Let’s not play cheap politics with a critical developmental strategy

Aug 22, 2010 Letters

Dear Editor,
The announcement by President Jagdeo that the government will be expending some US$30 million for the purchase of computers to be distributed must be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
First it begs the questions what goal is he trying to achieve. We do know that there is an International Programme founded by Nicloas Negroponte of MIT called One Lap top per child which is not a laptop project but an education project whose mission empowers the children of developing countries to learn by providing one connected laptop to every school-age child. No one can fault any initiative for providing access to information and to make education for the world’s children a priority, not a privilege. It is an important developmental activity but in so doing one must ensure that the investment gives you the best bang for the buck.
Clearly as a developing country Guyana must seek to embrace the principle of equity. We do know that there is a shortage of teachers in a number of subjects hence our children in villages adjacent to each other are unable to access the same level and quality of instruction. Hence the preparation of our children in government sponsored schools is unequal and children who are writing CXC either have go to seek private tuition or be confined to mediocrity by the system or postpone their individual objective.
If one considers the secondary schools which are located between Camp Street and Vlissingen Road viz Queen’s College, North Georgetown; Tutorial High School; Richard Ishmael Secondary and St Joseph’s High School there is a shortage of science teachers. Yet these schools are all government schools, the children are all Guyanese, they are all preparing to write the same examination with the same curriculum and yet with our eye on the technology we are unable to achieve some degree of equity of access to afford our young citizens the support needed for success at the CXC examination.
We need to ask the question how many of our children had the desire to write or study science subjects but could not have done so due to the lack of access?
What could easily have been done was to ensure that all of these schools would have access to the computers, broadband and other supporting equipment which would provide the equitable access to tuition in schools where there are no teachers. But of course that is an assumption that the principle of equitable access is embraced by the government.
But if one assumes that the goal of the President’s initiative is one of access to information or more specifically equitable communication for everyone then we would have been witnessing a different approach. The attainment of equitable communication would be seen in a framework which would address the following as stated by ITU we would not only hear of US$30 million, but the following critical components would have been announced.
Accessible design: Accessibility has to be built in into products and services from the very beginning.
Availability: Accessible products and services must be on hand to users.
Affordability: Access to products and services must be reasonable.
Additionally the commitment to equitable communication would have been bolstered by a policy which would have made it possible to have more radio stations and television stations. For example, the denial of Lindeners to have access to information, which other citizens enjoy.
While we also hear of the increased access to the internet by GT&T and other preferred providers, one must remember that there is an economic barrier which makes it difficult for many Guyanese to be able to access information which can impact and improve their daily lives.
Hence we must learn form the initiatives of UNESCO which sought to provide public access in communities to information by citizens. The examples of Ecuador and Kerala in India have demonstrated the power of information and its impact on the lives of people generally but more specifically young citizens in the communities.
Hence for all of this to happen there must be a clearly defined policy and a programme which spells out and supports the principle of equitable access to information and communication. Let’s not play cheap politics with a critical developmental strategy. I say to the President make a change and seek to achieve greater allocative efficiency, by ensuring that the US$30 million dollars is spent effectively with the objective of attaining equitable access to information and communication.
Richard Van West-Charles

