Dear Editor,
I feel compelled to respond to Elton McRae’s letter, `Labour leaders failed on the Marriott workers issue’ (SN March 19, 2013). I had already come to my conclusion about what happened at the Critchlow Labour College when Prime Minister Samuel Hinds and Mr. Winston Brassington, Head of NICIL met with Mr. Christopher Ram and a few other well-known Guyanese including the leader of the Guyana Trades Union Congress. I had intended to keep my views to myself.
Indeed I got a very clear picture of the political shenanigans between the two major political parties listening to Professor David Hinds’ interview on Plain Talk earlier this year. It has become clearer to me that a major cross-section of Guyanese have been and are still being hoodwinked by those tasked with ensuring betterment in our daily lives and developing the country as a whole – and this is not specific to any ethnic group or political party. Even though Mr. Granger was quick to castigate Professor Hinds it is easy for me to conclude that the goodly Professor was speaking the truth when he answered questions on that programme.
We can all point to the lacklustre political response and support for the people’s show of dissatisfaction in Region 10, the disrespect for the people of Linden and for those who paid the ultimate price. Consider for a minute Dr. Luncheon’s confidence in saying not a dime more than the paltry amount the COI suggested as compensation.
Actually, most likely that’s the way it’s going to be. And this is why I’ve come to this conclusion. Professor Hinds uttered quite a mouthful answering questions from Mr. Christopher Ram. APNU does not have a functioning caucus outside parliament. APNU was effective participating in the 2011 election but beyond that is has failed to transition to a strategy since. The WPA is not a political party, at least not since Dr. Walter was eliminated. The WPA has not had a congress for a very long time but there are general meetings where the same old leaders are mostly re-elected. Conclusion, the WPA is a kind of organization, a coming together of some political aspirants left in limbo.
Following the 2011 elections, still according to Professor Hinds, APNC has so far been unable to come up with an effective strategy to deal with the new situation of a majority opposition handed to them by the Guyanese people. Instead, each party and group that makes up APNU has returned to their individual enclaves and it is business as usual – fighting for political relevance.
To complicate things further, and this is of great significance, Professor Hinds added that immediately following the 2011 elections and before the discomfort in Region 10, a group of opposition leaders met with representatives of government and certain understandings/deals were agreed to.
Now what could be the implications of this? What is the relevance of all of this to Region 10’s present dilemma, the Marriott debacle and the wider fight for fairness and development in Guyana as a whole? What are the kinds of deals that can be made by our representatives which causes them to be impotent on certain matters and barely uttering some lip service on others? Don’t make any noise on this one, you can talk on the next but don’t force us to give an outcome.
Maybe that explains the hands-off approach to the Region 10 situation from the PNC. I would say that is why, to cover their inadequacy there was a spin that suggests Mr. Solomon was unsuccessful because he wanted to go it alone.
Now to the meeting at Critchlow and Elton McRae’s concerns. It is of significance where the meeting was held and with whom. Remember now, the present administration has for years suspended the lawfully budgeted subvention for the running of the college. College administration has for years been begging Government to restart paying the money so that the day-to-day running of the college can be financed.
Now at the time of the Marriott conflict government is considering, considering mind you, the restart of the payment of the money. So, if I’m to use Professor Hinds’ revelations, it is my estimation that union leaders have to accept anything the Government proposes in exchange for the financing flowing back to Critchlow. Even so, the possibility of that happening is not guaranteed. I doubt that there is a document to hold anyone’s foot to the fire.
I have a good explanation, I think, for the reason this kind of situation will continue. First of all, those tasked with fighting for the small man are just like the small man – they too are fighting to keep food on their tables. So in many cases they will look after themselves first. A few years ago I had to pull up ACDA for basically begging government for assistance for the Emancipation celebrations. For years I’ve been arguing that merely pursuing education while neglecting a strong financial prowess is a weak strategy for empowerment.
If ACDA could have proudly financed their activities by themselves, if Critchlow Labour College in the absence of the Government subvention could have attained support from their followers and ‘rich’ supporters, if instead of asking for a COI, attorneys could have done pro bono services and taken the COP and the police who shot the three Lindeners to civil court, if political leaders could afford their own airfare to fly around the globe, etc., there would have been no chips to bargain.
When the pool of money, taxpayer’s money, is in the total control of one set of people and the opposition needs to get a portion of that same money to survive, guess who will continue to hold the dirty end of the stick?
Yours faithfully,
F. Skinner
