IF more of our public servants were as efficient and prompt to respond to criticisms as the contractor general, whether it is from politicians, members of the public or the media, we could make the claim that those who sit at the top of the civil service have accepted that the 21st century arrived in Jamaica over a decade ago.

In response to my column published last Thursday, 'China Harbour Engineering and Greg Christie's huge error', the OCG issued a media release under the title, 'Flawed column published in the February 2, 2012 edition of the Jamaica Observer — China Harbour Engineering and Greg Christie's huge error'.

As is customary in releases from the OCG, brevity is not a consideration. To me, the matter is cut and dried. In the highly centralised political economy that communist China is and under the unique hybrid that its business practices merge with capitalism, China Harbour Engineering (CHEC) (essentially the Chinese Government), one of the top outfits in its class in China, has decided to invest US$600 million in finishing the Spanish Town to Ocho Rios highway under a build, own and operate plan.

Under that plan, the company will outlay US$600 million to build the highway, maintain it and in return, it will collect a toll or tolls for a period of 50 years. To me, this is straight business, especially at a time when the country is starved for investment and can ill afford the pussyfooting of bureaucrats clogging up the process.

The initial parts of the OCG's letter reads as follows:

'The column is written by noted Jamaica Observer columnist Mr Mark Wignall and appears to be Mr Wignall's response to the public recommendation which has been made by the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) (a) to bring to a halt the 'sole source' negotiating process which was being pursued, at the direction of the outgoing JLP Administration, for the completion of the construction of the US$600 million North-South Link Highway 2000 by the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC), and for the Government's consequential granting of a 50-year toll concession to the said company, and (b) having halted the referenced negotiations, for the Government to open up the road construction and toll road concession opportunity to a transparent and public international competitive bidding process.

'Upon a careful reading of the column, it appears that the "huge error" to which the Jamaica Observer and Mr Wignall have attributed to me, and to the OCG, is that neither I nor the OCG has any lawful jurisdiction whatsoever to monitor or to investigate the referenced CHEC/GOJ contracting/concession opportunity.

'This is conclusively borne out in Mr Wignall's bold assertion that I, as the contractor general, have 'inserted myself in a process where I have pretty much no business'. Further, and in an effort to justify, substantiate and give credence to his contention, he has placed reliance upon what is essentially an immaterial circumstance, via his statement to the effect that "the North-South link of Highway 2000 involves not a loan but an investment of US$600 million by CHEC! In his zeal, was Mr Christie not aware of this?"

'However, I must hasten to point out to you, and to your readers, that it is Mr Wignall and the Jamaica Observer who have both made a very grave error since the substratum of the proposed transaction is not so much that it is intended to be financed by CHEC, but rather that CHEC, in return, will receive a 50-year concession from the Government of Jamaica to operate the toll road, thus bringing the entire transaction within the ambit of the Contractor General Act and, by extension, within the lawful ambit of the Contractor General's contract monitoring and investigation jurisdiction.

'To put the matter beyond doubt, I would respectfully direct your and Mr Wignall's attention to Section 2 of the Contractor General Act which expressly defines a "government contract", over which a contractor general has lawful jurisdiction, as including "any licence, permit or other concession or authority issued by a public body...".'

If we give credence to Mr Christie's brand of logic, he has no problems with CHEC investing its money but because the word 'concession', as in 50-year concession, matches with a line in the Contractor General Act, namely, "any licence, permit or, other concession or authority issued by a public body..." he considers it useful to advise the Government that the 50-year toll should be put up for open tender.

What madness is that!

That is like the KSAC passing a building permit for an investor to erect a plaza while telling that same businessman that he should put to open tender those who should collect his rent and pocket it!

Or maybe what Mr Christie is saying is that we should tell the Chinese to stuff it, we do not require the investment because we have a long line of investors eagerly waiting to take up the slack. Because the contractor general's logic is so fuzzy in this matter, could he also be saying that we should take the US$600 million investment but it should be treated as a loan to be added to the large stock we already have? After that we should put the toll concession to tender and who knows, maybe even the very CHEC could win, or maybe an American company, or the Russians, or the Venezuelans?

Further on in Mr Christie's response, it is stated, 'Since Mr Wignall's column has also failed to highlight what lies at the heart of the OCG's concerns in this matter, I will publicly state it again. It is simply that the only way in which value for money and transparency can be assured for the Jamaican taxpayer, in any Government contracting or concession-granting opportunity — particularly one which is valued at US$600 million — is when the opportunity is opened up to a competitive and transparent tender process.'

Which 'opportunity' is he making reference to? The investors have found us, or we them, and whatever the motivating factors, in Mr Christie adopting this seemingly anti-business stance, is he telling Jamaica that the Chinese who are prepared to spend US$600 million in Jamaica should withdraw it or go to Brazil or some African state?

Because, of course, we have so many other willing foreign investors.

I have no problems with the tendering process, but I fail to see where this planned expenditure on this highway project meets the need for such a process. To me, the Chinese have made a deal with the Government. They will spend US$600 million to build and maintain and in return the Jamaican Government will grant them a 50-year lease on tolls collected from road users on that highway.

Argument done? Not quite.

