JOPP should focus on what is important to its viability and cease worrying about the AFC’s stance

Aug 14, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Unless there is more substance than what has so far been reported in the media from the WPA-sponsored ‘Groundings’ public discussion, last Wednesday (11-08-10), we may well have to wait for another meeting or two before we get a better grasp of how the Joint Opposition Political Parties intend to advance their agenda in the run up to the 2011 elections.
Of all the speakers at the gathering, the only one who came close to putting some semblance of meat on the otherwise bare bone discussion was Working People’s Alliance (WPA) executive member, Dr. David Hinds. Still, speakers seemed to use the forum to echo each other in their criticisms of the Alliance For Change (AFC) for stating it will not form any political alliance with the PPP and or the PNCR.
AFC executive, Mr. Michael Carrington, who backs an AFC-PNCR alliance, spoke in an independent capacity when he opined that the AFC could still be open to a broad alliance that includes the PNCR. Dr. Hinds posited that the AFC’s position is flawed and WPA co-leader, Professor Dr. Clive Thomas, characterized the AFC’s position as ‘naïve’ and ‘premature’.
The criticisms of the AFC’s decision aside, what struck me as somewhat odd was that the PNC, a senior JOPP partner with the second largest number of parliamentary seats, allowed the WPA to stage this event, whose original theme actually stated that now the AFC made its decision, what the next step is for the JOPP. Why was this not a JOPP-sponsored event, seeing the WPA is now part of the JOPP?
Editor, to the best of my recollection, the AFC never said it will not work with the WPA, nor did it ever make any abrasive comment about the WPA, so why is the WPA coming across this abrasive with the AFC given that it was the PNCR that gave the WPA a whole lot of grief in the past? Is the PNC using the WPA or is the WPA allowing itself to be used as a political attack dog against the AFC?
I can only hope that this is not the case or else the JOPP is starting off on the wrong foot and it won’t be long before the spirit behind the attack turns partners against each other, resulting in an implosion. I also don’t want to be presumptuous to tell the JOPP what it needs to do, but conventional wisdom says if it wants to be taken seriously by a keenly observing public is to build on the pointed observations made by Dr. Hinds and not become unduly bogged down with trying to rip the AFC. Otherwise the JOPP will begin to come across as lacking self confidence and may blame the AFC if the partnership collapses.
This is why Dr. Hinds’ observations should be taken seriously and use as building blocks. Dr. Hinds wisely called for the JOPP to broaden its perspective away from a narrow electoral arrangement and focus instead on fundamental societal issues, like corruption, poverty, public security (police and army roles), and the influence of the narco-trade on politics and race. He also wants the JOPP to go into communities long before the day of election and discuss these issues, which can become a mobilizing tool to generate critical mass. The mantra seems to be, ‘If we build it, they will come!’
So, with a junior JOPP partner laying out the ground work on which the partnership should build, time only will tell whether this will be a success. Of interest, though, was that the senior partner was content to send a representative in the person
of Mr. Basil Williams, whose only contribution of note at the forum reportedly was that the PNCR will not support a ‘third term’ for President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Given the PNCR’s history, I am not holding out hope that it will maintain this low profile for too long, thus allowing a junior partner to take the lead all the way into 2011. And by that I mean, I won’t believe the PNCR is not in on a ‘third term’ deal with the President in exchange for cabinet positions and other perks and privileges until I see the outcome of the 2011 elections. In fact, I think the PNCR Leader telegraphed his shot to the PPP constituency specifically when he said he will not be his party’s presidential candidate, but chose to hold on to the party leadership post, which post is twinned with that of the party’s presidential candidate. Are we watching at Robert Corbin, Prime Minister-in-waiting?
As for the AFC, I am awaiting its announced decision on the proposals it received from a group of concerned citizens, including civic society organisations, on the possible formation of an AFC-civic society alliance. So far, the AFC has said that most of what the citizens’ group proposed is in sync with the AFC’s own positions.
In the spirit of democracy, I say we allow the JOPP and the AFC to develop their respective agendas and strategies going forward and, over time, the public will be able to judge which side has a better message and what the next best step is in contesting the 2011 elections. Ironically, we are at a point in 2010 almost identical to a point in 1991: calling for change of a dictatorial and corrupt government, which, while it did not acquire power illegally, has allowed so much illegality under its watch that illegal power acquisition doesn’t look half as bad.
Emile Mervin

Mandatory retirement or not!

