Category: Letters to the editor

Posted on

Israel’s intrusion into Gaza is a war crime

The final sentence in Roger Williams’ letter to SN (‘Israel’s action in Gaza is not a war crime,’ January 19) exemplifies the central theme of his quarrel with those of us who described Israel’s intrusion into Gaza as a war crime, the glorification of the Israeli war machine.  Are there some other dimensions, or hidden ideological agenda, to Mr Williams’ support for Israel’s cruel and inhuman attack on Gaza?

While ranting on a few issues in our letter Williams is strangely silent on other matters we raised, above all the overwhelming condemnation of the assault on Gaza by thousands upon thousands of Jews inside and outside of Israel. We limit ourselves to just two.

The first, a letter in the Irish Times signed by eight women and men describing themselves as “people in Ireland who are Jewish or of Jewish descent” made the following denunciation of the action by Israel and appeal for support for Jewish people opposing it:

“We are appalled by Israel ’s slaughter in Gaza. We have seen people justifying this on the basis of Israel’s ‘security concerns’ and attacking supporters of peace for being anti-Jewish. In this climate we feel it important to assert that it is not anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish to oppose Israel’s action. Nor, however, can it be part of any progressive political vision to conflate what the Israeli state has done and is doing in Gaza as being supported by Jews worldwide. Throughout the world, Jews have opposed the invasion of Gaza. In Israel itself, tens of thousands protested this war; they have been attacked by police and right-wing mobs and many Israelis, predominantly non-Jewish but also Jewish, have been imprisoned. We ask people to support these Israelis.

As for Israel’s security concerns, two points need to be made. Firstly nothing, but nothing, justifies the massacre of innocent people. Secondly, peace will only come about through justice for the Palestinian people and through negotiations between Israel and elected Palestinian representatives. One does not need to be Jewish to know this. We ask people not to claim to speak for us when justifying Israel’s barbarity.”

The second, a statement by British parliamentarian Sir Gerald Kaufman, made a connection at once deeply personal and political:

“My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

“My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.”

We would urge Mr Williams to go outside the narrow corridors of Israeli propaganda and learn the real truth about the historical and contemporary relationship of the Israeli state to the people of Palestine. Israel forcibly expelled the Palestinians in 1948 and this ethnic cleansing has continued past several United Nations resolutions all the way to last week in Gaza.

The omission of a human rights dimension in Mr Williams’ response is particularly striking and at odds not just with the letter writers he critiques but with the United Nations and Amnesty International as well as the Jewish women and men, a few of whom we quote above, and the hundreds of thousands who have been demonstrating all over North America and Europe. His view that Hamas is hiding among women and children is a pathetically weak defence of the slaughter of women and children in Gaza. The majority of reports strongly indicate that the Israeli army committed crimes against surrendering citizens whose homes were free of Hamas fighters. We now learn that on the basis of international opinion and public pressure, the state is investigating “five cases” of atrocities committed by the army and the dropping of phosphorus on civilians, including the United Nations headquarters.  A BBC report stated:

“The move follows numerous allegations by rights groups and in media reports that the army fired phosphorus shells where they could harm civilians. The UN said its headquarters were hit by three such shells causing a fire destroying much of its aid supplies. White phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens on a battlefield. The Israeli army says all its weapons in the Gaza offensive were entirely legal, but until now has refused to specify which weapons it used.  White phosphorus sticks to human skin and will burn right through to the bone, causing death or leaving survivors with painful wounds which are slow to heal. Its ingestion or inhalation can also be fatal.”

If Mr Williams consider these voices as external and for that reason unhelpful, what does he say about Israel’s own Supreme Court’s interpretation that the intentional targeting of civilians such as cadets graduating from a Gazan police academy, is in conflict with current international law?

Israel cannot continue to defy world opinion on the basis of protection by big interests and a media blanket at least in the United States. The international outpouring of condemnation and the facts on the ground fully justify our claims that the Israeli army has committed war crimes in Gaza.

Yours faithfully,
Andaiye, David Hinds, Rupert Roopnaraine, Karen de Souza, Wazir Mohamed, Denis Canterbury, Alissa Trotz, Nigel Westmaas, Eusi Kwayana, Chris Ram, Abbyssinian Carto, Moses Bhagwan

Posted on

Gave advice on technical issues to PPP/C as well as opposition parties

I would not even try to engage Mr Kwame McCoy on issues of competence, substance or integrity. I have no time for someone who questions the veracity of serious statements attributed to him only after he is publicly challenged on them. If Kwame had been following Business Page for the past decade and more he would not raise the question of whether a professional can write on matters which come to him in that capacity. That question has been dealt with publicly on several occasions, but for Kwame’s benefit, the answer is no.

His new twist is that my role as a columnist to the Stabroek News conflicts with the firm’s role as the auditor of the company which publishes it. Let me share a secret with Kwame: For the entire period that I have been a contributor to the Sunday Stabroek, I have done so as the masthead to Business Page says, as a public service, pro bono without ever taking a copy of the paper, an entitlement of every contributor.

