I'm not against the Revenue Authority, but with how it is being set up By Leslie Melville Stabroek News March 4, 2000 A lot has been said and will continue to be said about the constitutionality of the Revenue Authority. It is not my intention to address that issue but the environment in which the government is proceeding to establish the Authority. Table 1 shows the crux of the problem. Table 1 Per Capita Income 1986 $US ................................................1960 ................1980 ................Per Cent Increase Guyana .................................735 ..................974 ..........................32.5 Barbados ..............................1811 ................3591 .......................98.3 Jamaica ................................1631 ................1999 ........................22.6 Trinidad & Tobago ..............1901 ................3438 ........................80.6 The data was obtained from the 1990 Report of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) on Economic and Social Development in Latin America. The per capita income for those countries for 1995 as stated in the 1997 IDB Report was as follows: Table 2 Per Capita Income 1990 $US ................................................1995 ................% Increase over 1960 Guyana ..................................704 ..................................- 4.4 Barbados ..............................6573 ................................263.0 Jamaica ................................1709 ...................................4.8 Trinidad & Tobago ................4100............................. 115.7 The two tables should tell us something, it has nothing to do with the blue water and white sandy beaches of our CARICOM partners. Economic failure due to politics It is my submission that Guyana's poor performance has more to do with politics than anything else. I say this since the other poor performer was Jamaica (4.8%) and Jamaica, like Guyana, was one of the two countries with the greatest political problems over the period. Incidentally, also, they were the two countries which had flirted with the socialist mode of development. I am further submitting that the political problems of Jamaica and Guyana were the result of charismatic leadership - Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante in Jamaica and Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan in Guyana. There was a difference, however, for while in Jamaica the divisions created were purely political, extending to the Jamaica Labour Movement, as it does in Guyana, here there is also the ethnic division spawned by the charismatic Burnham and Jagan. History has not been kind to Guyana. What we have had in our unfortunate country from 1957-1964 and 1965 - 1992, were governments making decisions, unmindful of the environments, both internal and external, in which the decisions were being made. Consequently, little or no thought was given to the likely consequences of those decisions. What seems to have been the prevailing attitude was - I have the power and legal right to make decisions and I will make them, and be damned with the consequences. And so today, we are listed among the poorest countries in the hemisphere and are the laughing stock of our Caribbean neighbours. The wrong approach It is in the light of the above that I see the Revenue Authority. It is not a question about whether the Authority is needed or not. I believe that it is. What is wrong about it, is how it is being implemented. It is a repeat of the decisions made between 1972-1992 and there is every likelihood that the anticipated gains will be consumed by the anger and disunity it is fostering, as happened in the earlier period. Any bill such as the Revenue Authority should have been based on consensus, especially among the stakeholders. We cannot overlook that revenue touches every man, woman and child. On the lighter side, listening to the majority of the advocates of the Revenue Authority fills me with some amount of humour. This is so for if the Authority was being set up between 1964-1992, they would have been just as vocal opposing it as they are now praising it. Ours is that kind of society - all part of the Burnham/Jagan legacy. My concern is not whether the Revenue Authority Act is constitutional or not. That the courts may decide. I am concerned that too many people see it as a PPP/Civic Act and not a National Act, as it should have been established to solve a national problem - an insufficiency of revenue to provide the much needed services expected by our people. I say this, since in the late 1980s, Edgar Heyligar, then Commissioner of Inland Revenue, at a meeting with the PSU leadership, had raised the establishment of such an authority as the direction in which revenue collection would have to go. I must say that the union had agreed with the Commissioner. To repeat, my problem is not with the Revenue Authority, but how the authority is being set up. Typical of this, is the compulsory retirement of Clarence Chue et al, and the transfer of several others from the Customs and Excise Department. The actions of the government are no different from that of the political leadership during the period which the PPP terms "the dictatorship." The actions of the government against the employees of the Customs and Excise Department were obviously pursuant to a decision taken prior to their taking office. I say this, since it was in under two months of their assuming office that Chue and others were first put on leave. The many statements of junior Customs officers purchasing motor cars for a million dollars or more are of little consequence when one considers the many multi-million dollar buildings erected in Georgetown, and all over the country since 1992, following a period of economic recession which saw gross domestic product decline by 3.6 per cent between 1980-1990. From where did the money come? If it was earned, was the appropriate tax paid? I think not. A PRECONCEPTION ABOUT PUBLIC SERVANTS It is my submission that the PPP/Civic government assumed office with a preconception of the public service employees being PNC supporters, and that therefore they would be disloyal. Here I am reminded of a statement attributed to the late Dr Jagan immediately after the end of the 1962 General Strike which had resulted in his government having to withdraw its controversial Kaldor Budget. As Dr Jagan had said in 1962: "Whatever may have been our views of and attitude to the service in the early days of our struggle for independence, we are fully conscious of the fact that the service is part and parcel of the government and that no government can carry on particularly at this stage of development without the service fully behind it and loyally backing it." Those were important words and are still factual. Unfortunately, after the 1963 General Strike in which the then CSA had played a key role, Dr Jagan amended his views or altered them considerably. There is no doubt that Dr Jagan had lost face in 1963 when his Trade Union Recognition