Category: Letters to the editor

Dear Editor,

Letter by Charles Ramson Snr. (Stabroek News 24 -4-25 refers.)

It defies all logic – common sense, even – that Charles Ramson Snr., a former Court of Appeal judge, cannot grasp one of the most elementary functions of his office: to gather and provide the very information that enables the tabling of the annual Report in the National Assembly on the work of the Commissioner of Information.

Contrary to his mistaken belief, he is not a passive bystander in this process. His office must actively compile, organise and submit the necessary data for the annual report. If the President’s office is to produce a report, it can only do so if Ramson first does his job. Worse yet, as the statutory authority on access to information, he should be drafting the report himself, not waiting for the President’s office to do the work he was appointed (and paid millions) to perform.

That a former judge and Attorney General – someone who should understand statutory obligations better than most – fails to make this elementary connection is disturbing. It suggests either  deliberate obstruction or staggering incompetence, neither of which is acceptable for an office meant to safeguard democracy.

Ramson’s continuing failures and stubborn refusal to perform his duties are not just negligence and arrogance but a gross dereliction of duty. His failure shows that he is unfit to understand, let alone perform, the Commissioner of Information’s most basic responsibilities and functions. It seems irrational that the holder of the country’s second highest award is proud of a record of no information and no report tabled.

It is not enough that he resigns – he should be fired for non-performance, conflict of interest, obstruction to democracy and an embarrassment to the country’s image and reputation. 

Ramson can then re-convert the Office of the Commission of Information to his private residence. There he will be free to wallow in his thessaurian world of formal and complete retirement with full justification for doing nothing. By his measure, any replacement will provide value for money and citizens’ constitutional right to information. 

That is what the protests outside his residence/office were about.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram

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

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

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

Dear Editor,

There have been many letters and comments on the 10-year passports with President Ali’s slogan “One Guyana” emblazoned therein. It may have escaped attention that the Constitution of Guyana – Article 5 and Schedule 2 – includes the emphatic statement on the country’s national motto with the words “One People, One Nation, One Destiny”. It is, therefore, a violation of the Constitution for the Ali Administration to unilaterally seek to impose party hegemony – or, as Forbes Burnham referred to it, party paramountcy – over the Guyana Constitution.

A country’s passport is not a political billboard but a sovereign document that belongs to all its citizens, supporters and non-supporters alike. Therefore, unless amended, no other words can appropriately be substituted. Even Trump, with all his excesses and Executive Orders, would not dare to use his MAGA (Make America Great Again) on that country’s passport.

We have already witnessed the “One Guyana” slogan appearing at the entrance of the University of Guyana, as well as in public sector documents, school materials, government-sponsored events, the national currency, and photographs in every public building in Guyana. This all-consuming obsession with photo opportunities and personal branding has permeated almost every aspect of public life. Now, with the slogan’s appearance on our passports, the administration has crossed a dangerous line – effectively forcing every citizen who requires international travel to carry party propaganda. It even suggests that allegiance to a political vision is a prerequisite for full citizenship, a notion fundamentally at odds with democratic principles.

President Ali is the first full-term President of our oil-rich economy. He has a right and an opportunity to create a meaningful legacy for himself. As Head of State and Executive President, he is expected to do the ceremonial things – like ribbon cuttings and sod turning on top of grandiose announcements. But he needs to have a balance that allows him to address the serious stuff – like widespread corruption, constitutional reform, compliance with constitutional guardrails, reduction in income and wealth distribution, proper governance, and equal opportunities for all Guyanese.

He needs to get this balance right. Even though he has embarrassingly failed to meet his 25 by 25 commitment to CARICOM, he was able to find time to do research and write a book Achieving Global Food Security (on sale on Amazon for US$38). In other words, President Ali should be spending more time on real issues and measurable progress in the daily lives of Guyanese and national outcomes, and not focus on frivolities, however easy and tempting they might be. 

Sincerely,

Christopher Ram