Dear Editor,
IN an interesting missive penned by Shurwayne Holder, lazy analyses continue to besiege the opposition.

The fallacy of generalisation is a dangerous game to play. The reason is that it repudiates logic and truth, the very fabric of a free and fair society. Holder prompts that the persons selected for the oversight committee who have some association with the PPP/C Government, not factually supported but mere speculation, will infringe on their abilities to carry out their appointed mandates. Not stopping there, Holder goes on to further speculate that the Private Sector Commission favours the government.

Surely, his rather lengthy rant levels an egregious claim, why then is this not a matter of national concern? Why have the newspapers not outlined this as ‘breaking news’ and finally, why is it not having the traction as was the intention?

Let me elucidate: the bogus claims are mere speculation, nothing grounded in hard evidence is presented. Moreso, it speculates so heavily that it is tantamount to libel.

However, what can one expect from the opposition? It is quite a shame since this party often reiterates the need to represent a section of society, yet, its repulsion for logic, reason, and truth is indicative of the dogma that drives this broken machinery.

Now let me address the spurious claims as it relates to the NRF Oversight and Accountability Committee.

According to best practices on accountability and transparency, the sovereign wealth fund, in Guyana’s case, the Natural Resource Fund, must be clearly defined within the legal framework and must reconcile with the macroeconomic policies. These two agencies for accountability are represented well in the establishment of the revised NRF Act 2021 by way of the governing legal framework, establishment of the board, and now the oversight committee.

The 2019 version of the NRF Act indicated a curious notion, the committee seemed to be an entity unto itself that was responsible for its budget and was given the sweeping powers to directly pay itself from the NRF Fund. The process of due diligence and good governance quakes in disapproval. The committee also had the responsibility of determining its procedures which stands to reason, what other expenses would be aligned with such a committee and what obtains from such a practice. The design of the NRF 2019 Act was crafted to be a labyrinth of legal speak amounting to nothing. However, interwoven within the document is ambiguity the opposition hopes to benefit from, much the same as the general elections in 2020 where logic, fact and reason seemed to be enemies of the state.

Secondly, Holder unabashedly touted the superiority of the overtly complex calculations that dictated the withdrawals from the fund, this being the economically and fiscally sustainable amount, two separate guidelines, the former to be executed through, yet another committee, while the latter was executed by the minister. A much clearer and simpler version was proposed by the current administration and assented to which has a decreasing percentage calculation projected for consecutive years. This represents at any given time, the maximum amount that may be withdrawn.

The useability of this simpler formula was demonstrated by Stabroek News in their January 4, 2022 assessment of the NRF 2021 Act was able to analyse the aspects of this formula with little to no difficulty. On superiority, this example speaks for itself.

Yours sincerely,
Joshelle Blair