Bill had to be withdrawn, for as stated in the Terms of Resumption which brought the strike to an end, it was - "not to be re-introduced in its original form or its amended form in which it was passed in the Legislative Assembly." It was a bitter pill for Dr Jagan to swallow. It is obvious that Dr Jagan after the 1963 strike was convinced that once he was re-elected to office, his government would have to take steps to ensure that he did have a public service that would be "fully behind it and loyal to it." The Customs and Excise Department was but the first move. The pretext under which this would be done was charges of corruption since he was convinced that the private sector which had undergone structural changes since 1963, would not be on his side. However, h e did not carefully assess the Guyana Public Service Union, no doubt believing that it would pose no threat. With that he was wrong. So, still steeped in the past, the PPP Civic government's move against the Customs and Excise Department is but another that omitted to consider the nature of the environment in which the move was being made. Before this is misunderstood, let me hasten to add that the ethnicity of the public service is not what I am referring to. It has more to do with the economic environment which is so greatly influenced by the political. It is not too late for the stakeholders to sit down and arrive at a consensus. It is in Guyana's interest that this be done. WAIT FOR THE NDS The government, in its effort to have a public service that would be "fully behind it and loyal to it", has teamed up with a strange bedfellow, the IMF, and is bent on terminating the service of about three thousand of its employees. Those to be downsized will be between bands 1-5 of the public service pay structure and the prevailing view is that over-staffing exists between those bands, but I am aware of no survey that has confirmed that there is over-staffing. That is apart from the fact that 83 per cent of those employed in the service falls between those bands. It is interesting to note that a group drawn from civil society is about to finalise a National Development Strategy. This being so, one would have thought that before any downsizing is contemplated it would be best to await the Strategy so that an assessment can be made of the kind and size of a public service we will need to achieve the objectives set out in the strategy. There is a view, however, that the downsizing of employees between bands 1-5 is solely because it is within that grouping that the militancy of the PSU lies. This may be a fallacy, but of greater significance is the consequence of putting on the streets that many people who will be predominantly of one ethnic group and who must necessarily be angry and bitter. This will be so for it is the first time in twenty years that they are in receipt of wages that can be defined as fair. The repercussions could be serious. Now to return to what I earlier termed the similarity in the actions of the PPP/Civic government and that of the previous government which they term "the dictatorship". CLARENCE CHUE The termination of the services of Clarence Chue et all could be likened to that of Teemal, a sugar worker who had sued Guysuco for an increment which he had earned and which he was paid from January to May, 1979, when it was unilaterally withdrawn because, as Guysuco claimed, the government had imposed a wage freeze in the public sector. Both the High Court and Appellate Court upheld that Teemal was entitled to his increment, but in refusing to adhere to the decisions of the Courts, the "dictatorship" proceeded to amend the Constitution in an effort to deny Teemal his increment. Again the government's act was successfully challenged in the Courts and finally "the dictatorship" had to pay Teemal his increment. The case of Clarence Chue is not dissimilar. Chue was put on leave and prevented from functioning as Comptroller of Customs. He was subsequently charged with trumped up felonies which the Appellate Court dismissed. In spite of a court decision that Chue resume his position as Comptroller of Customs, the government failed to comply until the GPSU was forced to install him amidst some controversy. Now in like manner to how "the dictatorship" utilised the legislative machinery in an effort to deny Teemal his increment, the self styled democratic government has used the legislative machinery via the Revenue Authority Act, to deny Chue and others their constitutional right to work when there is work which they are not only qualified but competent to perform. The question is, where is the democracy which the PPP/Civic government so loudly acclaims? Conclusion The Revenue Authority Act, though necessary, is perceived by many to be a move by the PPP/Civic Administration to politicise revenue collection. This must be considered in the context that it is widely believed that supporters of the PPP do not contribute their fair share of taxes on incomes. Yet another aspect of the problem is not having a consensus in the appointments to the top position in the hierarchical structure of the Authority. Consequently, one may well see a change in the top management whenever there is a change in government. Similar is the transfer of certain customs officers out of the Authority. The question is whether we can afford the tit-for-tat in the administration of our revenue collection that the transfers will definitely foster. The Revenue Authority, however, is just a part of the wider Guyana problem. There is no doubt that the widespread poverty that exists in our country is due in no small measure to the divisive environment that exists. The environment is also responsible for the obvious disparity in the distribution of incomes to which successive governments have been turning a blind eye, the previous administration to present a semblance of multi-racialism, the present to hold on to what it considers to be its base of political support. And so more and more of our people plunge into poverty while our politicians continue to be like Shakespeare's Caesar - "as constant as the northern star" in their divisive acts. The Guyana Public Service Union and its members have been among those most affected by the environment fashioned by the charismatic Burnham and Jagan. The environment can and must be changed if we are to see real progress in Guyana, progress that will bring benefits to all our people thus alleviating the poverty to which many have been condemned for so long. The changes will not come from our politicians. They have been acting without considering the likely consequences of their actions for such a long time that the resulting attitude of immaturity can now be said to be terminal. So where lies the answer. It rests with civil society, and the start must be the Revenue Authority Act. It must be made more acceptable to all the stake holders. If this is not done, it would be left to the hungry and dispossessed. Unfortunately, if they should act, our last stage may be worse than the first.