Dear Editor,
Whenever it rains it pours. We’ve been getting a lot of these in Guyana, it seems like forever. It is very difficult to keep up. There are three issues on which I am inclined to share my thoughts.
Did we really return to democracy in 1992? Is this what we should have expected when we heard the glowing tributes after the 5th October that year? The return to fairness and democracy? That phrase should be removed from the lexicon of those who shout it the most. My job has a simple promotion – a lottery. Excluded are workers’ friends and family. But in Guyana, in a much more serious business of governance, ‘friends and family’ is the name of the game – they are the only ones included. And it is not only about the frequency licences.
This latest revelation is an embarrassment. I read some bloggers saying that no laws were broken. They too should bow their heads in shame.
Second. I’m from the Plaisance/ Sparendaam area, so I’m basically a Plaisance man. The Guyana Broadcasting Corporation always had a transmitting station in Sparendaam, just off the sea wall, with a whole lot of land for potential expansion. The British who owned the station, before independence and succeeding governments up to 1992 saw the wisdom of ensuring that land remained free of encumbrances. As a boy I played cricket on that piece of land, when we got tired of playing down in the village and before I was old enough to join the older boys, who played at the Plaisance-Industry Community ground, where the antenna controversy is now boiling.
Some big, influential folks looked at the land reserved for telecommunication expansion and saw valuable real estate. So I have to ask.
Didn’t these bright people, who are tasked with running our country, leave a little bit of land for the expansion of the radio station and telecommunication?
I feel the antenna should be placed in somebody’s yard. Don’t you? The fact that this reserve was turned into a high-end housing area and the same people are trying to solve the problem by encroaching on the PIC ground is an absurdity to the highest level and it should be pointed out unequivocally.
My third concern has to do with Mr. Lincoln Lewis’s recent reply to a letter by Elton McRae, about the response of the TUC to the Marriott workers issue and the subsequent meeting at the Critchlow Labour College with Prime Minister Hinds.
That meeting seemed to break the back of the protest. Mr. Lewis’ parting words in his letter were, “The TUC’s goal is to effect and enforce legislation to avoid a re-occurrence of the Marriott.” Effect and enforce legislation?
By what means I ask? And, to avoid a re-occurrence? Hasn’t this happened many times before with the potential of happening again?
Mr. Lewis’ letter did not answer the concerns of a lot of people – concerns of business as usual at the Marriott job site and more importantly he did not explain what impact the quest for the renewal of the subvention for the college had on the matter, as discussed at the meeting or behind the scenes.
That’s all for now.
Yours faithfully,
F. Skinner
