PAGE 4
Thursday August 09, 2018
Kaieteur News
Kaieteur News Printed and Published by National Media & Publishing Company Ltd. 24 Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown, Guyana. Publisher: GLENN LALL Editor: Adam Harris Tel: 225-8465, 225-8491. Fax: 225-8473, 226-8210
EDITORIAL
AFC GOING IT ALONE
M
ore than a quarter of the world’s democra cies have coalition governments. Guyana had its first two-party coalition government in 1964 when the PNC and the UF coalesced to defeat the PPP. The reason for that arrangement was that neither the PNC nor the UF, by themselves, could have defeated the PPP at the polls in a winner-take-all political system. The positive aspect of coalition governments is that every party has to compromise and make sacrifices for the common good. The largest party cannot implement its own agenda, and if it does, as in the case of the PNC, it can disappoint and frustrate the voters who could lose faith in the government. Coalition governments represent a broader spectrum of public opinion than one-party governments. Coalition governments provide consensus politics in which consultation on issues takes priority over unilateral decision-making. However, this has not been the case with the sixmember multiparty coalition government, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). In just over a year in office, disagreements between the AFC and APNU began to emerge over power sharing and unfair hiring practices. The problem is, the coalition government is a “coalition of convenience” formed principally to defeat the PPP. Coalitions of convenience do not have any particular ideological framework that could be used as common ground on which its differences can be hammered out. In a “coalition of commitment,” each party in the coalition will compromise for the common good of the country despite the disequilibrium of size between the parties. Prior to the May 2015 elections, the diminutive AFC loomed large; its presence in the coalition led to the defeat of the PPP. But once the elections were over, the Cummingsburg Accord began to erode. Most PNC members believe that the 40 percent allocation of seats and positions to the AFC was extravagant. The truth is the AFC has always been aware that when it joined APNU in February 2015, it would face the existential threat of being controlled by the PNCled coalition and could lose its identity. It was a gamble it took and lost because it did not manage its affairs well. It took only three years for the AFC to encounter its worst crisis of its 12-year history as a junior coalition partner. Mesmerized by the trappings of being ministers and handsomely rewarded by a huge reservoir of power, its leaders have neglected their responsibilities to their constituency. They have also failed to put in place mechanisms to keep their larger partner, the PNC, in line, address the insecurities of the people and ensure fairness in hiring and assigning of senior positions. Caught in the public glare of dissent with its coalition partner on several issues and with APNU’s refusal to agree to a 60-40 percentage allocation of candidates for Local Government Elections (LGE), the AFC has decided to contest the November 12 LGE as a separate party. In a pathetic statement, the AFC said it is contesting the LGE separately in order to preserve its identity, but it does not, in any way, affect its commitment to the coalition government, nor does it change the AFC position on coalition politics at the national level. Yet there is the other view. The AFC believes that it has made a difference in the political landscape of the country. And indeed it has. Race politics is not a part of that political party and that has appealed to the young Guyanese. These young Guyanese are silent so the adults who may have gravitated to the party are the ones preaching the doomsday scenario. The future of the AFC may
DID PROFESSOR THOMAS CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE INFLATIONARY EFFECT? DEAR EDITOR, The announcement by Professor Clive Thomas of the distribution of cash from the projected oil revenue to every Guyanese household caught me by surprise. For the skilled and talented Professor to make such a declaration without considering the possible inflationary effect worries me. With the proposed payout, there is every likelihood that the price paid for goods and services will invariably increase, thus reducing the real purchasing power to the beneficiary. Firstly, we need to secure a new contract that will guarantee our country 10% of the gross revenue in the form of royalty. With approximately 4,000,000,000 barrels of high quality oil in our basin, it will extrapolate to 400,000,000 barrels paid to us in royalty. With an average price of US$60 per barrel, our revenue from royalty alone should be in the vicinity of US$24,000,000,000. The cost of oil production
varies around the world. The cost of producing a barrel for: Saudi Arabia $9 Russia $19 Norway $21 Canada $26 Venezuela $27 Nigeria $29 Brazil $35 and The UK $44 The cost for Guyana is not yet determined, but we can make an informed estimate that it will cost much less than the UK. I will use the cost of Brazil to assess our proposal, even though I believe that the cost to produce our oil will be much less. Our profit oil should be: Price per barrel $60 Cost of production (35) Profit oil 25 Capital spending
(iv) Payment to lawyers (v) Payment of VAT (vi) Mileage for car us-
