APNU-AFC latest ‘collateral damage’ act ends up costing Guyana $1.2B

OLD Kai can only describe the actions of the joint opposition against Guyanese as reckless. But that is to be expected, as they are only confirming my contentions all along that they lack leadership qualities; are insincere; and, most of all, would destroy this country if they feel it would make the PPP/C Government look bad.They have no sense of patriotism, and do not have the energy or the commitment to dig down in the trenches and work hard for the benefit of the Guyanese people. It was never their style; maybe this is so because they have never won an election in the history of our nation, but that is no reason to give up and try to punish the entire population because of their failures and mistakes.

How can any right-thinking citizen ever vote for ‘if he is against us, destroy him even if he is your own brother’; ‘our steel is sharper than yours’; ‘making Guyana ungovernable’; ‘mo fiyah, slow fiyah’; ‘collateral damage’, ‘a blood war’ and ‘jook fuh jook policies’?

But this is the historical strategy the opposition seems most comfortable with, so who is Old Kai to tell them otherwise.

The latest manifestation of this opposition strategy is seen in the recent ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice that the environmental tax collected by the Guyana Revenue Authority from Surinamese beverage company Rudsia contravened the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas; the court ordered Guyana to repay the company some $1.2B. This tax was introduced in February 1995 and stipulated that “an environmental tax shall be levied at the rate of 10 dollars on every unit of alcoholic or non-alcoholic item imported into Guyana.”

The PPP/C Government, in 2012/2013, sought to amend the tax to bring it into conformity with regional and international trade agreements. Speaking to the media on May 23, 2013, after the APNU and AFC had teamed up to vote down the amendment in the National Assembly, Minister within the Ministry of Finance, Juan Edghill, had stated thus: “The amendment is seeking to amend the First Sschedule of the Customs Act by the deletion of Section 7 (a), and to implement the new legislation for the administration of the environmental tax. It is intended to bring Guyana in compliance with its obligations under the Treaty of Chaguaramas and the World Trade Organisation Convention.”

He had warned since then that “the issues, however, here is that the environmental tax as currently applied here by Guyana has been determined by the Council for Trade and Economic Development of Caricom to be discriminatory on the ground that it applies to imports only and not on domestically-produced goods.”

The amendment would have seen the tax being applied on both imported and local non-returnable beverage containers, but with the tax rate being reduced from $10 to $5, which, according to the Ministry, would “allow the tax to remain revenue-neutral and to render the legislation non-applicable on beverages exported from Guyana.”

However, the opposition had sought to play down the likely consequences on Guyana, and APNU’s financial expert, Carl Greenidge, actually said they were “doing Government a favour” by their non-support.

Following the CCJ ruling, it appears that the APNU financial tsar has not changed his position, and remains firm in not supporting the amendment, despite his inability to point to the specifics in the bill which he was not in agreement with, save to say that the private sector must be consulted.

But, back in 2013, Minister Edghill had revealed that consultations with the private sector were indeed held; and he was also quoted by the media as addressing efforts by Greenidge to find frivolous excuses to stall the reading of the bill.

“Up until today’s sitting, when I was approached again for a deferral by Mr Greenidge, no substantive objection to this bill was made. I don’t believe that this is a matter that would attract any significant controversy, or it’s a matter that is set in any difficult circumstances.”

Despite the obvious and impending consequences on Guyana, Carl Greenidge was quoted in the media, a few days ago, as maintaining APNU’s non-support for the amendment; but, strange enough, he now claims that the Government has to fix the tax, which is discriminatory.

“Caricom opposed Guyana’s imposition of a tax that was discriminatory. That’s what the government has to fix. It has nothing to do with the opposition. We have no intention of changing that position.”

As you would have read earlier, this is precisely what the Government was trying to address in 2013 when Mr. Greenidge and colleagues voted down the amendment without providing an explanation.

But only in Guyana would the ‘independent’ media allow the opposition to get away with such a glaring contradiction in their public pronouncements and actions.

In the meantime, $1.2B in resources, which could have been spent in providing development projects for citizens across the country, would possibly be denied, compliments of the opposition.