Why can’t public figures come clean about the public’s business?

May 26, 2012 Letters

---

 

 

DEAR EDITOR,
Your perceptive editorial, “A threat to invoke the courts again,” (KN, May 25), which follows closely on the heels of these related news stories, “Government going to court over OP budget cuts,” (KN, May 24); “Government to ask Appeal Court to review Chief Justice Ruling,” (KN, May 22); “AG challenges Opposition to move to court on NICIL,” (KN, May 21), may be an indicator of either desperation in or deviousness of the ruling PPP as it struggles with being a minority government and being held publicly accountable.
If it is desperation, then the PPP probably does not want to be exposed for fear of losing the trust of more supporters. If it is deviousness, then it confirms the PPP as a dictatorial party that cannot work with anyone unless it is in absolute control.
Regardless of which it is, the nation should allow the process to unfold as the parliamentary opposition takes a lead role in helping to hold the regime accountable. It would also be in the President’s personal and political interest to facilitate this process if he intends to distinguish his government from his predecessor’s. Otherwise, these myriad attempts by the PPP to run to the courts to interfere with the process could backfire on the President’s credibility as the change candidate, even if snap elections is the end game objective.
The President has to know by now most PPP supporters knew of the Jagdeo era shenanigans, and that some supporters may have cast ‘protest votes’ for the AFC aimed at sending the PPP a message. These supporters, like most Guyanese, want to see some changes in the way government does business, and it is not helpful to the government to appear as resisting change by running to the courts to maintain the status quo.
On the other hand, if the PPP’s court moves are aimed at confusing the parliamentary opposition, forcing them to play a guessing game and wearing them out so they would give up on their quest for accountability and responsibility, it is still missing the point about why the voters’ decision on November 28, 2011, resulted in a PPP minority government and a majority parliamentary opposition.
This is why the parliamentary opposition must also keep the public apprised of every development by taking advantage of every private media house and making community visits. Develop a core message about accountability and responsibility, stick to it, repeat it often and over time, it will resonate with enough Guyanese so they will either understand the game the PPP is playing and be ready if the PPP calls snap elections by pinning blame on the parliamentary opposition.
Meanwhile, the NICIL nightmare continues to haunt the PPP. Despite the orchestrated staging of a TV debate or discussion on NCN about NICIL, the truth is, Finance Minister, Dr. Ashni Singh, and NICIL Executive Director, Mr. Winston Brassington still have not told the viewership and nation how much money exactly NICIL is sitting on or produced a list of its current investments.
And apart from NICIL absurdly saying it has a right to retain the bulk of monies generated from transactions for the purpose of investments, how can there be a debate or discussion on the state-owned NICIL’s finances and investments when NICIL has not filed accounts for the last seven or eight years? What substance was there to discuss or debate? Even a parliamentary interrogation would require NICIL’s updated books be presented before we can get to the bottom of this fiasco.
This fiasco stems from the fact that those who should be forthcoming with the facts and figures on public funds and assets have been cagey and playing hide-and-seek, forcing concerned Guyanese to mount demands for the return of accountability and transparency in government. If we err with our facts and figures, it is not because we want to libel anyone; it is because we want them to come clean.
On this note, permit me to clarify a statement published in my letter, “The PPP Govt. and its AG exude ignorance and arrogance,” (KN, May 22), in which I wrote, “Mr. Winston Brassington, meanwhile, emerged as both the seller of the shares and the power of attorney for his brother who bought the shares…” and again, “You can pretty much say he sold himself the shares! He did all the paper work preparation and signed all the signatures!”
The clarification is needed here because, at the time of the buying and selling of Hand in Hand Trust Corporation shares, Mr. Winston Brassington was head of NICIL, which became a major shareholder (250,000 shares) in Hand-in-Hand after the insurance company acquired the GNCB from NICIL. When Hand in Hand increased the volume of its shares from 2.5 million to 7.5 million shares at $100 a share in 2009, Mr. Brassington’s younger brother, Jonathan Brassington, bought 2.25 million shares for $225 million, giving him a one-third ownership in Hand in Hand Trust Company.
Further, when we considered the report that at no time did Jonathan leave the United States to sign-off on this US$1.1M transaction, and that his brother, Winston, acted as his power of attorney, it created a picture of Winston being the unseen hand at work in this entire escapade, even though Winston was not the actual seller, per se.
For crying out loud, why can’t these public figures come clean about the public’s business?
Emile Mervin

---

---