Dear Editor,
Mr Christopher Ram’s recent article of July 13, 2008 captioned ‘A close up look at the QAII deal’ clearly reveals that the columnist has overstepped his boundary in commenting on topical issues. He wants the investor (QAII) to divulge business information about the investment as if clearance ought to have been sought from him. An indication to amend existing legislation apparently has not appeased the columnist so he continues the harangue about the investment. He is imploring the investor to make known his plans and wants to know what a particular subsidiary will manufacture and “what kind of export processing zone will be set up and how different it will be from the kind that has been called for by the private sector for many years but ignored by government.”
Mr Ram should know that nowhere in a highly competitive environment do companies divulge information about their business activities and plans. A close colleague of mine overseas is currently undertaking a huge business venture of a scientific nature, which, like QAII, is developmental and risk-taking, involving huge capital investments which his group intends to secure from financial agents. To date he has only informed me in a few lines of the nature of his investment but will not give further details, despite our friendship. I will know like everyone else about the business only after it is successfully established. Being aware of how the corporate world operates and respecting corporate ethics, I haven’t implored him for further information until such time he is ready to release same. Does that connote a lack of transparency or skullduggery? Not a tiny bit.
I always thought that Guyana’s private sector can be called anything but a private sector. Setting up an export processing zone is not a nebulous act. The investor is putting money to ameliorate and synergise his business whilst others would prefer not spend their monies and wait on government to establish something for their benefit. This is rather parochial and inward looking for a private sector.
Mr Ram praises the press for pursuing the matter. I believe it is the inability to compete effectively with one of QAII’s subsidiaries that is the driving force behind this pursuit. Competition is based on strategies aimed at capturing market shares for a product. It is not attacking a company. I know of many issues that are not pursued with such vigour as QAII’s deal. To date there has not been any fair reporting on the QAII deal but the press has been active (and supported by a few) in casting aspersions on the activities of a corporation. But then again, this is nothing new in the corporate world. But that is not the purpose of the media. Fair and balanced reporting are the purposes of the media. There is nothing wrong in asking questions but there is something wrong in unbalanced reporting. In essence, Mr Ram praised the press for effecting unbalanced reporting.
Unable to successfully achieve a desired result, a new line of attack has descended on QAII, this time using the New GPC. As per reports in the media, new aspersions are cast on drug purchases from the pharmaceutical company thereby indicating nepotism and impropriety. Given the nature of the goods being procured, it is plausible and justified for a single-source procurement to be effected as per the Procurement Act of 2002. However, this apparently was begrudged by some for obvious reasons. In the light of this, I am perplexed as to what impropriety is being referred to since section 29(c) synchronises cabinet’s decision to procure from the company. This section states that “a procuring entity may engage in single-source procurement if… there is an urgent need for goods, services, or construction, and engaging in tendering proceedings would be impractical.”
Being au fait with the tender process and the logistics involving procurement and delivery, it is not injudicious to treat drugs as a common good. As a nation, we should not compromise on the timely delivery of drugs. Additionally, benefits, timely delivery and even the impracticalities in using a particular source vis-à-vis another, are all factors considered in arriving at a rational business decision as opposed to a subjective decision. Business is very different from auditing so Mr Ram and other critics need to be careful about the comments they proffer to the public.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
(Note to Editor- Please Do Not publish my name and address)
