Latest update February 7th, 2025 2:57 PM
Sep 24, 2008 Features / Columnists
The Parrot, like thousands of others, was shocked at the horrific manner in which 9-year-old Tenesha De Souza met her demise after falling into a pit-latrine at Santa Rosa.
It was an unfortunate incident and is still being talked about today. One parliamentary political party has basically vilified the administration for having such facilities at schools.
Deplorable they said; school children should not be subjected to such facilities. Nice words. Commendable. “Praper” talk as we would say in certain parts of this part of the world. Realistic? That’s the issue.
This party is in the process of helping to provide improved facilities to the school where the incident occurred. This, again, is commendable and has seemingly struck a chord with many; down with PL (pit latrines), up with FT (flush toilets).
While they are having their ups and downs on this issue, I am cautiously supportive; supportive of the principle to assist, not only by the party in question, but any son or daughter of this soil who wants to give back to his/her alma mater or community, or to any part of this dear land for that matter. I am cautious because the motive may not necessarily be because of wanting to be a Good Samaritan.
The party, AFC, like some others, rushed to the media to vent its opinion on the issue. While it’s easy to criticise, it’s difficult to achieve the ideal situation, not only here, but in various parts of the world. It cost nothing to say that all schools must have FT. In reality, it’s a difficult goal to accomplish.
The AFC would have campaigned in the hinterland regions during the 2006 elections. They have members and candidates from these regions. They would have been aware that PLs are part of the landscape of schools there. Why wasn’t this an issue then?
They would have spoken about education during their campaign. They probably would have “camped” in some areas that have PLs.
Didn’t that strike a chord then? I find it strange it didn’t. PLs are not only present in Guyana; it’s throughout the Third World and even in parts of the US of A. Yes, they do have them there.
All, across the world, people would love to inhabit a world that is free of PLs. India and many countries in Africa would probably head a list of those who would support such an imitative. The individual cost per country would be enormous.
PLs are an acceptable form of waste disposal across the world. It didn’t have to take a statement from the Senior Education Czar to tell us this. Yes, the world has changed, but change takes time and has its cost.
Any politician worth his/her salt would be au fait with this monumental task, and as such, whilst wanting to contribute to help hasten the change, must not be seen as taking advantage of an unfortunate situation for political mileage. Here, we are far more fortunate than others since many schools, urban and rural, are equipped with FTs.
The administration, any administration, can only do so much. Organisations can assist. However, this assistance should not be seen as a vulgar attempt to score points; political points especially.
As efforts to improve on the PLs continue, the Parrot wonders what the short man, not the one from the Ministry, the one from the Half Dozen Channel, would say on this issue. Ah, I know. He would look into it. Squawk! Squawk!
Feb 07, 2025
2025 CWI Regional 4-Day Championships Round 2…GHE vs. CCC Day 2 -Eagles (1st innings 166-6, Imlach 58*) trail CCC by 209 runs Kaieteur Sports- Combined Campuses and Colleges (CCC) owned Day 2...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-There is little dispute that Donald Trump knows how to make an entrance. He does so without... more
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]