Dear Editor,
I hold no brief either for Tropical Orchards Products Limited (TOPCO), a subsidiary of Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL), or Caribbean International Distribution Inc (CIDI), a subsidiary of Rudisa Beverages Company of Suriname. However, the decision of the government to award a contract to CIDI for the supply of boxed juices to the National School Feeding Programme must raise eyebrows. TOPCO has been the supplier since 2010. From the press reports, it was the lowest bidder. CIDI was the third lowest bidder. DDL is a company of international renown. Its products have received awards globally. My research has revealed that TOPCO’s operations and packaging have been certified by international assessors as meeting the required international standards.
Indeed, TOPCO is commercially certified to produce certain beverages by PepsiCo International, one of the beverage-producing giants of the world. If a company of the stature, reputation and quality of TOPCO comes in as the lowest bidder in any open and fair bidding system, it is extraordinarily difficult to conceive of a reason why it ought not to be awarded the contract, taking into consideration the fact, of course, that the assessors are not bound to accept the lowest bid. The reason for excluding such a company like TOPCO must be quite exceptional. In a public statement, the reason offered by the government for rejecting TOPCO’s bid was “continued issues with past performance dating back to2012”. If TOPCO is to launch a legal challenge, such flimsy reason would never be accepted as reasonable, sufficient or credible, in the circumstances, by any competent court.
I recognized that the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas obliges Guyana not to discriminate against Caricom produced goods but to create a level trading/playing field. I am not advocating a breach of this treaty. But countries throughout the Region have found ways and means of granting incentives to their local producers while at the same time complying with the letter and spirit of the treaty. For example, although energy cost is cheaper in Trinidad than anywhere else in the Region, Trinidad subsidizes electricity for its manufacturing sector. No one has challenged Trinidad at the Caribbean Court of Justice for breaching the treaty.
In contradistinction, there seems to be the reverse taking place in Guyana, where the government seems bent on creating an unlevel playing field for local manufacturers. This posture amounts to a reverse of the discrimination contemplated by the Treaty of Chaguaramas. This is obviously evident in a plethora of anti-business measures and policies promulgated and implemented by the government. Some of these policies include astronomical increases, in some instances, as high as 1200% in 140 public licences fees; imposition of VAT on heavy duty equipment in the agricultural, mining, forestry and construction industries which were hitherto VAT-free; the imposition of taxes on imported raw materials for the manufacturing industry; the imposition of higher import duties and taxes on motor vehicles by banning the importation of vehicles that are 8 years and older; the imposition of higher taxes on steel; the imposition of a tax on containers; the routine subjecting of almost every container imported to almost 100% inspection by Customs which invariably leads to increase in customs and excise duties; increased parking fees for parking at the Cheddi Jagan International Airport by 400%; the impending implementation of parking meters within the City of Georgetown; the increase in application fees for state lands from $5,000 to $55,000; the proposal to increase rates and taxes on properties throughout the country; the proposal to increase drainage and irrigation charges by MMA/ADA from $2,500 per acre to $6,000 per acre; and the withholding of tax concessions to local investors which were available under the PPP/C administration.
It is against this backdrop that the TOPCO case must be examined before one can get a proper appreciation of its implications as well as to be able to situate the government’s approach to the local private sector. Apart from the government, the private sector is the largest creator of jobs in the country and the most significant contributor to the economic well-being of this nation. The President has already signalled to the rice industry that rice is not the government’s business. Similarly, contrary to promises made on the 2015 election campaign trail, the President has indicated that creating jobs is not the business of his government and that individuals must strive to create jobs, using their own initiatives.
It is common knowledge that TOPCO does not own a farm from which it gets raw materials for the production of its juices. Its raw materials are sourced from hundreds of small farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country. The loss of this contract will no doubt have a disastrous impact which will trickle down to every corner of the country. The government appears numb to these realities. Only two weeks ago, Barama laid-off a hundred and eighty employees. One of the reasons proffered by the company, is the failure of the government to renew its licences on time. Only sixty per cent of the farmers who planted rice the last crop, have gone back to the fields for this crop. Most of the two thousand workers dislocated by the closure of Wales Estate have already joined the unemployment queue. A contracting economy, a progressive reduction in commercial activities, a dormant construction industry, declining gold-mining activities in the small and medium scale arena along with the closure of Baishanlin in the forestry sector cumulatively have led to a daily growth in the unemployment statistics.
This dilemma is aggravated by the APNU+AFC’s discernable intolerance for consultations, criticisms or views different from theirs. In this regard, the private sector has been the victim of callous public onslaughts whenever it adopts a position different from or critical of the government. I recall the public beating that the private sector took from the APNU+AFC, in opposition, during the tenth Parliament. All that the private sector did was to call upon the then opposition not to cut funding of important national projects from the budgets and to support the passage of important bills, for example, the AML/CFT Bills. The public assault on the private sector has continued by the APNU+AFC in government. Only last week, the nation witnessed the contemptuous, derisive and uncouth verbal tirade of the Attorney General, Mr Basil Williams, upon the private sector, simply because that important stakeholder requested a review of the draconian SARA Bill. One leading player in the private sector was moved to remark to me that in twenty-three years of the PPP/C in government, no one ever spoke to and/or about the Private Sector Commission in such a manner.
Indeed, the record will show that prior to October, 1992, Dr Cheddi Jagan, a devout Marxist, extended a hand of partnership to the private sector, earmarking it to be the “engine of growth” of the economy under a PPP/C government. And so it has been since then. The PPP/C administration took relations with the private sector to an all-time high when it entered into the novel private-public partnerships with the private sector in relation to projects such as the Berbice River Bridge and the Marriott Hotel. In fact, the constant criticism has been that the PPP/C government had become too close to the private sector. It is obvious that in relation to this government, the complete opposite obtains today to the detriment of the government, the private sector and the nation as a whole.
I wonder what Mr Yesu Persaud has to say about all of this. After all, TOPCO is his brainchild, and he publicly endorsed the coalition during the 2015 elections campaign. Maybe the recent tax write-off from which DDL benefited, was the repayment of that debt. I guess other political debts have to be repaid, as well. After all, two leading lights in the coalition have publicly stated that those who made contributions to the coalition during the elections campaign made political investments for which they must be rewarded.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
