Freddie needs to stop shifting the goal post

Mar 25, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
My friend, Freddie Kissoon, needs to stop shifting the goal post and stick to the issue. Reference is made to his letter “Lincoln, talk only makes sense when the autocracy is still redeemable” (24/3/2013). Let me once again try to bring Freddie back to the focus of this discussion. The Guyana Trades Union Congress (TUC)’s engagement with Sam Hinds was in his capacity as Leader of the Government business in the National Assembly. This engagement attended to “the right and the duty to work” for Guyanese, as outlined in Article 22 of the Guyana Constitution, which was violated by the non-employment of Guyanese labour in the construction of the Marriott Hotel. This meeting was covered in its entirety by the national media, a first for engagement with the PPP administration, and was also carried as news items. And two reasons informed this decision: (1) the nation will witness exactly what transpired, and (2) to avoid any misrepresentation of what transpired.
The TUC wrote the political groups in parliament on the Marriott Hotel issue. Sam Hinds reached out to the TUC and sought an engagement, which the TUC honoured. For Kissoon to now then say that the “TUC engaging in talks with the second tier leadership of the PPP Government (Sam Hinds and Brassington etc.)” is disingenuous and shifting of the goal post. It is not the TUC’s place to tell any group it engages with who must be its representatives. This meeting was also attended by the Private Sector Commission. Kissoon is opposed to the TUC talking with the PPP but to date he has failed to cogently rebut what I said to him, that “Freddie, even your enemies you have to engage and talk to. Even when they are throwing bombs in Afghanistan, they are talking.”
He is plunging in by his neck on an issue of national import and he needs to be careful about the statements he is making. We are talking about people’s wellbeing, so misrepresenting the issue and demonising an approach without offering solutions based on substance is a disservice to the situation and to the society. If Kissoon has a workable solution that the TUC can pursue to secure “the right and the duty to work” for Guyanese, in this instance when the Executive has the responsibility for signing contracts on behalf of the People of Guyana, then let him make it public. The TUC sees this matter of ensuring Guyanese employment as one that ought to be fought on many fronts. One of which is street struggle, and the TUC participated in the protests organised by the opposition political parties. Another front is to engage in talks with groups in the National Assembly and other stakeholders which is what the TUC is currently pursuing. And another is to effect and enforce legislation to avoid a re-occurrence, which is a goal of the TUC.
The TUC, given past experiences, is not fooled nor harbours any illusion that a government with a track record of acting in bad faith can change overnight. But the TUC also knows, given its historical record, that when it sits at the table, buttressed with its age-old record of stick-to-it-iveness, it can deliver for the society. Kissoon can himself attest to the TUC’s ability. He may recall that prior to his last controversy with the University of Guyana, when his contract was proposed to be terminated for failure to meet certain conditions, it was the TUC, in the person of myself, who advanced the argument at the University Council packed with PPPites and caused them to see, recognise and appreciate that Kissoon’s rights were being violated. Based on this act, he was retained in the employment of the university and given an opportunity to continue making a contribution to society. I wonder why my friend did not caution me against talks and engagement and presented me a history book to read, where according to him, “talks only make sense when the autocracy is still redeemable.”
Further, for Kissoon to make the case that “there is no book, statement or anything in history that says enemies must talk” is nonsensical, because any Fourth Standard student or religious person can find such a book and prove him wrong. His reference to philosophers also does not make the case for non-talks when the TUC has a responsibility to society and such is guided by universal declarations, conventions, charters and laws; and the Guyana Constitution. Kissoon is also reminded that these very instruments he wants to submerge or ignore are the work of the collective will of the people which grew out of historical wars, conflicts and efforts at forging peaceful co-existence, wherein all are held to the same standards and play by the same rules. If with the ILO that grew out of World War I, the United Nations that grew out of World War II, and our Constitution amended in the 1990s with the collective input of the people, we cannot stand up and demand that they be upheld, then where does this leave us as modern man? For collectively these instruments offer the people the opportunities to right the wrongs by holding government – executive and opposition – accountable to them.
The issue is not whether I have read Gramsci, or any other book. The issue is about human relations and how we find mechanisms to resolve our differences, peacefully co-exist, and enjoy our inalienable rights. What is evident is that Kissoon has not read the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. For had he read, he would not have attacked Desmond Hoyte’s street struggle to end executive lawlessness, nor my condemnation of the PPP’s policy of economic genocide against the African community and demanding even-handedness in  management, since government has such a responsibility to the society. And based on Kissoon’s behavior on these three issues, he can be deemed an enabler of the PPP’s injustices in this society. But recently his position has converged with progressive forces and we all can work together. Notwithstanding the stated, Kissoon is again asked to cite for this nation any political event in history, other than armed removal of governments/political authority, where the oppressed have not talked and engaged the oppressors.
Finally, on his position about Ramon ‘Rambo’ Gaskin; if he has concerns about Rambo’s public activities then let him take the fight to Rambo. But to use what he considers an infraction by Rambo to determine whether Rambo should be my friend or associate, then by his own standard I should ask whether I should be his friend, given the fact that historically our interests have converged and clashed. And on Robert Corbin and Bharrat Jagdeo’s relationship that Kissoon needs an answer from me, I cannot help him. I am not in the business of minding business if it is not classified as the people’s business.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---