Dear Editor,
I attended the entire sitting of the National Assembly for the second reading of the Bill amending the NBS Act.
Debate for the government side came from Dr. Ashni Singh who piloted the Bill followed by Mr. Manzoor Nadir, Minister of Labour and Mr. Irfaan Ali, Minister of Housing. Mr. Winston Murray, of the PNCR-IG followed by Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, of the AFC spoke for the opposition benches.
The debate centred mainly on what was considered the contentious sections of the Bill and this included the removal of clause No. 19 of the NBS Act, the new provision requiring ten percent of the membership for the requisitioning of a Special Meeting and the failure of the Bill to set a reserve limit with respect to the general provisioning of the Society.
In leading off the debate the Finance Minister felt that the Bill was cut and dry and that it provided for improvements in the governance of the Society. That the Bill as written provided for the security of depositors’ funds since the Society was now being brought under the supervision of the Bank of Guyana. Subsequent government speakers echoed these remarks in presenting their case. The opposition felt that the NBS was a special kind of financial institution akin to a co-op type of organization and a different approach was needed to its governance and regulation.
They argued that NBS members needed to be able to requisition a special meeting without difficulty. They felt that since no one could for sure state what was the actual membership of the NBS apart from the number of accounts that were held, it was indeed very difficult to arrive at just how many signatures would be needed for the summoning of such a meeting. They also felt that a reasonable reserve limit should be placed on the Society so that this would act as its ‘insurance’ in the event of a temporary run or more serious financial difficulties.
Both Mr. Murray and Mr. Ramjattan lauded the provisions of the Bill which they felt spelt improvements for the management of the Society. However when they compared what was also now being required of the NBS as against what existed in the Companies Act with respect to private companies they felt that the House needed to proceed more cautiously. They referred to an amended Bill for GTM which was recently withdrawn for further consideration and felt in the instant case NBS should be similarly treated.
The debate was rancourous and much use was made of indecorous statements. The Minister of Labour in his remarks alluded to the fact that the government would not be swayed from its position even by the ‘bullies’ who were present in the gallery. This was in obvious reference to the few social activists who were then present in the House. The Minister of Housing in my view did not seem to have a good grasp of the issues as raised by the other side. He merely echoed the views raised by the previous government speakers interspersed by quite a few inaccuracies.
My impression was that the parliamentary process in the hands of these persons was just a formality and that no good could come from such a process.
Yours faithfully,
Cyril Walker
Secretary
New Building Society
Concerned Members
