Bring this three-year matter to an end

Jul 29, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In 2007, I filed a complaint to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) about a billing matter with the Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL). I have provided the necessary documents and information to the PUC, which have been forwarded to GPL.
To date — some three years after — my matter cannot be solved by either GPL or the PUC. This is indeed disappointing and frustrating to say the least.
In this computer savvy day and age, I believe the power company needs to liaison and work with GPL to process customers’ complaints with the PUC faster and more expeditiously. According to Mrs Mohammed at Complaints Desk at the PUC, the ball is in GPL’s court and they have yet to respond to her (the PUC) with a valid final response, to date, which they have not done. Why is GPL stalling people’s complaints with the PUC?
I am hoping the customers’ representative and the CEO of GPL are reading this. I would really like this three-year-matter to come to an end once and for all so that we can all move forward. GPL, please address my complaint.
Leon Jameson Suseran
*********************************

Our politicians need to show their maturity as they prepare for the next elections

Dear Editor,
Once again, I would like to state categorically that no single political party in Guyana possesses the ability to win the PPP/C coalition at the next general elections.
I read with deep interest an article in SN on Monday 26th July, 2010 entitled. “AFC says no to alliance with PNCR”. The general gist of the article was that the AFC is willing to work with like-minded individuals, groups and organisations from civil society and even personalities from both the PPP/C and the PNCR, but will not court either the PPP/C or the PNCR as political organisations as they prepare for the next general elections.
So, one is left to deduce from the stance taken by the AFC, that some of these ‘like-minded personalities’ from other parties will have to obviously break ranks with their respective political outfits and join whatever broad-based political construct the AFC has in mind.
To insinuate that both the PNCR and the PPP/C are parties of the past and therefore will affect the AFC’s identity of being the party of the future is not very sagacious. While I agree that the current manifestations of horrors we have as a government need to be democratically removed, there is nothing that says that the PPP in particular cannot reinvent itself in the future and once again become relevant. By that same token, while the PNCR has teetered as the leading opposition force through its poor leadership which has resulted in the obvious disharmony among its upper echelons, isn’t it not a bit too early for the AFC to cast them away as being useless in any coalition movement.
All of the political parties in Guyana are yet to show the nation what new leadership structures they have in place as the next general elections draw nearer. Operating in this ninth hour is certainly going to severely test the judgment of these parties’ constituencies and the undecided voters whom I believe already needed to begin their evaluations of these potential leaders.
I would once again repeat that opposition parties need to unite and work towards a change in political leadership in Guyana. Guyanese politicians need to show their maturity as they prepare themselves for the next elections. If there is no collective trust, no common ground, no collective strategic vision for the betterment of the Guyanese people, we will all be suffering through a fifth term of PPP/C rule. Is that what some in the opposition want?
Unless political leaders are willing to cross the floor and become a part of a broad alliance formed by the AFC, it will be very difficult for these leaders to serve two masters.
Incidentally, many countries in the world have two or three main political parties which have shared power at different stages. In the US for example, the Democrats and Republicans have both seen power and will continue to alternate as the electorate sees fit. Within the UK, Labour and the Conservative Party (Torries) have been at it for years and now with the Liberal Democrats emerging as a viable force we see a coalition between them and the Torries. Coming closer home, we see in Jamaica two main parties in the PNP and JLP. In Trinidad and Tobago there exists the PNM and the UNC who have both been alternated by the electorate to govern Trinidad. And today we see in Trinidad a broad coalition formed in the People’s Partnership. The UNC had their fair share of political misfortune but I don’t believe the party as a whole was ever deemed politically irrelevant. And by no stretch of the imagination think that the PNM will become obsolete.
I understand the kind of branding argument the AFC is making in trying to avoid a back to the future scenario by courting in particularly the PNCR to form a coalition, but I still think more strategic thinking needs to be employed. The future of Guyana is at stake! It is heartening to see however, according to a statement from the AFC that: “The NEC agreed to give acknowledgement and due respect to the minority view expressed at the said meeting that the door should not be closed on the possibility of forming alliances with the PPP/C and/or the PNCR”.
Richard Francois
*********************************

Are the efforts of those who seek to lead this nation attacking the right target?

