I READ with interest the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA)/Bai Shan Lin controversy which claims that the development of the Lamaha Street  embankment is being done at “no cost” to the GRA and as part of Bai Shan Lin’s “Corporate Social Responsibility,” also known as CSR.

Let us examine what CSR is as defined by Berkly University:  “The corporate belief that a company needs to be responsible for its actions – socially, ethically, and environmentally.”
The Harvard University, Kennedy School of Governance, a globally respected academic leader in public policy and public administration launched a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder programme aimed at studying and enhancing  the public contributions of private enterprise. This is what the school had to say about the CSR:
“Corporate social responsibility encompasses not only what companies do with their profits, but also how they make them. It goes beyond philanthropy and compliance and addresses how companies manage their economic, social, and environmental impacts. Companies are facing new demands to engage in public-private partnerships and are under growing pressure to be accountable not only to shareholders, but also to stakeholders such as employees, consumers, suppliers, local communities, policymakers, and society at large.
Government ultimately bears the responsibility for levelling the playing field and ensuring public welfare. In order for corporate social responsibility programmes to work, government and the private sector must construct a new understanding of the balance of public and private responsibility and develop new governance and business models for creating social value.” (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/init_define.html).
Upon examination of the above explanation of CSR by both astute universities, it is obvious that what Bai Shan Lin is doing is nothing more than capitalising on an opportunity for its own corporate gain. By no definition is the company “socially, ethically, and environmentally” responsible nor accountable to us the people of Guyana.
The many articles published about the company demonstrates their absolute disregard for Guyana’s law and process. In a SN article published April 18, the article read: “The Chinese logging company Bai Shan Lin Forest Development Inc has been accused of carrying out unlawful works at Moblissa, Linden, and refusing to sign a Cease Work Order (CWO) served on it by the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC).” This is just one of several cases that has developed since this article.
The following should be noted as the GRA and Mr. Khurshid Sattaur so empathically term Bai Shan Lin’s work as CSR:
1.      Bai Shan Lin is a highly controversial company that has been in one act of public dissidence to another as noted above.
2.      The Embankment was specifically cleared by the GPL stating that it was not a safe area for public use.
3.      While there is no cost to the GRA,  the public will be charged to use the space at a cost we are yet to be told about.
4.      Who will control that cost should the developers choose to up the charges?
5.      How long will Bai Shan Lin have authority to charge the public for use of their own public land?
6.      Is there a contract that specifies any of these arrangements?
7.      And if there is, then the public should be privy to it.

I am all for CSR but to compare the effort of David De Caires and his attempts to beautify Camp Street to what Bai Shan Lin is doing is insulting to De Caires and the goodwill CSR is intended to foster. In addition, Mr Sattaur has established himself as a man of integrity who is a stickler to rules and regulations. His engagement in this debacle now has him pined as somewhat deceitful and dishonest by:
1.      Keeping the arrangement secret from the public
2.      Allowing the use of a publicly unsafe space for the benefit of his office
3.      Justifying the acts of a controversial company by touting Corporate Social Responsibly.
I should note at this point that I am very pleased that efforts are being made to provide much needed services to customers of the GRA. However, it should not be at the cost of insulting public intelligence, jeopardising their lives and then charging them an undisclosed amount for both!

TAMIKA HENRY- WILLIAMS