Dear Editor,
It was interesting to read the article in Friday August 1 SN captioned ‘Private sector disappointed at lack of “real discourse.”’
The article stated that at the privatization and taxation seminar, almost five hours of presentations by state and private sector officials were followed by a forty minutes “question and answer session.” It is unfortunate that the opportunity was missed by the business sector to raise issues, but let’s examine the situation more closely. In doing so I remember Mr Hydar Ally saying that delegates and observers to the PPP congress had numerous opportunities to actively participate in discussions and deliberations.
After five hours of listening maybe, just maybe, the listeners may have become tired and brain dead. Maybe the way the speakers put themselves over may have intimidated the listeners. In the other scenario, at the congress of the PPP and other conferences there are usually a number of speakers speaking for hours and then the members are given a short time to speak and are told they are restricted to a few minutes.
The leader speaks, the members speak and ask questions, the leader responds and there is no time for rebuttal. Interactivity is a qualitative advancement on the participatory environment and facilitates a deeper understanding of the issues and results in a deeper insight into the matters under discussion.
The leadership loves to have persons who are not critical. Come to think of it, has anyone ever heard Mr Hydar Ally or Minister Frank Anthony, among others, say anything critical of the leaders, or government policies at the party congresses? I want to believe the answer is no. And so why am I not surprised at the way the tax forum was handled?
Christopher Ram did his job, and what is the feeling of the administration towards him? The same happens to persons who are critical of the party leaders when the forum is provided.
Is it remotely possible that the same persons who seem to run the party and organize the forums in a particular manner would organize the forums at the governmental level so they would be more effective? How about a less intimidating organization of the event? How about a round table where it is decided to narrow the discussion? The main issues would be the investment climate, the concessions and incentives. The big ones could give them out in a document and then proceed to give a synopsis after which they could invite persons to enter into a discussion and act to create a climate which would have brought people out and ease them into the exchanges.
The privatisation matter is separate. My opinion is that there should be a forensic examination of that entity.
Mr Da Silva made a mistake. It is a huge one and he would in other situations be fired. The entire government was placed in an untenable situation. Also Mr De Silva seems to be at war with everybody.
Mr Khurshid Sattaur who has to approve and grant the concessions is in the same boat. He should have recognised the error. I am not impressed with him. The authority he heads has been unable to effectively widen the tax net to bring in a host of others. This has placed serious pressures on those who are within the PAYE system. Of course he is one person who does not have to pay income tax.
I have no problem with VAT. To me it should not mean no increase in revenue. This has to be the case, as the intention was to put a tax in place that was more progressive. The more you have to spend the more you pay. Those who never paid taxes would now pay. I do not want VAT to be removed or reduced. I want a more progressive income tax. The family with children must be able to claim for them. We create the future generation. We educate the future generation yet the bachelor working as I am, pays the same income tax although he does not face the additional economic responsibilities.
I am calling for this in the next budget.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