Dear Editor,
As elections 2011 draws near the fear of the nation, of all law abiding citizens, and the international community, must be the return of this PPP regime to power.
This fear is real for all after 18 years of corruption, poor governance, narco militarism, nepotism, state terrorism, moral and social decay, marginalisation, economic genocide and authoritarianism. The list is long and frightening.
It is indeed time to end the era of anti-democratic, anti working class, racism and hostile governance. It is also time for the nation and the opposition forces to recognise that a divided opposition will ensure the continuation of the social, moral and economic degradation that are destroying the society.
Having been a labour leader who has consistently stood up for the rights of the working class, who knows struggles and have been at the forefront of struggles all my adult life, I am concerned about the lack of unity and the ineffective approaches to bring about meaningful change in this land of ours and to free all people from the bondage of tyranny.
In the interest of this nation there must be a singleness of purpose. To achieve this if the opposition engages and undermines each other and themselves it denies the suffering masses an opportunity to a better life and peaceful co-existence built on the pillars of justice and equality.
All Guyanese in deciding whether they can take any more of this oppressive regime must be able to differentiate between truth and fiction.
They must also demand accountability from those who try to influence their views and actions that would threaten or dismantle the premier force required in any effort to keep the oppressors in check and bring about a change in governance in 2011.
The motive of those who do otherwise must be questioned and their true intent placed under scrutiny.
Whatever the political or power dynamic it is safe to conclude that any effort directed away from the source of our problems would see the continuation of the oppressors of this nation.
Guyanese workers deserve better, all Guyanese, deserve freedom from this oppressive machinery and criminal narco state that threatens every single citizen from the unborn to the aged.
Those who seek to destroy or weaken any aspect of the defence or artillery against the oppressors, must be rejected by the masses who have suffered enough.
As we gear ourselves for elections some serious questions need to be answered. Is election 2011 going to be focused on bringing about a change for the benefit of all the people where equality, justice and fair play can prevail for all peoples of Guyana?
Are the efforts of those who seek to lead this nation attacking the right target?
Are they aiding the disintegration and attacking the premier force that can help to bring about change because clandestinely, some are working towards creating opposition disharmony, in order to facilitate a continuation of the system of governance that is taking all of us downhill?
Are we all working towards meaningful change in 2011 and will the actions of our leaders dictate these efforts?
I remind those whose quest for power may be inadvertently jeopardising this nation’s hope for recovery and charting a new course, that it is the PPP administration who controls the reign of government and which is bringing us as a nation and as a people to our knees in mendicancy. It is this administration that is marginalising and putting our men, women and children on the breadline even as they criminalise our people, preside over a criminal state with unprecedented levels of unsolved crime affecting our business community and citizens and also work assiduously to divide our people by promoting racial tensions and divisions.
To date this nation still awaits resolution to the killings of Sash Shaw, Ronald Waddell, Lusignan, Bartica and Lindo Creek massacres, among countless other dead and murdered citizens, members of the Guyana Police Force and alleged criminals.
It is this administration that has our children as victims of child traffickers and pimps, making our young girls into prostitutes, with our young men walking the streets hopeless, with no formal system to channel their youthful energies as they ply the streets to become drug mules, traffickers, mercenaries and hired guns for narco and other criminal bosses who gain immunity under an uncaring government. It is this administration that has forged a marriage of the underground and formal economies, abuses our tax dollars, tramples on our rights and engineers racial disharmony and hostility as it takes a ring side seat to reap the benefits.
The target for 2011 is and must be properly identified and the oppressive regime removed if we desire any meaningful change in our current and future circumstances. Our political and civic actions must point in that direction.
Lincoln Lewis
*********************************

A man has a right to defend his castle

Dear Editor,
I read with anger and frustration as yet another house was broken and entered. First of all, I would like to define the difference between a thief and a robber.
A thief is a criminal of opportunity. You go out leave your home unsecured and he enters and grabs whatever he can carry,
A robber invades your home with the sole purpose to take what you have earned, and if need be kill you in the process.
In Guyana we have more robbers than thieves.
It is time that the laws change to reflect this difference.
A man has a right to defend his castle. These youths sit around like vampires and seek to forcibly acquire what they did not work for. It is time to stop this trend.
When the robbers/thieves are gun-butted and tortured and the matter appears in court and the file jacket disappears and they are sent on bail to further commit crimes – who are the winner – the bandit of course.
It is time that persons are applauded for defending their life, limb and property.
The police have shown their ineptitude in dealing with this situation. Innocent homeowners are left at the mercy of these criminals because they are afraid of leaving the station at night.
A man will have to do whatever it takes to prevent himself from becoming a victim.
Let the men go they have done what they had to do to save their lives and the lives of their families.
They killed that poor father for a can of biscuits and a tin of paint.
Let the descent people of Guyana stop being victims in their own homes.
Name and Address Withheld
*********************************

