Showing posts with label Attorneys-General of CARICOM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attorneys-General of CARICOM. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2009

Greed, Genocide ... and now "Green": Corruption and Underdevelopment in Guyana

Greed, Corruption, Narcotics, Torture, Fire, Race … and now "Green": Guyana’s potent linkages to Underdevelopment
July 27, 2009

As a mostly silent world looks on, and as CARICOM diligently turns a blind eye to the escalating evidence of Guyana’s manufactured social, political and economic crisis, the “torching” of the Ministry of Health just before a pending and potentially cataclysmic audit by the Auditor-General offers new clues as to how degenerate the political climate has become. This is the fifth government building so “destroyed” with all its paperwork and files.

For Health Minister Leslie Ramsammy, already implicated by a US-court in the Shaheed “Roger” Khan issue (see “Genocide in Guyana … The Tip of the Iceberg?”), we should offer five viewpoints that place the Auditor General’s Report for 2006 in perspective. A synopsis of that Report is appended below.

First, Kean Gibson in her iconoclastic review “The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana” pointed to the strange local phenomenon of “good thieving” and “bad thieving” to describe the astonishing rape of national and institutional coffers under the party associated with President Bharat Jagdeo. She also coined the phrase “corruption that is ruinous to the state” in that regard (see “The Marginalization of Persons of African Origin in Guyana” and “The Case for Scholarship in Kean Gibson’s Book”. The Guyana government used ethnic and other bias in its tightly controlled Ethnic Relations Commission to try to have the book “removed from public places”.

US. State Department Reports on Guyana for several consecutive years point to “corruption at the highest levels of government”. The Bharat Jagdeo-led government in Guyana dismiss these claims as “false”.

The Commonwealth Adviser Sir Michael Davies points to the systematic destruction of Guyana’s parliament as the highest decision-making forum in Guyana in “Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005”. He reiterates his findings in the report “Addendum to the Needs assessment of the Guyana National Assembly 2005

The Guyana government dismiss these claims as “false”.

The UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall points to acts of racism that could just as easily have come from the story of the deprivation of India’s 300 million Dalits in the report of the UN Human Rights Council: “Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, Gay McDougall : addendum : mission to Guyana (28 July to 1 August 2008)”(27 February 2009, A/HRC/10/11/Add.2, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49bfa6ec2.html ).

The Bharat-Jagdeo government dismisses these claims as “false”.

World-renown Guyanese economist Dr. Clive Thomas speaks to the “criminalization of the state” under the tenure of a Bharat-Jagdeo-led administration that has literally squandered 17 years of local and international goodwill:

“…. Guyana needs intervention at the macro/national, intermediate/meso and the micro/local levels, Thomas said. He listed, "the superficiality of national unity, the dynamics of racial arithmetic and insecurity and the unrelenting rise of both benign and militant extremism." Guyana's predicament, he said, was compounded by the depth, scale, complexity and sheer persistence of economic misery and the growth of the narco-economy. He added that the country's entrenched totalitarianism in a multiracial society combined with territorial threats and the criminalisation of the state all played their part. Thomas asserted that Guyana's political and social crisis could not be solved without the intervention of the international community in the broader sense of creating the foundation for some resolution. "Just as our development problems are so acute that we cannot solve them without the support of the regional and international community, similarly, our political crisis requires this type of intervention." Asked to expand on the term `structural deadlock' during the debate that followed his remarks, Thomas alluded to the government's initial objections to the symposium and their attempts to review presenters' papers prior to actual presentation....”(Source: Dr. Clive Thomas: "International Conference on Governance, Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution," Georgetown, Guyana February 2004)

The Bharat-Jagdeo government dismisses these claims as “false”.

And so, finally, a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) that begs the outside world to pour more funds into Guyana’s gaping wound … or else the pockets of those who are convinced that they are destined to rule Guyana forever!

By is this feasible since, given the abundance of evidence, one can easily detect a massive accounting frenzy designed to leave the country bankrupt by the time there is a change of government?

And now, below, a synopsis of the Auditor-General’s Report for 2006 … illustrating why the LCDS may be doomed before it began... because of the very real possibility that while government functionaries will end up with $60,000,000 houses (carbon credits or not), the vast majority of the people will probably get ... nothing!

