Dear Editor,
For now, it appears as though every time I have to write a letter to your newspaper, it is in “Hindsight”. First, it was former President and Prime Minister Samuel Hinds. Now, it is Mr. Nigel Hinds. In between, I received critical comments from Dr. David Hinds for the repossession of government’s property from Mr. Sattaur’s home, even though the circumstances that prompted his comments never occurred.
Unlike the first occasion where there was a direct challenge to some points that I made in an article on the Marriott, this instance involves what appears to be a deliberate mischaracterization of my article in an attempt to drag me into a confrontation on an issue of which I played no part. Mr. Nigel Hinds accused me, in effect, of joining in an attack “to destroy” Minister of State Joseph Harmon which he contends was contained in my article entitled `Surmounting the challenge of money laundering’. This accusation was contained in a letter with the title `There is nothing corrupt about the Minister of State’s actions’ that was carried in your newspaper on April 7, 2016. I delayed a response to Mr. Hinds’ charges simply because I wanted to understand the scope of the public’s concern about the contents of my article that prompted Mr. Hinds’ remarks towards me and to treat with it simultaneously.
The first thing that I wish to point out is that my article was on money laundering and it had nothing to do with Minister Harmon. It does not mention his name nor any action that he is purported to have taken. The purpose of my article was stated clearly in the first paragraph. It was intended to examine “the threat that the economy faces from money laundering and the financing of terrorism and what should be done to prevent the country from being swallowed by the black hole of the underworld”. In presenting the challenges that Guyana faced, the article also contained an appeal to all Guyanese to accept the need to give up some privacy when doing business with the banks and other organizations for the good of the country. Whether I am a public figure or not, I see nothing wrong with appealing to my fellow Guyanese to demonstrate by their actions that the country accepts the changes needed to make it FATF-compliant and more conducive to foreign investment. Mr. Nigel Hinds might be entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts.
The second thing that I wish to point out is that my article was written before public concern was expressed about the Minister of State. The article was then published in two parts. The first part was published before allegations of “interference” surfaced in the newspapers. The second part was published after the allegations surfaced. The first part of the article ended by indicating that the next part will start with the identification of the predicate crimes that lead to allegations of money laundering. Had Mr. Hinds read my article as a whole, he would have seen that it was an appeal to the people of Guyana to see the wisdom in accepting the changes to doing business in the country and not to turn the changes instituted by the banks into a political conflict, hence my inelegant reference to “monkeying around”. His letter was therefore precipitate.
Mr. Hinds chose to ignore my entire article and then cherry-picked words out of context to make it look as if I intended to attack the Minister of State. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when one considers that the Minister has always expressed support and given me words of encouragement for what he understood the Board was doing at the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) on the several occasions that I met him. I have access to the Minister of Finance and, as far as I know, I have access to other Ministers of the Government, including the Minister of State. I have a chance to make my views known in the appropriate manner so I do not have to come out in the public media and lambaste any high-level functionary of the government.
The third thing that I wish to point out is that in my first Press Conference, I made the following statement “The Board, on behalf of the Executive Branch of government, serves both the taxpayers of Guyana and the staff of this organization”. The operative words there are on behalf of the Executive Branch of government. Therefore, I accept that the President can decide who, other than the Minister of Finance, could speak to the GRA. Knowing that as Minister of State Mr. Harmon can speak or act on behalf of the Executive or the State at any time, why would I reject categorically the possibility that he could speak to the GRA?
The fourth thing that I wish to point out is that Mr. Hinds was very critical of the Governing Board’s relationship with GRA’s management. He described me as acting as if I were an Executive Chairman. The implication of this characterization was that I was interfering in the affairs of the GRA. It looks as if he feels that the Governing Board should show little interest in what was happening at the GRA. Well, I am sorry to say that it is not going to be business as usual at the GRA and the Board will do everything in its power to make sure that the organization performs the government’s duties in the right way. Mr. Hinds, I want you to understand that the Board is united in that commitment.
Mr. Hinds, I am not an Executive Chairman, but I am an “Interested” Chairman at a time when the organization is badly in need of reorganization and overhaul and I intend to make sure that GRA does what it is supposed to do on behalf of the Government and the people of this country, especially its taxpayers. An “Interested” Chairman knows that GRA’s management is responsible for implementing policy. An “Interested” Chairman also knows that the Board is responsible for ensuring that the policies are implemented properly and efficiently, that the policies have the intended impact and that corrective action is taken where that was not happening. Those responsibilities are in keeping with Article 12 (1) of the Revenue Authority Act. This “Interested” Chairman will do so at all times for as long as I have this responsibility.
Having made that point clear, I cannot understand how Mr. Hinds cannot see the contradiction in making a case for others to intervene in GRA’s business and criticizing the GRA’s Board which has that right.
It is obvious that Mr. Hinds and I think rather differently about public accountability. It is also obvious that the Public Service staff college is needed with greater urgency.
Yours faithfully,
Rawle F. Lucas
