Shadow finance min-ister Carl Greenidge has said there are no formal penalties that can be brought against Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh for expending finances that were not approved during 2011.
In an interview with Guyana Times, Greenidge, a former finance minister under the Desmond Hoyte administration, said it is the Accountant General (AG) who would have to advise the government on its next step forward.

Carl Greenidge

Last Thursday, the opposition refused to approve four items lodged under varying heads tabled under Financial Paper Number Seven of 2011. That financial paper totalled $2,240,901,071 and included current and capital estimates but was subsequently amended to $2,161,281,593.
The combined opposition rejected four heads under the schedule of supplementary provision 2011 as tabled by the government namely: supplementary expenditure sought by the Office of the President to the tune of $25,500,000 for the provision of expenditure associated with the conferment of National Awards and other events hosted by the state; the payment of honorarium for staff working during the Claims and Objections period at the General Register Office (GRO) to the tune of $43,100,000; as it relates to the capital expenditure, a request by government for the purchase of equipment by the Office of the President to the tune of $18,494,478 and additional funds for the provision for mobilisation payment on infrastructural works for the Specialty Hospital at $29,100,000.
Greenidge on Sunday said: “The matter has not been cleared…” He said too that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) will also “follow up the matter” but insofar as a penalty exists, there is none for the minister.
“The fact that the matters are unsatisfactory, they can’t clear the books,” he told Guyana Times. Given the new parliamentary dispensation, Greenidge said the combined opposition now has the power to “refuse to clear, where we feel the minister’s claims are unsatisfactory… and false”.
That aside, the shadow finance minister has noted that the Auditor General’s report has indicated that there are a number of occasions where the government has “failed to provide information in accordance to the law”.  He stated that the opposition will “hold to the AG’s recommendation”.
In the meantime, when asked whether he foresees a replay of Thursday’s debates on the financial papers at the 2012 budget debates, Greenidge said: “It is rather odd for the government to expect to submit a paper that will come out unamended.” According to him, making changes to items put before the House do not challenge the Constitution or “point to bringing the government down. It is part of the process we haven’t had in donkey’s years”. Greenidge added that consideration must be given to the fact that the 2012 budget will not in itself be seeking to clear matters or issues undertaken in the past, “it is proposals for expenditure in 2012.”
Additionally, Greenidge noted that he is particularly disappointed with statements made by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh in the National Assembly repeatedly about his performance as finance minister under the People’s National Congress (PNC) administration. Dr Singh alleged that Greenidge during his tenure as finance minister never produced public accounts before the National Assembly and “he probably didn’t even bother about this kind of thing”.  On that Point of Order, however, Greenidge rebutted by stating, that he has submitted a list of reports and public accounts to the House during the years to which he was minister.

– govt slams “reckless” actions frustrating its parliamentary agenda

By Ariana Gordon

The combined opposition on Thursday night used their one-seat majority to block the parliamentary blessing on a number of supplementary expenditures made late last year by the government, among them those for the inauguration of President Donald Ramotar and the staging of the Investiture Ceremony for national awardees.

Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh making a passionate presentation on the financial papers on Thursday

