Latest update November 27th, 2024 1:00 AM
Aug 15, 2013 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
As a member of the Alliance For Change’s National Executive Committee, I wish to make a few comments regarding our party’s recent actions in the National Assembly.
Firstly, it is important to note that at no time was anything ever put before the National Assembly seeking its approval for the Amaila Falls Hydro Project in its entirety, and therefore no such approval could have been given at that forum.
Earlier in the year the AFC took the position that it would await the completion of the various IDB reports before deciding whether or not to approve this project. This position was taken with respect to budgetary support for the project contained in the 2013 estimates. The AFC voted not to approve the sums requested for Government equity in the project. This position never implied that in the interim we would block any supporting measures required to allow further developments to take place. Nor did it imply that we would be throwing our weight behind any of these measures.
As it turned out, there were only two such measures put before the National Assembly and the AFC’s positions on both seem perfectly reasonable to me. However, I believe that the events in the National Assembly on July 18th may have led to some confusion as to where the party stood on each of these since our MPs ended up rejecting both. I will not go into the details of why this occurred, but I’m sure most will agree that this was a messy day in parliament that no one can be proud of.
The fact of the matter is that the AFC had taken an earlier decision to support the amendments to the Hydro-Electric Power Act, since it was made clear to us by representatives of the IDB that they could not make final presentations to their Board of Directors unless certain environmental safeguards were incorporated into the licensing act. The vote to support this on August 7th did not therefore constitute a shift in position, but a return to an original position that had been compromised by the July 18th fiasco in the National Assembly.
On the motion to raise the limit on Government’s guarantee of loans to public corporations to G$150Bn, the AFC’s position was to not support this since it had not been made sufficiently clear why it was necessary. This position was later revised based on considerations that included Government’s support for Local Government Bills (albeit amended).
The AFC, however, proposed amendments to avoid any misuse of the new limit. The final resolution makes this guarantee specific to GPL’s obligations in respect of the project, and is reviewable within three months. It also guarantees a significantly lower amount than was previously sought by Government, an amount which according to former Auditor General, Anand Goolsarran in an August 5th newspaper column, represents a “more realistic figure”.
The AFC’s vote by no means gives the government a “blank cheque”, as some have suggested, nor does it deviate from the original position to await IDB due diligence.
It should also be noted that what was achieved was the passage of Local Government legislation which the government has successfully managed to stall for over a decade, to the detriment of the people of this country. This is a significant achievement that would never have occurred had the AFC not revised its position on the loan guarantee motion.
Dominic Gaskin
Nov 27, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies ended a two-and-a-half-year wait for a Test win on home soil with an emphatic 201-run triumph over Bangladesh in the first Test of their two-match series in...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- Imagine an official who believes he’s the last bastion of sanity in a world of incompetence.... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]