Mind your tone, Mr. Minister!

Dec 25, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The Private Sector Commission of Guyana has politely asked the Minister of Public Security for an extension in the opening hours for the entertainment industry. The Commission requested that the curfew of 2 am which is presently in place be relaxed, as was done last year, since a number of operators in the entertainment industry have booked artistes and the extension would also allow for tourists to fully enjoy the experience.
The Minister, in a long and winding reply, has shut down the proposal. This is within his prerogative to do. But it is the manner in which he has done it and the tone of his response which is highly disturbing and points to the likely effects of political intoxication. It a response that one would expect from someone who is power drunk, not from a decent guy like the Minister.
The Minister was not content to simply say no. He had to dissect the PSC’s letter and launch and unwarranted and woefully unnecessary tirade. The Minister’s response is carried in today’s edition of this newspaper.
There was no need for the minister to throw such a tantrum and respond in such a manner. He could have simply responded by saying that the request was carefully considered, but a decision was taken that it was not in the interest of public security for the curfew to be extended as it was last year.
The Minister berated the PSC Chairman for being of the view (the Minister says impression) that because the curfew was relaxed last Christmas that it would be relaxed this year. Even if this was indeed the belief of the PSC Chairman, is it not rational for the Chairman to use that waiver, granted last year, as one of the arguments for requesting an extension this year.
The Minister says that the law must be strictly upheld and he is upholding the law. This is an argument which has been used to soften or to circumvent discussion as to the appropriateness of the law. The Minister and the government reduce the matter to a legal one.
The law says that 2 am and it has to be 2 am. This is how the government has responded to the social, security and economic arguments about the curfew. It has said that it is a legal issue and that law cannot be violated.
A number of things can be said about that. First, it is a cop-out from addressing the economic and social arguments. The government has no defence against such arguments and has sought refuge in claiming that the law must be upheld. The impact on tourism, for example, has not been considered.
Second, the Minister has himself set the precedent by waiving the curfew last year. It is the Minister therefore who had created the opening for the private sector to request, not demand, that the matter be reconsidered again this year.
Third, the law is the law. So says the Minister. But it is the Minister himself who has implemented the regulations of this law. So the Minister can change it and should consider the impact on business, especially at this time of the year, which determines whether a business will make a profit or go broke. The cardinal rule in business is if you cannot make it at Christmas time, you should get out of business.
Fourth, the law is the law, but the Minister also has the power under the law to extend the curfew. Surely, the Minister has that power because if he does not, then it meant that last year he was breaking his own law by waiving the curfew over the holidays.
The law is believed to grant to the Minister the power to waive the curfew. So, the Minister has the power, and, in denying the request for a waiver, he should provide reasons why he does not wish to exercise that power. He cannot hide under the law, because the law can be waived, supposedly, at his discretion.
Fifth, the private sector is taking ‘blows’. It needs assistance. Business is down. Extending the curfew for only a few nights would have been a welcome boost for the private sector.
Sixth, the law is unfair in some respects. Certain enclosed facilities are allowed to go beyond 2 am, while unenclosed businesses have to close at that time. This gives an advantage to those places such as nightclubs located within hotels, which can go beyond the stipulated curfew.
The tone of the Minister’s response is disturbing. It points to a developing attitude by Ministers of the coalition government. It is a step down from saying “haul your… you know what”. But it is no different from saying “take it or leave it”.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News