We Are Selling Rice.We Are Buying Back

/in , /by

Our Shame.

Guyana exports the grain and imports the flour. It harvests the oil and outsources the refinery of ambition. This nation has been haemorrhaging economic value and political accountability for generations — and the time to stop the bleeding is not tomorrow. It is now.

Walk into any supermarket in Georgetown today and you will find it on the shelf: four pounds of rice flour, imported from India, priced at approximately US$9.00 — nearly two thousand Guyanese dollars — for a product derived from a crop this country grows in abundance. Let that sit for a moment. Guyana, one of the Caribbean’s foremost rice producers, is paying a foreign nation to mill its own grain and ship it back. This is not a quirk of the market. It is a monument to our collective failure.

That failure did not arrive overnight. Its roots reach back to the Burnham era, when initiatives to process rice into value-added goods — flour, bran, starch — were derailed not by any shortage of raw material or industrial capacity, but by political weaponisation of public fear. Opposition voices of the time warned that rice flour consumption would cause “beri beri” or “white mouth.” Whether born of genuine misunderstanding or naked expediency, those narratives found purchase. Public confidence in domestic production collapsed. And with it, the ambition to build an agro-industrial economy worthy of this nation’s resources.

“A nation cannot keep blaming its past while its present leaders reproduce the same pattern of squandered opportunity and deflected accountability.”

But we will not let old political ghosts carry all the blame. The deeper failure was institutional. Policy was inconsistent. Technological investment was inadequate. Processing infrastructure was neglected. And there was no long-term strategy to develop domestic markets for domestically transformed goods. Skepticism thrives where competence is absent — and competence requires sustained political will, not just good intentions at a ribbon-cutting ceremony.

US$9.00

PER 4 LBS OF IMPORTED RICE FLOUR — A PRODUCT GUYANA GROWS BUT DOES NOT MILL

At current retail prices in Georgetown supermarkets. Guyana remains dependent on Indian processors for value-added rice products while exporting raw paddy at fraction of the price.

The result is a textbook case of value-chain dependency: raw commodity out, finished product back in — at a premium. Every bag of imported rice flour is a quiet indictment. It tells us that decades after independence, after nationalisation, after oil discovery, after billions in revenue projections, we still have not built the systems to transform what we grow into what we need. We are, in the language of development economics, trapped at the bottom of the value chain — not by fate, but by choice. By negligence. By a failure of governance that has never been adequately named, let alone corrected.

ON ACCOUNTABILITY

And this brings us to the harder truth. The rice flour scandal — and we will call it what it is — does not exist in isolation. It is a symptom of a governance culture in which leaders are never truly required to answer for what they leave undone. Decisions with generational consequences are made, or unmade, without explanation. Opportunities are buried. And the public is expected to accept, to move on, to wait for the next election cycle as though that alone constitutes democratic accountability.

It does not. Accountability is not a quadrennial event. It is a daily obligation. It is transparency in decision-making. It is the willingness to stand before the people — not with press releases and photo-opportunities — but with honest reckoning about what has failed and why. It is the courage to say: we got this wrong, here is how we will fix it, and here is the timeline on which you may hold us to that promise.

Power is not built on comfort. It is built on responsibility, on pressure, on the unrelenting demand to do better. A leader who cannot face scrutiny has no business holding authority.

Guyana stands today at a genuinely historic inflection point. Oil revenues have changed the arithmetic of what is possible. The world is watching. Investment is flowing. And yet the old patterns persist: raw potential exported, finished value imported, questions deflected, failures absorbed quietly by a population conditioned to expect disappointment from those who govern them. That conditioning is itself a form of political damage — and reversing it requires citizens who refuse to be quiet.

We are not calling for rancour. We are calling for standards. We are calling for servant leadership — leaders who understand that public office is a mandate issued in trust, not a throne claimed by election. Leaders who measure their tenure not by the infrastructure they announce but by the lives they materially improve. Leaders who welcome scrutiny as the legitimate exercise of democratic sovereignty, not as an affront to their authority.

The question for this new era of Guyanese prosperity is therefore not simply whether the country will build a rice flour mill — though it should, and urgently. The question is whether Guyana will build a governance culture equal to its resources. Whether it will create institutions capable of converting potential into transformation. Whether it will hold those in power to a standard commensurate with the trust placed in them.

Wealth without accountability is not development. It is an accelerant for inequality, entrenched dysfunction, and the deepening cynicism of a people who have seen too many promises evaporate.

Our Demand

The time for quiet acceptance has passed. It passed long ago — with every bag of imported rice flour, with every missed processing opportunity, with every year that the country’s agricultural inheritance was left unrefined and undervalued. Citizens who remain silent in the face of repeated, documented failure do not escape its consequences. They inherit them. And they pass them on.

