Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter from D. Ramprakash entitled ‘Statistics are essential in the marginalisation debate.’ Ramprakash is of course correct; it is a difficult accusation to define or to quantify and so we have to establish marginalisation another way, ie by looking at the perceptions of people, since if perceptions are not reality, they certainly point to what is reality for our people.
This is an edited version of part of my speech in the Parliament during the 2008 budget debates. I reproduce it here since it is my opinion, with the greatest of respect, that this question of marginalisation is not being properly analysed in your columns by the letter writers on the matter.
I found the introductory remarks of the Finance Minister’s budget submission 2008 personally offensive, since I know what the economic realities are for the majority of Guyanese. It is a situation which was much different to what was being presented by Minister Singh in the Parliament and thus raised serious questions about his credibility; but since this same Minister stood in our National Assembly in 2007 and told us that his VAT taxes of 16% for 2007 were revenue neutral and that would not add any financial burden to the Guyanese people, Dr Ashni Singh’s credibility was completely compromised, since VAT has netted nearly 76% more revenue than projected, and the poor Guyanese citizens – the poorest and most taxed citizens in the Caribbean – have had to pay 12 billion dollars extra in taxes to compensate for the sad way our economy is performing. The only questions therefore now are: 1. Was it deliberate? or 2. Did he make a mistake? Neither is acceptable.
And so I have decided that the minister’s presentation was not a realistic look at our national situation. What is the reality of the Guyana situation?
In October 2007 the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) in a last-ditch effort to salvage its credibility, presented the Parliament with numerous documents on its performance thus far, but it is clear to anyone with one eye that the commission does nothing to ease ethnic tensions in this country. In fact, the national animosity the commission generates, fuelled by the national animosity to Mr Edghill, it is more likely to raise rather than quell ethnic tensions in Guyana. Nevertheless it presented the house with several reports of its activities and mixed in with the huge pile of documentation totalling nearly 700 pages, was a presentation by Dr Melissa Ifill, a lecturer at the University of Guyana, entitled ‘A study to assess whether there is any discrimination in the award and distribution of economic opportunities in Guyana.’
I expected that anything from the ERC would be highly sanitised; but the following escaped their attention. Dr Ifill states: “Indian Guyanese far more than African, mixed or indigenous Guyanese believe that the state, private sector and NGO sector act in a fair manner in their provision of economic opportunities. 80 out of 94 Indian respondents believed that the state acts in a fair manner, the corresponding figure for African respondents is 15 out of 73, while for the mixed groups the figure was 10 out of 40 and for indigenous respondents the figure was 6 out of 23.
So now we have Mr Hoyte’s perceptions of marginalisation which he spoke of in 2001 finally down on paper in 2007 using a proper statistical device!
Which for me ends the debate as to whether there is marginalisation in this country. 85 % of the Indo-Guyanese polled thought that the state was working in a fair manner but only 20.5 per cent of Afro-Guyanese perceived that they had a chance of getting a fair deal in Guyana; only 20% of the mixed Guyanese thought so; and for indigenous people only 26% thought that they had a chance at sharing in the national pie! And before someone jumps in to tell us that Dr Ifill’s study had methodological flaws, as the PPP parliamentarians and the AFC’s Mr Ramjattan said when I brought up this matter in the Economics Services Committee in early December 2007, let me say this: I have shown Dr Ifill’s study to several knowledgeable people; her methodology is clearly laid out on pages 28-31 of her report and there is no flaw in the study’s data collection. And even if there were methodological flaws in Dr Ifill’s report, could we as a nation opt not to pay attention to these dangerous perceptions in such a substantial sector of our country’s people?
Mr Editor, this comes at a time when we are divided in the house as to who should head the ERC, and we must decide if the commission headed by Mr Edghill can serve this country, given these perceptions recorded in 2007 after several years of its functioning. It is certainly clear that the ERC has done nothing to change dangerous ethnic perceptions and tensions in this country and it is a national disgrace, which is why we will not agree to returning the current head of that commission; we want new independent leaders in the ethnic relations commission, people who can do the right things to remove the ethnic tensions in this nation by fearlessly levelling the playing field for everyone!
Secondly we have to ask the question: How can any government hope to rule effectively in a country in which nearly half of the population does not have any confidence in them to rule fairly or equitably?
Since nearly three quarters of the indigenous people said that they perceived they were being discriminated against, building a hostel in Georgetown for Amerindian students will not help their situation; that is to impress the international community, but the perception of the Amerindians comes from living, as they do, in their villages isolated and deprived as they are from any resources other than government handouts, which has led them to their perceptions of marginalisation.
The indigenous peoples in this nation are not free, Mr Editor, they are an oppressed nation and the international community should look into their situation much more closely.
To support this contention, Dr Ifill’s report on page 52 says, “the available evidence suggests that the group most at risk from discrimination in the distribution of economic resources, evidenced by their poverty levels, their isolated residential location, their lack of knowledge of the available lending institutions and the lack of sufficient NGO institutions serving their communities, is the indigenous population.”
So the perceptions of the indigenous population are much the same as any other group in this nation who are not Indian; the new Amerindian Act further isolates them by incorporating provisions that have that effect. All the Amerindian associations in Guyana agree with me.
Mr Editor, Minister Carolyn Rodrigues can grandstand as much as she wants, she can say “enough” as much as she wants, the Amerindians themselves are saying that they feel deprived and the evidence in the Ifill study of their perceptions supports it. And it is I who say enough!
So Mr Editor, I ask the question again: How can anyone hope to rule this country in peace, cooperation and harmony under these circumstances?Yours faithfully,
Anthony Vieira, MS, MP
