Dear Editor,
Barama is claiming that it is not a profitable company and therefore does not have to pay the measly tax. A press report of Nov 25th, 2002 taken from the Land of Six Peoples’ website (http://landofsixpeoplpes.com/news022/ns211258.htm) states:
“GMA Annual Dinner – Barama lifts President’s Export award.”
“The foreign-owned Barama’s Company Limited (BCL) has for the second time in three years won the President’s Award for the Export Achievement at the Guyana Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) 2002 annual dinner.”
“BCL was awarded the trophy in recognition for the company’s consistent increases in export sales, earning US$23 million from January to October, a reflection of the company’s maintenance of economic competitiveness in overseas markets.”
“The award, presented by Prime Minister Sam Hinds on behalf of President Bharrat Jagdeo, was made to BCL Sales Manager Rodney Raghubansee at Le Meridien Pegasus hotel on Friday evening.” The same news (Nov 10th, 2002) was also reported in the Guyana Chronicle.
What I fail to understand are: 1. How come a company can win the Presidential national award for Export Achievement , citing its international competitiveness in overseas markets, and still claim that its business operation is unprofitable? Companies that are internationally competitive in overseas markets must show profits. I have never heard of an international competitive company winning an award for not showing a profit.
2. If the company is not profitable how come the President’s award was given to and accepted by Barama? It seems that something is not right here. It is inconsistent.
3. Is Guyana’s ‘best’ Company a money loser? What kind of an example is selected for an award?
In reference to the much vaunted sense of corporate responsibility publicised by Barama’s defenders, I have just seen the May 10th 2004 report taken from (http:www.op.gov.gy/stories/0241-glumeeting.htm) where President Jagdeo meets Guyana Labour Union (GLU) members.
The report states: “
