Speeches in the National Assembly

Dr. Singh: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I rise to make my contribution to this debate this evening on the subject of the Marriot Hotel and in particular on the matter of the utilisation of public moneys on the said hotel development.
Let me say at the very onset of my remarks that I am frankly astonished that political leaders who purport some measure of devotion to the national cause and to the cause of development in our country could in fact come to this House, not to ask for more scrutiny of the project, not to ask for the ultimate degree of openness and transparency of the project, but to in fact demand that the project be halted. That, in and of itself, speaks to the true reason why this Motion is before this House and discloses and unmasks the motivations that underlie the arrival of this Motion before this august Assembly.
Before I come to that matter, permit me to address, because of their freshness in my mind, a few of the specific remarks made by the Hon. Member Mr. Carl Greenidge. I seem to recall that I heard Mr. Greenidge refer to some cloak of secrecy, I believe was the phrase he used, and attached this cloak of secrecy that he perceives to exist to the Marriot project. Setting aside for the moment the fact that the realities of our country’s history, specifically, as it relates to openness and transparency and accountability, would disqualify Mr. Greenidge from speaking on any matter pertaining to openness. Setting aside that Mr. Greenidge has the dubious distinction of being the only Finance Minister in the history of our country not to have had a single set of audited accounts tabled in the National Assembly in relation to the period of his tenure...
Mr. Greenidge: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please stick to the truth; this is a complete fiction. We have spoken on this already. It is untrue.
Dr. Singh: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat. The Hon. Member Mr. Greenidge became Finance Minister in October 1983 and he demitted office in October 1992. It is a matter of public factual record that audited accounts, and indeed a matter of public notoriety, that audited accounts in relation to the years 1983 to 1992 never made their way to this National Assembly.
Mr. Greenidge: Mr. Speaker, if Dr. Singh does not want to be interrupted in this manner, I would recommend that he sticks to the truth. I have before me the table of accounts laid in this Parliament as prepared by the Clerk of the National Assembly. I am sure that he will verify for it.
Mr. Speaker: Could I have a copy of that please?
Dr. Singh: When was 1983 laid or 1984?
Mr. Speaker: This is an ongoing issue. Maybe I should be furnished with a copy. Mr. Clerk did you do a schedule that I can see please. This is going to go on for the life of the Tenth Parliament. The Clerk will provide me with the record. Proceed Dr. Singh.
Dr. Singh: Mr. Speaker, the facts speaks for themselves. The Hon. Member refers to a table but studiously avoided telling this House when the 1983, 1984 or the 1985 accounts were tabled. Instead of utilising the time afforded to him during his point of order to tell us of the existence of a table, he could equally have disclosed to this House on what date the audited accounts for 1984 or 1985 0r 1986 tabled. I maintain that they were not tabled.
I would go further. The Hon. Member spoke of NICIL and privatisation and sought inappropriately to cast aspersions on the integrity with which this Government has managed the privatisation process and to cast aspersions on the accountability with which this process have been executed. Once again, the matter of accountability and transparency and privatisation transactions is matter upon which Mr. Greenidge has no moral authority to speak.
Mr. Anand Goolsarran, the former Auditor General, who the Opposition has developed quite a penchant for quoting is on public record for saying that Mr. Greenidge refused him permission to audit privatisation transactions. To borrow a word used by the Hon. Member Mr. Ramjattan, it remains uncontroverted.
Mr. Greenidge: Mr. Speaker, we have been on this route before. President Jagdeo himself repeated the untruth. Our colleagues are so predictable. We are aware that as soon as they have to answer concretely, they are going to find a bogie. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, the correspondence referred to by Mr. Goolsarran, a letter from myself to Mr. Goolsarran, a letter from the Solicitor General to Mr. Goolsarran, and if you wish I can read them for you. What in essence I am saying to you is that the letter nowhere instructs to Mr. Goolsarran not to...