One of the papers was amended, as four heads were not approved, and the other was rejected completely and government was asked to resubmit it with more details on the spending.  At the end of the session, Financial Paper Number Seven was amended to $2,161,281,593 as opposed to the original motion moved by the government side of the House, where the schedule of supplementary provision on the current and capital estimates totalled $2,240,901,071 for the period October 25, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The opposition rejected four heads under the schedule of supplementary provision 2011 as tabled by the government namely: supplementary expenditure sought by the Office of the President to the tune of $25.5 million for the provision of expenditure associated with the conferment of National Awards and other events hosted by the state; the payment of honorarium for staff working during the Claims and Objections period at the General Register Office (GRO) to the tune of $43,100,000; as it relates to the capital expenditure, a request by government for the purchase of equipment by the Office of the President to the tune of $18,494,478 and additional funds for the provision for mobilisation payment on infrastructural works for the Specialty Hospital at $29,100,000. Financial Paper Seven was examined with a fine-tooth comb for the benefit of new parliamentarians who may have been confused. Following the tabling of the motion for the financial papers by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, he was asked by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament Keith Scott to justify the large increase in the awards cost and whether this reflects a lack of effective planning. Scott pointed to the original provision that was voted and spent by the administration under the Office of the President through Cabinet and other services. The initial amount totalled $8,688,000. However the supplementary provision being sought totalled $25, 500,000.
Minister within the Finance Ministry Juan Edghill said the increase in expenditure is as a result of the number of awards which had to be issued after a five- year hiatus. “National awards were not given out for the past five years; as a result, it was not budgeted for in the 2011 budget and because of the hiatus for five years, we had 131 national awards being offered which is quite a large number.”
Edghill further stated that the expenditure associated with preparation and actual hosting of the Investiture Ceremony was just over $10 million.
Shadow finance minister Carl Greenidge noted that the House is deserving of a detailled breakdown of the expenditures associated with the $25 million requested and a proper explanation as to why the request is being made at this time as opposed to September or earlier in the year. Edghill then took to the floor again to justify government’s spending of just over $25 million. He said the investiture ceremony cost just over $10 million, the swearing-in of the new president, and Cabinet cost just over $5 million; two national sports, cricket and football, $1.8 million and donations to a number of organisations totalled $8 million.
In a surprising turn of events, the opposition also voted against the approval of an additional sum for the provision of payment of honorarium for staff of the General Registrar’s Office who worked during the Claims and Objections period. This head too sparked much back and forth between government and the combined opposition. When asked to justify the spending, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee said the money was spent during the extension of the C&O period by the Guyana Elections Commission last year so that all citizens would be able to obtain their birth certificates.
Rohee said: “Source documents were a very contentious issue…we had to ensure that every citizen had a source document…we formulated a project that required the performance of overtime of 53 persons employed by the GRO…18,000 birth certificates were issued during that time.” That too, however, was not  a good enough answer for the opposition as they sought to ascertain whether vouchers were prepared to substantiate the claims by the subject minister. The array of questions posed to Rohee caused Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh to intervene to offer clarity on the issue. “Madam Chair, the Contingencies Fund advance was granted not at the commencement of the C&O period or during, but, in fact, that the decision to pay was made, and at the time that the computation of how much would be paid was made, and that time was a time after the previous financial paper was approved.”

APNU's Chief Whip, Amna Ally, making a point during Thursday's debate on the supplementary financial papers

Another contentious issue was the supplementary provision being sought for the purchase of equipment for the provision of security through the Office of the President to the tune of $18,494,478.  Government was asked to describe the nature of the equipment bought by the administration and for what use. Greenidge demanded that specifics be revealed as it relates to the security equipment. Edghill in responding said the equipment comprised “electronic surveillance equipment” that have been placed at sensitive locations. He further assured the House that the equipment is not being used for the purposes of spying. Nagamootoo then quizzed “to whom was this sum advanced, to what company?” Edghill began his response by stating that the invoice was not with him and as such he does not have details, some two minutes later he told the House that the company receiving the money is MMC security firm. He however noted that all procurement rules were followed.
There were also queries about the construction of the specialty hospital at Turkeyen. Some $150,000, 000 was initially provided to the administration however an additional $29,100,000 is being sought for the mobilisation payment on infrastructural works. APNU’s Dr George Norton questioned the use of the funds sought. He said the legend for capital expenditure spoke of design and study as opposed to mobilisation. “Is this not going outside of the project and is involving a phase that was not presented to this House?” Health Minister Dr Bheri Ramsarran in defence said the funds are an advance on the contracted sum on the preparation of the landsite. He added that the contract was awarded to Bovell Construction Services and the work is well advanced. Dr Norton questioned the urgency for the funds. But Dr Ramsarran said,” Government and the health sector has to work with or without election season,” he noted that the project was initiated long before elections. “There was no hurry up, this was getting the people’s business done and it came about towards the end, it is totally coincidental. The preparatory work for such a thing would have started months before, the tender process takes time.”  But Greenidge said he is still baffled as to the explanation by the Health Minister. “You can’t mobilise at the end of a project, you mobilise at the beginning; and in mobilising, you can’t be mobilising contractors after a $150 million has been spent, what is this for?”
In the meantime, Nagamootoo questioned why government has not re allocated the $150 million by a supplementary appropriation Act, a question that was instantaneously turned down by the government. “One does not reallocate specific expenditure,” Dr Singh said. Failing to agree, a division was called and a count of the votes saw 32 parliamentarians from the combined opposition voting against while 31 voted for. The 13 other supplementary provisions were approved by both sides of the House.
However, while amendments have been made to Financial Paper  Number Seven, Financial Paper Number Eight has been deferred until March 16 as the opposition moved to have the motion tabled by Dr Singh withdrawn for re-submission to the House as the opposition believes that not enough detail was provided to the House. The gridlock among the sides forced the chairman of the Supply Committee and Acting Speaker Debra Backer to suspend the proceedings for 20 minutes to facilitate discussions. But at the end of the day, leader of the House Prime Minister Samuel Hinds agreed to have the matter put off until March 16. The Speaker too noted that she would prefer to have time to be advised on the matter as it is a new occurrence.

