Not in Singapore, Freddie, only in Banana Republics

Aug 18, 2015 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Mr. Frederick Kissoon’s feature column of 17 August 2015 discussed the case of former Minister of Amerindian Affairs Pauline Sukhai’s $2.1 million tooth job at tax payers’ expense – citing also former President Bharrat Jagdeo’s 7.4 million plane ticket ride at tax payers’ expense, when he was no longer President.
Kissoon was making the larger point about the attitude of the PPP in office. That is, ‘nothing is wrong’ with using taxpayers’ money, as though the money belonged to the offender, and when questioned about it, in the public interest, alleged offenders would dismiss the questions. In the case of Ms. Sukhai, she pompously claimed that she is “entitled to the money “.
This sort of thing tends to succeed, without remedy, in banana republics.  It can and does happen in rich countries, including western democracies. One is not sure about Singapore, since Lee Kuan Yew was a strict disciplinarian, so that one is inclined to doubt it is a grave problem.
I looked up Transparency International’s 2014 Corruption Perception Index and found that for that year Singapore was in the top ten least corrupt, with a rank of no. 7 out of 177 countries, and Guyana, at the lower end of the leaderboard, was ranked no. 124.
However, when there is an offence, and a case similar to these is exposed in rich countries, the system of accountability usually kicks in, and leads to one of three sanctions (sometimes all three), depending on the circumstances and the nature and gravity of the offence;
• Resignation from office, after being hounded by the media and forcing the hands of the authorities to ask for a resignation,
• An enforceable demand by the State that misappropriated funds must be returned, or
• Judicial sanction, if the Courts become involved.
It appears that the PPP’s concept of democracy includes that a majority of its supporters voted, causing it to be elected to office, and this entitles its officers in government to do whatever they wish with taxpayers’ money, while maintaining the false sense of entitlement that they are exempt from accountability or sanction.
If you think that the Sukhai affair is new you should ask Clayton Hall about an incident involving himself as head of the Forestry Commission and two senior ministerial level PPP officers many years ago,  and  therefore, very early in the PPP 23-year rule. It may be recalled that Clayton was removed as Forestry Commissioner. The incident involved a request for foreign exchange for overseas travel, without the requisite Central Bank, Cabinet and Treasury approvals. Ask Clayton what he was told to do with the law, when he invoked the law and refused to process the request on procedural grounds. One cannot use the foul curse word expression in a newspaper which is circulated for public consumption.
This attitude, of wanting to be in public office without accountability, and its use for private gain, may have been there since the beginning. It only got worse with the passage of time and after PPPites came to believe that they would never be thrown out of office.
Some people do not seem to understand that public service means private sacrifice in the service of the people, and does not involve taxpayers’ money to fulfill one’s private needs; that it is an offence.
Why do you imagine that Guyana has remained a banana republic? Instead of using $ 2.1million,  or $7.4 million, or the $3 million a month pension for that matter, to benefit the multitude, by improving education and health care; developing scientific and technological capabilities; repair of the drains, canals and roads; disposal of garbage; or to improve  the water or electricity supply of our ramshackle-slum  Capital City, or the squalor of its towns and villages; or, as Freddie noted,  fix the sewage in the Court building which has been overflowing since 1973, it is used for one person or a few persons’ private gain.
The Guyanese people, after being informed by the media, have rebuked public officials in instances when financial misconduct was exposed. Given the attitude and conduct of some public officials, and the fact that some cases have become public knowledge, it is only reasonable to assume that there may be a lot more that the people do not know about at the Central, Regional, Municipality and Village governmental levels.
They, the offenders, also do not seem to understand that when one adds together all the individual cases and the group conspiracies, involving from one (1) dollar to $2.1 million the number may become $201 million. One (1) dollar to $7.4 million may become $704 billion.  The consequence of such actions is that it benefits a few who are not entitled, to the disadvantage of so many. The end result is failure of the country to progress.
Mr Solomon, in his Kaieteur News article of 15 August 2015, correctly pointed out that Guyanese must adopt the posture that “…never again must any Government be permitted to do as it likes…” If they are permitted, then his point will float away in the wind. His point was that ‘this society is plagued with poor health services and inadequate material for education. It has had to suffer, not because the money wasn’t there…and the consequence is the squalor…they left behind’. It follows that if not corrected this will continue to limit the potential of Guyanese.
Unless therefore, the laws and regulations in Guyana are strengthened and enforced, and sanctions imposed on those who tamper with taxpayers’ money, what has gone on for the last 50 years will continue for the next 100, and our children will be writing about the same offences and the squalor of the banana republic.
But who will be the enforcer? The political class is often both the chief offender and the unreliable watchman. In opposition it knows what is right, and in office the opposite is done. Take the PPP in opposition before 1992. Its morally upright attacks against the PNC with charges of corruption, fraud, squandamania, waste, incompetence, neglect of the people, and failure to maintain the infrastructure are legendary. But what did it do in government between 1992 and 2015? Now in opposition the PPP is at it again, pious more than anyone you can think of. Its spokespersons see all of APNU-AFC’s corruption already, after only three months, the very things for which it was accused of being guilty.
This is therefore a task for the electorate, civil society, law enforcement and the judiciary, if independent enough and strong enough, as a combined force, to deal with the offenders. But who will make them independent and strong?
Ivor Carryl

---

---