In the last edition of the ‘Public Interest’ television programme, President Granger continued his efforts to tamp down the public consternation over the conduct of Minister of State, Joseph Harmon in relation to his interference with the Guyana Revenue Authority and his subsequent furtive and still-to-be fully explained trip to China. The President said there was no breach by Mr Harmon of the proposed code of conduct for ministers. That is a position that many would disagree with on examining the document. The President further said that Mr Harmon travelled to China on “state business”, which generated, among other things, the information that the previous government did not account for a US$5 million payment for GTT shares. The President then cited this as a “fiasco” that deserves attention in contrast to what he said was the artificially generated “fiasco” surrounding Mr Harmon. The public awaits further information from the government on the alleged payment of the US$5m for the state shares in GTT as this is a very serious matter. It should be a relatively easy task for payments to be traced. On the other hand, Minister Harmon could have been badly misled. Either way, the public must be told the truth urgently particularly in the face of the strenuous denial of the government’s claim by former President Donald Ramotar. The GTT payment aside, President Granger has clearly signalled that Minister Harmon will not be penalised – at least publicly – for indiscretions that were committed.
Whatever the calculus that President Granger employed in arriving at that decision, he must know that Minister Harmon, particularly in Parliament, will be given a hard time as his standing has taken a battering. In public spaces, Minister Harmon’s conduct has also been excoriated. Non-governmental organisations such as the Guyana Human Rights Association and Transparency Institute Guyana Inc have also taken strong stands on the developments surrounding Mr Harmon and what it says about the quality of APNU+AFC governance. This will have a lasting impact on the image of the government and the public perception of it.
There are also other unsettled jeopardies for this government. While the President has spoken about the GTT matter there are questions about the other missions that Minister Harmon undertook in China and at whose behest. The public is entitled to further information so that it can arrive at a conclusion on the appropriateness of Mr Harmon’s actions. The prime question revolves around Minister Harmon, businessman Brian Tiwarie and representatives of the Chinese logging company, Baishalin. What were the common issues that would have placed all three in the same arena in vast China? This is the crux of the matter particularly since days before his departure for China, Mr Harmon had most injudiciously interceded with the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) on behalf of Baishanlin which was then facing a $1.5b tax demand. When these two acts are taken together in the haze around the trip, the government would instantly fail the transparency test and would be guilty of the same type of shadowy and unaccountable conduct as its much-maligned predecessors. There is also the outstanding question of who paid for the trips to China of Minister Harmon and the NICIL representative. Is there a paper trail to substantiate this?
The next challenge for the government would be the ultimate fate of Baishanlin. With Baishanlin having failed over many years to fulfil its obligations for value-added production and in the wake of the government’s own commissioned audit of the forestry commission in which the auditor recommended that the government consider terminating the investment agreements with Baishanlin and recover the value of the fiscal concessions granted to it what will the government do?
The auditor had found that during 2012-2015, the PPP/C government granted Baishanlin concessions amounting to $1.8 billion despite its failure to fulfill obligations under its investment agreements and that this figure is likely to be significantly higher as the firm has been here since 2006. Whatever it does, the APNU+AFC government’s actions will be closely scrutinised for signs of any untoward or unjustified decisions.
While Guyana welcomes investment from China, it has become evident to Caribbean governments in recent years that holding some Chinese companies to their word and keeping track of their ever changing structures, subsidiaries and ownership is an onerous task. Whatever restructuring Baishanlin has encouraged the APNU+AFC government here to believe it is undergoing will not convince a skeptical public that all is fine with its investment and contract here. The future of Baishanlin’s presence here should be solely decided on whether it made a good faith effort from the inception to fulfil its obligations – as opposed to simply wanting to export logs – and whether there were good grounds for its default. Its continued presence here should not be premised on the promises that might be made on its behalf by a prospective new owner, majority or otherwise. That would be plain foolish. One would also have to consider whether Baishanlin attenuated its supposed concentration on value added lumber by exerting its energies in other diversions such as housing on the East Bank and mining – which eventually led to a major commercial dispute with Mr Tiwarie.
All eyes will be on the government in the coming months as it decides on Baishanlin’s fate particularly as there had been a noticeable softening of APNU+AFC position on the Chinese company in the weeks before Minister Harmon’s intervention with the GRA and departure for China. Whereas there had been an expectation that the new government would do its utmost to table all contracts and agreements with Baishanlin in Parliament for careful scrutiny, the government found flimsy reasons for not being able to do this after it came to office in May last year. Given all that has transpired with Baishanlin, it would be in the best interest of the country if the bipartisan Economic Services and Natural Resources committees of Parliament embark on a public examination of Baishanlin’s activities here, the extent of its transgressions and whether its investment should continue. This would help to mitigate the concerns that have arisen in the public domain about the government being compromised on this matter.
