Dear Editor,
According to your note to my letter you did not receive two letters I e-mailed recently.
Well, the first letter questioned the relationship between government and Buddy’s hotel and Casique’s recreational facility in the 168 million dollars advance payment by government. The second questioned the wisdom in bull-rushing the casino amendment bill through Parliament that seems to primarily benefit the recreational facility at Providence.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I want to see Guyana successfully host its leg of CWC 2007. However, this success should never come at the expense of transparency, accountability and fairness once the government is involved.
From your newspaper, I learned that the government advanced Buddy’s and Cacique’s the money because they were having ‘bridge financing issues’. The cricket stadium itself does not seem to have this kind of problem, thankfully.
Well, since monies were taken from the public trough to be ploughed into these supposedly private projects, doesn’t the fact that these projects are private undertakings therefore require both the government and the private contractors to avail their financial records for public scrutiny so as not to give the slightest appearance of cronyism, favoritism or impropriety.
The President would do well to know his angry tone does nothing to shore up his personal image when serious questions swirl around him on government’s role here, even if he firmly feels the image of the country is more important to be shored up by ensuring Guyana hosts CWC 2007 by almost any means necessary.
Actually, here is what he reportedly said in one of your lead news stories, “We will complete this (hotel/recreational facility) because this country’s image is at stake, all our image. We will complete it and secure financing. We will recover our money. We are hosting world cup cricket. You better believe that.”
Although one may read a sense of urgency and commitment in the remark, one still has to wonder what sort of guarantee government is advancing that it will ‘recover our (the people’s) money’ from the hotel and recreational facility? Will it force, in discriminating fashion, visiting officials, players and foreign cricket fans to stay at Buddy’s instead of other competing hotels?
In the interest of public knowledge, (after all it is public money being spent), could the government provide detailed information on how it arrived at the 168 million dollar figure? Is it for food, transportation, accommodation, etc.? The public deserves access to a break down of how government arrived at the 168 million dollar figure!
And will it be seeking to ensure it gets the people’s money back by openly discriminating against certain other entities via legislation that restricts casino gambling to specific facilities? This casino amendment subject is such a sore issue that the debate itself shows what a lack of consultation between a so-called people’s government and major social stakeholders can yield. Give the government an ‘F’ here, folks.
On the question of ‘bridge financing issues’, this is too vague a term for there not to be details as to what factors constitute such issues in such a massive undertaking that required government to throw in 168 million dollars as an ‘advance’ payment and the public is none the wiser as to what exactly is going seeing the projects were not even finished.
Mr. Editor, can you go back to your own news records and recall reporting on the bidding process government initiated that resulted in Buddy’s et al being awarded the sole rights to construct the hotel and related facilities at Providence? What were their estimated costs and scheduled date of completion that caused government to give them the nod? At the time of the 168 million dollar advance, how much money did they actually spend that resulted in ‘bridge financing issues’? Open bidding is a transparent process! Mixing public monies with private entities requires accountablity not angry responses.
In closing, the government remains the custodian – not the owners/dictators – of the people’s business, and must account to the people at all times. The people, too, have a right and responsibility to demand of their government transparency, accountability and fairness in its dealings with the public.
The people cannot simply blame government if the people allow the government to behave like a dictatorship and get away with it. The people, as recent history has shown, will live to regret it.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