Mr. Speaker: You rose on a Point of Order because the Minister is quoting Mr. Goolsarran and you are rebutting. It seems to me that what you need is a press conference because you have Mr. Goolsarran on the outside saying statements and you have letters. For us to stop this debate and enter into the dialogues as to the exchange of letters... These are statements being made by Mr. Goolsarran on the outside of this House and you can rebut them. Dr. Singh, can we move on? I say we move on. 
Dr. Singh: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.  [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: I suggest you move on.
Dr. Singh: I must confess some measure of disappointment that the Hon. Member moved with such alacrity to adopt your advice, because I was about to disclose how far divorced he is from the truth in general. The Hon. Member Mr. Carl Greenidge had the audacity to say that the Marriot International parent company has not endorsed the Guyana project. So the world at large would know how closely wedded or how far divorced, by tendency, Mr. Greenidge is from the truth. I will read the press release issued by Marriot International on 20th June, 2010. The press release is headed “Georgetown Marriot Hotel to Open in 2013 Seeking Lead Status” et cetera. (My print is a little poor.) The first paragraph says:
“Marriot International Inc. announced today that it will open its first Marriot branded hotel in Guyana in 2012.
The 150–room Georgetown Marriot Hotel is on track to receive LEAD certification – meaning Leadership and Environment Design Certification - from the United States Green Building Council, and is on track to be the Marriot’s first lead hotel in the Caribbean and Latin America.”
To clarify that we are speaking about the same property, the press release goes on to say:
“It will operate under a management agreement with Atlantic Hotel Inc. (AHI). AHI is currently owned by the Government of Guyana as part of a public/private partnership between the Government of Guyana and private sector investors.”
And the press release goes on. In fact, no less a person than the Regional Vice President of Marriot International Inc. attended and spoke at the turning of the sod ceremony last year in Kingston. For a front bench Member of the Opposition to come to this House to ignore… I cannot imagine that those facts could have escaped the Hon. Member. So the inescapable conclusion is that the Hon. Member chose conveniently to set those facts aside, by design, to mislead the people of Guyana on this matter. And it is understandable that in the contest for political space the Hon. Member may want to score a political point here and there, but to misrepresent or ignore these facts which are in the public domain is most deplorable, particularly coming from a prominent front bench Member of the Opposition; and in the words of Mr. Ramjattan, from a former Minister of Finance.
The Hon. Member went on to speak about not knowing what the tendered price was. I will remind Members of this Hon. House that the civil works contract for the Marriot Hotel was, in fact, the subject of a public tender. This tender was opened in full view of the public. The price was announced publicly. It is not a matter of secret how much the Hotel will cost. It is not a secret who tendered. It is not a secret when the advertisement was placed. In fact, we have all of those records – every advertisement, every bid received. Indeed, thanks to a question asked by the Hon. Member Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, I believe in February or March of this year, this Government tabled an answer.  In fact I had the honour, on behalf of this People’s Progressive Party/Civic Government, of tabling a comprehensive answer to all of the questions asked by Mr. Ramjattan.      [Mr. Ramjattan: It has to come here.]        It came here. Here is where I answered the questions. I did not answer them in the media like Mr. Greenidge is doing now. I answered them in this House. The Hon. Member Mr. Ramjattan asked for copies of the agreement between the Government and the China Shanghai Construction Group. We made available the agreement between Atlantic Hotel Inc. and Shanghai Construction Group. That agreement was tabled in this House. He asked for other agreements executed by Atlantic Hotel Inc. and we tabled the tax agreement, the investment agreement, and the lease agreement. The Hon. Member asked also whether there was a feasibility study and in a written answer – which I hope the Hon. Member read because we took time to answer this question – to this House, and in particular to Mr. Ramjattan in response to his question, I said the following on behalf of the Government:
“Yes, there was a market feasibility study conducted by the Marriot Hotel Group and one conducted in 2000 by an independent American firm which was updated in 2012. There is also a draft ESIA Report which is awaiting final issuance by the EPA pending the receipt of building permission. These documents are confidential at this time, however, the Government is willing to have a closed door presentation that will allow certain details of these documents to be made available under the condition of utmost confidentiality, and discussed with key Opposition Members without these documents being made public.”
