Dear Editor,

I AM all for free speech regardless of race, socioeconomic background or geographical location. Unfortunately, in Guyana, some folks do not believe in that. Today’s letter is hopefully to initiate a national debate on this issue.

Let me start this debate with a snippet of a Facebook post by Terrence Campbell formally of ANUG. “I am especially angered when it is advanced by those who have ‘no skin in the game’ locally. The taxes paid by the private sector are critical for the provision of social services and development of Guyana.”

Mr Campbell was erroneously arguing that Guyanese in the diaspora are arguing that the PSC should not be commenting on local politics. Mr. Campbell is being disingenuous with the facts. That’s not what we are saying. That’s not what Rickford Burke and I have said. What was being argued by Rickford Burke, myself and thousands in the diaspora, is that the Private Sector Commission (PSC) should not be political biased, and should not be getting into matters of the Constitution in 2019, when they disregarded similar matters pre-2015.

In our humble opinion, their role in politics is to engage the government to create a better business environment. Komal Singh, the secretary of the PSC, articulated those views very well. I will quote him verbatim. “We have not been the leader in the past when we had constitutional breach, so why should we be the leader now? I am sure there was a very good reason in the past why the PSC was never so vocal.”

I will also paraphrase one of his statements as was written in the printed media, “He said if members of the commission are interested in preserving the PSC as an engine of growth, they should, instead, lobby government for a better business environment.”- Guyana Chronicle. That’s the very argument we have been putting forward all along.

I would now provide rebuttal to Mr. Campbell’s argument, by making a closer, evidence-based examination at Guyanese in the diaspora. In an article written in the Guyana Chronicle on 23rd July 2016 titled, “The migration of tertiary-educated Guyanese,” the statistics on migration was highlighted. Mr. Editor, I do wish to quote verbatim a paragraph: “The news that 93 per cent of persons migrating from Guyana have a tertiary education cannot be comforting. As Education Minister Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine opined, it is a national tragedy.”

From those statistics, it is obvious that the vast majority of the smartest and brightest Guyanese are outside of Guyana. That’s a fact Mr. Campbell. Someone who is analytical and has Guyana’s interest at heart, would look at the facts closer, would analyse the facts and would ask the following questions.

1. Why are most of our smartest and brightest leaving?
2. What can Guyana do to have those professionals return to help develop Guyana?
3. How can we get them involved and engaged in Guyana’s development-tapping in on those first world knowledge and skills?
4. What suggestions can they provide to stop this brain drain?

With this simplistic and tribal approach being articulated by Terrence Campbell and others, namely Freddie Kissoon, Gerry Gouveia, Kit Nascimento and many others, it would have one inevitable outcome- alienate overseas based Guyanese. Terrence and others may not wish to hear this, but it has to be said, albeit in a humble manner. Guyanese in the diaspora don’t need Guyana. Guyana needs them. No country can develop when 93 per cent of the tertiary educated have migrated. The fact is that a country’s greatest resource is its human resources. Forget about the natural resources, without the appropriate skills they will all go to waste, or foreigners would have to be employed to fill that gap in the professional labour market.

Let me now examine the paying of taxes argument postulating by Terrence Campbell. Unfortunately, he is not the only one with that ridiculous argument. Gerry Gouveia, Freddie Kissoon, Kit Nascimento among others, have put forward that weak argument. There are many others all over social media championing this weak argument. When they are challenged to defend it in an intellectual debate, they struggle. A good advert as to why that 93 per cent is desperately needed.

Let me digress a bit, to provide international evidence as to why this argument of paying tax is impotent at best, and will require a good dose of viagra to help it stand up to scrutiny.

One of the first steps Donald Trump took when he went into government was to change the corporate tax laws. Apple, a big American company was having most of its trillions of US dollars in Asia, since the tax involved in transferring such monies to America was too high. A reduction in those corporate taxes encouraged Apple to transfer those monies to America. Overseas-based Americans are contributing to America, despite being overseas. Forward thinking, may I add.

America has been placing pressure on Guyana and many countries, to have systems in place to make sure American companies pay American corporate tax. Overseas-based Americans are contributing to their country, despite being overseas. Again, it forward thinking. My point is that an American can live and have companies overseas but can still contribute to his country. Should they also be banished from commenting on Trump’s policies because they reside overseas?

Back to the substantive issue at hand: To stimulate this debate, I would humbly ask Terrence Campbell and whoever may choose to respond to this letter the following questions.

1. What taxes are they alluding to?
2. What percentage of Guyana’s GDP does this local tax make up?
3. How does this compare to monies and taxes coming from the diaspora?
4. Can a Guyanese own a local business, pay tax but yet reside overseas? Should his geographical location exclude him from commenting on local politics? How would you identify such a person, as the gate keepers of local political commentaries, so as to provide him/her a permit to comment?

5. In your businesses, how many of the products are locally produced?
6. Your car, SUV or jeep, where are they produced? If Guyanese, who are foreigners in your books, are excluded from any role in Guyana, then why are you driving foreign cars?
7. Can a Guyanese be in a cave in Afghanistan, but yet be up to date with what is happening in Guyana via technology, hence, can make an informed contribution to Guyana? In the apartheid struggle in South Africa, were South Africans in the diaspora excluded from making political commentaries, in view of the fact that they were not living and paying taxes in South Africa? What about international countries and organisations.

