Let’s stick to the agenda

Mar 15, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I have read a letter by a Mr. Bryan Chester, (Kaieteur News, March 8, 2011) and he missed completely the thrust of the points I had raised in my letter to Kaieteur News.
I spoke specifically about promises made by the ERC Chairman and his non-delivery. I did not blame Bishop Edghill for the ills of Linden or any other community.
In my specific case I spoke of $5.4 billion in development works purportedly coming to the community and less than 0.14% going to Linden’s labourers, contractors or businesses.
I will like Mr. Chester to speak to this issue and what he knows has been done by all stakeholders to correct this inequitable situation, a great source of discontent resulting in disaffection and the persistence of the status quo.
I will like him to challenge me on this fact. I have also presented data (updated to September 2009) to the commission’s lawyer/consultant to justify my contention and this should be challenged.
At that meeting Mr. Bynoe did not elaborate on what his group (Linden Salvation Council) was doing to help address the problems in Linden, even though later I had heard Mr. Bynoe speaking to several issues his group was engrossed in and calling on others to join him.
The specific reason I mentioned Mr. Bynoe was that the two of us were the most vocal representatives present and asking for the findings to be presented formally to the members present wherein the Bishop agreed and gave a one month time frame for reporting back to us.
If indeed a Mr. Chester was present he will remember that at that juncture a representative of Rockstone queried about their representation at the soon-to-come meeting one month after.
On the question of a female organiser saying that Mr. Gordon was responsible for dissuading Lindeners from working for outsiders, this was a concoction to smother the truth and so I question Mr. Chester’s memory of what transpired.
I was the last person holding the microphone during the discussion session and so how was it possible that a female said that I was calling people to refuse employment?
She had to have said that prior to my presentation, not immediately after.
If the Mr. Chester lives in Linden he will know that most people in Linden will say this is a fabrication intended to distort, since Gordon has always been in the forefront, fighting and urging for more work for the people. It is therefore incongruous for me to be asking for more persons to gain employment and telling them not to work.
This then leaves me no choice but to question Mr. Chester’s identity and purpose. Whoever you are let me enlighten you; I have a keen sense of my community activism and it is not pompous, “over subscribed” and self-defeating.
What would be useful though Mr. Chester is to find an individual (just one) who can satisfy the supposed allegation of Mr. Gordon telling people not to work for outsiders.
Again and for emphasis, in case you were not aware I have always been one of the strongest advocates at any forum available to put forward a case of maximization of the idle skills of residents in the Town. More than that many of us in leadership positions have also fought strenuously to garner whatever assistance is needed to maintain people’s interest in programmes that will change their economic circumstances in the beleaguered town.
Similarly, when residents seem to be working in a manner that is deemed counter productive, rest assured we are the first to comment. It is therefore inconceivable and an anathema for us to be ‘blowing hot and cold’ simultaneously.
That may be strange for people of the Chester’s ilk to understand, but there are still a few of us who believe in our independence, speak frankly and fearlessly to issues regardless of where the finger points and guard those principles zealously.
My position in the letter was that Bishop Edghill came to Linden in June 2009 and gave the commitment to submit the findings to us in a month’s time.
Take that to be the end of July 2009. He also signed onto the fact that we will select an individual or two to represent the various communities to discuss the findings and to recommend solutions.
If there was no initial plan to do that then that should have been said to the participants.
It would not have been good to say that then, so it appears that palliative was injected to make people leave the forum satisfied that their concerns were going to be dealt with expeditiously.
The supposedly well known Mr. Chester waxed that the ERC came to talk about “Intra-Inter Community Dialogue” – for what reasons? This is exactly what happened. People had burning issues and problems and they wanted their issues heard and addressed. Maybe, it escaped Mr. Chester that many of the issues were more focused and directed at a Central level than these were at the local (intra) level. He should remember too that the ERC had two young ladies at a desk at the back taking complaints and the Bishop himself was sending you directly to them to register complaints. Why do this if you are not on a fact-finding and problem solving mission?
The biggest joke though Mr. Chester is your point that people in general felt Lindeners were discriminating against themselves. I hope you really do not think we are that foolish and cannot recognise a perai from a patwa. There were just three presentations that were of certain leanings. One of those spoke about us not working in unity and against ourselves.
I would be the first to admit that there will be conflicts at the local level but people generally find ways of resolving these (intra level).
I have always maintained that Linden has seen more than its fair share of diversity and so has a far greater level of tolerance and “co-existence factor”, hence it does not have constricting, racial problems (inter level) as in some other parts of Guyana. Other reasons can be cited for this.
To conclude that Lindeners were discriminating against Lindeners as the culminating notion of the exercise is seen by me as obfuscation and inarticulate.
In closing, I would like the Bishop as a man of the cloth or substance, or his office to refute my claims in the letter.
* did he not say and agree that we will get the results of the findings in one month after June 30, 2009?
* Did he submit to us the findings as agreed?
* Did he not on June 4th 2010, at LEN say that the report from my complaint to Mrs. Hawke was delayed because of illness?
* Did he say that he was disappointed with the amount of complaints given to Mrs. Hawke bearing in mind the myriad complaints given at the EBECC in June 30, 2009?
* Is he aware if any copy of the report of my complaint was sent to me?
After these are addressed, I will proceed to argue publicly the case of my complaint since the body I am told can help from a constitutional level is taking more than two years to respond to our concerns.
Mr. Chester, you should make another try at confusion since the people know exactly what I speak of and by now they would have guessed that you were insulting them.
Saying that we want to continue to tell people that others do not care for them is disingenuous, but the people are intelligent enough to discern for themselves. Many times we are accused of being self-serving when we try to pacify and keep the peace on issues that irritate and irk the people. Where are you at these times?
Orrin Gordon

---

---