turns into a permanent nightmare.

This letter is being sent to the Office of the President, the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of Housing, and the police to ensure that those in positions of responsibility are directly informed of the concerns raised, and more importantly, will act on them.

Sincerely,
Christopher Ram

A book review by Christopher Ram – Part 3

Odle moves abroad

Odle’s quintessential calling as an international technocratic public servant economist is narrated with a style identifiable to the layperson. He left Guyana in the year of Rodney’s assassination to join the United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) in New York. Over his 17-year tenure with the UN, Odle became a key figure in shaping policies on transnational corporations (TNCs) in developing economies.

Odle operated in several roles and different levels contributing to flagship publications on regulating transnational banks and technology transfer; leading advisory missions to numerous countries, including China and various African nations; and playing a crucial role in discussions with Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress about post-apartheid economic policies in South Africa. Odle did not try to exaggerate his own role or that of the UNCTC but the task of reconciling the apartheid economy into the wider world while attracting international investors into a highly charged political, economic and hugely polarised South Africa was discussed dispassionately, betraying his political experiences from Guyana.

Another highlight of Odle’s UN career was his instrumental role in establishing the World Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (WAIPA) in 1995, aimed at facilitating foreign direct investment in developing countries. He also featured prominently in the arrangements for the UNCTASD IX/Africa Connect’ conference in South Africa in 1996, aimed at stimulating increased foreign investment in Africa.

To ensure that he kept abreast with developments in academia while at the UN, Odle retained his earlier contacts and ties with academia, serving as an external examiner for tertiary institutions and participating in academic conferences. This allowed him the opportunity to evaluate in practice some of the emerging ideas and theories in international development economics.

In a This period of Odle’s career coincided with the global shift towards neoliberal economic policies, characterised by a strong emphasis on free market capitalism, deregulation, and reduced government intervention. It was the heyday of supply-side economics and monetarism of which Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were the apostles and the IMF and the World Bank the leading disciples. In Guyana, Hoyte became a convert with Jagan following suit, if reluctantly.

Return to the Region

Upon retiring from the UN in 1997, Odle returned to the Caribbean as a Technical Advisor to CARICOM’s Regional Negotiating Machinery (RNM) in which his principal focus was on two major negotiations:

1. Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) for whichOdle was responsible for negotiating investment and financial services on behalf of the Caribbean. The book describes the challenges facing small economies in areas like dispute settlement and performance requirements. After years of negotiations and preparation, the FTAA failed for the reasons set out in Odle’s book on page 123.

• Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union for which Odle was deeply involved in preparing background papers and negotiation briefs. He provides a critical analysis of the EPA, signed in 2008, suggesting that it has not delivered the anticipated benefits to the Caribbean. Odle cites experts like Norman Girvan and Havelock Brewster, who critiqued the EPA’s potential to undermine regional integration efforts.

Odle saw these initiatives through the lens of a heterodox economist from a country and region carrying the scars of slavery, indentureship and colonialism. Throughout the negotiations, Odle was mindful of the inherent inequalities faced by smaller economies when negotiating with larger, more powerful entities.

The final phase of Odle’s career saw him serving as Special Economic Adviser to the CARICOM Secretary-General, focusing on deepening regional integration through the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).

In that capacity, Odle played a role in authoring research papers on the interface between regionalism and globalisation, negotiating complex regional agreements like the CARICOM Investment Code and initiating the Caribbean Trade and Investment Report (CTIR), a crucial publication for informing policymakers about regional integration issues.

Odle’s account of this period is particularly enlightening, offering a candid assessment of the challenges facing Caribbean integration. He cites issues such as low intra-regional trade, failure to implement agreed-upon policies (CARICOM’s Curse?), and the lack of political will among leaders as key obstacles to deeper integration.

His frustration with the challenges of intra-CARICOM negotiations faced by technocrats was barely disguised, confronting a suffocating level of bureaucratic obstacles and indecision by representatives of insular member states. In discussing his efforts to improve the information and publication policies of the CARICOM Secretariat, Odle complains about difficulties in securing support and resources for initiatives like the CTIR, highlighting the ongoing struggle to prioritise regional integration efforts.

Back to Guyana

Of course, Odle was literally at home in Guyana where the CARICOM Secretariat is located but the end of his engagement with CARICOM saw his reluctant re-entry into Guyana’s political sphere. Odle renewed his relationship with the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and when that party became engaged in Coalition politics with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), a coalition that included the WPA and other parties in 2015, Odle was appointed to several important positions.

The book details his experiences serving on various boards and committees, including:

1. The Tax Reform Committee: Odle chaired this committee, which was tasked with reforming Guyana’s tax system. However, the implementation of their bold recommendations proved politically contentious and the target of the then political opposition.

As a member of that Committee along with Godfrey Statia and Dr. Thomas Singh, I believe that inadequate communication of the rationale of the recommendations as well as their deliberate mischaracterisation is a good reason for having a non-partisan mechanism for future tax reform.

2. National Industrial and Commercial Investments Ltd (NICIL): As chairperson of NICIL, Odle faced numerous challenges, including conflicts with the CEO and issues surrounding land distribution and privatisation.

Odle relates a falling out with his former WPA buddy and comrade Dr. Clive Thomas who as Chairperson of the State-owned Guyana Sugar Corporation had accused Odle of “misleading the nation.”

3. Tax Ruling by the CCJ: Odle functioned as an economic advisor in a case involving environmental taxes on non-reusable beverage containers, highlighting the complexities of regional trade agreements and environmental policies. As an economist and regionalist, while Odle accepted the ruling, he expressed concerns that the Court had failed to acknowledge the Government’s defence of passing-on, leading to unjust enrichment of the private company from Suriname.

As one who was also a technical adviser to the Guyana Government in the case, I believe that Odle’s comment is more than valid and justified. Indeed, it is my firm belief that foreign companies seem to get the benefit of doubts at almost every level and forum in Guyana.

Throughout this period, Odle grappled with the challenges of governance in Guyana’s complex political landscape. He provides insights into the difficulties of implementing reforms, managing state assets, and navigating political tensions within a coalition government. Odle also touches on the emergence of Guyana’s oil industry and the establishment of the Natural Resource Fund, highlighting the potential impact on the country’s economy and the challenges of managing this new resource.

The fourth and concluding part will appear next Sunday in which I will offer my own take on the book.