Roger Williams
July 2009


"2006 Auditor General’s report states Govt. abuses public funds … Billions unaccounted for..."
August 8, 2008 By knews Filed Under News:
http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2008/08/08/2006-auditor-general%e2%80%99s-report-states-govt-abuses-public-funds/

"... Despite the fact that the Auditor General Report for Guyana came in one year late, it has proved to be very revealing.

The report on the audited public accounts of Guyana and on the accounts of ministries, departments and regions for the year ending December 31, 2006 has verified a complaint by the Parliamentary Opposition parties regarding the Contingencies Fund.

According to the report presented to the National Assembly by the Auditor General, the Contingencies Fund continued to be abused, with amounts drawn from the Fund being utilised to satisfy expenditure that did not meet the eligibility criteria as defined in the Act.

“According to the statement, amounts totalling $3.945 billion were drawn from the Fund by way of 138 advances….As at 31 December 2006, forty-nine of these advances, totalling $1.721 billion, remained outstanding.

The report, which was made public yesterday, after it was presented to the Speaker the previous week, also noted that amounts totalling $579.438M were shown as contingent liabilities for entities that were no longer in existence, yet the Ministry of Finance and the Accountant General’s Department have still not taken steps to have these liabilities transferred to the public debt.

As regards the affairs at Transport and Harbours Department (T&HD), the Department continued to request, and was granted, blanket waivers to award contracts selectively. This selective tendering was done without the requisite pre-qualification of contactors and the invitation of at least three contractors to bid for these contracts.

The Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation was also cited on the executive summary, and caused raised eyebrows.

According to the Auditor General, GPHC, which is now a separate entity from the Ministry of Health, continued to use the Ministry’s Cabinet approval (funds) to purchase drugs and medical supplies from specialised agencies both local and overseas.

$608.4 M SPENT ON MEDICAL SUPPLIES. HOSPITAL CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASES

“It did not re-tender or obtain a new no-objection from Cabinet for the purchases of drugs and medical supplies…Further, during 2006, amounts totalling $608.406M were expended on drugs and medical supplies…However, the corporation could not totally account for drugs and medical supplies purchased, since there was no central point of accountability.

In relation to Customs and Trade Administration, the Auditor General noted 17 Permits for Immediate Delivery (PID), with a total value of $2.832 billion, had not yet been perfected at the time of the audit in January 2007.

Incoming vessels at ports in Guyana totalled 1,089. However, completed ship’s files in respect of 243 ships were not submitted to the Quality Review Section, and as such, were not made available for audit examination.

$11M PAID FOR ARMS, AMMO IN 2003, YET TO BE DELIVERED

In relation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was noted that a quantity of arms and ammunition, to the value of $11.160M, which were paid for in 2003, had not yet been delivered, nor has the Ministry been able to recover the amount paid.

It was also noted in the report that several ministries and departments also recorded overstatements on their appropriation accounts, and the unspent amounts have not been refunded, “…Subvention agencies not returning the unspent portions of amounts paid over to them for specific expenditure.”

The Auditor General also cited in his report what he called the overpayment of contracts.

Several Ministries and Regions have not recovered amounts overpaid on various contracts in prior periods….In addition, some of these Ministries and Regions, such as, Education, Amerindian Affairs, Regions Two, Three, Six, Seven and Ten continued to have overpayments on various contracts during 2006…One such example was recorded under the Ministry of Education, where $10.982M was overpaid on eleven projects which were mainly for the rehabilitation and extension to schools.”

$13.6M SPENT ON HIRING VEHICLES FROM A PERSON HIRED AS A MAID

In relation to the Guyana Defence Force, it was noted that the Force continued to hire vehicles from a civilian and members of the Force. During 2006, one hundred and one payments, totalling $13.697M, were expended on hiring of vehicles owned by one civilian, who is employed as a maid, and nine members of the Guyana Defence Force.

This was a serious breach of the regulations, which strictly prohibit sponsoring of tenders for Government contracts by Government Officers.

