May 31, 2014 – The GTUC views with concern and understanding the position taken by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF).
May 31, 2014 – The GTUC views with concern and understanding the position taken by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF). The CFATF’s consideration that Guyana is a risk to the international financial system and referral to the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF) bear testimony to the seriousness and commitment this institution takes of its responsibility to ensure legitimate and anti-terroristic financial transactions among member states. The CFATF has done its job, Guyana and Guyanese must do theirs.
The trading of words absent efforts and appropriate leadership to resolve outstanding matters to allow passage of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill (AML/CFT) will not de-escalate the situation or bring resolution. The President is the nation’s Head of State and Head of Government and has a greater responsibility to protect the integrity and reputation of this country at home and abroad. Guyana’s deficiencies in the AML/CFT have been a matter engaging CFATF since 2009. That notwithstanding now is not the time for propaganda, scoring partisan political points or insisting that the bill be passed without conditions. These will not work because this is not the way real politics work especially when the support of political rivals is needed. Having been placed on the Caribbean Watch list/Black list in 2013- and given as per the CFATF’s Financial Advisor that it requires a minimum of two years to be removed and such is contingent on adherence- to be placed in a similar situation by FATF will do this nation further disservice.
GTUC is concerned at the state of affairs that is resulting in the non-passage of the AML/CFT. This is clearly a crisis in leadership that is spilling over into creating a crisis in governance. A political environment that guarantees collective participation and representation, inherently leads to negotiation and consensus, but is yet again squandered in pursuit of political gamesmanship. No environment that allows for competitive party politics will see any party cede opportunities to hold the incumbent accountable or extract conditions for support. Actions by the opposition to tie passage of the AML/CFT are normal and acceptable political behaviours. They are also not unreasonable or unjust because they seek to bring about a level of good governance, of which accountability and laws are prerequisites.
For instance, the untenable situation with the Town Clerk at the City Council would have been addressed by the Local Government Commission was it established. Failure of the Anti-money Laundering Unit to track Roger Khan’s assets can be addressed by giving this unit teeth and autonomy. The wanton waste and abuse of the workers’ tax dollars on projects and the substandard nature of these would be curtailed through the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission. Rather than the government using the AML/CFT opportunity to demonstrate to the nation and our regional and international counterparts that Guyana is capable of good governance, the worthwhile opportunity is seized upon to gain divisive political mileage.
Borrowing phraseologies from another society to accuse the opposition of engaging in ‘the politics of no,’ when the originator of this phrase uses it to addresses the strategy of his opposition who made known on the night of his first inauguration their singular intent is to make him fail will not work. Guyanese are smart and will not be fooled by such posturing.
The current political leadership can learn lessons from their predecessors. Prime Minister/President Forbes Burnham and Minority/Opposition Leader Cheddie Jagan worked together on matters of national import. These leaders got things done together without having to give up their political pursuits. For instance, the nationalisation of bauxite (1971) and sugar (1976), the takeover of the private schools, and issues of border security (Venezuela and Suriname) required the opposition’s support in the National Assembly and in the public sphere. The support of the opposition was not without conditions and these were met by the government. The two leaders also spoke in unity on matters attending to the violation of local workers by foreign businesses and managers.
Nothing prevents the current corps of leadership from emulating this politics of engagement, negotiation and agreement. The society desires it. When the nation’s business is taken care of they can go back to their partisan bickering and grandstanding which is a characteristic element of politics. President Ramotar is encouraged to deliver the required leadership to the country and protect the nation’s integrity and reputation by convening a meeting with the three parliamentary groups on the way forward. In the final analysis the buck stops at him and everyone is looking to him.
