Which proposition seems more realistic, less far-fetched and gels in with the immediate security needs

Jun 05, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Roxanne De Cruiz’s response to my letter titled, “The AFC’s lofty plans are nice sounding but are shallow and impractical at best” and published in the Kaieteur News on Friday June 3rd further highlights the points contained therein.
The major one of which is; that the AFC’s lofty plans are nice sounding but are shallow and impractical at best and offer no immediate remedy to the challenges being faced by Guyanese. De Cruiz’s posits that she asked for a debate between Donald Ramotar, Khemraj Ramjattan and David Granger and that she didn’t understand why “they” sent “you” (me) this is synonymous with the “them versus us” syndrome. And this runs contrary to the AFC’s 2005 promise of fostering “a new political culture”.
Any agent or advocate of a political party whose practices are part of “a new political culture” would’ve addressed the issues raised instead of resorting to washed up political rhetoric or personalization. And since De Cruiz seems obsessed with personalities I hope to limit her response to this letter by stating that I have no problems being labeled “a PPP propagandist”, “GINA operative”, “PPP lapdog”, “Government lackey”, “Soup drinker” and similarly I do not have a problem with the fact that I am the son of Errol “Taps” Butcher being highlighted publicly.
For me it comes with the territory as people are often treated in this manner when they seek to question or highlight the flaws of any of the opposition parties. That out of the way, I return to the issues.
De Cruiz, in her initial letter described Donald Ramotar’s promise of a SWAT Team to combat the current upsurge in banditry while speaking to members of the GMSA as being a revert to Jagdeo’s failed policies. She attributed what she perceives as the lack of success of the security forces in combating this upsurge to the Government’s failure to accept the British security sector reform offer. Albeit, she did so without pointing to a single instance where such reforms has worked whilst ignoring the two cases I pointed out where it has failed.
To further highlight my point about her party’s “nice sounding, shallow and impractical” plans which offer no immediate remedy to the challenges being faced by Guyanese De Cruiz directs us to the AFC’s “plans to confront organised crime” which list the following  steps to be taken:
1. Increasing substantially law enforcement officers’ salaries;
2. Giving the DEA permission to set up a local facility;
3. Re-engaging the British, USA and other friendly Governments for technical and financial assistance to reform the Joint Services;
4. Removing corrupt officers from the Joint Services;
All of the steps to be embarked upon as listed above will take years to achieve.  And maybe it missed De Cruiz that Ramotar’s audience at the GMSA luncheon consisted of mostly business people. So how would the presence of a DEA office in Guyana prevent the proprietor of John’s Stationery from being robbed after conducting business at one of the local banks? Further, while an AFC government is busy “re-engaging the British, USA and other friendly Governments for technical and financial assistance to reform the Joint Services” there is the very likelihood that the entire membership of the GMSA will be robbed (some killed in the process) during the time it will take to complete this entire process.
So I ask readers which proposition seems more realistic, less far-fetched and gels in with the immediate security needs of the audience at the GMSA luncheon; Ramotar’s plan to create a SWAT Team or the AFC’s plan to combat organised crime.
Earlier this year SN reported that the AFC outlined at the launch of the party’s election campaign a proposal to conduct ‘ethnic impact studies for all important cabinet decisions and all new major programmes within government departments’. This proposition raised the following questions:
1. Is the AFC saying that before anything important gets done under their stewardship, these ‘ethnic impact studies’ will be conducted?
2. If so, how long exactly will the AFC take to build a bridge or school?
3. Are we to believe that before an AFC government gets anything done they will be conducting studies?
In closing what is my last response to Roxanne De Cruiz on this subject, it is my hope that she shed some light as it relates to my concerns instead attaching so much importance to herself, as was demonstrated when she wrote, “I asked for a debate”. We already know which side you’re on so why should Ramotar waste time pondering to your ego?
Jason Abdulla

---

---