Reckless opposition
Meanwhile, in an angry reaction to the opposition’s move, the Office of the President (OP) said in a statement that the National Assembly in its third sitting in 2012 has again made a decision that violated the Constitution, the laws of Guyana and a commitment made by the parliamentary political parties during the tripartite talks to work together in the interest of Guyana.
The OP said Singh had tabled on February 10, 2012, Financial Papers Number Seven and Eight  for the consideration of the House. The financial papers disclosed expenditure made through supplementary provisions by the administration in fiscal year 2011 in accordance with existing law. The law provided for the minister, at the earliest opportunity subsequently, to present for the consideration of the House the expenditure so incurred.
“The initial reactions of the APNU/AFC parliamentary alliance to the February 10 tabling were uncompromisingly hostile with threats ranging from outright rejection to censure, among others. The alliance continued its rhetoric about unlawful expenditure,” the OP said in its statement.
The OP also found bewildering the APNU/AFC comprehensive rejection of expenditure associated with the Specialty Hospital construction and site preparation. “Looking ahead, the APNU/AFC alliance seems intent on cherry picking and rejecting selective items of expenditure. It is anticipated that they will use their voting strength to  authorise the expenditure for only those items favourably considered at the level of the Committee of Supply, thus rejecting recklessly all the other items of expenditure.”
OP cautioned: “Once again the APNU/AFC parliamentary alliance has signalled its intention to continue on the course of confrontation using their combined vote in the National Assembly for partisan political interests. Regrettably, the APNU/AFC combined vote in Parliament has now been used on three consecutive occasions in two sittings to undermine constitutionality and to disregard parliamentary norms and traditions.”

– feels sidelined, to promote new wave of dynamism

By Danielle Campbell

Former Peoples National Congress Reform (PNCR) member Dr Faith Harding revealed that she has resigned from the central executive of the party as she promises to breathe a new wave of dynamism and change in the local landscape.

