Dear Editor,
In yesterday’s Stabroek News (Thursday, May 24), there is an article titled ‘Gov’t moving to court over budget cuts.’
It is reported that Dr Luncheon (referring to the cuts in the Office of the President), said that “Over 122 staff in the Office of the President and their jobs are on the line.” 122 staff being cut – so what is the complement of the Office of the President? It must be well in excess of that number. I must assume that not the entire OP staff is being cut. No report has so indicated. The budget cut relating to the OP was in the region of $340M. Additionally, what an enormous office staff for the OP. Is there real work in advising the President for such a large staff?
Secondly, how can the courts issue a judgement on a legal decision taken in Parliament? This is democracy. The government is having some difficulty facing up to reality; the electorate voted for the current composition in Parliament. That is democracy – the will of the people. The implication is that during previous parliaments the opposition party could have appealed in court on any or all of the votes in Parliament – even the budgets. This is bizarre. Legitimate parliamentary votes appealed in the courts? Also, all this could have been avoided if the party in government had accepted the opposition parties’ request for consultation on the pre-budget period. Arrogance has a cost.
Referring to the opposition statements that the allocations (cuts) could be restored through Financial Papers, Dr Luncheon was quoted as saying, “Why would you want to [do something] and then review and change it in a few weeks?” Well a review in my dictionary is to look at something critically. What is wrong with that? Don’t we need more of that in Parliament and government?
Yours faithfully.
(Name and address provided)