Gifts also raised eyebrows, with the Auditor General noting that the continued lack of reporting and accounting for all gifts to Ministries, Departments and Regions resulted in the miscellaneous receipts of $2.053B at December 31, 2006 being understated by an undetermined amount.

As it relates to bank accounts, several transfers from other accounts to the Consolidated Fund were not effected, and several accounts had overdrafts.

This was documented as follows:
Transfers not effected
(i) The amount of approximately $7.190 billion, representing balances held in 13 special accounts;
(ii) The balance of $34.336M held in the General Account
(iii) The balance of $527.139M held in Non-Sub Accounting Ministries and Departments’ Bank Account
(iv) The balances of 66 inactive bank accounts, of which eight had balances in excess of $100M.

(b)Accounts with overdrafts were identified in two categories:

- the old Consolidated Fund bank account was overdrawn by $46.906 billion at 31 December 2006; and
- Forty-two inactive accounts had overdrafts totalling $685.991M. Of these accounts, 24 were overdrawn by amounts in excess of $1M.

The Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003 (FMA Act) provides for the regulation of the preparation and execution of the annual budget, the receipt, control and disbursement of public monies, and the accounting for public monies, and is the most vital legislation governing the transparent and efficient management of the finances of Guyana.

According to this Act, a number of Public Accounts Statements are required to be prepared and submitted...."

Sunday, July 5, 2009

SUBMISSION TO THE OAS RE JUNE 3 2008 RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY

Context:
The following letter was written to Guyana’s representative to the OAS on August 2, 2008. No response has been received from the local office as at August 20, 2008. It is now submitted to the press on August 21, 2008, with copies to PANCAP and the Attorneys General of CARICOM. This document also represents Part 1 of a response to PANCAP because of its decision in August 2008 to ignore the evidence and recommend the decriminalization of homosexuality and prostitution. Good law is based on good data and evidence, not wishful thinking or artful duplicity.

******************************

Submission to the OAS re June 3 2008 resolution on “HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY”
August 2, 2008

Mr. Dennis Moses
OAS Representative
Guyana Office


Dear Mr. Moses,
As a citizen of a member-country of the OAS, it is with some concern that I viewed the adoption of the resolution on "Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" cited below at the OAS' fourth plenary session held on June 3, 2008. The implications for adoption are enormous, and noticeably injurious to the national ethos of member states.
It is not surprising that the gay-militant community in Guyana, as well as some other activist groups, have begun to see this resolution as a "victory" for their respective communities.
It IS very surprising that the debate at the OAS Secretariat, and its outcome, took place largely outside the knowledge of many citizens of its respective nations. The strange, even illegal, circumstances that operated to completely sideline submissions or contributions by the church and/or opposing organizations and citizens is adequately summarized in the report by the World Congress of Families at http://www.profam.org/press/wcf.pr.080620.htm
In that Press Release, two lines stands out (emphasis mine): ".... According to a Reuters story, members of the OAS met with 20 activists from homosexual groups prior to adopting the resolution. Pro-family organizations were not given an opportunity for input ...."
To what end?
I fear that the end may well be that the OAS has, in this instance, accommodated the wholesale breach of the democratic process through a process that was seemingly not transparent.

It is to be noted that the resolution below starts off on the premise of unspecified “acts of violence” against persons, and ends with a sweeping mandate on “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” This confuses the issue.

I use the words of lawyer and author Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266; p67-107, specifically p. 82-89) to initially frame my objections:

“.... As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from discrimination? Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:

(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault
....”

None of the above criteria seem to have been met for the OAS-resolution.
In addition, therefore, I am concerned at the position of the OAS as it disregards the substantial amount of legal, medical, historical and sociological evidence in several law reviews and other documents that warn about the social degradation that will surely follow a decision to implement said resolution using the "resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources."
I an convinced, however, that the obvious departure from responsible judgement on the part of the OAS is due solely to the fact that its members, and the Secretariat, are not being informed on the substantial amount of information to the contrary.
The sociological evidence against the adoption or implementation of the resolution is substantial, and I offer below a short introduction for your immediate perusal. The eight articles are, in the main, taken from Regent University's “Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" law review series. There are others. My specific requests in writing to you on this occasion follow immediately after.
1. "EDITOR’S NOTE": Regent University's "Homosexuality, Truth Be Told" Law Review Series; ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc )
“.... We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us out because their ideas are shocking–too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing.”

“Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University Of South Carolina School Of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University Of Utah School Of Medicine. And the list goes on.”

“We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children
....”
2. David Lee Mundy, Editor in Chief of the Regent University Law Review Series ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2editorsnote.doc ) …
“.... So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia....”
3. Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ; 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267 2002):
“.... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent....”
4. “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement”, by Steve Baldwin, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 267 (2002) (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc )

5. “Homosexuality: Innate and immutable?” by Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Byrd.doc )

6. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 241 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

7. “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283, 326 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ) .
THIS PARTICULAR LAW REVIEW IS IMPORTANT, SINCE IN ITS "HIDING DIRTY LAUNDRY" SECTION, IT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE RATES OF VIOLENCE WITHIN THE LGBT COMMUNITY IS VASTLY HIGHER THAN ANY IT EXPERIENCES FROM GROUPS WITHOUT. QUITE SIMPLY, IT REFLECTS A PSYCHOSEXUAL DISORDER MANIFESTING ITSELF.

8. “Selling Homosexuality to America”, by Paul Rondeau, 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 443 (2002); ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rondeau.doc )

9. “Why NARTH? The American Psychiatric Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness”, by Ben Kaufman ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc ). 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 423 (2002)

Please note that in the unlikely event of your not being able to access the material cited above, I can supply you with duly referenced alternative sites upon your request.

My specific requests are:

1. That you communicate my concern as a citizen of a member state of the OAS, and a copy of this e-mail, to the representative of every country present at the fourth session as a matter of urgency.

2. That you immediately advise me of any special procedures for representation to your august body that I, as a citizen of a member state, or organizations in/from any member state, have to follow to ensure that my/our objections/concerns are given full audience and hearing before the OAS in plenary session BFORE the OAS considers implementation of the said resolution.
3. I request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the above mentioned evidence, concerns and objections when addressing the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” I/we are prepared to make a larger, more detailed submission should the need arise.

4. I further request that the CJAP publish advertisments in all its member states inviting memoranda from interested parties who disagree with the position adopted by the resolution.

5. I finally request that you advise on the procedural mechanics of seeking a nullification of the said resolution until a specific place in time when all the issues would have been ventilated to the satisfaction of all interested parties. In effect, this means that you should advise the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the INCAPACITY to implement this resolution given this or other submission(s), and to delay/defer its execution.
Yours faithfully
Roger Williams
Georgetown
Guyana
August 1, 2008

E-mail: RogerWilli@Yahoo.com

Cc: The Guyana Council of Churches
The Georgetown Ministers’ Fellowship
The Guyana Evangelical Fellowship
Minister/Ministry of Human Services and Social Security in Guyana
The Trade Union Movement in Guyana
The Head, Guyana Teachers’ Union
The Caribbean Conference of Churches
The Evangelical Association of the Caribbean
The World Evangelical Alliance
The Pentecostal Assemblies of the West Indies
The Secretary General, CARICOM
All political parties in Guyana
The Caribbean media
The country-representatives of all member states of the OAS
The Permanent Representatives/Missions of all member states of the OAS

A copy of the original OAS-resolution follows:

HUMAN RIGHTS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, AND GENDER IDENTITY
(Adopted at the fourth plenary OAS session, held on June 3, 2008)

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, REAFFIRMING:

That the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in that Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status;

That the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that every human being has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person;

CONSIDERING that the OAS Charter proclaims that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of liberty and a favorable environment for the development of his personality and the realization of his just aspirations;

REAFFIRMING the principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence of human rights; and

TAKING NOTE with concern acts of violence and related human rights violations perpetrated against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity,

RESOLVES:

1. To express concern about acts of violence and related human rights violations committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. To request that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs (CAJP) include on its agenda, before the thirty-ninth regular session of the General Assembly, the topic of “Human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

3. To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth regular session on the implementation of this resolution, the execution of which shall be subject to the resources allocated in the program-budget of the Organization and other resources.