Still further in his letter he states, 'Mr Wignall, in his column, has also mysteriously sought to justify why the Government should continue its closed-door, non-transparent negotiations with CHEC, for the granting of the referenced 50-year concession, as opposed to putting same to international competitive tender. In particular, he has curiously made reference to other construction projects which CHEC has completed.

'All this would suggest that Mr Wignall is of the belief that CHEC is the only competent company in the world that has the capacity to cost-effectively undertake and/or finance such projects, although he has absolutely no empirical or credible basis upon which he can come to such a conclusion in the absence of an open international competitive bidding process.'

The Chinese are a patient people, and in recent years they have been on a global expansionist push. In this regard they have let it be known where their interests lie. In Jamaica's parlous economic state, if we follow Mr Christie, we should stare down the Chinese, draw the brakes on their expansionist push in Jamaica and, through a tendering process, waste time inviting those who have no money to spend.

The simple fact is that Jamaica is in no position to refuse or slow down offers of investments. Mr Christie may be well-meaning but he needs to take his head out of the law books sometimes and take a good, hard look at the state of our economy and our immediate need for investments.

Finally, Mr Christie hints at something that only he knows. He tickles us but we cannot find the joke. Says his letter, 'While, however, Mr Wignall is entitled to his opinions, however flawed they might be, I, on the other hand, as Jamaica's contractor general, enjoy no such luxury, for I am mandated by the Contractor General Act "to ensure" that the subject road construction and toll-road concession opportunity is awarded 'impartially and on merit and in circumstances that do not involve impropriety or irregularity'.

'Obviously, I cannot, and neither can the Government, in the present circumstances, and particularly in light of the unique knowledge that the OCG has about the proposed transaction, give any such assurance to the people and taxpayers of Jamaica.'

The 'unique knowledge that the OCG has about the proposed transaction' is unshared but it leaves us thinking that skullduggery is afoot and, of course, quite skilfully he waves it around, not so subtly, that he knows something that we do not.

In such a lengthy and detailed response to a simple matter, one would have thought that the contractor general would have included and expanded on the details of his 'unique knowledge', that is, if any such really exists.

Minister Paulwell, any answers?

As I asked in a column two weeks ago, 'Is Digicel treating its loyal customers fairly?' is Digicel, essentially a monopoly with close to two million Jamaican customers giving its loyal customers the best deal it can give, or is it using its monopoly status to shut down LIME?

To me, Digicel, a technically good and business-aggressive company, not only has the handle in the local telecoms industry, it has the whole knife.

When LIME, the other player in the market, needs the OUR to act, not in its favour but in the interest of fair trading, the OUR calls in sick. If the Fair Trading Commission (FTC) reveals that the playing field is far from level, the FTC is always leaving its dentures at home. No teeth!

As stated by LIME recently, 'Like the rest of Jamaica LIME is extremely disturbed at the news that former Prime Minister Andrew Holness took the decision to rescind a critical stipulation in the terms outlined by his predecessor, Mr Bruce Golding, for the approval of the merger between Digicel and Claro, without concurrently passing the promised legislation to facilitate a meaningful reduction in rates and safeguard the telecoms industry.'

Even if Mr Holness saw something which his predecessor Golding did not, the time between Golding's decision and Holness's actions did not reveal that anything radical had changed in that time to warrant Andrew Holness's strange reversal.

Although Digicel messed up last weekend when I attended the Jazz Festival in Trelawny (for many minutes, many people could not make calls on the Digicel network), its customers are excessively loyal to it and Digicel knows this. I was the only one among my party of four who had a LIME phone. It saved the day.

I believe if our people were more discriminating, Digicel would have long pulled up its socks in terms of its pricing policy, its cross-network charges and its response to LIME in number portability.

Remember now, it is Digicel which decides what its cross-network or termination charges are. In an unregulated Digicel, it used to charge $17 per minute to call LIME phones. That was recently reduced by a paltry $3.

When Claro was in operation, it cost LIME customers $5 per minute to call Claro. Digicel ensures that if a LIME customer calls a Digicel phone, it costs $12 per minute.

What LIME is seeking is regulation which protects, not so much itself, but the customer. That I can understand even as my main phone is Digicel.

A LIME to LIME call is cheaper that a Digicel to Digicel call. The key element desired is a significant lowering of the cross-network charges. LIME is willing to go along with this. Not so Digicel.

Second, there is number portability, which means if I change from Digicel to LIME or vice versa, I can retain my original number.

More importantly, as stated by LIME, are the following considerations: 'At that time, Golding dismissed as "unimpressive", Digicel's offer to adjust their peak and off-peak cross-network rates by $3 and $2 respectively. In light of this, Mr Golding committed that his administration would be bringing emergency legislation to Parliament within six weeks which we, and indeed the entire nation, would have expected to be used to establish a level playing field, and constrain Digicel from continuing to charge exorbitant and prohibitive rates. Eighteen weeks later, there is still no legislation, yet the condition that Digicel maintain separate networks has been removed.'

Digicel has its loyal customers, but is it rewarding them for their loyalty? I think not.

observemark@gmail.com

  0 comments

  0 comments

  11 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  23 comments

  0 comments

  2 comments

  5 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  1 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  0 comments

  1 comments

  15 comments

  4 comments