Dear Editor,
We have all seen how ready the National Assembly was to mandate conditions for restoring the government subvention to Critchlow Labour College, a subvention denied by the PPP government since 2007. In particular, the two opposition parties, according to the news reports, agreed that four of the union members on of the CLC Board should come from the TUC and four from FITUG, known to be the result of PPP statecraft.
FUTUG, like the GTUC and political parties, is protected by the right to freedom of association.
My recollection is that at the time of the repressive act of 2007 against the CLC, the GTUC had appointed Dr Roopnaraine as principal against the wishes of the ruling party and had stood its ground.
The present Minister of Labour Dr Gopaul said that the denial of the subvention had been due mainly to lack of accountability in the management of funds. The former Minister of Labour and United Force Leader, Mr Manzoor Nadir, said that the denial was due to unequal representation of unions on the Board. There are two strikes.
Because of these allegations all the working class government could do was impose a form of repression. That is the proper description of the denial of the subvention. Ministers of Labour ought to know that. In our case it is repression that undermines the personal development of thousands of individuals needing a ‘second chance.’
The denial was a selfish, heartless act and a breach of what Parliament, that is the National Assembly and the President, had approv-ed in the Appropriations Act. At least it was short-sighted and anti-developmental.
Now, without hearing the affected trade union body, the National Assembly has imposed a condition larded with phrases of reconciliation and labour unity.
I am sure many readers are moved to tears with the concerns at the country’s main forum for labour unity – by indirect sanctions, a concern shared by all parties.
I know that my letter writing watchmen will be answering this letter and especially the rest of it.
The members of the National Assembly can all count, one, two three. Most of them have calculators.
Will someone say whether the MPs know that at the last general election the President’s party polled under 50 per cent of the votes, won under 50 per cent of the seats and yet appointed 100 per cent of the ministers from his own narrowly defeated party? And do they know that the constitution does not demand that kind of one -party monopoly and has a provision to avoid it? And does anyone believe that all the present unfairness and abuse of power and discrimination could be possible with a mixed cabinet?
I don’t excuse whatever faults the unions have. But it seems quite easy to reach a consensus to bully the unions. And after two full years of very praiseworthy efforts no MP has given notice of a motion to debate the composition of the cabinet based on the results of the general elections. The AFC leader had regretted that the President did not go in the direction of a national government. Another AFC member, Mr Nigel Hughes asked in an exchange concerning membership of committees, “What about proportionality in the cabinet.”
Is it that the opposition in handing down this mandate to the CLC felt that the PPP ministers did not have enough power, and so they thought it nice to offer them some extra influence in the CLC? Can we think of anything more confusing than extending the influence of the PPP ministers? Look at the statutory Broadcasting Authority Board. Look at its power. It has one member from the opposition. The press report said that Mr Nadir thought up the formula and threw it at the mover of the motion.
President Ramotar knows full well that he presides over a bottom-heavy, irregular cabinet. That is why he charged in the Guyana Chronicle that the opposition had rigged the elections.
As our honourable members elected by the people have come together to bully and discredit unions with no right of reply, when will the non-government members put down for debate, as they are able to do by all the rules, the question whether on the basis of the 2011 general election results a one-party cabinet is justified. If Article 103 cannot be used to solve such absurd situations, why is it worded as it is?
Why do the parties not amend the constitution to remove Article 103 if as they tell us it is meaningless?
Why does it allow ministers to be chosen from among the members of the National Assembly and not from the President’s list? Please note that I first made this argument in December 2011 when Mark McGowan interviewed me for Stabroek News.
I invite the lawyers and other gurus who dismiss my argument to discuss it with this non-lawyer in the media. They will lose none of their dignity in doing so. If such a motion is put for debate I hope that the press will print the debate in full and that all the broadcast media will give it full airing.
The PPP has a lawful minority President because of the 1980 Constitution they had no part in making. The PNC should not feel guilty about it because it was not their doing. It was cut and dried by experts and passed through. But the same constitution has a balance, whether some want to accept it or not, to the minority presidency. It is the power of the same president to restore balance.
If the first runner under the 1980 Constitution can become a minority president, why can’t the opposition get the benefit of proportional representation in the cabinet out of the same imperfect constitution? The PPP wants the ‘sweet’ not the ‘bitter’ from the same tree.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