*********************************************************

We are moving in the right direction when it comes to IT

Dear Editor,
Broadband customers of GT&T outside of the e-Magine broadband service areas are still awaiting the announcement of slashed DSL rates. September is approaching, two months after the much awaited high speed DSL service launch by the company, and besides promises of prices being lowered, nothing else has since materialised.
DSL customers outside of Georgetown are still paying $9,980 per month for 256Kbps DSL services, a charge which is totally outrageous, since our counterparts in Georgetown and close environs are paying that same price and are receiving 1Gigabyte DSL speeds.
Secondly, several internet cafés nationwide have not dropped the rates they charge for dial-up internet services. I telephoned several of them in Georgetown and was amazed. When asked why they have not dropped their prices even since GT&T had slashed bandwidth prices on July 1 with the introduction of the new submarine cable, they had no answer to give me.
Meanwhile, GuyNet and InternetWorks both offers unlimited dial-up for one month at $3,800. The previous price was $6,000. So, as can be seen, they dropped their rates. That is indeed very good. One other internet provider in Berbice has also dropped its rate to a similar fee for one month unlimited internet access with dial-up. I am happy now that more and more Guyanese can have affordable internet rates and services to choose from.
The internet can be such a powerful tool to help a child to learn and become au fait with information technology, the way to go these days. Today’s young people, therefore, have that added edge to technology and the opportunity that many of us never had while we were their age, to send e-mails, chat with family and friends, do home-work, research and academic papers online, and utilize this powerful thing we call the internet to the maximum.
We seem to be moving in the right direction when it comes to Information Technology (IT). With computers becoming more and more available and affordable these days, life, in many aspects have become so much easier.
I have long had it with dial-up internet services. I can surely see GT&T’s DSL Lite becoming a more popular choice across the country, as I am sure, too, that dial-up would soon be phased out countrywide in the years to come.
Leon Jameson Suseran

*********************************************************

Reforming higher education with a reduced budget

Dear Editor,
Today, fiscal crisis is taking its toll on many universities, particularly, as governmental funding becomes scarce. And Ralf Dahrendorf pronounced correctly when he explained that “Stagnant universities are expensive and ineffectual monuments to status quo which is more likely to be a status quo ante, yesterday’s world preserved in aspic.”
Dahrendorf, former Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and a distinguished Sociologist emphasised the view that realities of some universities do not always equate with the more zealous descriptions of their role in the modern era.
The World Bank Report 1995 ‘Higher Education: the Lessons of Experience’ noted that there is a worldwide crisis in higher education. The challenge is how to reform higher education with a reduced budget. Nonetheless, higher education reforms can still become a reality in the developing world through supporting both private and public institutions; diversifying funding sources; redefining government’s responsibility; and pressing on toward quality and equity. Higher education reforms have to do with reorganisation.
I draw from Provost and Vice President Gary Olson of Idaho State University. He had some useful pieces on reorganisation in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Here are some examples of reorganisation:
1. In 2009, Northeastern University separated out its college of arts and sciences into three smaller colleges; and the College of Criminal Justice within the College of Social Sciences and Humanities. The University’s Provost believes that this reorganisation would produce a strong research profile. 2. In 2009, Florida Atlantic University got rid of 170 faculty and staff positions, due to a $17 million reduced State funding.
3. In 2010, the University of Northern Iowa reduced its administrative divisions from four to three, doing away with a senior position, and reduced its number of colleges through merging the College of Natural Sciences with the College of Humanities and Fine Arts. The reorganisation team got rid of Marketing and Advancement. The idea was to reduce administrative costs and reinforce academic offerings, according to the University’s Provost.
4. Eastern Washington University recently reduced its number of colleges from six to four, and reconfiguring quite a few academic departments.
5. Reorganisation also happens in finance and administration.
Provost Gary Olson also effected a reorganisation at Idaho State University which wanted to achieve efficiency and to emerge from the fiscal challenge academically more robust. There was a merger between the College of Pharmacy and the College of Health Professions to produce the Division of Health Sciences. There was also a merger of science departments within the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Engineering to produce a College of Science and Engineering. The other departments in the College of Arts and Sciences became the College of Arts and Letters. Provost Olson indicated that there were good savings from the reorganisation.
And reorganisation in the developing world must provide credence to the relationship between higher education and national development, especially with universities facing a paucity of resources.
Prem Misir

