More than 90 percent of school texts are pirated but the enforcement agencies ignore this illegality

Mar 04, 2012 Letters

---

 

 

Dear Editor,
In December 2010, Cabinet approved via no objection three contracts from the Ministry of Education for payments. Two of the contracts were for the procurement of textbooks and one for the printing of textbooks. All three contracts were awarded through the sole sourcing route. Hence, there was no public tender inviting bidders to submit bids. The National Procurement & Tender Administration Board (NPTAP) recommended to Cabinet these contracts for approval.
Had these contracts been subject to stringent, objective criteria then it was unlikely that these contracts would have been approved. Let us look at these contracts more closely. One contract was awarded for the sum of G$32, 500,000.00 to an operator of a  printery located in Grove, on the East Bank of Demerara for printing of 50,000 copies of five titles (10,000 copies of each title).
There are two objections to this contract. Firstly, is this printery operator offering the best price, that is, the lowest price and at the same time delivering the best quality service? If this were so, how are we to know? There is no way we could verify that the price and quality conditions were satisfied since they were not other bidders. Why then was the contract awarded as a sole contract?
Secondly, the Ministry of Education is insisting that it has a textbook policy and a committee for the selection of textbooks. It may be so. The printed textbooks for which the ministry has ownership rights are hopelessly outdated. These science and social studies textbooks should not be in the classroom. There are recent editions from reputable publishers that offer more suitable and appropriate textbooks in the same two subjects. Did the committee for the selection of textbooks not take notice of the inferior materials passed on to students vis-à-vis the availability of cutting edge literature in the said two subjects? Or was inferior materials foisted on the system despite the knowledge of the availability of qualitatively superior learning resources.
A second contract for the sum of G$57,209,000.00 was awarded to a Trinidadian publisher for supplying twenty eight titles in varying quantities. Again, this contract raises eyebrow.
The major criticism here points to the evaluation of textbooks ordered. The selection committee has to evaluate the textbooks (from more than one publisher) and the selected textbooks would have to receive in excess of 70% positive score. This situation presupposes that evaluated textbooks from all other publishers failed to attain the minimum score. This situation is statistically impossible.
How is it that all twenty eight titles covering various subjects and for different levels were awarded exclusively to this Trinidadian publisher? Are his publications superior to all comparable published works. Could it be that only his textbooks were evaluated?
No British publisher was invited to submit textbooks for evaluation either through selective or open tender process. British publishers’ share of the local textbook market is approximately 90%.
Unfortunately, infringed copies of British publishers’ original textbooks are sold. Although nine of every ten textbooks sold on the local market are not sourced from this Trinidadian publisher, yet he successfully clinched 100% of all original textbooks purchased by the Ministry of Education. Is this Trinidadian exceptionally superb in business dealings or are local personnel responsible for his success?
Finally we come to the most contentious contract. This contract was awarded to a’ local bookseller’ for supplying ‘textbooks’ in the sum of G$110,291,000.00. This person is not a local bookseller as styled by the ministry. He operates a pirated outlet in Croal Street opposite Demico House and sells infringed copies.
Has the government of Guyana descended to such low moral, ethical and legal level as to purchase pirated texts with tax payers money to provide for the education of the nation’s students? Were the Cabinet members aware that they approved procurement of pirated texts? Whether knowingly or unknowingly all Cabinet members who gave approval to this contract contributed to an unlawful act. It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse; when law makers who are supposed to uphold the law are guilty of transgression then there is cause for concern.
Infringement of intellectual property is openly observed in the breach in this country. More than 90% of all texts used in the school system – both public and private schools are pirated copies. The relevant enforcement agencies turn a Nelson’s eye to this illegality. Where is the rule of law? Has it gone through the window dead and buried?
Bholan Boodhoo 

---

---