Leadership is earned by discipline, commitment and an ability to inspire and motivate

Dear Editor,
Permit me a response to Ms. Lurlene Nestor’s letter in the Sunday July 18, 2010 edition of the Kaieteur News under the caption, “When will we ever collectively lay blame where blame is due?”
Let me first dispel this notion Ms. Nestor and a few others have “Mr. Robert Corbin’s earned right to lead….” In 1985 when the Founder Leader died Dr. Ptolemy Reid was the Deputy Leader and could have taken over the leadership of the Party if he wanted to be repaid for his years of service.
However, Dr. Reid was someone who was more interested in the future and unity of the Party he worked so faithfully for over decades, and did what was best for the Party by standing aside to allow Mr. Hugh Desmond Hoyte to be Leader.
Ms. Nestor should understand that leadership is not earned merely by years of service, but by discipline, commitment and most important an ability to lead, inspire and motivate. Ms. Nestor cannot speak to Mr. Corbin’s era in the YSM since she was not around at the time. Ms. Nestor, like me can only speak based on second hand info and I have heard lots of stories, from former YSM members and while in the fields doing Party work.
According to Ms. Nestor “Under his leadership the youth arm of the PNC give its most vibrant support to the party becoming the vanguard youth movement in Guyana”. That is what she heard but I heard things too.
I heard that the Party never spent money on the YSM like it did when Mr. Corbin was chairman. All this money was spent by Mr. Corbin to mobilize young people for marching. How much did he spend for the educational development of the young people? Ms. Nestor claims that Mr. Corbin performance within the YSM as a team player and leader was exemplary. Maybe she might want to tell us about the issues surrounding the African Liberation Committee and why Mr. Corbin was removed as National Secretary of the YSM in the early 1970’s and the role Eustace Hall played in resurrecting his career.
Mr. Corbin served as YSM chairman from 1973 to 1977. In that period the YSM held annual congresses yet for the period 1973 to 1977 there were no Congress of the YSM. Even executive meetings were infrequent. I believe if Mr. Corbin was so confident about his performance and the approval of the membership he would have returned to them each year for a mandate. If he was so confident about the approval of his peers, he would have summoned frequent executive meetings to democratically discuss the issues of the time.
After Mr. Corbin left the leadership of the YSM he used his position in Government to undermine his successors. Maybe Ms. Nestor may want to reflect on how Mr. Corbin devastated the YSM by reducing the age from 35 to 25; all in an effort to ensure his rivals did not remain in the YSM when he left. This is the record of a man Ms. Nestor claims earned his right to be leader.
Today, while Mr. Corbin occupies the Leadership of the Party YSM has broken some new grounds: –
1. It has failed to send a member of its Executive to Parliament.
2. It is without a Chairman and Vice Chairmen.
3. It is unable to hold its Biennial Congress; all this because the YSM under Chiyedza James dared to stand up for the rights of young people in the Party.
Ms. Nestor correctly stated that losing an election does not mean that you are incapable of winning one.
One can move from a position of defeat to one of victory by consolidating strengths, expanding influence, broaden the membership base, enhancing the image and strengthening unity.
Could Ms. Nestor say if any of this has happened since Mr. Corbin lost five seats in 2006? Could she explain how the image of internally rigged elections, the public fracturing of the Party with the departure from the leadership of Murray, Alexander, Norton, Backer, McAllister, Ming, Hamilton, Dr. Joseph, Lowe and Ivor Allen and the collapse of the GYSM and the NCW enhances the PNC chances at the 2011 elections.
Ms. Nestor should be aware that in modern politics trial and error is a thing of the past. There are scientific tools for decision making available to political parties. The PNC can measure how the aforementioned litany of problems affects its chances and determine actions to be taken to improve the situation. However, Mr. Corbin is not interested in this because like Ms. Nestor he has a misplaced notion that he has earned the right to leader.
I wish to advise both Ms Nestor and Mr. Corbin that the right to lead is not earned through deeds or in this case misdeeds of decades ago, it is earned through constant return to the people in free, fair and transparent elections. In 2006 the people sent a powerful message to Mr. Corbin that he has no right to lead when they took away seats five from him. Instead of heeding the message of the people he responded by rigging the PNC elections in 2007 and 2009.
Ms. Nestor sought to educate a letter writer on the accomplishments of Mr. Corbin over the pass seven years. Let me help her along:-
The first Leader of the Party to lose the position of President General of the Guyana Labour Union (GLU).
The Party support at the 2006 elections fell to below 40% for the first time in its history.
The Party is yet to supply a portrait of former President Mr. Hoyte so it could be mounted in Parliament.
He successfully negotiated the Recall Bill and became the first Leader to recall a Member of Parliament.
In addition, if she wants to be imaginative she can also claim that he:
Got the 16% VAT reduced.
Got his favourite Maggie Bryn report activated.
Got the Freedom of Information Bill passed.
Got torturing and police brutality to stop.
Was successful in getting contracts awarded equitably etc.
Was successful in getting the charges against CN Sharma dropped, when his equipment was seized.
And I could go on and on because there are so many things Mr. Corbin failed to do. To point to a few things in a sea of incompetence and failure does not absolve a political leader. The fact is, Mr. Corbin has failed.
Ms. Nestor asks “…when will we ever collectively lay blame where blame is due? When will we hold each person, each party accountable for their own sins and take responsibility for our own shortcomings? When will we stop passing the buck?”
Ms. Nestor this is a question best answered by you. The sooner you accept that the buck stops with the Leader the sooner you will be able to accept that Mr. Corbin’s era in the leadership of the Party has been over for quiet a while and he needs to accept it instead of trying to pass on the “buck”.
Dexter Sargeant
*********************************