15 Profit to share $10 With the 50/50 formula, Guyana will get $5 per barrel x 4,000,000,000 = $20,000,000,000. Estimated total revenue from our oil reserve using a selling price of $60 per barrel is $44,000,000,000 Now, let us talk of how the Guyanese public will benefit. Firstly, there should be no handout. This will likely make us complacent and the brilliance of our people will be eroded. My recommendation: 1. Tax returns must be filed by everyone who is of workable age 2. A refundable tax credit for each child below a certain age 3. A tax credit for earners with high income (amount to be determined) 4. Deductions for: (i) Mortgage interest (ii) Payment for school lessons (iii) Payment to doctors, hospital
age (vii) Charitable contribution (viii) Payment of alimony and child support (ix) Dependent care expenses 5. Tax credit for education expenses 6. A refundable earned income credit for those below a stated income. These recommendations will go a long way for fair and equitable distribution of our new wealth. In addition, the Government should bring our infrastructure to international standard. We need to increase wages and salaries bearing in mind possible inflationary effect of such increases. I would also suggest that a fixed percentage of the revenue be placed in the Sovereign Wealth Fund for our future generations. Sincerely, Charles Sugrim CPA
ONCE MORE SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: DEBUNKING FAKE NEWS DEAR EDITOR, During the period of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) government it was subjected to vile and consistent attacks about corruption. Most of the allegations were downright lies, some were half-truths (these are often worse than lies) and almost always they were distorted. The PPP/C has answered these accusations over and over again. Yet the charges of misconduct and corruption persist to this day. It is clear that the PPP/C haters have seen that this is potent and, even now after more than three years out of office, the wicked lies are continuing. The editorial of the ‘Kaieteur News’ of Monday, August 6, 2018, is a good example of how the news continues to be twisted. They are indulging in this type of journalism to protect the really corrupt PNC-led APNU+AFC regime, while at the same time trying to hold on to some credibility. In the editorial, the PNCled APNU regime’s obviously corrupt dealings were mentioned very mildly. The Leader of the Opposition was even quoted on a few of the corrupt deals. Clearly, this was fig leaf to pretend to be fair and balanced. However, it was once more placing blame on the PPP/C and slandering its administration.
About sole sourcing of medicine, it stated that; “….it was practiced frequently by the PPP government”. That is the first lie. The second lie is put in the following way; “…. While in opposition the APNU+AFC criticized the PPP… for the sole sourcing of drug contracts to the New Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation, whose owner, Dr. Bobby Ramroop is a friend of former President Bharrat Jagdeo….” It is just slander to repeat the lie that Dr. Ramroop’s company, New GPC, got contracts on a sole sourcing basis. For the reader to understand this, it is necessary to go into a bit of a background. On assuming office, the PPP/C sought the assistance of the international community to design a system of
procurement of medicines. The whole idea was to prevent shortages of pharmaceuticals and minimize the need for emergency purchases. The system that the PPP/ C administration developed was done with the technical assistance of the World Health Organisation (WHO). It was best described as prequalification tendering. That model was developed by the WHO and the World Bank based on international best practices and applied here to our specific circumstances. The guidelines which the PPP/C administration followed in allocating contracts and procuring drugs were: 1) the financial capacity to deliver on the contracts; 2) acceptable storage to ensure that there was enough supplies in the country and stored
at the correct temperature; 3) meet the Guyana’s Food and Drug Department regulations; 4) that the entity was legally authorized to operate as a business; 5) there was a points system that all bidders must meet. Moreover, to ensure quality, all medicines had to be procured from WHOprequalified manufacturers. Therefore, suppliers had to list the companies they were procuring drugs from. Those companies/suppliers that met those criteria were then prequalified. When procuring the Ministry sent orders to those companies inviting them to bid. It is clear that the PPP did not sole source. It was all based on sound principles. By extension, (Continued on page 5)
The direction in which the arrow pointed was being contended DEAR EDITOR, In less than 24 hours of your publication of my letter regarding misleading traffic signs at the junction of Thomas Street and paralleled roads of Stanley Place and Vlissengen Road, the One-Way Arrow sign was completely removed. I am assuming that the Arrow sign was removed by those authorized to do so. I do not know whether to fully compliment the expeditious action or become further perplexed. The Arrow sign itself was not a problem. It was the direction in which the arrow pointed
the procession of traffic that was being contended. I believe it would have been more logical to change the sign’s direction as against removing it completely. With respect to the STOP signs on the bridge connecting Vlissengen Road and Thomas Street, I am advised that they are necessary for traffic exiting Stanley Place unto Vlissengen Road, and not suggestive that Thomas Street is open for west-bound traffic. Yours faithfully, Orette Cutting