Which group steals “better’’? How?
-“Honourable”? Look give me a break!
V-P BJ: Our President’s powerful “assistant”
Good grief friends, stealing should never be about “better”, or “more”. And when leaders, decision-makers, national managers in the country’s administration, top institutions or corporations are the ones being accused of alleged thievery from the public purse, matters could be classified from “unacceptable” to a societal, official crisis.
For if thievery and corruption will characterize a government, a nation, current and future generations inherit a “new norm”. As morality easily fades. Church going or no fake religion. So what am I going about today? (And remember they say “a (blackened) pot should not call a (blackened) kettle black”. Those critical of thievery – like - me – should be of unimpeachable integrity!).
Well quite recently numerous allegations of various forms of thievery have been flying thick and fast with some intensity. The alleged perpetrators of pilfering the public purse are ministers, parliamentarians, senior officials and supporters of the past PNC-AFC regime.
These accusations capture newscasts and headlines and social media platforms and make for grand drama on the darker side, for those usually interested.
To me, frankly speaking, the issue reveals the greed and avarice of those elected to manage our national affairs and who are amply rewarded with significantly satisfying salaries allowances and all types of benefits. Surely it is greed and public mischief, even criminal – if indeed they are guilty. Service to and for citizens – from our children, their supporters and voters – is merely opportunities for self–enrichment.
Actually there are some amongst the populace who applaud their reps for dubious upward mobility. After all, “alla-dem does do it”
****
Greed – them versus us
Greed is defined – as “acquisitive or selfish desire beyond reason”. Some folks in the employ of big business, state corporations, contracting companies and/or branches of government, after months or a few-years on the job, studying procedures and personnel, seem to become infected with a desire to enrich themselves often at taxpayers’ expense. As mentioned before any personal morality or integrity is submerged in favour of corrupt enrichment of self and family.
Growing up in Alberttown, Georgetown my AfroPortuguese grandmother and her old peers used to imply that a particular ethnic group was “the best” at stealing “on a large scale”. I grew up thinking that. But whilst in government and party; also observing alleged results of the alleged drug-trade operators, I concluded that, in this town, no one group holds any patent on corruption, illegal enrichment and thievery. It’s opportunity that matters to the greedy–minded.
I marvel at the varied, corrupt, weak ways that are created for opportunities to steal. No actual cash needs to be touched! Contractors reward favours, relatives deposit “donations” in bank accounts; overseas bank– accounts are created; fake businesses and “money–laundries” are established for donations to officials and executives to pass through. Anniversary gifts of some worth are presented, land documents are transferred.
Frankly speaking when younger members of the current generation observe – or know of – corrupt practices by senior officers, corporation Heads or tax–people, what should we expect of the ambitious rudder–less young?
In closing this summary lament I make two points: I know I’ve lapsed in fulfilling certain official obligations to the state so far, but as a one–time very senior public servant and now as a retiree and pensioner still waiting on my Covid-relief $25,000 grant, I never consider(ed) anything fraudulent. I thank my grandmother for that.
Secondly, even as you consider the structured scientific nature of the industry that is the global drug-trade, consider the alleged roles of accountants and attorneysat-law in felonious thievery locally. Ho-ho-ho.
****
The Vice–President – emphasise “President”
On Tuesday night just past I felt the following.
I didn’t win on the daily millions game, as usual. The channel was left on NCN TV 11/5. Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo came on. As he explained why he was relatively low key but that he had no rumoured serious illness, I decided to forego my “normal” American politics via my cable facility.
Because the Vice–President actually captured my undivided attention! His Tuesday press conference probably reminded why some folks regard him still as the “power” behind the PPP “throne”; why he is often referred to as “shadow or parallel president.”
It’s not about whether one agrees with his perspectives or not. Or even his personal “spins”. It’s about admitting to Bharrat’s comprehensive knowledge and strategic skills. As a politician he easily dismissed Joe Harmon. As an economist he gave his version of Ashni Singh’s compelled to state budget today. As the virtual minister of energy he expounded on the nuances and technicalities of oil and gas - now and in the future.
Dr/Mr/V-P Jagdeo’s political, technical and governmental skills were on full display. You don’t have to agree with him. I’m no worshipper. But no way can President Irfaan match his V.P! (No subject was taboo to BJ.)
