A faulty decision-making process

Nov 05, 2013 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,
There seems to be a regular feature of public communication which exposes the GRA spokesperson’s conviction in his or her own confused state, to the extent that the latter could successfully confuse others. This particular ‘confusion’ must have resulted from the admixture of English and Chinese speak, which equates the concepts of
a)   corporate social responsibility
b)   joint venture; and
c)   paying rental fees
One does not have to be a hyperactive thinker to immediately raise the implication of ‘conflict’ in the GRA’s acceptance of a so-called ‘gift’ of ‘corporate social responsibility’ from any taxpayer. A purported ‘joint venture’ would appear to put the relationship in the same category. What however compounds this particular travesty of terminology is that the recipient partner would appear to have invested ‘rental fees’ for an indefinite period – accumulating to an amount exceeding the finite cost of the project which the ‘corporate’ social partner would have delivered.
This argument, at the very minimum, suggests a lack of accounting balance – a point the GRA would have made forcefully to any other (legitimate) taxpayer who had argued the same scenario.
To some observers the above construct reflects a mindset which links to a more general discomfiting preference for the newest brand of corporate interventions.
More disturbing however, may be the faulty decision-making process in the first place, which failed to take account of the widespread dislocation of customers, when the GRA’s current siting was agreed.
Finally however, it may still not be too late to heed Confucius’ teachings on ethics.
E.B. John

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News