So we say this plainly: public servants exist to serve the public — not the reverse. Their mandate is not self-perpetuation. It is transformation. And transformation demands that they be challenged, pressed, questioned, and if necessary, replaced by those with the competence and the courage to do what the moment requires.

“Guyana does not need louder promises.
It needs leaders who are held — and hold themselves — to account.
Servant leadership is not a slogan. It is a standard.
And we will accept nothing less.”

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙘, 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙨.

Hypocrisy on the Hemispheric Stage

/in , /by

BY: Hem Kumar                                

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣

Guyana’s Parliament continues to project a troubling contradiction: while the institution at home is visibly weakened, underperforming, and increasingly irrelevant to the public it is supposed to serve, its senior figures continue to seek prestige abroad in forums that reward democratic symbolism more than democratic substance.

The presence of Deputy Speaker Dr. Vishwa Mahadeo at the 74th Meeting of the ParlAmericas Council and the 22nd Plenary Assembly in Ottawa may be presented as an act of parliamentary diplomacy, but it also invites a harder question: what exactly is being exported under the banner of “regional engagement” when the domestic legislature remains marred by dysfunction, inertia, and a persistent failure to command respect? A parliament that does not properly deliberate, scrutinize, or hold the executive to account cannot credibly posture as a model of democratic practice on the international stage.

This is not an argument against Guyana’s participation in hemispheric parliamentary bodies. It is an argument against the hypocrisy of sending representatives to speak the language of governance, transparency, and institutional strengthening while the home institution continues to atrophy.          

If ParlAmericas is genuinely committed to democratic renewal, then it must do more than host ceremonial gatherings and issue polished declarations. It must also reckon with the reality that participation alone does not equal performance, and membership alone does not confer credibility.

Guyana’s parliamentary leadership should understand that international visibility is not a substitute for domestic responsibility. A deputy speaker cannot represent parliamentary excellence abroad if the parliament itself is widely seen as an appendage of the executive, a chamber too often reduced to formality, and a place where accountability is diluted by political convenience. The more these officials travel to forums on governance while failing to uphold governance at home, the more they expose the hollowness of their commitments.

There is also a larger institutional problem here. Bodies like ParlAmericas risk damaging their own moral authority when they allow weak parliamentary systems to bask in the legitimacy of association without demanding visible standards of conduct and performance. 

Cooperation should not become cover. Dialogue should not become applause. And multilateral fellowship should not become a laundering mechanism for domestic failure.

If Guyana’s parliament is to recover any serious standing, its leaders must first show seriousness where it matters most: in the National Assembly, before the people of Guyana, through disciplined scrutiny, real debate, and uncompromising accountability. Until then, every foreign forum becomes another stage on which local dysfunction is repackaged as democratic participation.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮,𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨. — ✦—

Diplomacy Abroad, Dereliction at Home

/in , /by

While Guyana’s Deputy Speaker participates in the ParlAmericas gathering in Ottawa—a forum dedicated to strengthening parliamentary democracy, transparency, and inter-legislative cooperation—the National Assembly of Guyana has not convened for over ninety days. There have been no sittings since early in the year. No questions to Ministers. No motions debated. No committee activity of consequence placed before the public.

This is not a scheduling anomaly. It is a democratic lapse.

Under Guyana’s constitutional architecture, Parliament is the central forum for executive accountability. Article 65 establishes it as the supreme legislative authority, while the system of standing committees—most notably the Public Accounts Committee (PAC)—exists to ensure that public funds are examined, interrogated, and justified. Yet oversight cannot occur in abstraction. It requires sittings, reports, and active engagement. Without these, accountability is not delayed—it is denied.

The timing could not be more consequential. Guyana is now managing billions in oil revenues through the Natural Resource Fund, alongside expanding capital expenditure across multiple sectors. These are precisely the conditions that demand heightened parliamentary vigilance. Instead, what obtains is institutional quiet.
The Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the Opposition and traditionally one of the few bipartisan accountability mechanisms in the system, depends on the steady flow of Auditor General reports and parliamentary engagement to function effectively. In the absence of sittings and structured follow-through, its work risks becoming episodic rather than systemic. Oversight, in such circumstances, becomes performative rather than substantive.

Equally concerning is the absence of parliamentary questions and debates—tools through which Ministers are compelled to explain policy decisions, defend expenditures, and clarify national priorities. These are not optional features of governance; they are its backbone. When they disappear from public life for extended periods, so too does transparency.


Against this backdrop, the optics of international participation take on a different character. What does it mean to speak about democratic strengthening abroad while presiding over democratic dormancy at home? What credibility does representation carry when the institution being represented is not actively functioning?

Responsibility here is neither vague nor collective. The convening of Parliament is governed by established procedures and ultimately driven by the Executive’s legislative agenda. Prolonged inactivity therefore raises legitimate questions: Is this delay strategic? Administrative? Political? The public has been given no clear explanation—and in governance, unexplained gaps are rarely benign.

