What a disaster – for the health sector, for our material heritage, for the political environment and most of all for the people of Guyana. There is something wrong with whoever burnt down the Ministry of Health if, by virtue of some twisted logic, they seriously believe that this is a step towards making Guyana a better place.
So who exactly, everyone is asking, is responsible for this latest example of destructive nonsense? One is assuming (although there is no proof of this currently) that the perpetrators have been inspired by some kind of political considerations, and that one is not dealing with anyone who has a personal grudge against the Ministry of Health and was just out for revenge. The reason of course is that the fire follows the pattern of earlier attacks on ministries – the case of the Ministry of Works excepted – during periods of instability associated with elections. And the instrument of destruction has generally been Guyana’s own version of the Molotov cocktail – the channa bomb – tempting one to the conclusion that while the same perpetrators may not have been responsible, they nevertheless operate with a similar mode of thinking.
There are certainly wild men out there who do not adhere to any formal party structure, but who are incited to commit dangerous acts because of a tense political atmosphere, or careless statements made in the political arena, even though these were not intended to incite anyone. As things stand, the political atmosphere has been a great deal less than rational in recent times, while of the careless public statements, the most unfortunate of them (on Honduras) was made by Mr Corbin. One presumes that the recent shrillness of tone of the ruling politicians is to do with the local government elections, and their fear that members of their constituency might not turn out to vote at all, or might even defect because the PNC is not perceived as representing the threat it once did. As for the PNC, it is in disarray and its leader under challenge on a number of fronts, which is not an environment conducive to moderation in speech.
Assuming a general political motive of some kind, what was the reason for the arsonists’ choice of target? The truth is, it really doesn’t matter what it was. The act was misconceived, whether aimed at the Minister of Health in particular because of his travails in relation to the spyware allegations, for example, or the government in general – or both. Furthermore, if the larger intention, for instance, was to injure the government and ruling party the effect might paradoxically end up being quite the opposite. It would open up possibilities for them to galvanize their constituents in relation to the usual tired themes, and deflect attention from the plethora of allegations about their governance. It might incidentally open up possibilities for Mr Corbin as well to rally the disaffected troops, and distract them from his own difficulties within the party. In other words, the fire-bombing was not a revolutionary act; it was one likely to ensure the political status quo, if it doesn’t help send the society over the cliff altogether.
There is always the remote possibility that the arsonists were actually targeting a specific set of documents, but for anyone who had anything to cover up, the financial records would be the critical ones, and these are backed up in the Ministry of Finance, the media were told. And as for the procurement records, Dr Ramsammy told the press yesterday that those were not kept in the ministry anyway. Anyone who knew enough to want to target these records would surely be aware of this and not waste their time with the Ministry of Health.
Without speculating on who they were, the President on Friday rightly laid emphasis on catching the perpetrators. A substantial reward has been offered for information, and one can only hope that it produces results. However, the population is not holding its breath, since no one was ever apprehended for the previous incidents involving ministries. The President also raised the question of increasing security at government installations, however, in the first instance, the administration needs a detailed analysis of what went wrong in this case.
There were three security guards on duty that night: one at the hut on the Brickdam side of the compound, one at the Hadfield Street hut, and one in a makeshift hut to the east. (Stabroek News was told there should have been four guards, but one did not turn up for duty.) The fire appeared to have broken out in the top flat on the Hadfield Street side, so was the guard there asleep, as Minister Ramsammy suggested? It may be significant that it was the female guard on the Brickdam side who saw the smoke and called headquarters, not the one on the side where the fire began. And if the guard on that side was not asleep, how did the arsonist(s) climb the stairs of the fire escape to the top flat without being noticed? It is not as if any bomb thrower could have successfully tossed a missile (probably consisting of a rum bottle) full of channa from ground level in through a grilled top-floor window.
In fact, one should ask was the bomb thrown through a window at all, because if it had been, the sound of breaking glass might have attracted the attention of a guard, sleeping or otherwise, and possibly even of local residents – and it is a long way down from the top floor to make good an escape. Could it be that the device(s) was just set down on the top landing, because other than that one would have to postulate that the perpetrators either had access to the building, or were able to force their way inside without making too much noise. And where forcing their way inside was concerned, Minister Ramsammy told our reporter yesterday that the door at the top of the fire escape was locked from the inside, and that the grilled windows were not of the louvre variety, so therefore were not easy to remove. They could have been broken one supposes, but again, should the guard not have heard this?
It was suggested to us by a source yesterday, that in one of the annexes which was on fire, bombs were found inside although there was no evidence of forced entry or a broken window. However, this makes no sense, since as far as is known the makers of channa bombs have not yet graduated to including timers in their devices. Once the wick is lit, therefore, provided it does not go out, it will ignite the contents of the bottle after a relatively short period. In any case, Minister Ramsammy said there was evidence of a break-in there.
Apart from a sleeping guard or guards, there are other hypotheses, one of which, although unlikely, would involve the collusion of a security guard, and the other, that one (or even two) guards deserted their posts for a short time. In any event, the gates were closed, and the perpetrator or perpetrators had to get into the compound somehow, so exactly how was this accomplished? Did the guards in the Geology and Mines Commission compound see anything unusual? Is the fence easily scaled, and if it is, should not alert guards notice intruders in the compound? In addition, what was the quality of the lighting like? Were there large dark areas which would have allowed the arsonists to stay out of a guard’s line of vision? Was it that the guards really were all awake, but their disposition around the compound, and other circumstances made it possible for an arsonist or arsonists to enter undetected? The public, no less than the government, one presumes, would like answers to these and other questions. We cannot afford another catastrophic loss of this kind, let alone the political consequences that will come in its train.