Dear Editor,
I have always learnt a lot from Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s columns and shares his view that the retirement age in Guyana be changed (“14 plus 28 equals ignorance” KN July 30.) In that column he cites Dr. Compton Bourne, the Chancellor of the University of Guyana (UG), as saying, “the American academic system has done away with mandatory retirement”.
That column does not mention the Chancellor’s subordinate, the Vice Chancellor (VC), recently told a UG staff meeting that he wants the number of 60 plus year old lecturers reduced and he wants them replaced with younger lecturers. These 60 plus year old lecturers have the most qualifications, experience and institutional memory. When asked where is UG going to find these younger lecturers since people hardly apply to teach at the University, the VC was adamant that he wants the number of the 60 plus year old lecturers reduced. Sixty plus year old lecturers can be awarded year by year contracts after 60 until they reach 65.
Also, the Vice Chancellor, who is a few years shy of reaching 70 years and is a retiree of the University of the West Indies, told a UG Council meeting last year that he basically sees no difference between a lecturer with a first degree and one with a PhD. That is, experience and advanced knowledge has no advantage at UG under his administration.
As a former UG student, I found the “older” lecturers to be better than the younger ones because they have more experience and deeper insights about the topics. Younger lecturers tend to recite what they have recently learnt and are not that good at explaining complex concepts. I am certain they will improve as time goes on, but being young carries no advantage.
I wonder if Mr. Kissoon will share his views about the Vice Chancellor’s policy.
Pamela Franklin

Speaker of the House has an opportunity to show his grit

Dear Editor,
Looks like the Minister of Housing and Water finally puts himself in some real hot water this time.
I commend AFC Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan for successfully bringing Minister Irfaan Ali before the Committee of Privileges for lying to, and deliberately misleading the National Assembly (Kaieteur News, August 10).
I also wish to express the appreciation of a grateful nation to Speaker of the House Ralph Ramkarran, for having the gumption to make this ruling. At last…there seems to be some hope after all. Mr. Editor, one does not have to be a rocket scientist or practicing lawyer to see the corruption and cover-up here. It is an undisputed fact that $4 billion (US$20 million) were spent by the Ministry of Housing during the 2009 fiscal year, that was neither budgeted for nor approved by Parliament. Someone in the Administration, apart from Minister Ali, had to know about this; monies had to be transferred from one account to another, unless Ali had contractors work on a promissory note knowing that there were not enough money left in his 2009 budget to pay these contractors, and they would have had to wait on a Supplementary Budget to be approved before they could be paid. In this case, he should be fired just for being stupid.
Four billion is not pocket change; it is enough money that could give every man, woman and child living in Guyana about $6,000 each, and therefore one must assume that the Minister of Finance knew, or should have known of this impropriety. The money had to come from somewhere… and the Minister of Finance had to approve the transfer. Even if Finance Minister Dr. Ashni Singh did not know before he was asked to include the $4 billion in the 2010 Supplementary Appropriations of $6.6 billion, this should have been brought to the attention of President Jagdeo, and Minister Ali should have been asked to resign at the time of discovery. But this only further illustrates the level of corruption that is practised in this Administration. I doubt that Minister Irfaan Ali would have acted entirely on his own to spend the equivalent of US$20 million over budget without others’ approval, knowing that this amount was simply too large to come out of a contingency budget. Instead, Dr. Ashni Singh became part of the cover up and deception for which he too, should have been brought before the Committee of Privileges, if only to find out where the $4 billion that were spent in 2009 came from. Did another Ministry have an extra $4 billion to spare? Or was this amount taken from the Lottery revenue or the Consolidated Funds?
Spending taxpayers’ money without prior approval, further illustrates the contempt this Administration has for the members of the National Assembly. Perhaps this has been going on for so long, that they feel immune to any form of admonishment or expulsion. But in 2009, no one within the PPP/C knew how
the political tides would turn, and that Speaker of the House Ralph Ramkarran would lay claim to replacing Bharrat Jagdeo as the PPP/C Presidential Candidate in 2011. And now that he’s adamant about getting rid of corruption in a future Ramkarran Administration and made this known to the Guyanese people, he is expected to lead by example. Speaker of the House Ralph Ramkarran has an opportunity to show his grit, and resist the tremendous pressure he will encounter from his colleagues to whitewash these proceedings; the entire nation is watching. Until now, every effort to demand that the PPP/C keep its campaign pledge transparent and accountable has fallen on deaf ears. Maybe now the pressure will intensify to force the President to honour another one of his broken promises: The Freedom of Information Act.
Harry Gill

---

---