Dear Editor,

When persons wear several hats simultaneously they not only confuse others but themselves as well. That seems to have afflicted Mr. David Granger when he received the Chinese Ambassador to accept congratulations on his controversial re-election as leader of the PNCR. According to a news report Granger used the opportunity to speak as leader of the party, as leader of APNU and as leader of the Opposition. Interestingly, only the dominant member of APNU was represented at the meeting, and according to the report, Mr. Granger clearly did not represent the AFC’s position on Bai Shan Lin which is for the company’s approval to export logs to be discontinued until the agreements under which the company operates in Guyana have been thoroughly reviewed.

Mr. Granger showed a total lack of preparation on the Bai Shan Lin issue on which Carl Greenidge and Sharma Solomon have been the most informed of the PNCR’s persons who have ventured any comment. For Granger to admit that he was “heartened” to hear that the Ambassador had emphasized to Chinese companies in Guyana their social responsibilities shows naÏvetÉ of the most dangerous order. Was it that Granger expected the Ambassador to say anything different and is he Granger heartened and convinced that Bai Shan Lin is following the laws of Guyana, let alone the company’s social responsibilities?

Granger accepted too that Bai Shan Lin is in the development stage but had taken large loans! For development work, Mr. Granger? Is that not the principal function of equity? Who gave the lo49ans, how much, and on what conditions? Could default lead to a seizure of assets, including any of which would be prejudicial to the interest of the people of Guyana?

It seems the meeting’s agenda was shaped by the Chinese Ambassador and Granger did not use the opportunity to ask some searching and relevant questions and raise serious issues in connection with the role of the Chinese with the PPP/C government while bypassing the National Assembly. Was Mr. Granger afraid to raise that and the following issues?

1. Human rights abuses both in China and Guyana.

2. China’s silence on international matters such as the threat posed to the world by a rampant Islamic State that wants to impose its brand of 14th century Islam on the world or of the Chinese government’s lack of support for the efforts to bring charges of crimes against humanity against the leaders of the Islamic State.

3. The responsibilities of a Chinese superpower to assist African countries in addressing Ebola, terrorism and reducing poverty.

4. Chinese labour displacing local labour in countries which are economic targets of the Chinese Government and businesses.

Granger should have taken the opportunity to ask whether Bai Shan Lin was tax-exempt in China. If the company is not, the effect is that Guyana will be waiving taxes on income in Guyana that is taxable in China: Guyana thereby contributing to the coffers of the Chinese Government! Granger should have asked too about reciprocity in investments and labour with Guyana enjoying benefits in China no less favourable than those enjoyed by the Chinese in Guyana. He should also have raised the possibility of a Double Taxation Treaty between China and Guyana and an anti-bribery agreement between the countries.

Instead of serious issues being raised, Granger admitted that much time of the time was spent on the “friendly relations between the two parties and the two countries”! This could hardly be the most significant challenge facing Guyana-China relations, unless of course Granger wanted to highlight that the two parties share one thing in common – they both have as official policy the doctrine of party paramountcy.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Ram