The AFC is the antithesis of the race-pandering PPP and PNC

Dear Editor,
After reading Mr. Rickford Burke’s letter, “The AFC must not fulfill Edmond Burke’s timeless prophecy,” (Kaieteur News, July 27), I realised that, as well-intentioned as it was, it was part of a chorus being sung by several people who are critical of the AFC for repeatedly stating its refusal to form an alliance with the PPP and or the PNC.
The consensus among these critics is that the AFC cannot win without the PPP or the PNC.
The truth is, these critics don’t seem to understand, or even if they do understand, then they don’t appreciate the principled stand the AFC took back in 2005 when two of its principal founders – Messrs. Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan – parted ways with their previous parties, the PNC and PPP, respectively.
Both men were advocates of internal party reforms to cater to the changing political dynamics in Guyana, and because of their insistence on reforms, they went against the political grain and they were no longer welcomed to stay.
As a result, they set out to launch the Alliance For Change, as a third political alternative to the ethnic-based PPP and PNC, by appealing to Guyanese across racial lines.
This then became the premise on which the AFC operated and continues to operate as it seeks to distinguish itself from the race-pandering PPP and PNC.
And because neither the PPP nor the PNC has reformed since the AFC was launched in 2005, the AFC cannot and will not form an alliance with either party in the run-up to the 2011 elections.
Now, this does not mean that the AFC is not aware that there are individuals in both the PPP and PNC who, much like the AFC, want to see the PPP and PNC genuinely reformed, because there are such people and the AFC has been in talks with them about receiving their support or finding common ground on which to work together.
Working with select reform-minded PPP and PNC executives is totally different from working with the PPP and PNC as whole organisations, and so we must understand and appreciate the AFC’s premise for distancing itself from any alliances with the PPP or PNC, as organisations, yet being willing to work with select individuals from either or both parties.
The whole idea, in the end, is to kill the ethnic-pandering practices of the PPP and PNC, and if, in the process to this end, the AFC does not beat the PPP and or PNC to form the government, then so be it.
All it simply means is that the AFC has to keep working at getting Guyanese aware that ethnic voting has not delivered the economic goods for the masses, nor has it contributed to racial unity, which is essential to national development.
If the AFC compromises and forms an alliance with the unreformed PNC just to unseat the PPP, then not only is its principled position voided, but it runs the risk of being undermined and overtaken by the same unreformed PNC, which thinks it represents 42% of the electorate or Blacks, and which thinking runs counter to the AFC’s view that the PNC actually does not represent Blacks.
I dare the PNC to show Blacks what tangibles it dragged out of the PPP from 1992 to now, yet the PNC claims to represent 42% of the electorate or Blacks. Also, the PNC did form an alliance with the UF in 1964 and then turned on the UF, so there is that politics of convenience to remember.
Whether the AFC will form an alliance with the PNC if Mr. Robert Corbin steps down as leader of the party and the main parliamentary opposition, and a new leader like Mr. Winston Murray, takes over the PNC and commits to reforms and taking a totally new path, now that is another matter to be closely looked at.
But I believe that bridge will be crossed if the AFC is convinced it is dealing with a new, genuine leader who refuses to play the race card for support and votes.
On the question of a coalition with other civic groups and parties, the AFC has said it is open to this concept of an alliance and has even produced a draft document outlining the basics of this coalition concept. If other coalition advocates outside the AFC feel they need the PPP and or the PNC, then let then advance their agenda and stop worrying excessively about the AFC’s stance.
On the question of shared governance or a unity government, that should only be contemplated after elections and not before. We also need to clearly distinguish between coalition/alliance and shared/unity government, because there is a tendency to mix up the two in the ongoing dialogue.
Yes, it is possible to form an alliance with a view to forming a unity government, but one has to get past the alliance test first before trying to take the unity government test, and so far, the alliance test is proving too formidable for the best of advocates.
I wish all contenders and pretenders well, because serious and radical changes in government are needed to save this nation and set it on the path to true progress as opposed to what is passing for progress.
Emile Mervin
*********************************