Mr. Speaker, this was tabled in this House in March. A public commitment on the part of Government, by interpretation and invitation, to have a discussion to answer any questions asked and to share any level of detail with the understanding there were certain confidentiality clauses applicable to these particular documents. That offer remains. And I am saying on behalf of the Government of Guyana that we have absolutely no difficulty with any degree of scrutiny of this project. [Interruption] The Hon. Member seems to be unacquainted with certain business practices. The fact of the matter is that certain agreements are confidential by their very nature. If the Hon. Member is really interested in knowing the facts and not pursuing instead a political circus, then he will not have any objection to coming to a meeting and receiving those details. But he is not really interested in the information; he is interested in a political charade. I maintain that this Government is willing to meet with any Member of this House and show any level of detail on this project. I maintain that. But the fact of the matter is that it is not really the agreement Mr. Ramjattan is interested in. 
Mr. Ramjattan started his presentation by using a US analogy. It was a most interesting analogy. I would like to borrow from his and offer one of my own. Imagine a prominent US legislator going into one of the US Houses and seeking actively to block, to obstruct, to bring to a halt, a prominent national project that will create jobs, generate income and transform an entire sector, catapult an entire sector. Imagine it is disclosed that mere months earlier the sole competitor at the premium end of the market published a full page advertisement endorsing the very political leader that now seeks to obstruct this project which will come into competition with a major sponsor and supporter of his Party. Imagine the political scandal in the United States of America. He would have had to resign at the very least. Imagine a full page advertisement mere months ago... The fact of the matter is that the position taken by the Alliance For Change (AFC) on the Marriot Hotel has its root in this full page advertisement taken…
Mr. Speaker: You are not suggesting a no-confidence motion by any chance.
Dr. Singh: That remains an option Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is if this was to transpire in the United States of America it would have been a matter of grave embarrassment to the party with which you, Sir, are associated. I do not know you, Sir, to be a man who would condone such behaviour. (Held up a photocopy of news article) Endorsements of the alliance for Change by a standing Mr. Robert Badal, owner of the Pegasus Hotel; Sunday Stabroek, 6th, November, 2011! [Interruptions]The fact of the matter is that this is political patronage and croonism at its worst.
Mr. Speaker: One second. Hon. Members, could I be allowed to hear Dr. Singh in his presentation? I need your compliance, please.
Dr. Singh: Mr. Speaker, I understand their agitation and embarrassment on this matter. This, I would say, goes down as a tragic day in our country’s political history because it is his worst example of political croonism and political corruption. Let me say this, Mr. Badal as a citizen of Guyana is perfectly entitled to support any party of his choice. That is not the issue. The issue is for Mr. Badal’s support to the Alliance For Change to be immediately converted into that Party taking an intractable, inflexible position to oppose a project in which Mr. Badal has a financial interest. We will always defend Mr. Badal’s right of freedom of political association, but we will condemn when vested interests are protected and served in this crass and vulgar manner. I will not add to this. I believe this is compelling. This is as compelling an expose as is needed as it relates to the AFC’s motivations as it relates to the Marriot. I will not introduce at the current time the fact that Mr. Ramjattan is also known to have represented Mr. Badal as a legal counsel. That is a different matter altogether.
Mr. Speaker, driven by this highly questionable basis, the arguments presented by the opposition wondered from the spurious to the opportunistic. I will highlight just a couple of examples of why I say this. Mr. Ramjattan cites the Constitution and says that the Constitution refers to all being moneys paid the Consolidated Fund. One would have thought he was quoting verbatim from the Constitution in the manner of his presentation. Except, if one were to examine the article to which Mr. Ramjattan was referring he rather conveniently omitted a significant part of the article contained within parenthesis. I will read what that article says in its fullness. I refer here to the same article as Mr. Ramjattan, but on this occasion it will not be truncated for opportunistic and expedient political purposes; it will be read in its fullness. Article 216 says:
“All revenues or other moneys raised or received by Guyana (not being revenues or other moneys that are payable, by or under an Act of parliament, into some other fund established for any specific purpose or that may, by or under such an Act, be retained by the authority that received them for the purpose of defraying the expenses of that authority) shall be paid into and form one Consolidated Fund.”
