Dear Editor,
Now that Buddy’s hotel is open for business, I hope both the proprietor and the government come clean with the public at the opportune time on how much money was hauled in by the hotel and casino operations so that the public can know if government would be getting back its multimillion-dollar ad-vance, as President Bharrat Jagdeo boasted would happen.
So far, we have been told the amount of money government said it advanced, but we still don’t have a breakdown on how it arrived at the figure. In public accounting terms, this lack of transparency perpetuates the trend in which government could sooner or later say it has recouped its advance without publicly availing documents for clarification and verification.
This brings me to the question of the purchase of the BMWs for the cricket itinerary. Who actually purchased the vehicles – government or private individuals – and what was their source of funding? Who will be auctioning off the vehicles after cricket is finished – government or private individuals – and what would be the standard requirements for bidders?
One still has to wonder also how government intends to recoup the taxpayers’ money that was advanced to other unfinished projects, if any, which also were scheduled for completion in time for or as part of CWC.
In the wake of the mini storm over the recent advance, I can only hope that this is the end of government’s subvention to private projects unless it is fully prepared to avail its facts and findings before hand to the public on the decisions behind such subventions. Time to end this “You can take our word for it” reasoning.
The PPP regime, after all the years of observing and complaining of secrecy leading to massive corruption under the PNC regime, ought to know better and do better by the people of Guyana. Instead, it has itself fallen victim to its own brand of corrupt practices because it has chosen secrecy over transparency.
Meanwhile, I have noted in the news that world-renowned Marriott hoteliers are scoping out Kingston, Georgetown as a potential site for business. While I think this is a welcome development, thanks in large measure to local and foreign investors pooling their minds and monies, I am very mindful of the need for transparency even among major investors.
Guyana needs major investments to grow, no doubt, but big time investors need to be told that if they plan on investing in Guyana that they should let Guyanese know their sources of financing. In the case of Marriott this is not an issue.
Government cannot just sign off on any potential investor as being clean or okay to invest because government officials have looked at the sources of financing and are satisfied. The public, especially the media, should have direct access to copies of the submitted documents and be satisfied it is dealing with legitimate business groups, which can be trusted to do right by the people of Guyana.
I sincerely support the President’s push for projecting and protecting Guyana’s image abroad, after years of self-battering, in an effort to attract visitors and investors, but a vital concomitant has to be transparency under the umbrella of a freedom of information act.
Most countries experiencing economic growth within the framework of democracy know all too well the value of freedom of information. It actually helps boost the confidence of an investment minded public to rationally choose which investments to pursue and which to avoid. There will be risks and there will be rewards, but there must be freedom of information on all levels of the government-private business spectrum.
On a somewhat related note, it wouldn’t hurt if investors, who pass a character test, can consider selling shares to locals, as part of a mutual confidence building effort. Hey, if JW Marriott and family can own 15% of Marriott worldwide, why can’t the Singhs, Joneses, Bacchuses and Smiths in Guyana get in on a percentage of this and any new investment?
I will always remember chiding the PPP regime, which reportedly has a 30% ownership in the local bauxite operations, for not being a true-to-form people’s government and granting Guyanese the right, if not the opportunity, to buy shares in the operations.
Shareholders usually demand transparency, responsibility and accountability, which are essential to mutual trust and needed development. But even if Guyanese don’t get to buy shares in major foreign investments, then at least by virtue of their inalienable rights, they still are shareholders in Guyana’s well being and future. Know and fight for your rights, people.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
