THE Chinese company BaiShanLin has been in the news quite a lot. For me, the controversies surrounding this company point to two very important aspects of our political economy. First, it was revealed by the forensic audits that the company acquired a number of other companies over a period of time. This resulted in a monopoly in the forestry sector, which in turn amounts to an unfair advantage over other competitors; which runs counter to the notion of a developmental model that centres around the encouragement of local investments.

Foreign investments should be encouraged, we need them; but such investments should not structurally undermine local small and medium-scale initiatives. Foreign companies are never known for leaving much of their profits in the countries in which they invest. So it is imperative that the host countries do not afford them such control, as BiShanLin was granted by the previous government.

I know that contemporary economic praxis no longer favours nationalism, but I still think that the interests of our people and our country must be front and centre when negotiating with foreign companies.

The second issue has to do with the fact that BiShanLin’s acquisition of the companies was in violation of the Forest Act. That the then government permitted this is really the unkindest cut. How can you allow a foreign company to break, with such impunity, the laws of the country you were elected to govern? Where was the Guyana Forestry Commission? In effect, we elected a government to appropriate the country’s resources for itself and its local friends, and to give away the rest to its foreign friends. These people are not nationalists.

Why was BaiShanLin allowed, for eight years, to hold on to a contract without setting up the promised facility? This is a trend which we also saw in the building sector. No wonder BiShanLin has had such a bad record when it comes to upholding proper labour standards. We now know that the company is a sacred cow. It is not unreasonable to conclude that this company has, for the past decade, been very much part of the web of corruption in Guyana. One has to ask what did those who were tasked with managing the forest sector get from BiShanLin in return for turning a blind eye and/or facilitating its unfair dominance in violation of the law.

I am very clear in my mind that those concessions must be recovered. I am also in full support of the recommendations by the auditor that the contract be terminated. We may be poor, but we must have some dignity. Our governments should not be allowed to sell out our natural resources in exchange for the personal enrichment of a few.

There needs to be a national revolt against this blatant high class rape of our country. From BiShanLin to the broadcast licences to the land giveaways on the East Bank and elsewhere, our country was stolen in front of our eyes. There is a linkage between these corrupt, unlawful acts and our substandard education and health systems, and our bad roads and poor drainage, and the high level of poverty in our country.

This is a very serious matter that demands prompt and decisive remedial action from the Government.

CRISIS OF THE IMAGINATION
We in Guyana have had our fair share of political clumsiness, but we are at our worst in this regard whenever we attempt to discuss, in the public arena, anything that has to do with race. The latest exchange between Eric Phillips and Gail Teixeira is a classic case. Phillips said two very straightforward things. First, that there is anthropological evidence that Africans may have been in Guyana longer than we have been led to believe. Second, based on this and other evidence, they are entitled to their fair share of land in Guyana.

Rather than have a debate on the issues raised, Teixeira and others concluded that Phillips was attacking Amerindians, and as such he is racist. Why can’t we engage the virtues or the demands of one ethnic group without interpreting them as attacks on another ethnic group? So what if we discover that Black People were here at the same time as Amerindians, or before? We will just have two “First Peoples”, that’s all.

How does this diminish Amerindians? Are the Amerindians’ only claim to legitimacy in Guyana premised on the fact that they are “First People?” We need to grow up when it comes to talking about the implications of our ethnic condition; we are acting like a 5- year-old rather than a 50-year-old people.

Last week, I made an observation that is plain for all to see — that the vast number of individuals who benefited from the PPP’s unlawful transfer of state resources into private hands are from one ethnic group. It sent some people crazy. Here comes Hinds with his racism!

Immediately, the gatekeepers of our “ethnic properness” reached for their weapons of censorship; such libel must not reach the public sphere. All I ask is this: why do they fear the Open Word? Why do they fear a discussion about the consequences of our history?

Bob Marley declared in his celebrated song “Babylon System” that “We are what we are, and that’s the way it’s going to be/ You can’t educate us for no equal opportunity.” Despite all our attempts at “educating” Guyanese about the dangers of voting race, they continue to do so. Why can’t they vote for so-called non-racial or multi-racial parties, we ask.

We, the Guyanese political and intellectual elite, suffer from a crisis of the imagination. We want easy answers. If Guyanese do not vote race, then we won’t have much work to do. Because we have become intellectually lazy, we cannot push our collective mind to figure out how to take the so-called racial vote and turn it into a positive force for change in Guyana. That kind of work calls for the ability to imagine a condition different from and beyond the obvious — like the enslaved who freed themselves from slavery because they imagined a world beyond the slave plantation.

Our primary task, to my mind, is not to stop people from voting PPP and PNC, but to construct a reality in which voting PPP and PNC does not lead to paramountcy of the party and criminalization of the State.

Two Buxtonian Gifts to Guyana
This past week, several of my fellow Buxtonians returned to their ancestors. As the Annandale Brethren and Sisterin would say: “Congo Creole/See them ah go Way/One by One.” I remember all of them, but I want to say a word about the two public ones. Clyde Roopchand taught me in Common Entrance class at the then St Anthony’s Roman Catholic School, now Friendship Primary. We learned the force of discipline and the importance of education from him, and most importantly, he taught us to love and cherish community. Had he remained a teacher, he would have been an equally towering force. His abiding interest in uplifting the people of Buxton never waned.

Our paths didn’t cross much after I left primary school, and he stopped teaching; but whenever we met, we remembered the common root — the teacher/student relationship survived the passage of time. Our last meeting was last August, when we bumped into each other in Minister Winston Jordan’s office. I was glad to see my old teacher again, and he excitedly declared to the Minister that I was his student; that he had helped to shape whom I have become. I was humbled. He asked me to accompany him to his office, where we talked for the next half-hour about how to reignite educational excellence and skills’ acquisition in Buxton. Some of our shared ideas may have since been initiated in the village. Sirroop, as we schoolchildren nicknamed him, was one of our cherished gifts to Guyana.

When Vibert Cambridge texted me on Monday to ask if Haslyn Parris had died, I had not heard the news. I would later confirm the sad news after a few calls to Buxton. Even as a little child, I had heard the name mentioned as a “bright boy.”

I came to know Haslyn better when he returned to Buxton to live. Our conversations were short, but always ended with a hard question from him that set my head spinning. Our last face-to-face meeting was also last August when he attended one of our Emancipation Forums in Buxton. We were elated that he was there, largely because he did not participate much in village politics.

He spoke at the forum and challenged us to think about the problematics of ethnic and civic identities, and the implications for Guyana. I told him that we would use his skills and experience more in the village, and he said that his support was guaranteed.

I would encounter him for the last time a few weeks ago, when I was invited to share my thoughts on Constitutional Reform with the Task Force of which he was a member.

He had become one of our foremost constitutionalists despite the fact that he was not a formally trained lawyer. He was, to the very end, one of our most brilliant minds.

More of Dr. Hinds ‘writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com