NICIL was registered as a company under the Companies Act. NICIL like any other company is entitled to retain its revenues. If one were to follow Mr. Ramjattan’s argument, every Government company would be required to pay all its revenues into the Consolidated Fund. If one were to follow Mr. Ramjattan’s argument every Euro generated by the sale of a ton of sugar by GuySuCo will have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund because GuySuCo is a Government company.  The proceeds, of the sale of every gallon of gas by Guyoil will have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. These are Government companies. If Mr. Ramjattan has a problem with the statutes which allow Government to establish companies then he must pursue that matter through the appropriate avenue. He must abolish the option to establish Government companies. But as long as there is a Companies Act which governs the operations of companies, and as long as that Companies Act permits the establishment of Government companies, and as long as companies are entitled to retain their revenues to fund their operations NICIL is no different from GuySuCo, Guyana Power and Light (GPL), Guyoil, National Shipping, and so many other Government companies which retain their revenues and fund their operations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is no collision with the laws of Guyana. In fact, NICIL has transferred over the years in excess of $20 billion to the Consolidated Fund.
The Hon. Member again opportunistically, if you will permit that, Sir, refers to NICIL’s legal authority for vesting of property by vesting order. One would have thought that given the profession he practices the Hon. Member would have been acquainted with legal notices published, and would probably even retain a record of legal notices published and pay keen attention to them, particularly given he has been in public life for so long, and political life in this Parliament. One can only assume he is acquainted with these facts. The Hon. Member seeks to make a distinction between public corporations and companies – a distinction that indeed exists – and goes on to say that NICIL, as a Government company, cannot exercise the authorities granted to public corporations under the Public Corporations Act. I do not know whether it was by accident or by design, and I would not like to think, Sir, because he is a political colleague of yours it was by design, but there is a certain Section 66 of the Public Corporation’s Act 1988. That Section 66 says as follows:
“The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, apply any provision of this Act without modification, or with such modifications as may be specified therein, to anybody corporate not being a corporation owned by the state, or in which the controlling interests vests in the state, or in any agency on behalf of the state.”
Section 66 goes on in its second subsection to say:
“That any provision of this  Act applied to any body corporate under subsection (1)(that subsection which I just read) shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any written law other than that provision so applied or in any contract or other instrument.”
That, Sir, is in the Public Corporation’s Act.
Furthermore, on 12th August, 2000 there was published in the Official Gazette notification made under the Public Corporations Act, and signed by no less a person than his Excellency the President saying that in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 66 of the Public Corporations Act, etcetera, it is hereby notified that Section 5, etcetera, shall be deemed, with effect from 10th July 2000, to apply to the National Industrial and Commercial Investment limited. The Official Gazette of 12th August, 2000 contains that notification. So for a legal practitioner, and again a prominent political figure, to come to this House and to argue that somehow something amiss has taken place can only be done by design to mislead the people of Guyana. It could only have been with the design of advancing this partisan, antinational political cause. That is what this is all about – pursuing a partisan, antinational political cause. That is what is going on here.     [Mr. Ali: Wait, Mr. Ramjattan going.]     Is he going to speak to the media too?  Mr. Greenidge has them occupied, I am sure. Perhaps, you should give him some time.