This is not merely about optics or political point-scoring. It is about the integrity of the State’s accountability framework at a moment of unprecedented national wealth. Democracies do not fail overnight; they weaken through normalization of absence—of sittings not held, questions not asked, and scrutiny not applied.
Guyana cannot afford that trajectory.

If Parliament is to retain its constitutional relevance, it must do more than exist—it must function. Regularly. Transparently. Relentlessly. Anything less, particularly at this juncture, is not just institutional failure. It is a quiet surrender of oversight at the very moment it is most needed.

US$1B TAX GIVEAWAY TO HESS EXPOSED: FINANCIALS REVEAL STAGGERING LOSS TO GUYANA

/in /by

Georgetown, Guyana – Newly released financial statements from Hess Guyana Exploration Limited have confirmed that Guyana effectively forfeited approximately US$1 billion in taxes in 2025 alone under the terms of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement—an arrangement that continues to spark outrage over its disproportionate benefits to foreign oil companies.

Hess, which holds a 30% stake in the prolific Stabroek Block alongside ExxonMobil (45%) and CNOOC (25%), reported after-tax profits of approximately US$3 billion for 2025. However, the company’s financial disclosures reveal an income tax expense of GY$201.8 billion (approximately US$1 billion)—taxes that were not paid by the company, but instead waived by the Government of Guyana under the controversial agreement.

This single-year tax waiver is nearly equivalent to Guyana’s entire infrastructure budget for 2025, which stood at GY$209 billion.

Even more alarming is the comparison with national oil revenues. While Hess alone benefited from US$1 billion in waived taxes, Guyana received just US$2.5 billion in total profits and royalties combined. Royalty payments amounted to a mere US$330.6 million, according to the Bank of Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund report—meaning the country surrendered three times more in taxes to one company than it earned in royalties from all production.

Chartered accountant and attorney Christopher Ram has condemned the arrangement, arguing that Guyanese taxpayers are effectively subsidizing some of the most profitable oil operations globally.
Under Article 15 of the 2016 Petroleum Agreement, ExxonMobil and its co-venturers are exempt from corporation tax, VAT, excise duties, and other fiscal obligations. Instead, the Government of Guyana is required to pay these taxes on their behalf and issue certificates declaring that the companies have satisfied their tax obligations.

These certificates can then be used in their home jurisdictions to avoid further taxation.
Ram describes this mechanism as a “legal fiction” that enables the transfer of billions of dollars abroad virtually tax-free, while ordinary Guyanese citizens and businesses remain fully subject to the country’s tax regime.

Further analysis indicates that the exemptions extend beyond corporate taxes. The agreement also eliminates withholding taxes on profit remittances, a standard fiscal tool applied to all other entities operating in Guyana. Ram estimates that had these provisions been applied, Guyana could have collected an additional GY$409 billion in 2025 alone.
The financial disclosures from Hess provide rare, concrete evidence of the scale of revenue foregone under the current petroleum framework. With financial statements from ExxonMobil and CNOOC still pending, the full extent of the fiscal concessions granted to the Stabroek Block partners remains unknown.

What is clear, however, is that Guyana continues to lose billions annually under a deal that places extraordinary fiscal burdens on its citizens while granting sweeping exemptions to foreign oil companies.

The question that now confronts policymakers and the public alike is whether this arrangement can continue to stand in the face of mounting evidence that the country is receiving less than it is giving away.

CROOKS HONOURING CROOKS? The Baldeo Disgrace and the Questions That Must Be Answered.

/in , /by

An Editorial By 592 Guardian

There is a particular kind of insult that masquerades as celebration. It wraps itself in flags and music and the language of pride, and then—if you are not paying attention—it slips something rotten underneath the table and calls it an honour.
That is precisely what is happening with the inclusion of Albert Baldeo among those being recognised during Guyana’s Independence Jubilee celebrations in New York City.

This editorial calls it exactly what it is: a disgrace. And it demands accountability.

THE SUBWAY CAMPAIGN: WHERE IS THE PROOF?
Let us begin with what has been claimed publicly. Ambassador Michael Brotherson announced that all 400 NYC subway stations would be adorned with Jubilee branding to showcase Guyana’s culture and achievements and to strengthen national pride among the diaspora.
That is an extraordinary claim—and it deserves extraordinary scrutiny.

The New York City subway system, for reference, contains 472 stations by MTA count. To say that 400 of them—nearly the entire network—were branded for Guyana’s Independence Jubilee would represent one of the most expansive transit advertising campaigns this city has ever seen. Anyone who rides the system regularly—and tens of thousands of Guyanese New Yorkers do, every single day—knows that a saturation campaign of that magnitude would be impossible to miss.

