Deliver what you promised to the people

Jun 09, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter from Neil Kumar in the press captioned, “Minister Frank Anthony’s record bears scrutiny with that of any of his predecessor”.
First of all, I want to thank Mr. Kumar for his letter. It has brought some new information to the public’s attention and if only that was achieved by my letter, then I would have done my duty to the people.
Let me correct Neil, in my opinion, Minister Anthony is the best Youth, Sport & Culture Minister ever in the history of Guyana.
So this is not about Frank, this is about – 65% of the term gone and less than 50% of the promises as per the manifesto delivered in this portfolio.
Minister Anthony now has to rise to the challenge and deliver and Mr. Kumar you have to give him 110% support. Therefore I could not comprehend your defensiveness with all your ‘poppycock’ and excuses about postponements, re-scheduling or cancellations.

The first thing Minister Robert Persaud did when he became the Minister of Agriculture was to share a copy of the PPP manifesto with his Heads of Department and challenge them to implement these promises.
He developed a mechanism in his secretariat to track progress. Come 2011, he can proudly put himself forward as one of the members of the PPP list of candidates to pronounce that he has led in the delivery of +80% of the promises to the people in Agriculture.
Since he has consistently kept the farmers and the public up to date on the challenges he faces, there is no need to be defensive. This childish outburst by Mr. Kumar is alarming since I am wondering what I have stumbled on to that Mr. Kumar is trying to hide?
Does Neil understand what a party manifesto is? According to the book Contract with America (1994):
“political parties prepare electoral manifestos which set out both their strategic direction and outlines prospective legislation.
Legislative proposals which are featured in the manifesto of a party which has won an election are often regarded as having superior legitimacy to other measures which a governing party may introduce for consideration by the legislature.”
Mr. Kumar your contract with the people to build three strategically located multi-purpose sports complexes in Berbice, Essequibo and Linden, has superior legitimacy to the other measures you have highlighted.
You promised the people to build these sports complexes and to cement your legitimacy, you must do them. This is how a democracy works my brother. Do not ‘sand dance’ with excuse after excuse”.
Why is the PPP allowing Neil to diminish the legitimacy of that sacrosanct document called the 2006 manifesto?

Neil’s letter has identified that it is acceptable to him to ignore, indefinitely delay or even outright cancelling promises that the PPP made to the people in 2006.
Mr. Kumar your letter has now complicated my logical dilemma since the politics and ethics that I was schooled in tell me that keeping your promise is your honour and that I learnt from the PPP.
Well Robert still does it, so why is Neil not doing it. Am I missing something here? Neil, has your value structure changed? Are you still a Jaganite?
Neil more than anyone else, coming from a rural background, you should identify with how important these facilities are and should move mountains to make them a reality.
Suicide and crime are caused by various reasons but sports, there is no better way than cultural and youth development activities to save a life from crime and suicide.
Thus re-prioritisation of youth programmes is a definite “no-no” if you want to positively affect the crime and suicide situation in Guyana.
But let us look carefully at Neil’s letter.
1. Mr. Kumar stated my criticism was ill found. Did John Public know about the decision of Neil (or whom ever is the decision maker) to put the three multi-purpose sports complexes for the three counties on hold not? My understanding is that Neil has made a variation to the contract, he has proceeded to implement the varied contract and has totally ignored the fact that he is duty bound to tell the beneficiary (the people) about this sub-optimal decision.

If this is not unethical and plain disrespect for the youths of Guyana, then what is it? How come the Government can find money to bail out CLICO over 10 years and they do not have money for these three multi-purpose sports complexes?
There are other areas of the National Budget that are less important that these facilities and I plead with Neil to re-consider his decision to put these projects on hold.
2. No amount of language manipulation can change the fact that the veledrome, the three multi-purpose sports complexes and the synthetic tracks are at 0% implementation, with 65% of the life of this current term gone.
3. Does anyone know anything about this well bandied about “Indian Assistance”? Did Mr. Kumar ever tell us? Or is it a figment of his imagination?
4. It is obvious that Neil has been very selective in his reading since he seem to have missed my complement to the President, the Minister and the Government of Guyana for delivering on the National Stadium, which I believe should be renamed the Janet Jagan Stadium for her commitment to children.
However, I will now tell Neil and the Guyanese public my point of view on CARIFESTA X. It was a low priority project that wasted a lot of good money.
It was throwing good money after a bad idea to fulfill the figment of someone’s imagination.
Guyana, the second poorest country in CARICOM, took CARIFESTA from the Bahamas, one of the richest countries in CARICOM to deliver a project that Guyana could not afford.
That money could have been better used to built two or all of the multi-purpose sports complexes. So Neil don’t even attempt to lecture me on prioritisation.
5. Neil asked if I know that the ministry spends $100M every year as a ‘Sports Development Fund’? I thank Neil for this information and I am happy that the Fund is in place and thus I stand corrected on this Fund.
However, does John Public know who the beneficiaries of this fund are? I challenge Neil to release the names of the Top 10 beneficiaries of these funds and the amounts, since it is public funds and hence should be public knowledge?

6. Mr. Kumar, I take offence that you as a public servant (which by my definition is a servant of the people), can so callously tell a member of the public whom you are being paid to serve, that you will not engage him on an item by item basis.
Well you had a choice, let my letter slide into history as a matter for the records or respond to it in a competent item by item fashion.
But you do not have the authority to pick and chose oh servant of the people. Know your place because I clearly know mine!
In conclusion, the PPP 2006 Manifesto was the Road Map between 2006 and 2011.
That road map was marketed to the people and they bought it with their votes.
I would agree the road map has to be fine tuned as time progresses, but the people must get what they bought.
No one is asking for blood here brother; just deliver what you promised to the people Mr. Neil Kumar!
Sasenarine Singh

---

---