*********************************************************

Floods in Pakistan should be a wake up call for Guyana

Dear Editor,
Friday, August 20, I was making enquiries as to which office is accepting help for the flood victims in Pakistan and I was informed that the local Red Cross Office might be accepting and I do hope to visit that office soon.
GT image of a Pakistani child bedevilled by flies in its August 21 publication was very touching to look at and I really hope to learn that Guyana will be making some sacrifices and extend our hands in help in whatever shape or form to the 20 million homeless.
Not so long ago, there was a reading in the dailies to the effect that when donations are to be given, one has now got to make some sort of application to a government office and approval must be given. Maybe someone can elaborate a little more for a better understanding of the system.
Note: The floods in Pakistan should be a stern warning to the general mass that we are also prone to such disasters (God forbids) and we all have got to be more pro-active with our contribution to any project/s that can help to control or prevent such an event. I say this as an independent member of society with no affiliation to any government office.
I am also making reference for support to the office or agency (Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project) that is currently executing a project of mangrove restoration throughout Guyana.
I fully support this national venture.
T. Pemberton

*********************************************************

Floods in Pakistan should be a wake up call for Guyana

*********************************************************

A political farce – Jagdeo in Buxton

Dear Editor,
It pains me to write this statement since it announces a parting of political company with persons who I love and respect. But there is a time when principle and honour must take precedence.Buxton gave me my first breath and nurtured my sense of duty and pride. So I owe it the staunchest defence in the face of the recent political charade that is presented as “outreach,” “healing,” “change” and “reaching out.”
I do not control anybody in Buxton or claim leadership status, but given my history of activism in the village and nationally, some Buxtonians look to me for political example. Everyone has a right to choose their political friends and allies but to do so in the name of a community without its approval is an unforgivable act that deserves the strongest and widest condemnation.
Let me say from the outset I respect the right of the President of Guyana to invite any group of citizens to a reception in the name of the state and to visit any community. The President is constitutionally president of all of Guyana. If Guyana had a Government of National Unity that represents our common interests I may even attend such functions if invited. I also support the right of all citizens to share the national resources, including funds to aid development.
Accessing government resources is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Hence the President and government should not behave as if they are doing citizens a favour when they commit these resources to the communities. And citizens and communities don’t have to beg and curry-favour to get those resources. Finally I believe in healing and partnership as being vital to the wholeness of our multi ethnic nation.
It is my view that over the last years African Guyanese have been systematically stripped of their dignity both from without and within to the point where we are almost soul-less and powerless in Guyana. We have become mercenaries and beggars. We have all but surrendered our right to resist and claim our share of the national cake. If we do not stop this rot now, there will be no free tomorrow for our children.
We have to have what David Granger calls a “second emancipation.” And it has to start by regaining our pride and dignity. It is with this in mind that I take a dim view of the growing accommodationist attitude being promoted by some African Guyanese leaders and encouraged by the government and the ruling party.
The latter senses our vulnerability and is intent on exploiting it. We are willingly presenting ourselves to be conquered in the name of cooperation. But there are fundamental differences between reaching out and groveling, between requesting what is yours and begging. Ultimately a people and its culture will survive and overcome by the quality of their dignity and by standing erect even in the face of perils. This is one of the truest tests of dignity. If you compromise your dignity you have little left of yourself to pass on to the next generation.
When I heard that some Buxtonians wanted to return to our village to celebrate the anniversary of Emancipation in 2010 I was excited. The idea was first mooted by Mr. Nigel Miller who resides in the USA. Although I was not a member of either of the two committees which spearheaded the activities in Buxton to mark the 170th and 172nd anniversaries of the purchases of that historic village and the formal end to slavery respectively, I offered my services to the groups.
