Dear Editor,
As the hoopla over the President’s ‘Bux-con’ visit (‘Buxtonians divided over President’s visit,’ SN, August 22) swirls and then fades, it is time for the people of Buxton and elsewhere to start asking serious questions about the government’s infatuation with secrecy when dealing with the people’s finances.
The President and his government just cannot be allowed to get away with these well-staged political photo-op community visits to make feel-good impressions while hiding harsh facts and hard figures about their dealings from the public.
Buxton was once the hotbed of criminal elements, some posing as ‘freedom fighters,’ who used deadly violence to either send a political message as part of a demand or to literally topple the government based on allegations of discrimination and marginalization.
But even though many, if not most, of these demented and misguided criminal elements are dead, mostly via extra-judicial killings, incontrovertible evidence has since emerged that the government is engaging in racial discrimination by virtue of traditional favours to its ethnically-based constituency. Showing up for a photo-op in Buxton for a walkabout or sit-down talk, or at Emancipation Day observances does not negate the fact that there is racial discrimination, whether covert or overt.
The marginalization of any race, on the other hand, if it does exist, does not appear as pronounced as the marginalization of anyone (regardless of race) who dares stand up to and expose the government for its corrupt practices.
For simply asking that the government extend to the rest of the business community the same concessions granted to Queens Atlantic II (the concessions were an illegality the government used its parliamentary majority to pass legislation to retroactively correct), one long-serving local businessman of prominent standing came in for a tongue-lashing from the President.
Other Guyanese who dared to publicly express concern about the manner in which the government has treated with the public and public funds have also been targeted for retaliatory action by the government. These include a private auditor/chartered accountant/business columnist and the owner of Guyana’s premier hotel.
This kind of retaliatory behaviour by government is usually intended to keep its critics in check while they go about their daily business. But when the government or its allies move to seek a legal injunction against critics, who are just ordinary, concerned Guyanese raising questions about the government’s dealings, then that’s a huge red flag that says the government and/or its allies cannot afford to enter into the public space.
This actually explains in large part why, despite the President’s promise since last year April in Trinidad to have a Freedom of Information law enacted in Guyana by the end of 2009, such a law is yet to see daylight.
An FOI Act would allow the private media or any private organization or ordinary individual to access information (not of a highly sensitive or national security nature) even if the government prefers to have it remain a secret, yet when we look at some of the public issues around which there is way too much secrecy, we find they are actually part of the people’s business or involve state resources and finances. An FOI Act could also help reveal what ethnicity the majority of government contractors are. There is so much an FOI law can do.
In a previous letter, and even without an FOI law, I raised some deeply troubling points about the QAII’s acquisition of state-owned Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation and Sanata Complex, and because these were once public properties, their sale and acquisition are always subject to public questioning. QAII then won government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year. And are there other state-related projects in the pipeline for QAII? Just where did QAII appear from that it is getting ‘most favoured private sector partner’ status from the government?
The government and its allies may be upset when information that they would like kept secret ends up in the public’s possession, but if both deals were above board, then why should they be upset? Do they have something they’d prefer the public not to know? Look, Clico depositors are back in the news (‘Some Clico customers planning to lobby government for reimbursement,’ SN, August 22) trying to collect their money the government promised to give them, but while it’s not definite they will collect, they definitely won’t know what transactions Clico engaged in that led to its collapse, because the government rushed to get involved in a private company and placed it under the central bank.
Then there is the Amaila Falls hydro project. The ongoing debate about the road-building experience of Fip Motilall apart, the focus shifted to the lengthy delay in arrival of road-building equipment, but when that did arrive, the public has no idea about costs, the supplier/s of the equipment or whether they are new or refurbished, and if refurbished, what arrangement is in place for assuring the availability of replacement parts. Mind you, this is a project involving taxpayers’ money (US$15M) and a government-backed US$500M loan from China for the hydro plant itself, which implicates the Guyanese people, yet there is secrecy surrounding even the equipment for road-building. So what’s going to happen when work on the hydro project commences? Will the builders erect a steel wall?
Secrecy also surrounds the names of the private partners in the Marriott deal, which also involves use of taxpayers’ money (US$20M initially), but instead of the public being up in arms about all these secret deals, it is the government (and its allies) who are upset when the public asks questions and reveals the secrets. Enough of the political con game! Government is the people’s business! It’s time for the public to demand transparency from the government.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