They were not paying “tax” in South Africa, do you think apartheid, one of the worse post-slavery political systems, would have be toppled without their input?
8. Which other country has that philosophy of excluding their nationals from commenting on local politics once they migrated? It does not happen in Europe, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand to name a few.
9. What evidence you have that it will work in Guyana? That that’s what is best for Guyana?

10. From 2020, Exxon will be paying the most “tax” in Guyana. With tax being the criteria for a voice in Guyana, should they have the biggest voice and the biggest say?
11. Are Guyanese working in other Caribbean countries, which is part of the CSME, also excluded? If yes, why?
12. Can an overseas-based Guyanese have properties in Guyana that he/she is paying significant “tax” on. As a result of you making that broad statement that Guyanese in the diaspora do not pay tax looks ridiculous?

13. In terms of the members of the PSC, how much does overseas-based Guyanese contribute to your businesses? The last time I was in Guyana I spent over US$2000US on travelling to Kaieteur Falls and Baganara. I think a significant percentage of that went to Gerry Gouveia’s business. I spent over US$1000 in subscription to Stabroek News over the years. I spent thousands on Church’s Chicken, KFC, at multiple petrol stations and supermarkets etc. All these services I paid value-added tax. All these companies are members of the PSC. Oh yes. On leaving I paid airport tax. Does that count or only this nebulous and ignorant term “tax” is what counts?

14. Mr. Campbell et al, please provide one example where an overseas-based Guyanese made or wrote a statement that was illegal and would adversely affect Guyana? I suspect Mr. Campbell was alluding to Rickford Burke and my informed writing on the economic boycott of the PSC.

Let me educate Mr. Campbell and in extension, the PSC of economic boycott. It is not divisive as Gerry Gouveia has argued. It has been around for centuries for people whose voices are not being heard.

Perhaps the world’s oldest boycott was by Aristophanes when he wrote Lysistrata. Tired of the endless Pelopennisian war, Lysistrata convinces the women of Athens to barricade themselves in the Acropolis, thereby denying their husbands sex until they negotiated peace with Sparta. The end result was inevitable. Hitting men where it hurts. The war on the battle fields ended in one second, in fear of losing the “war” in the bedroom.

The term economic boycott originated at the time of the Irish Land War in the late 19th century. Captain Charles Boycott was a land agent who was shunned after refusing to negotiate with tenants. The entire town stopped doing business with him eventually driving him out of town. That may happen to the PSC if they do not listen and transform. Just remember it happened to Kashif and Shanghai.

In 1955 Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The bus company lost 65 per cent of their income and the boycott was the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. The small act of defiance and the boycott that followed, eventually led to the Supreme Court declaring that Alabama and Montgomery’s laws requiring segregated buses was unconstitutional. The birth of “I have a dream”

In 1986 the International Marine Mammal Project began a campaign to make people aware of tuna fishing practices that were killing dolphins. Economic boycott was done against offending companies. Four years later, the three biggest tuna companies agreed to stop selling tuna caught using the dolphin scooping method. That means that now, 90 per cent of the tuna sold in the US, is caught using methods that don’t harm dolphins. Long live the dolphins. And they are many others populating history.

The point is that economic boycott has been an effective tool for the masses that are being ignored. When Gerry Gouveia speaks of it being divisive, he is arguing from a business and not a national perspective. It can potentially divide a biased PSC. When Terrence Campbell uses the rubbish argument of “no skin in the game locally,” he too, is articulating from a business and not a national perspective. They and others like them, don’t want the betterment for Guyanese. They wish the betterment for themselves, that’s why they wish for us to be silence. Patriotic currency not to country.

Finally Terrence Campbell had this to say, “BTW, did you guys notice that Kit got a national award? I wonder how his critics feel about this?” Simply put, I’m elated. It shows the maturity of the government. It completely negates Timothy Jonas’s argument that his Senior Counsel was rescinded because of his political association. Kit, a fierce critic of the Government being rewarded! Compare that to Bharrat Jagdeo and the PPP, who said that Nigel Hughes would never become a Senior Counsel under his watch. Who vindictively denied Mr. Desmond Hoyte a state funeral? Who denied Mr. Hamilton Green a state pension? Who victimised Freddie Kissoon, his wife and his daughter? That was heartless and unforgivable. Who banned state companies from providing advertisements to Stabroek News? And I can state many more of PPP’s vindictive evils.

I will now close my argument by stating, that I do not support the position that paying tax must be a pre-requisite for one contributing in the politics of Guyana. What should be paramount is the love of country. That’s the reason why we contribute. Paying tax must be a pre-requisite to one benefitting from the social services, health services, state pension, etc but not political commentary. If that were the case then the Carter Center and the ABCE countries should also be excluded from the local political commentaries since they don’t pay “tax.”
Over to you Terrence and who ever may choose to respond.

Regards,
Dr. Mark Devonish MBBS MSc MRCP(UK) FRCP(Edin)
Consultant Acute Medicine
Nottingham University Hospital
UK