Contextualizing Ram/ Hinds letters

Jan 07, 2016 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Since Mr. Christopher Ram and Mr. Nigel Hinds have written letters in support of what they believe is inappropriate treatment of Khurshid Sattaur and Winston Brassington by the State, a few persons have cited the accountancy fraternity as the reason for the men writing. That is difficult to both accept and reject.
We can anticipate both Ram and Hinds arguing that the State’s behaviour toward the two men is of moral importance to them and as professionals, they have to speak out. On the other hand, there are persons who say that the accountancy fraternity was at work but that the letter-writers would not want to say that publicly.
At the end of the day, one has to analyze the contents of the letters rather than looking for subliminal motives on the part of the writers. The two letters are curious in that both refer to different and unrelated events. But there is a strong invisible connection between both dramas.
I would polemicize on both letters by saying the contextual dimensions of both incidents, when examined, could prove a case for the State’s action even though both Ram and Hinds are very thoughtful in what they wrote.
Context is everything in life. Sigmund Feud argued, beautifully, that it is when motive and action have no context then behaviour becomes incomprehensible. Let’s start with Ram. He rejects the action directed against Sattaur and he goes in a bold direction to say that Sattaur over the two decades his firm had a working relation with him, “tried to maximize government (sic) revenues.”
I am not sure this was relevant to Ram’s rejection of the treatment of Sattaur. Denying a person his rights and mistreatment of that person are not reasons to argue for their competence. The two are unrelated.
While I can understand Mr. Ram’s revulsion of how the State acted toward Sattaur (doesn’t mean I agree; the State may have reason which I will come to in another column) I cannot fathom Ram’s point of Sattaur’s effort to maximize tax collection. I am not a tax expert but I have voluminous information on dangerously lax tax collection over the past ten years under Sattaur. I am not alone on this wavelength. The Stabroek News did two editorials on poor tax collection under Sattaur when David DeCaires was alive.
Clive Thomas has also written on manifest tax evasion. Mr. Ram’s own friend, Ramon Gaskin, disagreed with him on Sattaur’s professionalism on their joint television programme. I would suggest, Mr. Ram look back at the tape. A week before Ram wrote his defence of Sattaur, the Chairman of the GRA Board published some information that is quite unflattering of Sattaur. Rawle Lucas used the adverb “virtually” to refer to the virtual non-contribution of property tax to revenue collection.
Before 2014, all citizens whose individual assets were $7 million had to pay property tax. Just look at the buildings, vehicles and business places and general assets of the rich in Guyana. It meant that if people with assets of over $7 million paid property tax then the State over a twenty-year period should have collected hundreds of billions of dollars. Mr. Sattaur demanded that I pay property taxes and he sent seven forms that went back to seven years.
I thank Mr. Ram for his generosity in his service in this regard to me which was pro bono. I do appreciate that fine gesture from Mr. Ram and will always remember it.
I did not know that people with my low level of income had to pay such a tax. But they had to prior to 2014. I rang Mr. Sattaur to enquire why he chose people with my type of earnings. He was arrogant and brief. He said property tax has to be paid by all citizens. If Mr. Sattaur knew that property tax was a requirement and was pursuing people to pay it, then how do you account for Lucas’ adverb? I believe most definitely Mr. Sattaur’s career cannot survive a forensic audit of the GRA.
As to the actual events that took place in Mr. Sattaur’s home, context could be used to justify it. First, the police and GRA officials did not out of the blues pick on Mr. Sattaur. He has been one of Guyana’s most controversial financial officers with a track record of overt political involvement. (I will offer more description of this in a follow up column where I will look at the Hinds letter).
Against this background, a new government sensing the loss of documents may move to the court for a search warrant. Secondly, is the State out of order if it suspects corruption investigations may be hampered and it moved to seize documents? To be continued.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News