I supported the thrust of both groups even if I identified more with the one headed by Mr. Mboya Wood, my longtime brother-comrade and friend, and Ms. Lorna Campbell in New York and Dr. Barbara Thomas-Holder in Buxton. Mr. Wood and Ms. Campbell kept me abreast of the planning and sometimes sought my input. When my view was sought on the involvement of Mr. Odinga Lumumba in the activities, I said I had no objections — after all he is a Buxtonian. I was however wary of too much government involvement.
I was asked to give the keynote address at the opening ceremony on July 24 and to moderate a symposium a few days later. The Minister of Culture was slated to speak at the opening ceremony but he did not show up. There was heavy security at the event which suggested that the President or the Prime Minister, both of whom were invited, was expected. Neither of them showed up. The media, including the Chronicle, were there. A Chronicle reporter spoke to me and took my biographical information. While all the other media carried reports on the event, to date the Chronicle has carried not a single word. At the symposium I called on the organisers to turn down an invitation by the President to a reception at State House as I was certain that it was a political trap. I felt and still feel that we should steer clear of partisan political involvement and should not offer comfort to any political side.
For this I was roundly criticised by a leading member of the committee who viewed my call as unhelpful to the cause of development in Buxton and suggested that since I live overseas I did not have to face the realities of living with the present government. It was the first time I was ever told to my face that I had no business expressing a view about Buxton because I do not reside there. Needless to say I was amused as the member herself does not reside in the village. But it was the first sign that my presence was problematic for some of the organisers. – I was too political.
That same evening I reluctantly attended a “ball” at the Georgetown Club which was also attended by the Prime Minister and four Government Ministers. The only two speakers at the event were the Prime Minister and Mr. Odinga Lumumba.
There were two things wrong with the event. First, why hold a Buxton Emancipation Ball at the Georgetown Club at a cost way out of reach of most Buxtonians. Second, why have a Buxton event where Government officials were the centre of attention? Suffice to say the event was attended mostly by the overseas based Buxtonians. I sensed that something was going wrong but in the interest of harmony I held my peace.
My fears were confirmed when the time for an education forum on August 5th was hurriedly changed. I later learned that this was done to accommodate those who were going to the President’s reception. I was stunned by the report in the press the next day showing a happy bunch of Buxtonians at State House and quoting them as being “humbled” to be there. I was ashamed and enraged that my people could be so easily fooled and bought. It brought back images of the slaves dressing up and performing for the Massa – back then they were coerced; now they willingly present themselves. I thought of the slave traders delivering their own people into slavery.
This is not the Buxton of the 1840 purchase of the “Promise Land,” of Nana Culley and Dan Cunchin of Fredericks’ Buxton Scholarship, of the Buxtonians who stopped the train, of Eusi Kwayana, ASCRIA and the First of August Movement. I made some mild criticisms on a Groundings TV programme but waited to hear from the organisers before expanding. When we met they were unapologetic.
My explanations of the possible political ramifications were met with mild acknowledgements. However, I promised Sister Yvette Herod that in the interest of unity, I would tone down my criticisms. But I left the meeting with the feeling that something dramatic was being planned. Soon reports reached me that some members of the committee were describing themselves as “liaison” to the President and that they were planning to take the President to Buxton. They did not want to publicize it for fear that there would be protests.
The Education Forum referenced above heard gruesome tales of violence, hunger, poverty, illiteracy – the consequence of six years of the worst kind of terror. I was moved to point out that Buxton is in a post-war situation and that we should declare a state of emergency.
Towards this end the forum discussed plans to immediately tackle the violence in the schools, hunger and illiteracy. We also planned an outreach to parents. Similar forums were held with farmers and businesspeople.
It was agreed that a meeting should be held with the wider community to report and get more input and that a press conference should be called to report to the nation. To date neither has been held. Instead the teachers were slated to have a meeting at State House and President Jagdeo and other Government Ministers descended on the village on Wednesday. The Leaders of the Commemoration Committee were prominent. One of them called the President’s visit a “historic moment.”
