Change for the better or the worse?

Oct 04, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

There has been change in Guyana. Whether that change is for the better or for the worse is for the public to decide.
Change involves doing things differently. People have expectations that the change in government would be for the better, not for the worse. People expected greater transparency and accountability. This is not happening because every day there is scandal in the newspapers involving the new government.
The government can use these scandals to show that it is superior to the PPPC when it comes to transparency. It can show that it is better. But is it?
If it were the PPPC that was embroiled in the controversy involving the fruit juices for the schools’ feeding programme, the Ministry of Education would have already come out with a statement rationalising the decision for the award of the tender.
The PPPC would not have invited people to tender and then told them that the quality of their product was in question. The PPPC would have set up a prequalification system which would have excluded those that the PPPC did not want to win the contract.
Transparency is one area in which people expected change. The people are disappointed. And when people are disappointed they do the unexpected as the Brexit vote and the referendum in Colombia recently demonstrated. When governments feel they have the support of the people, they end up being very disappointed.
Where is the change that the majority of the people voted for on May 11, 2015?
It represents change that neither the Ministry of Education nor the Central Tender Board nor even the Ministry of Finance has seen it fit so far to issue a full statement on the controversial award of this contract.
It is astonishing that the government would invite a company to tender under a restricted tendering process and then turn around and flimsily advise the company that it did not win the award, despite having the lowest price, because of past concerns over its quality. So why, then was the company invited to tender for the contract.
The fact that the matter is before the Bid Protest Committee does not prevent any of the agencies concerned from offering an opinion on the matter. One would expect that if there is indeed change that the same answers that the agencies would provide to the Bid Protest Committee would be the same answers that can be provided to the public. Change would mean consistency.
The second controversy involves the importation of stone from Suriname for public works. The PPPC had soon after it took office run into problems when it also imported stone from Canada on the grounds that local suppliers were not able to provide a reliable supply of stone for public works.
The argument, then as it is now, is about supporting local industry. It is about local content. Well, the procurement laws of Guyana do not prohibit the importation of stone. If Guyana is to operate in a liberalised economy, then local stone has to be able to compete with foreign imported stone.
The government cannot side with local importers over foreign importers when it comes to importation of stone. It is for the local suppliers to show that they could have supplied the stone.
They have to show that they had enough stone to meet demand and that they could match the imported price plus the duties that the imported stone would attract.
What would be unfair is if the imported stone enjoyed concessions, that is, if it was imported free of duties and taxes. The government has failed so far to indicate whether the entity that imported the stone from overseas paid the import taxes which were due or whether they enjoyed duty free concession.
These are basic questions which one would have expected any government committed to transparency would have answered. The PPPC which did not have the best record when it came to transparency would have answered those questions but would have also found a way to justify its actions.
The APNU+AFC government cannot hold the people in contempt. It has to provide the explanations in both of the instances to justify the actions it has taken. Not only is it not justifying its actions, it is strangely cautious about revealing its side in this matter.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One thought on “Change for the better or the worse?”

carl veecock October 5, 2016 at 1:30 am

Quote “Not only is it not justifying its actions, it is strangely cautious about revealing its side in this matter.”

What you call that style of writing?
saying one thing, then immediately contradicting it?!
1. it is not justifying its actions. That’s it!
2. It is strangely cautious. What?
The fact is that IT IS NOT JUSTIFYING ITS ACTIONS.
Strangely cautious is otiose!
The flat statement stands, that is, ‘it is not justifying its actions’.

It is my hope that when the tenure of this government ends,
all its ministers and officials would be millionaires and would quietly give up politics so as to enjoy their earnings.
Most of them are seniors and semi-seniors, so fond pocket filled farewells would be in order!

Comments are closed.

Latest News