There is no issue then of my professional obligations and any personal gain or interest conflicting. That is the test of conflict which I suggest Kwame apply to his political colleagues and tell us the results.

Kwame then claims that I am a co-author of the 2006 Manifesto of the People’s National Congress Reform. How this gentleman can elevate my statement “that I was consulted and sat in on working sessions of two of the main groups,” as co-authorship is beyond reason. My role was on technical issues relating to economics, taxation and social security, all areas in which I have some experience.

Mr McCoy may not be aware that I advised Dr Jagan on similar issues in 1992 and did the same for the PPP/C both before and to a lesser extent after the 2006 elections, adding Company Law to the list of topics. Does that make me a co-author of the PPP/C’s manifesto or policy papers?

This has nothing to do with party politics, but with serving our country.

Finally, I am glad to see the President announce the tabling of the report on the Fidelity “Mixed Beverages” scam which by pure coincidence he did on the same day that I called for its immediate release.

In tabling the report I hope the government will say how it will treat with all the relevant issues arising from it.

Posted on

The President does not have the power to issue instructions to the Audit Office

In this letter I will seek to conflate two issues involving the President and the Auditor General (ag), Mr Deodat Sharma, which taken together convince me that neither of them understands key provisions of the constitution or the Audit Act 2004, hardly a trivial issue. My conclusion is based firstly on a report in the Stabroek News of January 13, 2009 under the caption ‘Customs workers facing forensic audit as bribery probe widens,’ in which Mr Sharma is quoted as saying that the process of a forensic audit into the assets of employees at the Customs and Trade Administration (CTA) needs to be thorough since, “President Bharrat Jagdeo would expect nothing less.” The second is also an article in the same newspaper of January 20, 2009 in which questioned about the commissioning of a report into the related Customs bribery probe, President Jagdeo is reported as saying that this particular report was “a bit different than the routine annual audit,” while Mr. Sharma said it was “unlike regular reports from his Office.”

Regarding the first issue, both the President and Mr Sharma need to be reminded that the constitution makes the Audit Office “not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.” It goes without saying that that includes the President.

The Audit Act 2004 provides for two types of audit – financial and compliance audits and performance and value-for-money audits (under section 24 (1)) while section 24 (2) provides for the scope of work and broad methodology for the two types. Section 25 of the act sets a deadline of September 30 for submission of the Auditor General’s report on the consolidated financial statements and accounts of budget agencies, while section 26 provides that, “During the year, the Auditor General may choose to conduct special audits and at his discretion prepare special reports when such audits are completed.”

Where the Auditor General and the President fall into error with the President saying it was a debating point, is the scope of section 28 which provides as follows: “The Auditor General shall [N.B. not may], in accordance with article 223 of the Constitution, submit his reports to the Speaker of the National Assembly, who shall cause them to be laid before the Assembly.” That section refers to all reports and “whether it goes through the Speaker or Minister of Finance” as the President said, is more than semantics or a procedural issue. It is the result of a constitutional amendment designed to strengthen the independence of the Audit Office so that he reports not to the executive but to the National Assembly. Sadly, neither President Jagdeo nor Mr Sharma seems to appreciate the distinction.

To any reasonable person it must be clear that together the constitution and the Audit Act make the issuing of instructions by the President to the Auditor General to undertake an investigation into the Fidelity fraud allegations, to carry out so-called forensic audits of the assets of the employees of the CTA and the submission of reports by the AG to the President, unconstitutional and unlawful. After the sterling work done by his predecessor, Mr Anand Goolsarran, Mr Sharma is allowing President Jagdeo to bring the Audit Office into disrepute and it only takes a legal action by any officer called upon to submit to Mr Sharma’s “forensic audit” to have the whole process thrown out. In no country but Guyana would the head of the state audit with responsibility to audit often complex transactions in excess of two hundred billion dollars not hold a professional accounting qualification. One of the reasons for such a requirement is that the holder is subject to a professional code of conduct regulating the quality of his work and the integrity and independence he displays.

It is not that Mr Sharma has time on his hands or no work to do. In a review of the ‘Report of the Auditor General on the public accounts for the year 2006’ carried in Sunday Stabroek’s ‘Business Page’ of August 24, 31 and September 7, 2008, I pointed out some glaring weaknesses − errors of omission and commission of a professional nature in the work of his office. Perhaps a few examples drawn from those columns would suffice. The full articles are available on the Stabroek News website or at ChrisRam.net.

