I have heard consistent criticism against this Govt.

Sep 23, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I recently made a short visit to the land of my birth. Like most Guyanese I celebrated the end of PPP rule. A period of rule that saw discrimination and corruption soaring to heights never before experienced in all of CARICOM. The PPP represented a group of men and women consumed by selfishness and the love of power.
Concern for the welfare of the common man rated low on their ‘to do list’ and this attitude gave rise to their involvement in a multitude of wrong doings. A certain religious philosophy teaches that ‘selfishness is the father of every sin.’ The behaviour of the Jadgeo/Ramotar regimes bears witness to the correctness of that observation. So after an absence of 4 years, I was glad to return to a Guyana where there was hope and where decency and respect for the common man I assumed had returned. Sadly, in some ways I was disappointed.
I was taken aback by the level of complaining and disappointment expressed by citizens, and in this case known supporters of the PNC. Shockingly, I heard complaints of ‘Deh only looking out fo dem self,’ being leveled against the Granger administration. People could not understand the need to build another military ceremonial area at old Durban Park. Party members complained about how hard it is to get to see a minister (incidentally I heard the same complaint from die hard PPP supporters during the reign of that party). Some spoke of walls placed between the ordinary citizen and ministers by their (ministers) secretaries; secretaries who seem to see as their most pressing function, making their ministers inaccessible to the man in the street. A young man who sells religious tracts complained about the transportation situation. He was amused by the President’s initiative that gives a mini bus here and another there, in his words, “as if da is a realistic solution to de problem.” (I will return to this transportation issue at some other time).
Yes, the complaints and criticisms were many, and difficult to respond to in terms of offering hope. As a person who wishes this government well I was tempted to respond in philosophical terms. Like pointing out that the presence of discontent is not entirely a bad thing. That individuals and nations can only know progress where there is discontent. That it is as we respond to our discontent that progress is realized. That where there is no discontent there can be no progress. But in the name of all that is decent, in the context of the average Guyanese reality today who would be impressed with such a response? What is there for me to point to of significance to the working class that would bolster hope and make such high-brow chatter convincing?
People who are hurt, experience no satisfaction with this type of philosophizing. So all I could do was to shake my head in an effort to convey my sympathy. But in all their complaining it is the government’s offer of 10% increase in salaries to persons working at the lowest rounds of the public service that seem to be the source of the most disbelief and dissatisfaction.
Mr. Editor, I notice that recently a number of persons, mostly senior government operatives, have turned to mathematical calculations to prove that public servants have had fairly sizable increase in income since the collation government took office. Relative to what pertained during the rule of the PPP, it is hard to dispute this obvious fact. Further, those making this claim seem to be suggesting that public servants are being somewhat unreasonable in rejecting the government’s final offer of 10% raise for the lowest paid public servant and even lower percentage raise for those above the minimum wage. Seeking to justify this 10% offer by the sole use of mathematical calculation is inadequate and perhaps even insulting. I am surprised that some politicians seem to be warming to this line of justification. Peoples’ attitude and behavior cannot be appreciated by resort to mere mathematical calculations, some understanding of sociology and psychology is essential.
Today a number of writers and researchers who are experts in the areas of management and communication have turned their attention to studying persons they term as the Y generation and the Millenniums. Over all, these two generations comprise of persons born between 1970 and 1980 and those born after 1980 respectively. These experts in management and communication seek this understanding since they realize that the old ways for managing the parents (baby boomers and generation X, persons born between 1940s and 1960s) of the before mentioned generations are inadequate. Whereas management could have expected boomers and to a lesser extent Xers; with all their alleged radicalism; to accept the status quo (managers’and politicians’ inherent right to the good life to the exclusion of workers), generations Y and more so Millenniums would have none of this.
For members of these two generations while management is expected to have a better salary and overall package than the rank and file worker, what is offered to the common worker must not be outlandishly different. So for generation Y and Millenniums while the children of management staff can have company cars take them to school, they expect the company to provide a bus to take their children to school
Claudius Prince

Editor’s not: because of length, this letter will be continued.

---

---