Dr Faith Harding

Dr Harding said her decision to resign came late last year after she came to the realisation that the party was no longer a place for passionate membership.  She said the PNCR did not involve people in serious activities and it seemed the leadership did not care to change its image with the membership as well as with its supporters.
“When I was campaigning early last year and the year before in 2010, I felt that people were feeling very abandoned by the party and so my message was about change, it was about shaking up the party and shaking up the government of Guyana. I wanted people to feel good about their country. I wanted to feel good about our party. I wanted people to feel that the government was using the resources of this nation for them,” Dr Harding related.
When the central executive did not seem to be taking such a direction, Dr Harding said she decided to make the change, a decision which came on the heels of the executive abandoning her, after the primary elections.
“I felt that they had sidelined me as one journalist puts it. Yes, I felt sidelined. I felt that whenever I wrote to the party’s leadership, I got no response. It was as though I wasn’t being acknowledged and hence I felt I’ve got a lot to do in this country. I’ve got a lot to offer to the nation. I am a woman that does not sit down. I’ve always been that way,” Dr Harding emphasised.
She disclosed that the party has always recognised her as an influential person, and even former presidents, Linden Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte were always excited about the skills which she shared with the party’s membership. After over 30 years on the central executive of the PNCR, Dr Harding said she did not need to be on the central executive to fulfill her mandate and reach out to the masses.
Dr Harding dispelled allegations that she was bitter after failing to win the support of the party’s congress during the process to select a leader.  She was of the view that she was not treated fairly based on issues and the skills which she brought to the table.
“With this new energy, that is, in Guyana for change, I thought that I could move out and move away and do some things that I enjoyed doing most which is meeting with the communities,” Dr Harding revealed. She said that persons who supported her during the campaign kept nudging her to return.
“I have groups supporting me in Albion, in Port Mourant, in Corriverton on the Corentyne. I have groups supporting me in Georgetown, in Sophia, in Long Creek on the highway that are formed groups; very strong. I have a group in Akawini on the West Bank of Demerara that I’m doing projects with.”
Dr Harding, who has two masters of arts degrees and a doctorate in education, said she intends to channel her creative energies into such programmes.  She is currently working with a group to produce loads of sorrel to meet a demand on the Chinese market.
“You know how good sorrel is and we do not know enough about it around here, but it’s a fantastic product so that’s where I’m putting my energies. Some of these people are supporters of the PNCR and some are not, but they are interested in what I have to share with them.” Although she remains in the membership of the PNCR, Dr Harding said she is keeping her options opened and has not yet decided what political direction her life would take.
“I have a lot of people from the different parties talking to me and looking at my credentials which they have admired over the years and I’m also considering that as yet. I want dynamism action. I want people being served in this nation and for Guyana to grow and develop,” Dr Harding pointed out.
She has since been invited to form a women’s party and admits that this is a proposition which can present thrilling prospects on her agenda.  Dr Harding said she has an interest in women being involved in agriculture, and those participating in mineral extracting roles in Guyana interior region. She is considering a proposition from the recently established Women Miners Association to take them on board.
Her husband, Patrick Harding was recently elected president of the Guyana Gold and Diamond Miners Association (GGDMA).  Dr Harding said in a few days, she is expected to assume a leadership role for the Women’s Industrial Enterprise, which will serve as an umbrella organisation for all of the other women’s groups she has established.
She applauded a lobbying move by former President Bharrat Jagdeo in India for a Medical Tourism Hospital to be built in Guyana.  Dr Harding pointed out that a tourism hospital is something she has always been excited about to improve skills, the economy and the neighbourhood that would be graced with a tourist facility.
“I was excited about that and about a massive railroad system in our country which is pushing me to meet with the new president so I can discuss with him some of the ideas I have in great detail which I see are on his agenda as well and really to take women on board.  Since submitting her resignation, Dr Harding has not been contacted by the party with a view to have her reconsider.  The General Council of PNCR will be meeting on March 3 and 4 this year to discuss several issues.

… says they are willing to find consensus, compromise

By Michael Younge

Amid criticisms by the government of opposition control over some of the key positions in the National Assembly, Opposition Leader Brigadier (retired) David Granger said the parliamentary opposition political parties were in no way abusing their combined majority in the House.