****
“Honourable” my eye!
I know I’ve touched on this issue in columns very long ago. But I still manage to become stressed, even outraged, when some members of parliament are described as honourable. Give me a break!
Let me repeat for you: honour has to do with personal and official integrity, superior standing, earned privilege, worthy reputation, good name. I could go on. Now consider our “lawmakers” in our assembly, our national house of representatives. You can identify many honourable reps? I’m so glad for you.
But when I detect – easily - the arrogance, pomposity and aloofness from constituencies, I differ. Check the Facebook, the offices, the interactions with those not their own. What was their background before election to high office? What is their character now? Government and opposition.
Poor speaker Nadir is bound to describe the assembly’s folks as all “honourable”. Hail the British…
****
Ponder quickly…
● 1) Commissions-of-Inquiry, audits, accountantgeneral’s reports, police investigations – yet how many are convicted for stealing from their people?
● 2) Believe it or not, for me Cheddi and Dessie were above personal enrichment. (And I agree: Hugh Todd couldn’t make any decision on Taiwan.)
● 3) Pres. Biden seems to be opening America’s southern border. And illegals are getting pardons and Covid shots. Hurry to Mexico y’all!
● 4) February’s Black History month: Coming: Was Kofi/Cuffy from Berbice? Or Suriname? Ho-ho. `Til next week!
(allanafenty@yahoo.com)
The Law Reform Commission (Amendment) Bill tabled by Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC was passed in the National Assembly yesterday, without challenge from the main parliamentary APNU+AFC Opposition which was absent from the debate.
While the coalition opposition MPs were notably absent from the Chamber, they were present in the building and its environs. Its member Khemraj Ramjattan was slated to be one of the speakers, but was a no-show in the Chamber as the Bill was being debated.
The Bill amends the Law Reform Commission Act of 2016.
That Commission is intended to, among other things, undertake modification of all branches of the law, eliminate anomalies, repeal obsolete and unnecessary enactments, reduce the number of separate enactments and generally simplify and modernize the law.
Those who voted in favour of the Bill repeatedly hailed it as an “inclusive” piece of legislation and in that regard underscored its significance to the indigenous peoples—recognizing the need for representation from the National Toshaos Council (NTC).
During his presentation on the second reading of the Bill prior to its passage, Nandlall said it seeks to address what he described as two fundamental flaws which existed in the Act—the “appointment process” and “qualification of members.”
He said that under the principal Act, it is the President who makes all the appointments after consulting only, with the Minister of Legal Affairs and that all the persons appointed to the Commission were persons possessing legal qualifications only.
He said it was flawed to have had the President appoint all the commissioners and for other members to be only persons trained in the law. He said that in principle there is no basis to concentrate all those powers in the executive without an input from any other sector of the country— even as he noted that inclusivity is what the amendment seeks to bring to the Act.
He had previously described that executive overreach as being “absurd.”
He had noted that in the legislation, it is the Executive that determines who will be appointed to the Commission and recommended that a formula be used whereby the names of the persons who are to sit on the Commission come from important stakeholders in society.
He had suggested that there should be eight nominees from various sections of society, inclusive of the Private Sector Commission, the labour movement, the University of Guyana Council, the Chancellor of the Judiciary and a nominee from the major political opposition in parliament, among others.
The NTC has now gained recognition, also on the Commission.
Broad-based
Nandlall submitted that the law is not made for only one section of the society while noting that it was for this reason, the Law Reform Commission needed to be as broad-based as possible, both in its appointment process and in those who constitute the Commission.
Nandlall said that the Law Reform Commission (LRC) came admittedly late in this jurisdiction when compared to other Commonwealth counterparts, but said that this was because some years ago a Law Revision Exercise (LRE) had been embarked upon.
He said that while late, former House Speaker Deborah Backer had proposed the establishment of a Law Reform Commission, then Attorney General Doodnauth Singh had advised that the LRE should first be completed before a LRC is considered.
Nandlall said that the PPP/C at that time supported this move.
With the LRE having been long completed in 2012, however, Nandlall explained that the LRC was then poised to come on board.
He said that it is a component of an Inter-American Development funded project under the rubric “assistance to the criminal justice system.”
