Dear Editor,
I refer to your news stories, ‘Slight improvement but Guyana still ranked among most corrupt,’ (October 26), and ‘Guyana still perceived among most corrupt in latest TI report,’ (October 27).
Apparently, Guyana’s ranking on this year’s Transparency International list has seen a slight improvement (from a 2.6 out of 10 rating in 2009 to 2.7 this year), but what factors were responsible?
Incidentally, of the four big countries in the Caribbean – Barbados ranks 17th, Trinidad ranks 73rd, Jamaica ranks 87th, and Guyana ranks 116th.
Usually, the Guyana government responds to the report, but while I have not heard or read any such response, what is most important for Guyanese to note is how the rest of the world actually sees Guyana.
Besides the Germany-based TI, there are other world institutions that gather and disseminate information on corrupt countries. These include the World Bank, the Heritage Foundation, the US State Department and the World Economic Forum.
1. World Bank: According to an anti-corruption research centre known as U4, whose website says it was retained by Guyana in the REDD project, the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators, (which cover six dimensions of governance), confirmed that in 2008 Guyana performed below average in the Control of Corruption dimension, with a score of 37,2 (compared to 42,2 in 2003). Guyana also scored relatively poorly in four other dimensions and in the World Bank 2009 Ease of Doing Business Survey, where it is ranked 101 of 183 nations.
2. Heritage Foundation: Its 2010 Index of Economic Freedom said Guyana’s economy is ranked 153rd freest in 2010, and 27th of 29 countries assessed in South and Central America, with a score of 48,4%. The foundation further noted that Guyana performs well below the world and regional averages in terms of freedom from corruption (26), and the foundation’s country report refers to weak rule of law and widespread corruption in all areas of law enforcement and government.
3. US Department: Its 2009 Investment Climate Statement refers to corruption as widespread and to little evidence of the political will to implement legislation passed on procurement or asset declaration. And the Department’s Human Rights 2009 report for Guyana confirms this view by stating that although the law provides for criminal penalties for official corruption, the government does not implement the law effectively. The report also cites a widespread public perception of serious corruption in the government, including in law enforcement and the judicial system.
4. World Economic Forum: Its Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009 ranks Guyana 115 out of 134. The report identifies corruption as one of the major obstacles for doing business in the country, along with crime and theft, tax rates, inefficient government bureaucracy, untrained workforce and lack of access to affordable financing.
Editor, while we could debate their perception as being alien to the interests of Guyana, the debate could pick up steam if we introduce Guyana’s own Office of the Auditor General’s annual reports that repeatedly cite the corruption issue as a major problem.
On October 23, 2010, SN reported, “Contingencies Fund abuses continue,” citing acting Auditor-General Mr Deodat Sharma’s 2009 report, which also singled out “overpayment to contractors” as being one of the key concerns of the AG’s office.
But as if that report itself was not enough of an embarrassment for the government, on that same date SN also carried another story in which the President tried to clarify government’s directive to the independent government body, Gecom, to advertise its procurement needs with the government’s new website: “Where it concerns procurement of materials, goods and services for Gecom itself, they have to use this process… this is public money, it’s not Gecom’s money owned by the Commission.”
How can the President brazenly lecture Gecom about its procurement procedure involving public funds before the 2006 election (where is the public report on the findings of any investigation?) while his government, according to the AG’s reports for the last six years, has been abusing the Contingencies Fund for each of those six years?
Also, not without significance is the disturbing fact that ever since Mr Anand Goolsarran resigned as Auditor General at the end of December 2004, his replacement (Mr Sharma) has been acting in this capacity, raising serious questions about the government’s motive for having this man act for almost six years without being confirmed. Is the opposition opposed to his confirmation?
Mr Goolsarran had offered “stress” as the main reason for his resignation in 2004, but according to a Kaieteur News story, he attracted the ire of President Jagdeo when he wrote the Head of State protesting what he termed “veiled threats” by the HPS (who also featured prominently in the latest directive brouhaha with Gecom) arising out of the AG’s decision to conduct a thorough investigation into the Wildlife Division.
More specifically, Mr Goolsarran also reportedly wrote these words in his letter to the President: “…in previous conversations with you, you attacked me for being unprofessional and for my failure to resign from office.”
On a separate note, but for the public record, has the current AG or his predecessor ever encountered records/statements/reports showing payments made by or received from GT&T to the Prime Minister’s Office or Office of the President from 1992 to the present time?
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