I will say this, we have as a Government demonstrated abundant willingness to answer any question asked on this project. In fact, no less a person than His Excellency The President convened a meeting on the Amaila Falls project, and we had the distinguished presence of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, for which we were grateful. There were front bench members from the AFC, and detailed technical presentations were made; every single question asked was answered and His Excellency The President extended an open invitation. He said, “Go away, consult your advisers, and return with any questions you may have to follow up”. His Excellency’s invitation remains open but tragically unanswered. Because the reality is that political stances, such as those taken by the Alliance For Change on this matter, have nothing to do with openness and transparency.
What I am about to say should be fairly evident to all and sundry, but I will say it. We are in a contest for political space. The Opposition is preoccupied with the fact that if there are positive developments under the People’ Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Government the PPP/C will look good.  If jobs are created, new hotels are constructed, and hydro-power is harnessed, the PPP/C will look good. The people will be further endeared. We are already endeared to the people of Guyana but the PPP/C will be further endeared to the people of Guyana, and they will continue to be banished in the wilderness of opposition.
The reality is that what you are seeing playing out here is not a project being assessed on its merits. The reality is what you are seeing is not a project which is being assessed to see if it is good for Guyana, if is it good for the people of Guyana, will this create jobs, will it generate income, will it make our country a modern country. How can one compare a five star Marriot Hotel with any other hotel property in Guyana? There is no hotel in Guyana, the Pegasus included – one must give due regard to the fact that the Pegasus has served our country with distinction for a number of years – but even the proprietor of the Pegasus would not suggest his hotel is currently…  In fact, despite the arguments made about the hotel industry having excess capacity and so on, the very proprietor of the Pegasus Hotel is investing significant moneys in upgrading his own property, recognising the bright prospects of the industry and the bright prospects of Guyana.      [Mr. Nagamootoo:  You just curse the man.]      I did not curse the man; absolutely not. Mr. Badal is a member of the private sector.      [Mr. Nagamootoo:  You just curse the man.]        I did not. Let me say clearly for the record, I emphasise that Mr. Badal enjoys, like every citizen of Guyana, the right of freedom political association. If there was any rebuke at all, Sir, it was for the crass use of the parliamentary vote to advance political causes; not Mr. Badal. Mr. Badal is not sitting in this House using his vote to advance his own interest. It is Mr. Ramjattan that is doing that. The reality that we are witnessing here is a contest for political space. And the Alliance For Change is taking a position that no matter how good this project is for Guyana, no matter how many jobs it will create, no matter how many people will provide services and generate multiplier benefits for the economy of Guyana, because the Alliance For Change has a vested interest in stopping competition for the Pegasus Hotel the Alliance For Change has no shame in coming to this Hon. House and seeking to stop this project.
Mr. Speaker: Your time is up Hon. Member.
Mr. Hinds: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member be given fifteen minutes to continue his presentation.
Question put and agreed to.
Dr. Singh: Recall, Sir, as I said earlier, permit me to repeat it. We were not asked for additional information here. We were not asked for enhanced scrutiny. We were not asked for testimony before the Economic Services Committee or any other mechanism that exists. We were told, kill the project.      [Mrs. Backer: Did you offer those things?]        Of course we did.                           [Mrs. Backer: When?]        We said clearly we are inviting the Opposition to ask us any question. We said that in a parliamentary answer that I tabled. I tabled on 12th March, 2012, in writing, an invitation for us to be asked any question. That invitation was never acted upon. Instead, the Alliance For Change comes now and says we must stop this project in its tracks with great haste. Mr. Speaker, I will say this, despite the invectives being thrown from that corner of the House – and that is all they know about – I see the Leader of the Opposition maintaining a very dignified silence and I hope he will rise to the occasion and dissociate his Party from this vulgar abuse of the parliamentary vote tonight. This is an opportunity for the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) to say we will not be branded with the same cronyism brush of the Alliance for Change. This is an opportunity for the APNU to say we do not wish to be painted by that brush. I call on the leadership of the APNU to join us in roundly rejecting this motion which is designed, like I said, to pursue narrow partisan interest, and, in fact, is counter to the interest of the people of Guyana.
Thank you very much, Sir. [Applause]