David Granger

Granger in an interview with Guyana Times on Sunday, said that both the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) have been demonstrating independence and responsibility in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.
His comments came on the heels of concerns raised by the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) over what appears to be a collusion of the two parties to “take control” of the National Assembly. The party on Saturday said that the parliamentary opposition has already begun showing worrying signs of disrespect for norms, conventions and rules which govern the affairs of the 65-seat Parliament.
“We have all, as opposition representatives, been behaving in a professional, independent and responsible manner,” Granger argued. He said the actions and positions taken up by the APNU and the AFC are all in line with their parties’ policies and views of how Parliament should function given the dispensation and mandate given to them by the electorate at the November 28 elections.
Asked whether, the postures taken by the APNU and the AFC with respect to the appointment of the Speaker of the National Assembly and the composition of the Committee of Selection would affect the ongoing tripartite dialogue with the government, Granger responded in the negative. He said that the “tripartite arrangements and dialogue were not in jeopardy,” explaining that the parliamentary behaviour of and decisions made by the APNU and the AFC are all intended to avoid what he referred to as “gridlock or collision” from happening.
The APNU co-chairman believes that the ongoing talks with the PPP/C, AFC, and APNU have been respectful and cordial in nature, adding that various groups and representatives have been meeting almost weekly with the aim of stating their positions on various issues of concern, thereby avoiding any unnecessary conflict.  He saw no link between the intra-party dialogues and the parliamentary agenda which the AFC and the APNU would have to consider and scrutinise as parliamentary bodies.  In fact, Granger does not believe the APNU and the AFC were undermining the process of building trust and cooperation by their recent actions in the Parliament.  Granger was convinced that the APNU and the AFC did not feel that government should take “concern” with the movements in Parliament because they are only following the mandate given to them by majority of the citizens that exercised their franchise.
Asked if he would support the call made by President Donald Ramotar during his inaugural speech to the parliamentarians on Friday last for consensus and compromise, Granger said “yes”, while noting that in order for Parliament to function effectively, more cohesion, support and cooperation must take place.
“If government advances measures, policies and plans that are in line with our visions for the country and our policies, we would have no problem giving them our parliamentary support,” the retired brigadier explained.
Ramotar on Friday warned the National Assembly that his administration will not be held to ransom by any intractable posture by the opposition while stressing the importance of the House working together in the best interest of all citizens.  “As willing however as my government is to exercise patience, forbearance, and reasonableness in the interest of all of our people, my administration will not be held ransom to intractable postures,” the president said in his inaugural speech to the National Assembly.
He said the 10th Parliament has been convened in a “very challenging period” in the country’s history, noting that “for the first time we are faced with a situation in which no party has an absolute majority”. “It is a new situation to us, but one that has been experienced in some other countries of the world,” the president said, pointing out that the reviews of such parliaments have been mixed.
He urged the various Members of Parliament (MPs) to act with much maturity during this sitting of the National Assembly to avoid gridlock and inertia. “To move forward will call for maturity. If we are to avoid gridlock and inertia, political cooperation in the interest of the development of Guyana must exist.  This is the reality that we face, we must avoid gridlock.   At this time, given the significant development under the PPP/C, my administration would be loath to accept gridlock that can stymie Guyana’s development.”
Ramotar acknowledged that there would be differences amongst parliamentarians on the different sides of the House, but urged that good sense prevail to ensure that the end result is one that would be beneficial to the people of the country.
“I am convinced that we have the capacity to rise to this challenge. I am satisfied that we are capable of demonstrating to the Guyanese nation that while political competition and diversity are essential in a democracy, they should not foreclose on the possibilities for compromise and consensus in the way we do business. Indeed, the make-up of this new Parliament dictates that we seek consensus and compromise and should resist the temptation to believe that any party can ride roughshod over another.  Any such attempt may see us missing the historical opportunities that this new composition offers.”

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) on Saturday voiced its concern over what it calls the “actions of the APNU/AFC parliamentary alliance in jettison conventional approaches to parliamentary behaviour”.

President Donald Ramotar

The party’s statement was in relation to the opposition-led Committee of Selection on Friday at the National Assembly. The combined opposition managed to secure five seats on the nine member committee while the government secured four seats following an amendment to a motion moved by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds to have a 10 member committee nominated.
An amendment was subsequently put before the House for the committee to be comprised of nine members as opposed to 10.
Representing government on the committee are Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, Presidential Advisor on Governance Gail Teixeira, Agriculture Minister Dr Leslie Ramsammy and Indranie Chandarpal. Sitting on the committee for the opposition are Chief Whip Amna Ally, Joseph Harmon, Volda Lawrence, Dr George Norton and Khemraj Ramjattan of the Alliance for Change (AFC).
The party in a statement pointed to the opposition parties obtaining both the speakership and deputy speaker positions despite parliamentary conventions amongst democracies.
“On January 11 2012, the APNU colluded with the AFC and perpetuated a grave departure from conventions among parliamentary democracies. The two parliamentary parties, neither of which obtained more seats in Parliament than the governing PPP/C used their combined one seat majority in hogging both the position of the Speaker and deputy speaker of the 10th Parliament in Guyana.”
The release continued: “On February 10, 2012, on its ceremonial opening, the same two opposition parliamentary parties, APNU and AFC again colluded to defy rules and convention in electing a Parliamentary Committee of Selection that violated the rules on proportionality.”
According to the statement, “The governing party with the most seats in Parliament saw its share of the membership of the Committee of Selection unfairly equated with the APNU”.
The party believes that the actions “designed in triumphalism generate levels of distrust among political parties in Parliament and threaten the criteria of condition that are necessary for the smooth functioning of Parliament in Guyana”.

