Dear Editor,
I refer to the Sunday Stabroek editorial of June 8, 2008, where it injected as its running theme the notion that the Office of the President is oblivious to enlightenment. It, however, should be made very clear that this presidency is not a ceremonial presidency, and it is not a blotting paper to absorb all manner of criticisms/observations.
And I immediately thought of the European Enlightenment when I stumbled on the editorial’s use of the term ‘enlightenment.’ The European Enlightenment was a time of extraordinary intellectual development and change in philosophical thought; that was a time when ideas and beliefs that had weathered the storms of the ages, were replaced during the Enlightenment. The 17th century philosophers like Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke were linked to the European Enlightenment; their focus was on producing systems of ideas that were rational, and that such ideas should emanate from the real world and be tested in the real world.
Look, the essence of the European Enlightenment was to understand and control the world through reason and empirical research. And so any form of enlightenment, clothed in reason and empiricism, that is presented to any government, should gain widespread acceptance. But do the ideas and beliefs as articulated in this editorial constitute ‘enlightenment’?
The editorial alludes to some Freedom of Information (FOI) creature, not yet part of the legislative architecture of this country, as an idea rejected by this government; and presented as an example of this government’s reluctance to be enlightened. The FOI creature is certainly not rejected by this government.
And it is in the spirit of an absentee FOI that this government has provided to all Guyanese greater access to government’s records. The effectiveness of new developments, as greater public accessibility to public information, has to be measured and monitored in comparison with what existed before it became instituted; it is only then we would know ‘where we are’ after understanding ‘from whence we came.’
The fact of the matter is that even without the FOI, there is a fair amount of information accessible to the public; but, indeed, some information may not be readily available for strategic reasons.
And look, in the US, even with the FOI, there are nine types of record exempt from public disclosure. And so what is enlightening about the proposal to implement the FOI creature in Guyana at this time, given that government in principle already acknowledges its utility value, and given that accessibility to public information is a clear and present fixture even in the absence of a formal FOI? Therefore, making the case for FOI at this time does not constitute enlightenment; this kind of a one-night stand ‘enlightenment’ fails to satisfy the criteria of rationality and empiricism, as aforementioned. And the critics should publicly state what public information is not readily available at this time in the absence of a formal FOI.
And then we come to the hullabaloo at the launching of the Guyana Times last week at the Le Meridien Pegasus. This editorial and some other sections of the media really tried hard to disseminate a fictional war of words between President Bharrat Jagdeo and Demerara Distillers’ Chairman Mr. Yesu Persaud, and implicitly, to promote a fictional rift between the private sector and the government. Intact today, however, is Guyana’s Competitiveness Strategy, a product of the growing partnership between government and the private sector. And so this kind of biased media dissemination, indeed, does not constitute ‘enlightenment.’
This kind of biased dissemination does damage to the society.
There was no war of words. The President merely took the opportunity to adjust a flawed expression that special privileges were conferred on Queens Atlantic Investment Inc. (QAII). And the President then presented some of the investment incentives available for both domestic and foreign investors, noting that was no bias in awarding investment incentives.
We also need to be clear that Section 21 of the Fiscal Enactment (Amendment) Act 2003 enables the subject minister to award exemptions from corporate tax for five years if the investor’s project can generate new employment in Regions 1, 8, 9, and 10; and exemptions from corporate tax if the investor’s project can be classified under these categories: non-traditional agro processing (excludes sugar refinery, rice milling and chicken farming); tourist hotels or eco-tourist hotels; information and communications technology (excluding retail and distribution); petroleum exploration, extraction, or refining; and mineral exploration, extraction, or refining. And QAII met the requirements of the Fiscal Enactment (Amendment) Act 2003.
The investment inducements cover general across-the-board incentives for investors; special incentives for firms producing non-traditional products for export; sector incentives for agri-business; manufacturing, tourism; fisheries; forestry; mining; housing; aviation; and information communications technology. I would refer those interested in a summary of these investment incentives to Table 3.10 on the Go-Invest website.
I have always felt that there are those in this society who have a proclivity to create division, albeit a fictional one; this editorial’s nuances seem to suggest just that.
And so let me refer these people to one of Obama’s comments: “There are those who are preparing to divide us: the spinmasters, the negative ad peddlers. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”
Moreover, ‘enlightenment’ may have to carry a rationality and an empiricism as its basis. And so without this logic, this editorial’s ‘enlightenment’ really is not ‘enlightenment.’
Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir
Editor’s note
1. Dr Misir has missed the point, not to mention placed a very narrow construction on the word ‘enlightenment,’ which he has used in the specific sense of the European Enlightenment, rather than giving it its customary gloss. In fact, the editorial took its lead from Dr Luncheon, who employed the word sarcastically to refer to the Commonwealth parliamentarians.
2. Contrary to what Dr Misir suggests, it is notoriously difficult to get some kinds of useful information to which the public is entitled from the government. There is a distinction between government propaganda which is readily available, and information.
3. No one is proposing that all categories of record under a Freedom of Information Act should be accessible to the public, so Dr Misir’s reference to exemptions is a red herring.
4. The editorial did not speak of a war of words between President Jagdeo and Mr Yesu Persaud, let alone imply a fictional rift between the private sector and the government. However, it was concerned about the President’s bad manners on a public occasion.
5. With regard to whether the concessions granted to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc meet the requirements of the Fiscal Enactment (Amendment) Act, we refer Dr Misir to Business Page of our edition of Sunday, June 8.
