I REFER to a letter published in the Kaieteur News edition of October 5, 2024, with the caption “Regulation, not restriction, is a sovereign right and necessity to justly and fairly protect and preserve Guyanese businesses”, by Professor Dr. Stanley Paul. The author was responding to Vice President, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo where he stated at his last press conference, among other things, that it would be discriminatory to impose restrictions to the Chinese on the basis of their nationality. The Vice President was at the time speaking to concerns that surfaced in the media from some quarters in the private sector, relating to the increasing presence of Chinese supermarkets, in particular, and the notion that this trend is displacing local businesses.
Unfortunately, it would appear that Prof. Paul may have only read the “headline” on the subject carried by Gordon Moseley’s (News Source), thus he may not have had the benefit of the full and correct context of the Vice President’s statement. The very premise of Prof. Paul’s letter is exactly what the Vice President has asserted―that the rules, regulations and the laws have to be strictly complied with by all businesses, the Chinese included, and he also acknowledged that there are issues where some businesses are not complying with the regulations and that in those instances, there will have to be measures in place to ensure full compliance.
The concern about the increasing Chinese presence in Guyana has long been surfacing within certain quarters of the private sector. However, to date there is no study done by any of the private sector agencies that I am aware of, to empirically justify their case. Hence, I do agree with the Vice President that as country that practices the principles of a free market economy, that we cannot arbitrarily discriminate against the Chinese.
Furthermore, since we are raising concerns about one group of people, what about the others, for example, the Trinidadian conglomerates in Guyana, the Massy’s and the Ansa Mcals, should restrictions be imposed on them too? What about if Home Depot wants to come to Guyana? Should the Government prevent Home Depot from entering the Guyanese market? What about if the hundreds of Guyanese businesses in Liberty, Queens, New York, were told that they are displacing Americans, and they were prevented from having businesses there? (The whole of Liberty Avenue in Queens New York is dominated by Guyanese businesses).
More importantly, what about the consumers? What about protection for the Guyanese consumers? Some of those same locals complaining are engaged in price gouging, and if the Chinese supermarkets are helping to stabilise market prices, then so be it; because those very accusations levelled against the Chinese, some of the locals are more guilty of as well, when it comes to compliance with the regulations and laws, and tax evasion.
The reality is such that the Chinese presence is not the only threat or real threat I should say for the locals. There are more dangerous threats than the Chinese, for instance, the emerging e-commerce industry in Guyana, which is aided by government policy, viz-ὰ-viz, the enactment of several pieces of legislations to accommodate the e-growing commerce sector. Should the government restrict the inevitable rise of e-commerce in Guyana? Absolutely not. Businesses, locals especially, must learn to adapt to the ever-changing environment, and to constantly seek ways in which to build their resilience and become more dynamic. These are the consequential effects of the inevitable transformation taking place in the Guyanese economy.
Complaining would not get you anywhere and that quest to hold onto the old traditional way of doing business, the refusal to accept the new realities of the environment and resistance to change and growth, will become the hallmark for a guaranteed failure in business.
Finally, it is worth reminding ourselves that Guyana is a country of six peoples, which we are proud of, the Chinese included. As demonstrated herein, the issue is much more complex than the case currently being made out by the complaining parties, therefore, the Government cannot arbitrarily, unfairly and unjustly target one group of people.