Dear Editor,
The New Year is upon us, and please permit me space to write about new problems we have. Now that the Natural Resource Fund Bill has been enacted, it is time to closely monitor the appointment of the Board of Directors without losing sight of the fact that the process of appointment is fundamentally flawed.
On New Year’s Day, President Ali announced his second quality that he requires of a board member: not a politically aligned person. To me, anyone who puts an X on a ballot is a politically aligned person and if the person did not vote in an election, the person may have done so for a politically aligned reason.
Let us assume for a moment that President Ali found board members with the two qualities we know he specified: integrity and not politically aligned, permit me to walk through a scenario. Section 5, subsection 1 says that the Board “shall comprise of not less than three and no more than five members”. Section 5, subsection 2 describes the basic composition of the board, “one of whom shall be nominated by the National Assembly and one of whom shall be a representative of the private sector”. If the National Assembly and/or the private sector refuse to nominate someone, does this mean the Board is non-existent and therefore cannot operate?
Further, let us consider the process by which the National Assembly and private sector nominate individuals. Will the National Assembly require a thirty-three-vote majority to nominate a person? If so, it completely removes representation of people who did not vote for the President through the National Assembly nominee. As of this moment, I recommend that the National Assembly require a forty-three-vote majority to nominate someone in the current Act. I have no idea what the private sector process will look like for nominating someone. The last I read about was “wide consultation” but I welcome a formal description of the process. I anticipate that it will be far more fluid than that of the National Assembly. Reading back, does the private sector nominate anyone or is the person just a representative as the act states?
There is growing unpopularity of the Act among Guyanese who do not want the Act in its current form but require changes. Therefore, and at the risk of sounding like a (good) troublemaker, I suggest that the two bodies (National Assembly and the private sector) consider withholding any nominations and bring the President to the negotiation table for proper consultation on amendments to the Act.
This was the first time I ever saw protest against a Bill before it was enacted, and the effort must be commended. The President did not listen to the people of the country as they protested the Bill. Instead, the President committed the first act that I described in my initial letter, no representation for the people who did not vote for the President.
I pursue this issue not because I fear that the current administration will succeed as they claim but because I recognize that more transparency is better than some transparency. I want the government to succeed, this or any other. Guyanese succeed when the government succeeds. I do not see this as a PPP or an APNU+AFC issue since either party can have a President who will have the same power described in the current bill.
Sincerely,
Surendra Dhanpaul
