Stabroek News
May 11, 2001

The names of the persons on the various committees to be set up as a result of the dialogue between President Bharrat Jagdeo and Leader of the Opposition Mr Desmond Hoyte should be announced shortly. We had previously expressed the hope that the persons selected will have the seniority and level of commitment required to get the job done. Ideally too they should also have some experience of the field to be covered by the committee. If that is not the case, they should be required to take advice or evidence from such persons and the various interests involved.

Take the case of the bauxite industry, for example. As is well known, efforts have been under way to privatise the whole or part of the state owned industry for over a decade. The persons involved in those efforts, formerly Dr Kenneth King under the Hoyte government and more recently Mr Winston Brassington of the Privatisation Unit would be priceless resource persons and can no doubt relate their experiences to the committee. Mr Brassington can also explain the concrete possibilities now being considered. It seems both sides agree on the need for a dominant joint venture partner, what has to be worked out perhaps is the terms they are prepared to accept . For example, the basis on which the Aroaima investment took place is now widely considered to have been flawed.

The committee will presumably also consult the executives in the state industry, the unions and perhaps some of the interested companies and then recommend terms on the basis of which privatisation should proceed.

Will the committees have detailed terms of reference? How will they relate to other bodies that already have an interest in the field they cover? Take the committee to examine the needs of depressed communities which is scheduled to report in six months but which will also be asked to identify some areas where rehabilitation works can commence soon. SIMAP has been involved in funding projects throughout the country. One of the main problems encountered by SIMAP and other funding agencies has been that people in the various communities have not been making the effort to put together viable detailed projects for their consideration. There is a lot of talk and grumbling but in some cases not too much sustained community effort to get things done.

At the end of the day there are no simple or magical solutions available to any of these problems. So much will depend, as it always does, on the calibre of the persons involved and on their commitment to invest the time and energy needed to get the facts and make sensible recommendations. We repeat that the two leaders must not distance themselves from any of these committees and should require them to report at regular intervals and, if necessary, to be questioned on what they have achieved. It is so easy for these committees to become just another example of futile talk shops that are long on rhetoric and short on action.