Bai Shan Lin’s contract should have been voted on by Parliament

Aug 18, 2014 Letters

Dear Editor,
I refer to Peeping Tom’s column in KN (August 17th). PT wrote:
“The government is under no obligation to provide the Guyana Manufacturers Association with a copy of the contract and other documents relating to the deal with Bai Shan Lin. Those contracts would no doubt detail commercial information about the company’s plans and financial projections, and these should be kept confidential. But certainly a sanitized version of the contract detailing the size of the forestry concession and the allowable rates of exploitation should be provided to the National Assembly, so that there can be some oversight of this company’s operations in Guyana.”
While there is some general agreement with what PT wrote, I would say this contract should not have become binding in law until it was voted on and approved by the parliament. Some contracts, industrial licensing, patents, treaties etc. (based on the compelling nature of a national issue), before they become valid, if not voted on by the whole legislature, at least must be voted on by a Select Committee of the parliament. In a bicameral system, some bills must be voted on by at least one house, before it becomes binding in law.
These are not private contracts between two corporations or individuals. The Bai Shan Lin forest agreement is a contract between the People of Guyana and a Foreign Company. What we have in Guyana is a representative democracy. And, the subject deals with Guyana’s forests, a major asset considered a national patrimony that belongs to the Guyanese people.
The parliament has to be satisfied that this forest will be standing 300-years later, that it will not infringe upon or violate the terms of an earlier contract between the Norwegians and the people of Guyana and that it must be in conformity with national policies like maximizing value (value-added) and employment for Guyanese.
I believe this contract between Bai Shan Lin and the People of Guyana violates the basic law of Guyana, for the simple reason that in a representative democracy our parliamentarians never voted on it. I believe David Boies, a constitutional lawyer in the United States would take this case at the drop of a hat and using the same existing constitution argue successfully before a reasonable set of judges that this Bai Shan Lin contract is unconstitutional.
Mike Persaud

Latest News

Bai Shan Lin’s contract should have been voted on by Parliament

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

EBDCA/D&R Construction 40-Over Cricket Competition continues

GFF announces final squad for Concacaf U-17...

Cricket West Indies announces exciting 2025...

BCA, GCB to attend CWI meeting on February 9

Bolstered Harpy Eagles eyeing perfect home record...

Hockey PAHF Junior Challenge schedule released

Features/Columnists

Land, taxes and penalties

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Helping a brother traveling against traffic

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Bai Shan Lin’s contract should have been voted on by Parliament

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]