Opposition Leader David Granger on Friday called on President Donald Ramotar to be part of the National Assembly more often as opposed to only at ceremonial occasions, like the official opening of Parliament.

Granger explained that the new configuration of Parliament warrants the president to be present and be part of the formal setting of the House, noting that new methods of managing parliamentary affairs must be implemented.

Opposition Leader David Granger

“It is written Mr Speaker in our Constitution, Article 67 that the president may at any time attend and address the National Assembly as he is doing today. But in the past, the appearances of our president in these hallow walls have been rare. We now need Mr Speaker to propose a change and on behalf of this honourable House, I would like to suggest that we change convention and accept what the constitution has ordained. With your permission and perhaps by your lead, this honourable House should invite the president not only to come to ceremonial functions as we have today with the trumpets and the parades but to more functional appearances, not every five years but every year.”
He noted that a republican approach should be followed in this new parliamentary dispensation, one which would see the “head of state, head of government” reporting on the state of the nation every year before “we debate the budget”.
“And I ask you to invite his Excellency to do so in this 10th Parliament. As his Excellency has said, he is faced with many challenges, and as such, regular reviews and regular revision of our plans and we would like to see our head of state and head of government making more use of Article 67 of the Constitution, don’t wait to be asked; invite yourself, the constitution allows you to do so.”
Granger asserted that this Parliament “cannot exist without the president”. Speaking directly to President Ramotar, he said “Without you, we are just a National Assembly, do come, we look forward Mr President, to your regular appearance, to discuss policies to make Guyana a better place”.
The opposition leader also called for the “will of the majority” of the House to be respected.

AFC Executive Member Khemraj Ramjattan

Speaker of the National Assembly, Raphael Trotman echoed the sentiments of Granger, noting that he too has appealed to President Ramotar to attend the National Assembly more often.
“Mr President, it is indeed an honour to receive you, we hope that this is not the first and only time that you will grace us with your presence. We would like to see much, much more of you and interact with you on matters not only of ceremony but on matters of substance that affect the people of Guyana,” Trotman stated.
In the meantime, the Alliance for Change (AFC) Executive Member, Khemraj Ramjattan termed the president’s address “more or less a report card of those successes”. He however noted the need for there to be the acknowledging of all negatives.
“We are going to try to correct those negatives with the governing party in the coming years”.
Ramjattan said there are many things that are expected by the people and parliamentarians alike.
“We had wanted to see here a legislative agenda, but I then believe we could go on to do so at the tripartite level, I had wanted also to see some formula for national unity, though none came, I am certain that we can work towards that. But I want to assure this honourable house, your Excellency that we intend to work along with your government to ensure the greater happiness and a fuller peace for all Guyanese,” said Ramjattan.
He added that it must be recognised and appreciated that the results of the November 28 elections represent the will of the people of Guyana, and as such, that must be at the forefront of all parliamentarians. “You must appreciate that November 28 brought a new dispensation, the people won, and the people are sovereign, and as representatives of the people, we must make sure that they bare the fruits of that winning. Mr Speaker, I urge that we all put Guyana first, the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch and all the components and persona within those branches, we can make Guyana greater which is still the dream of all of us.”
Ramjattan also reminisced on times spent with President Ramotar in the National Assembly, stating that he will miss his (Ramotar’s) heckling.

Prime Minister Samuel Hinds

Prime Minister Samuel Hinds in a brief address said Friday’s occasion as a historic one. He assured the president that the governing side of the House would fulfill all the plans he has in store for the country.
“I want to assure you that we on this side will support your programme; I want to assure you of our confidence that we in Guyana can take this opportunity to lead our nation onto better times and to realise what you have called for, that we take our country and our people on a highway to peace and progress.”