The President declared that government would fund the initiatives discussed at the education forum. None of these initiatives was been discussed with villagers as we agreed, but the President has pronounced on them as if they were government initiatives.
As stated above I am not opposed to villages accessing government funding. But we must not ignore the political context when we relate to the government. Despite the President’s plea that he was not looking for votes, it is an open secret that the government is desperate to show it has the support of African Guyanese.
It is one of the tactics to continue the resistance to share power with African Guyanese representatives. It is one of the tactics to secure a third term for President Jagdeo – he will argue he is the only PPP leader who can win African Guyanese votes.
I am opposed to the President going to communities bearing gifts and the communities gravelling at his feet. This to my mind is what has happened in Buxton. What started out as a noble effort to reclaim the dignity of Buxton has ended up as an obscene political maneuver in which some leaders have mindlessly and perhaps innocently delivered the village to the political overlords. Perhaps Dr. Thomas-Holder is right in describing the President’s presence as historic – it is the first time that Buxton has been presented on a platter to be used as political props in a clear political game. That never happened under the PNC government to which Buxtonians had more ethno-political affinity. The sight of my colleagues grinning from ear to ear, of Buxton’s children forming a guard of horror while the President strides confidently as if he owns Buxton is nauseating.
Although I fault the President for agreeing to this scheme — something that Mr. Burnham or Mr. Hoyte never did to Buxton – it is the Buxtonians who used our commemoration as a platform to get in bed with the government that I am most disappointed at. My words must be harsh as the enormity of your transgression must be highlighted. It is an act of betrayal to surrender your people in an election year to the clutches of a party and government that have destroyed the democratic and multiracial hope of 1992 which your village was instrumental in bringing to fruition. You have betrayed African Guyanese for a few pieces of dirty coins. You have become the model not of a new emancipation but of a new accommodationism. You are teaching Buxtonians and Africans to be mindless beggars and weaklings.
At a time when Indians, such as Freddy Kissoon, are in court for pointing out the racism against African Guyanese, for standing up for us, you are playing up to the accused. When Indians are saying how corrupt the government is you are welcoming it with African drums. When the international community is rebuking the government for its alleged role in the murder of young African men, you are dignifying it.
When this government is accused of carrying blows to Indian dissenters you are taking your people into the unholy den. When African Guyanese are catching hell in Guyana, are being reduced to serfs, are being eye-passed you are strengthening one of the sources of their misery. You are dining and hosting a government that has refused to share power with your representatives. Mr. Jagdeo does not have to ask for votes, you are campaigning for him. You have lost your credibility and your way. You may get the millions promised but it will forever be stained with the blood of your betrayal. If you think a few million dollars will lift Buxton out of the depths you are living in a joker’s world. Blood money does not facilitate lasting development and buy dignity. I spent my early youth actively opposing the deliverance of Buxton to Congress Place — some of you were in the trenches with us. I spoke out against delivering our village to the gunmen of the recent past and now I oppose delivering it to Freedom House. Governments must govern fairly and communities must defend their right to self-determination. History will never be kind to those of you who slavishly delivered our ancestral house, however shaky it is, to be used as political prop.
We have not learned from our mistakes. When some Buxtonians welcomed the gunmen in 2002 they did not know they were opening the floodgates to mayhem in and from their village. Eight years later the village is in tatters and the facilitators of the gunmen are nowhere to be seen.
Now we are welcoming a new set of saviors. I predict the outcome will be of a different cloth but the same smell. Given the above I cannot continue my association with the group in Buxton. I cannot be party to their scheme. To them I say, as my colleague, Andaiye, famously said eight years ago — Not in my name. And I warn Buxtonians to stay away from this game, it is unhealthy. I can assure you that this is not my last word on this issue.
David Hinds

