Dear Editor,
Kindly allow me to make a last statement about the gift bridge handed over to the Betervervagting-Triumph Neighbourhood Democratic Council by the Ali family, that I still consider an unnecessary burden for the NDC.
My decision to re-engage is primarily because of Mr Sultan Mohamed’s gross misrepresentations of the facts and my thoughts (‘There should be no contention about the provision of a bridge for a burial ground,’ SN, January 22). Nowhere in the GINA report or in my letter, is it mentioned that Hindus would be using the bridge constructed by the Ali family. Hence one is left to conclude that Mr Mohamed had mischief on his mind when his letter was penned. The kind of mischief which many use to promote ethnic dissension. Not being satisfied with his mischief he then attempted to improperly anchor his federalism argument on my letter. These and any similar interpretations and use of the letter I wrote pertaining to the bridge reflect a dangerous intent.
I must beg Mr Mohamed to take his displeasure about the affairs of Georgetown to an arena where it would matter. The concerns addressed in the letter I wrote were directed to issues within the community of Beterverwagting and Triumph. However, I am glad he made reference to the Catholic burial ground, that like the Muslim burial ground north of the Public Road in Triumph, and all the other burial sites linked to faith-based organisations in the community are managed by an established code.
Within that code access to each of those burial sites is controlled by the respective organisations. Those bodies also own and maintain all the physical structures (fences, gates, bridges, etc) associated with the sites. Hence it is strange that the BV/Triumph NDC was willing to break this tradition and accept ownership of a bridge which was built to serve the Muslim community and which extends beyond the boundaries of Beterverwagting and Triumph. In reality it is intended to serve the Muslim community from Le Resouvenir to Lusignan.
Mr Mohamed needs to be reminded that ownership of a bridge comes with responsibilities, such as maintenance, security and access, each of which has an associated cost. My primary argument against the NDC owning this bridge is that it would not be able to meet these responsibilities. It is failing to fulfil obligations relative to the maintenance of village structures, such as drains roads and bridges, so taking on added financial burdens is simply foolhardy. I shudder to think of the implied disrespect should this bridge suffer from the lack which many structures in the community now show.
I do hope Mr Mohamed would take time off to acknowledge that his contribution to this discourse is misleading.
In closing I wish to mention for the benefit of Mr Mohamed and others, including the editor of the Guyana Times, that I believe every Guyanese should share the abundance of Guyana, without prejudice.
Yours faithfully,
Elton McRae