The AG said that while in Opposition, the PPP/C welcomed the concept of the establishment of a LRC, but vehemently criticized the appointment process and the manner in which the Commission was constituted.
As he had previously done, Nandlall
then took shot at the former APNU+AFC government, blasting it for having brought the Act into force but thereafter failing to have the Commission constituted and operating.
Against this background he said that some 100 hundred million of tax-payer dollars were spent by the former Administration for rental of a building to house the Commission, payment of staff, utility bills and the acquisition of a vehicle.
He said that the financial excesses expended amounted to a colossal waste on a Commission that achieved nothing over the years; underscoring particularly that no Commissioner was ever appointed. “The Commission existed on paper only,” he said. Nandlall noted that the Commission is now being accommodated free of charge on Middle Street, at a building belonging to the Ministry of Culture Youth and Sport.
Government MP Alister Charlie and Deputy Speaker and leader of the Liberty and Justice Party Lenox Shuman both lauded the Bill for recognizing the need for Indigenous peoples to have a voice where law reform is concerned.
For his part, Charlie said that having a representative from the NTC on the LRC is timely and necessary since the NTC represents more than 200 Amerindian communities across Guyana and Amerindians have the right to participate in national decision making in matters which affect their rights.
The NTC representative on the Commission he said, would represent the diverse nature of Guyana’s society added to which he said the indigenous community needs a representative who would understand the challenges of their people.
Against this background he commended the Bill to the House for passage.
“Clause 3 of the Bill [Amendment] substitutes for Section 4 [of the Act], a new section 4 to make provision for an inclusive Law Reform Commission… the system of appointment of Commissioners in its current construct is flawed as it does not uphold the tenets of a modem society which should always strive for inclusivity. Law reform is the process by which the law is modified and improved to better respond to the needs of the society. Therefore, to ensure that the Law Reform Commission carries out its mandate effectively, the Commissioners must comprise of persons who represent the various facets of society,” the explanatory memorandum of the amendment bill states.
It was explained that the Commission will be a body to review diverse matters including law, finance and social issues. Therefore, it is important to also appoint Commissioners with a non-legal background. Commissioners from a non-legal background will bring balance to the law reform process and views not heavily skewed towards a legal lens.
The new section 4, as amended by clause 3 of the bill, will now provide for only one full-time member of the Commission, that being the Chairperson. Consequently, clause 4 of the bill amends section 9 of the Principal Act by modifying the provisions relating to quorum to provide that in the absence of the Chairperson, any other member may preside at a meeting.
Finally, clause 5 of the bill substitutes for section 11 a new section 11 to provide that in addition to sums allocated from the Consolidated Fund, the funds of the Commission shall also consist of other sums as may be provided to the commission by any entity or agency, whether national, regional or international.
The COVID-19 Relief and Support Programme which oversees the issuing of grants of $25,000 to households has distributed a total of 236,876 grants valued at nearly $6 billion across the ten administrative regions as of February 6, this year.
This disclosure was made by Minister of Human Services and Social Security Dr Vindhya Persaud, during her written response to questions asked by Opposition Member Haimraj Rajkumar.
The response was circulated during yesterday’s sitting of the National Assembly.
In his question, Rajkumar requested the value of the distribution thus far, which regions and communities benefitted from the cash grant and which are yet to collect.
In response, Persaud provided a table which detailed the number of grants distributed to each administrative region for the period and the corresponding values.
According to the figures presented by the minister, Region Four received the highest number of grants (83,502) with a total value of $2,087,550,000.
Region Three received the second highest number of grants (44,095) with a value of $1,102,375,000, followed by Region Six with 35,009 grants amounting to $875,225,000.
According to the figures, Region Eight received the lowest number of grants. Persaud informed that 3,064 grants were distributed to the region with a value of $76,600,000.
Rajkumar had also asked to be provided with a report, interim or final, of the completed audit as of
January 15, 2021.
In her written response, Persaud explained that the programme has two phases.
The first phase, she said, is still incomplete since distribution is still ongoing in Region Four and once this is finished, an interim audit will be conducted into Phase One of the programme.
Following the completion of the second phase, a final audit will be conducted
into the programme.
“When the second phase, which includes the
pink slips, has been completed, a final audit of the entire COVID-19 Relief
and Support Programme will be conducted,” Persaud said.