Dear Editor:
Without rehashing every detail of President Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent intemperate outburst at Pegasus owner, Mr. Robert Badal, I must say that no serious investor – whether Guyanese or foreigner – should ever feel at ease doing business in Guyana, whether on their own or as a partner with the Jagdeo Administration.
One does not necessarily have to be a business person to readily commiserate with the warranted concerns expressed by Mr. Badal in his July 22 letter, which questioned government’s partnership role in the recently announced public-private deal to construct a Marriott hotel in Georgetown. Government’s direct involvement unfairly tilts the competitive scale against other competing investors and also contradicts its own commitment to create an environment conducive for the private sector to flourish.
At the 50th (Golden Jubilee) anniversary gathering of Banks DIH on September 9, 2005, President Jagdeo told a gathering that the time had come for Guyana to have a modern and vigorous private sector. “For too long in Guyana,” he said, “we had a situation where the Government involved itself in almost all economic activities, and we continue to suffer from the damage caused by this bankrupt and arrogant approach.”
He then pledged that any government he leads would not allow the country “to return to the days where the Government tried to be all things to all people, and in so doing sapped the spirit of entrepreneurship throughout the country,” and so he urged the private sector to rise to the challenge of being the driver of enhanced competitiveness and greater economic growth, because “the government cannot deliver economic growth but can only create the environment and give targeted support where appropriate.” It was during this very speech he threw down the gauntlet to the private sector: “Give me a vision (blueprint) and I will cut the red tape!”
The President continued his remarks by calling for the private sector to demonstrate vision and leadership to create a new entrepreneurial culture, seize market opportunities that present themselves, help the government make evidence-based policy by providing empirical backing to policy advocacy and look within the private sector for solutions to business problems.
“We must work together to elevate the conversation beyond rhetoric, beyond anecdote masquerading as analysis, and beyond pointless insult and petty disagreement. Instead let’s base conversations on facts and objective analysis, let’s recognise that we all have to play our part, let’s commit to addressing the issues we face, and let’s determine the practical steps needed to resolve them.”
Now, compare the flowery remarks of that time with his recent unsavoury outburst at Mr. Badal, a local private sector investor with multiple businesses and many employees: “It is these narrow minded people who will hold this country back!” Ironically, the Presi-dent also revealed Mr. Badal’s role in the Stockfeed shares from the government and the building of a wharf on land owned by NICIL (a government-owned company whose primary business seems to be getting government involved in business activities), yet the President cannot release the names of the private sector partners in the Marriott project or the private sector partners in the Amalia Falls hydro project.
Even President of the Private Sector Commission, Mr. Gerry Gouveia, who welcomed the government’s decision to help build the Marriott, and is said to be close to the President, disagreed with the President’s remarks in Jamaica that disparaged two private sector businesses – the Pegasus and Princess hotels.
But notice also the President’s shocking volte-face from 2005, because today his government is trying indeed to be all things to all people, including being a dominant force in every facet of public life and involvement in projects that should have been the sole domain of the private sector. In fact, it is the lead partner in the dance with the private sector and any member who makes a wrong move gets stepped on.
Now, I am not against public-private partnerships, but there are some very serious questions about this government and some of its ‘private sector partners’ that need to be fully answered before the public can readily throw their support behind any and every partnership.
And the twin chief questions are: 1) What public account government is tapping for monies it has spent, is spending and plans to spend on projects that the annual budget did not cater to or foreign donors or lenders did not give to Guyana? 2) For the private sector, from where did the banks in Guyana get hundreds of millions of dollars in deposits (even making huge profits) that can now be tapped by the ‘private sector’ for investment purposes? Right now, the underground/informal economy is a significant part of the formal economy and the average Guyanese employee can barely spend let alone save money.
Note also that after Mr. Badal quoted a US$20M figure that the government allegedly set aside towards the Marriott, the President never denied this, but simply said his government ‘may or may not put money into the Marriott’, (KN, July 24) and since the Marriott is being built under the auspices of another government company – AHI, this dubious response raises even more questions about the government’s commitment to transparency.
Guyanese everywhere should publicly question the true motive of this rash of public-private partnerships that lack transparency, because no on knows if these projects are actually setting up some people for personal windfalls in later days.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin,
Queens, New York
