I HAVE not met any foreigner, from any part of the world, in Guyana, that has said something different about the banking system. I repeat: there has been no exception to their remarks about banking in Guyana.  Here is what you hear from them: in my country, you don’t face the same requirements to do a transaction at the bank as in Guyana.

I do a call-in programme every Friday night on the Freddie Kissoon Show. One episode was devoted to the nightmares people endure at the commercial banks. Every caller from the diaspora unambiguously said that in their country, they do not face the same hassle as what they hear about in Guyana.
Last Sunday, Mr Ralph Ramkarran wrote these words: “I was told by one Canadian person last year that he went into a bank and opened two accounts, one in Canadian dollars and one in US dollars. All he had was one identifying document, and the process took one hour.” Do you know how many times I have heard similar expressions the past 10 years that I have been writing on the banks?

What is the answer for the Guyana enigma? The Finance Minister offered a clue. Here are his words reproduced from my column, titled: “The revealing words of the Finance Minister about commercial banks,” carried on Friday, November 29.  “It would appear to me that this simplified guideline is not well known… Guyanese should not experience long waiting times to open accounts in Guyana in contrast to other countries because they are all working with the same Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Financing Terrorism (AMLCFT) regime.”
So if the Finance Minister admits that the countries of the world have as their guideline the same anti-money laundering that Guyana adheres to how, then,  how do you explain the horror show that working-class people have endured at commercial banks the past 15 years? Here is the answer, but first a comment – foreign banks operate with more commonsense than their Guyanese counterparts.
Now for the answer. It lies in context. What the foreign banks do is that they contextualise every customer who comes to them to open an account. If a human or an organisation or an army or a government cannot contextualise life, then it will not understand life and it will create untold discomforting moments for those that it interfaces with.

Here in Guyana there is no context used by the commercial banks, so poor customers are visited with nightmare after nightmare. Let’s look at how commonsense died at the commercial banks in Guyana. A mechanic goes to the bank to open an account with $50 million. They ask for his employment status, his earnings, time period of business operation and proof of earnings in that he has to name customers.
He stated that he opened the business six months ago. The bank becomes suspicious because they figure out that a mechanic cannot secure $50M for car repairs for six months. A plant seller goes to the bank to open an account with $2,000,000 (2 million.) The same requirements are demanded from her when in fact, she can (1) – earn 2 million dollars in six months selling plants, (2)$2M does not constitute a suspicious movement of money. $2M Guyanese is $10, 000 US. Who does money-laundering in Guyana and washes $10, 000 in the banks? Only one country in the world believes putting $US10, 000 in a bank is money laundering – Guyana.

Herein lies the answer why people do not face the hassles on opening an account in foreign banks. Mr Ramkarran did not mention the amount his friend deposited with just one piece of document – his ID. He did not face a nightmare because, in the two accounts he opened, it was probably not large enough to generate suspicion.

What has been taking place in Guyana is horrible oppression of poor people by the commercial banks because (1), our private bankers do not understand what context means, (2), have not read the anti-money laundering legislation in any meticulous way.
There is nothing in that legislation about dormant accounts. A dormant account is as unrelated as milk and coal. All bank managers should be compelled to read the philosophy of Sigmund Freud. The great psychoanalyst explained that action and motive are intricately related. When you go to the shop and pick up a box of cereal, that is called action.

The motive that drove that action is the need to have breakfast. If you pick up a box of toothpicks and there is no motive for buying toothpicks, then action and motive are divorced and mental illness is present. This example of Freud explains the absurdity of a dormant account engaging in money-laundering.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.