*********************************************************

Govt. is constitutionally bound to manage in the interest of all

Dear Editor,
A government is the servant of the people. The people are the ones who pay the nation’s bills, including the salaries and allowances of government officials.
The resources of this nation belong to all and this government does no one any favour. It is constitutionally bound to manage in the interests of all and account for its management to all. Instead the nation sees a group who misconstrues the opportunity to govern as a right to practice a degenerative system of governance that promotes racial triumphalism, disregards the rule of law, tramples on the rights of citizens, misappropriates the state’s money, feels it does not have to account to the people, and promotes fear and intolerance among the people.
Reference is made to recent media comments by Hydar Ally (Kaieteur News August 18), Prem Misir (Kaieteur News August 1) and Bharrat Jagdeo (SN August 3). Inspite of evidence to the contrary this rapacious and abusive government has the temerity to tell the nation that there exists racial unity and it has improved ethnic relations. Its systematic policies to ensure racism and deepen ethnic rifts are borne out by some examples below.
In November 1992 the PPP’s first target was the foreign missions which saw the removal of every African Head of Mission and retaining all the Indians. The government even went down the lower rung and removed several African workers, some of whom had to resort to the court for redress.
Today the foreign missions are staffed with 10 ambassadors and high commissioners of which one is Portuguese and nine are Indians. The Burnham and Hoyte’s government sought to ensure the composition of our foreign missions reflects the racial diversity of our society.
Clarence Ellis, Rasleigh Jackson and Carl Greenidge were denied opportunities as international public servants by this government not because they didn’t qualify.
This nation witnesses the discriminatory treatment being meted out to bauxite workers, particularly in the areas of addressing and protecting their rights under the laws of this country.
The 10-month old dispute at the Bauxite Company of Guyana Inc (BCGI) where the Government of Guyana (the People of Guyana) is a shareholding partner sees the Minister of Labour and Chief Labour Officer refusing to conciliate under the Laws of Guyana to address the workers’ complaints.
The destruction of the bauxite workers’ pension plan valued in excess of $2.5 billion which was the single largest poll of money owned by Africans. Today retired workers are being forced into mendicancy by a government that willfully destroyed their retirement investment.
Several efforts by Africans to own business were torpedoed once the government had to be involved. Some examples are efforts to acquire the Everton Bauxite Operation in Berbice in as much as it lies idle and equipment rotting, bauxite workers proposal to convert their pension plan into an investment fund and the denial of contracts to African contractors.
Public servants and sugar workers are both employees of the state. Yet the right to collective bargaining in the public service is disrespected and the said right is respected in the sugar industry.
The government refuses to engage the Guyana Public Service Union in collective bargaining on behalf of public servants even at it spares no effort to ensure this right is protected for the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers Union (GAWU) and National Association of Agricultural Clerical and Industrial Employess (NAACIE) who bargain on behalf of sugar workers.
Ms. Genevieve Whyte-Nedd is not appointed Chief Education Officer not because she doesn’t qualify and the responsible Minister has reportedly said he doesn’t feel comfortable working with her.
The withdrawal of taxpayers’ funding to the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) and the Critchlow Labour College (CLC) even as similar funding is given to the PPP aligned unions. It was a Minister who said CLC was established to put Black people in the University through the backdoor ignoring the fact that other including the Minister of Agriculture Robert Persaud also benefitted from the College that allowed them entry into the University of Guyana.
The government disbursed $1.6 million for Emancipation festivity and over $5 million for Indian Arrival Day. The Rights Commissions to ensure the protection of people’s rights are made handicap because of the government refusal to ensure the requisite institutional support.
These open aggressions against the people are not only manifested in the above but also in the discriminatory treatment to areas the PPP has not won, the refusal to implement the Hoyte/Jagdeo Agreement for depressed communities, the refusal to honour the Government of Guyana and the GTUC Agreement (8 March 2000) to examine the issue of policing and crime and provide land on the Linden Soesdyke Highway for a housing development for workers, the dismissive approach to accessing overseas assistance to improve security, sanctioning of death squads, among other acts that would keep the people impoverished and divided.
Further, others who hold the government accountable, question its management, express alternative views and criticise its policies see the attack on their persons, they being placed before the courts, incarcerated on trumped up charges, withdrawal of state funding including advertisement, and other denial of equal access to and participation in the nation’s resources.
These acts are crimes against humanity and the government must hear the people’s indignation.
Lincoln Lewis