Latest update April 24th, 2024 12:59 AM
Sep 07, 2015 Letters
Dear Editor,
In his letter, (KN of 3 September 2015), former Prime Minister Sam Hinds suggested that those who condemned the Berbice Bridge scheme should not “disparage our attempts to invest our own savings in our own development, paddling our own canoe”,….and that “there is nothing criminal about investing in the bridge”.
In other words, it is a perfectly honourable undertaking. Really? If nothing is wrong with the arrangements for financing and control of the Bridge then here are some questions for Mr. Hinds.
For example: Is the issue investing the savings of Guyanese in a Bridge, or the arrangements for financing, control of the facility’s operations, and distribution of benefits to private shareholders?
If the financial arrangements for the project are an honourable undertaking, why not make the shareholders arrangements public before agreements were signed?
The private parties who contributed only 5% are guaranteed a return. Why was no similar undertaking given to the NIS for its massive investment?
How and when was it intended that the NIS would be repaid?
If indigenous financing was part of the PPP’s concern why was a public Bond not floated to raise funds from as many Guyanese as possible, who may have been willing and able to contribute financing?
Why was a financing institution e.g, IADB or CDB not invited to contribute financing, say20%? Such a contribution would not put it in control of the asset, depending on the financing?
Who contributes 95% capital to create a revenue bearing asset, but gives up 50 % control to the junior partner who only contributed 5%, and further, guarantee such partner 23% return?
If these questions suggest that the Bridge scheme looks dishonourable Mr. Hinds, it is because it is. Just like the outrageous scheme that gives more than 50% ownership of the Marriot hotel to private parties who put up US$8 million while the taxpayers put up US$30million, thus making it nothing less than a sinister scheme to transfer wealth from taxpayers to private individuals.
One can suggest why the PPP financed the Bridge, and structured the control, commitments and guarantees the way it did, and kept it secret.
First, the PPP did not dare make the arrangements public, because Guyanese would most likely have objected to the use of their NIS contributions in a scheme in which they contribute 95 % of the capital but basically would have no say, while a few private citizens control it. To add to this insult, the people would bear the brunt of meeting the cost of operating the facility, through high tariff, while those who contributed so little are guaranteed returns.
Second, Mr. Editor, bringing in a national or a non-national financing institution, or opening financing to small contributions from all able Guyanese via a Bond issue would mean exposing the entire scheme to public scrutiny. No financing institution worth its reputation would have been party to such an obviously odious scheme. Responsible people at the New Building Society(NBS)were rightly suspicious, and those persons were persecuted because they refused to give up NBS’s own money, unbelievable.
Equally serious, there may be more than greed involved. There appears to be a sinister undertone of implied wealth transfer, from a large number of NIS contributors to a carefully selected chosen few. One is led to question if there was ever any intention of returning the NIS funds, and considering the scheme itself, the PPP’s blatant disregard for principle and the rule of law, this may not be a farfetched question.
Mr. Hinds knows very well that the issue is about the financing and ownership and control aspects of the Bridge, not about investing the savings of Guyanese people. Mr. Hinds cannot simply try to use the noble idea of investing domestic savings as a distraction from actions and omissions that amount to criminal conduct. Considering the established pattern of PPP misconduct and what the PPP did with the Bridge scheme specifically, it is offensive to now suggest that the issue is about investing domestic savings. The great tragedy for Guyana is that the chief wrongdoer may be able to hide behind the very Constitution which his party had condemned.
The remedy seems to be that the government has little choice but to undo the scheme, in order to protect the majority from a dangerous and capricious few. Since it already contributed the majority of the sunk capital it should preferably buy the 5% contribution from the private parties.
What is required Mr. Hinds is accountability and undoing this wrong, plain and simple, not an attempt to mislead. That only adds insult to injury.
Ivor Carryl
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 24, 2024
Round 2 GFF Women’s League Division One Kaieteur Sports – The Guyana Police Force FC on Saturday last demolished Pakuri Jaguars FC with a 17 – 0 goal blitz at the Guyana Football...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]