Dear Editor,
At the inauguration ceremony of the President of Guyana, he commits by way of oath that he will bear true faith and allegiance to the people of Guyana, that he will faithfully execute the office of President without fear or favour, affection or ill will, and that in the execution of the functions of that office he will honour, uphold and preserve the constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. Additionally, by reciting the National Pledge he undertakes to honour the flag of Guyana to be loyal to his country, to be obedient to the laws of Guyana, to love his fellow citizens and to dedicate his energies towards the happiness and prosperity of Guyana.
The same commitment is made by those who are elected to Parliament as representatives of the people. The question can then be asked how sincere and committed are the utterances of those representatives?
In the instance of the construction of the Marriott Hotel, representatives of the executive branch of the government surreptitiously signed and sealed, and then defended a contractual agreement with an alien firm that excludes Guyanese from being employed on the construction of the project. Guyanese funds constitute a significant part of the project outlay, but Guyanese are not entitled to be employed therein. Is not this situation absurd?
The case for the defence is attributed to the language barrier and the notion that Guyanese cannot handle the laser which is substituted for the spirit level; such simplistic and nauseating utterances.
Who built the former President’s house, nay mansion? And, to go back in history somewhat, who built Atkinson’s Airfield, the Demerara Bauxite Company (Demba) and the sugar estates? Can the building of the Marriott be more complex than the construction of those entities?
Let us for a moment acknowledge that there is some merit in the specious defence arguments, but then what about the notions of succession planning and technology transfer? Bookers and Demba addressed those issues by providing adequate training and supervision to the locals, so ought not the Chinese to do the same? Why should they be excluded from satisfying those conditions? What are the hidden reasons for such exclusion?
I do not wish to go nit-picking, but the Chinese have already made a mess of the hydro-power station in the interior that was washed away, and the problem-plagued Skeldon sugar factory, and now they are to extend the Cheddi Jagan International Airport and to build the hydroelectric project?
A question: are the Chinese workers paying income tax and VAT?
Yours faithfully,
Hubert C Roberts