Kwame Mc Coy needs to apologise to Kaieteur News and the GPA

Dear Editor,
Former American President and author of the US “Declaration of Independence” Thomas Jefferson eloquently described the role of the Press in a democratic society when he wrote, “The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral and social being.” He added, “The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe”.
It would appear that our Soviet-trained President takes a different view of the role of the Press than that of Thomas Jefferson.
Recently, we’ve seen accelerated actions taken by this Administration to limit and to frustrate press freedom in Guyana, and for obvious reasons, Kaieteur News seems to be right in their sights:
• They’ve cut Government advertising to Kaieteur News, although this independent medium enjoys the largest readership of all the dailies;
• The recent attempt to silence Kaieteur News columnist, Freddie Kissoon by throwing a miasmic substance in his face;
• President Jagdeo filed lawsuits against Kaieteur News columnist, Freddie Kissoon; the Editor-in-chief, Adam Harris; and the National Media Publishing Company
Limited, Publishers and Printer of Kaieteur News, and;
• The refusal to allow Kaieteur News senior reporter Gary Eleazar access to a Presidential press conference.
Normally, I would tend to agree with ‘Peeping Tom’ in his/her Kaieteur News article of Sunday, July 25: “An Unfortunate Incident”, because for security purposes, it is absolutely imperative that only reporters with the proper accreditation have access to the Head of State. But if it is the policy of the Office of the President to recognise only reporters accredited by GINA to attend Presidential press briefings, then this policy must be known by all media houses. Obviously, it was not.
A simply solution to this, is for each media house to identify and submit the names of a reporter and photographer to the Office of the President for accreditation. GINA will then issue an Office of the President Press Credential, quite different from the regular GINA media pass issued to regular reporters. Only those reporters carrying OP Press Credential will be allowed to cover Presidential press conferences, and will be given clearance to travel with the President on official business.
This system is good for both the President and the reporters covering him. Like in Washington, they will be known as the Presidential Press Corp, and everyone will be familiar with each other, thus avoiding such unfortunate incidents. Of course the regular media pass issued by GINA, and those issued by the Guyana Press Association (GPA) will continue to be used as they do now, with the sole exception being the coverage of the President.
Because there appear to be no established system in place, and President Jagdeo admitted being unaware of a ruling imposed by his Information Press Liaison Officer, who insisted on the Kaieteur News reporter having a GINA media pass, Kwame Mc Coy needs to apologise to Kaieteur News and its senior reporter, Gary Eleazar, and also to the GPA, for adamantly disallowing Mr. Eleazar to cover Jagdeo’s press conference with his GPA press pass.
A free press serves as both a conscience and a watchdog; keeping the people informed, holding their elected officials accountable and forcing them to take action. The price of liberty and freedom is eternal vigilance of everything; from attempts to regulate who can and cannot be a journalist, and whose press credential will be recognised; to the granting of licences for radio, television and broadband frequencies; to libel laws and the courts that judge them.
Journalists throughout Guyana need to stand firm in solidarity with each other, and demand the respect this noble profession deserves. So unless Mr. Eleazar receives an apology from the Office of the President, reporters should find another story worthwhile covering the next time they’re summoned by Kwame Mc Coy to cover a Presidential press conference.
Harry Gill

---

---