So the questions are simple and fair:
What did this cost? A full-system MTA advertising buy of that scale runs into significant public or quasi-public money. Who paid for it—the Guyanese government, the Embassy, a private sponsor? If it was public funds, the Guyanese taxpayer is owed transparency.
Where is the documentation? A campaign of 400 branded stations would require a contract with the MTA, purchase orders, and creative approvals. These are verifiable. Let them be verified.

Why can Guyanese commuters not find it? If the saturation claimed is real, it should be visible to anyone riding the A, C, E, F,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, N, Q, R, or any other line. The absence of widespread sightings is not a conspiracy—it is a data point.
Diaspora pride is real. The desire to see Guyana celebrated on a world stage is real. But exaggerating the scale of that celebration—if that is what has occurred—does not build pride. It manufactures it. And manufactured pride is propaganda, dressed in national colours.

ALBERT BALDEO: A RECORD THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED
Now to the matter that should genuinely outrage every Guyanese in New York.
Albert Jairam Baldeo is being honoured as part of these Independence Jubilee celebrations.

This is the same Albert Baldeo who was convicted in a Manhattan federal court on seven counts of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, arising from a scheme to use straw donors in a 2010 political campaign and then lie to federal investigators about it. Federal Judge Paul Crotty sentenced him to 18 months in prison and fined him $15,000. Prosecutors described a man who instructed others to lie to law enforcement, threatened and intimidated witnesses, and worked systematically to conceal the truth from federal agents.

This is the same Albert Baldeo who was formally disbarred by the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, on March 4, 2020—his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately, under the totality of circumstances the court found warranted permanent removal from the profession.
This is the same Albert Baldeo whose name has circulated for years in complaints from Guyanese community members—particularly in immigration matters—stories that are not rumour but lived experience for families who trusted him and found that trust misplaced.

This man has continued to present himself publicly as an advocate for the Guyanese diaspora. He posts on social media. He offers advice. He attaches “Hon.” to his name. But the record is the record, and it does not bend to personal reinvention.

And now—now—he is being held up as a figure worthy of honour at a celebration of Guyanese independence and achievement.
We have had this story up for two days on social media. Not one credible voice has come forward to defend the selection. Not one comment of substance has been made in Baldeo’s favour. The silence from his supporters is deafening—because even those inclined to defend him know that the facts are not on their side.

THE VETTING FAILURE
This is not only about Baldeo. It is about a process—or the absence of one.

When a government or its representatives compile a list of honourees to be celebrated before the diaspora in one of the most visible cities in the world, there must be a vetting process. There must be someone whose job it is to ask the basic questions:
Has this person been convicted of a federal crime? Has this person been disbarred? Is there a documented record of harm to the very community we are claiming to honour?

If those questions were asked about Baldeo, and the decision to honour him was made anyway, that is a scandal of judgment. If those questions were never asked, that is a scandal of negligence. Either way, the people responsible for this list must answer for it.

The Guyanese diaspora in New York did not build its presence in this city through shortcuts. They came with their backs straight and their hands open. They drove taxis, ran businesses, raised children in difficult circumstances, and kept the values of community, sacrifice, and decency alive across thousands of miles. Many of them fled hardship. Many of them sent money home for decades. They did not do all of that to have their collective name attached to a man with a federal conviction and a disbarment order.

This community deserves better. And it is time to say so clearly.

A PUBLIC CALL TO PRESIDENT IRFAAN ALI
Mr. President, The 592 Guardian joins with the NYC Diaspora community calling on you directly.
You are the head of state of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. These celebrations are being conducted in your government’s name, and they carry the weight of your nation’s reputation—not just at home, but before the eyes of an international diaspora community watching closely.

We are calling on you to personally review the list of honourees connected to the New York Independence Jubilee celebrations.
We are calling on you to review, specifically, the inclusion of Albert Jairam Baldeo—a man convicted by a federal court of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, a man formally disbarred and stripped of his licence to practise law, a man whose record in this community stands against everything these celebrations are meant to represent.

If it is within the power of your government or its representatives to rescind this recognition, we urge you to do so without delay.
We also call on you to direct that full transparency be provided regarding the NYC subway branding campaign: the cost, the contract, the source of funding, and the actual scope of what was purchased. If it was funded with public money, the Guyanese people are entitled to a full accounting.

Mr. President, you have spoken often about accountability and the rule of law. Here is an opportunity to demonstrate that those values apply even when the subject of scrutiny is someone who has aligned himself with the Guyanese community’s public image.

The diaspora is not a backdrop. It is not a prop for celebrations that do not reflect its values. It is a living community of people who carry Guyana with them every day—and who expect their government to carry it with integrity.

Rescind the honour. Provide the accounting. Do what is right.

The 592 Guardian is an independent voice for Guyanese civic accountability. We welcome responses, corrections, and documentation from all parties named or referenced in this editorial.