1. That the report did not mention the failure by the Privatisation Unit/NICIL to account for hundreds of millions of dollars, a fundamental breach of the constitution that ranks and rankles with the infamous Lotto Funds;

2. $6.513 billion advanced from the Dependants Pension Fund Deposit Fund at December 31, 2006 not being substantiated while the old Consolidated Fund bank account NO 400 had not been reconciled since 1988;

3. The failure by the Audit Office to report on the financial statements of entities in which the Government has a controlling interest;

4. Non-reporting of the hundreds of millions of flood funds which Mr Sharma had promised more than three years ago;

5. No report on concessions granted under the Investment Act, 2004, including the illegal concessions granted to Queens Atlantic Investment Inc, the saga of 2008;

6. No audit report on World Cup Cricket even as another cricket spending spree is planned next year.

The Guyanese public is accustomed to being misled by fancy-sounding but uninformed statements by public officials, some of which confuse even lawyers of the main opposition parties. The statement about forensic audit falls in that category when looked at against the quality of work referred to above and the persistent failure by the Audit Office to carry out its mandate. Mr Sharma it seems prefers to dabble in matters improperly referred to him by the President while neglecting his constitutional and statutory responsibilities such as his report for 2007 on the public accounts, already overdue by several months, and any value-for-money audits.

The Minister of Finance is a former Deputy Auditor General who served under Mr Goolsarran, and the government must therefore be aware of the several professional and personnel limitations of the Audit Office and those who control it. But since the government transacts business involving billions of dollars, often outside the norms of proper accounting, the constitution and the Financial Management and Audit Act, it is unlikely that it would like strong and independent oversight of such spending. So, really it is convenient for the government to have someone like Mr Sharma heading the Audit Office. In addition, the wife of the Senior Minister of Finance is employed as the only professionally qualified accountant in the Audit Office. By definition she is not independent and it is absolutely incompatible for her to be in the Audit Office while her husband is Minister of Finance.

To allow such serious farce in the Audit Office in my view shows contempt for the people of our bleeding country. All the talk of forensic audit is meaningless. On top of all of this, the parliamentary oversight body, the Public Accounts Committee seems completely out of its depth. Do Guyanese really deserve this?

I will deal with the President’s uninformed and misguided call for “MP’s to declare assets within two weeks or face the courts” in later correspondence.

Posted on

The Fidelity report should be released immediately

In yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek `Fidelity report still to be tabled in Parliament’ you report Office of the President Spokesman Mr. Kwame McKoy as declining to say whether Parliament had received the report. Mr. McKoy then added that the report would be tabled in due course, adding that “there are other pressing things before the house”, suggesting that “the Auditor General’s report would likely have to wait in line.”

Does the Office of the President (OP) rather than the Speaker and the Clerk of the National Assembly decide whether it has other pressing matters and does OP believe the Assembly works like a taxi rank where you have to join a queue?

Mr McKoy should reserve such crass absurdity, presumption and arrogance for his television show rather than try to insult the intelligence of the more right thinking Guyanese. Whatever Mr. McKoy and the Office of the President may want us to think, many Guyanese regard the report as bearing on the conduct of both public and private sector officials possibly involving corruption and the loss of substantial revenue. Its publication therefore is long overdue and should be released immediately.

It makes me angry to think that my hard-earned tax dollars are used to pay people of McKoy’s calibre and makes me wonder how many more McKoys reside in the Office of the President.

Posted on

What is the usefulness of the President’s overseas visits?

It is almost impossible to count the number of times the President goes on overseas visits. He is by far the most travelled President/Prime Minister in the region even as our country remains only above Haiti as the poorest in Caricom. The latest overseas visit is reported in your January 12, 2009 edition which carries a release by the Government Information Agency (GINA) that President Bharrat Jagdeo is on a visit to Libya, Qatar and Greece that will last one week. He is accompanied by four other persons, two ministers, the largely unknown George Hallaq, Presidential envoy to the Middle East and Greece and the religious leader close to the government and some time civil society activist Fazeel Ferouz, President of the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana.

Weighed down by the yoke of flooding, high cost of living, ministers who in the absence of the President become even more unproductive, lawlessness and punitive taxation, Guyanese have a right to know the reasons, timing and the usefulness to them of such visits. Is it to meet with Guyanese nationals in those countries, to expand trade and investments or to seek diplomatic support for some major international initiative Guyana is launching? If it is trade, why not take a private sector representative or is that hat being worn by Mr Ferouz?

And we all know that when the President returns home, he makes no proper report as any responsible manager, let alone a country President would, but more often than not simply calls a press conference to discuss trite domestic issues which his ministers are paid to address, and little else.

And of course we must not forget cost. My information is that each overseas visit the President makes costs thousands of US dollars and somewhat less for ministers. How much is this visit going to cost taxpayers in total and would that money not be better spent on the poor and the flooded out in Guyana or on the numerous problems that drive Guyanese from the country?

This seems to be a perfectly legitimate question for our reporters who turn up like sheep at the President’s post-visit press conference to ask. Indeed it would be useful to know how much was spent on overseas travel by the President, his ministers and their entourages during 2008. Perhaps the Accountant General can provide us with this information, failing which I would like to see the Public Accounts Committee demand the information.

Taking full advantage of our system of electocracy, the government seems all too ready to do as it wants, when it is confident that it controls the instruments of disclosure, accounting, accountability and audit so that the public remains powerless and ignorant.

I hope that when next the government asks the inane question where the money will come from to pay living public sector wages, reasonable pensions to our senior citizens and better flood control measures, we will have several answers ready.