Dear Editor,
National Assembly Speaker Raphael Trotman is reported as expressing the opinion that the parties (in parliament) failed the people of Guyana whom he believes wanted them to work together for the greater good of the country (‘Trotman disappointed by lack of consensus during 10th Parliament’, SN, January 25). The comment was made in particular relation to cuts effected to spending proposals tabled by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh in 2012, 2013 and 2014 popularly and incorrectly referred to as the ‘Budget.’
My first instinct is to assume that the Speaker who is an accomplished lawyer and an experienced politician was misquoted or misrepresented. If he was not then I have to take issue with him. Speaker Trotman has written on the hallowed role of parliaments to protect the public purse, encapsulated in the maxim, ‘no taxation without representation.’ If memory serves me correct he also reminded that in history, blood was shed in defence of this principle. I will remind readers that it is the PPP which brought spending proposals in 2012, 2013 and 2014 to the National Assembly, seeking its approval, in the absence of any consultation with the other two parties which constitute a majority. It represented brazen disrespect as well as an absolute lack of understanding of their minority status. The electorate, in 2011, did not give the PPP the right to form a government on its own. Articles 50, 106. (1), and 106. (2) of the constitution will assist any interested reader to understand what President Ramotar and the PPP have failed to. It is the PPP, not the other two parliamentary parties which has operated as an unrestrained bully, prosecuting an agenda and an approach which many have described as ‘loser takes all.’
A ‘Budget’ only becomes one after a process whereby ‘Estimates of Expenditure’ are approved by the Assembly and a subsequent Appropriation Bill becomes an Appropriation Act following presidential assent. The simple truth, therefore, is that in the absence of an Appropriation Act, any intention of a government to spend, remains just that; a desire. Had the majority in the House been consulted with regard to governmental initiatives and proposed spending in accordance with the call by Leader of the Opposition David Granger to President Ramotar in early December 2011 to establish a tripartite budget committee, the legislative stalemate that Speaker Trotman bemoans or the lack of political consensus, would have been avoided. The majority in the National Assembly does not have a responsibility to accommodate the PPP, rather the 175,051 persons who voted for their interests to be represented. The onus lies with the PPP, which chose to form a minority government, to find such an accommodation; this is the iron rule of minority governments, accommodate the majority, or perish.
Had the majority in the National Assembly been consulted in any of the three ‘Budgets’ laid by Dr Singh, numerous issues would have needed addressing and resolving. From his vantage, Speaker Trotman had a bird’s eye view of these, all of which are embedded in the Hansard of the wounded 10th Parliament. Permit me please to mention but a sprinkling and which I was reminded of only a few days ago by a policewoman of eighteen years standing who lamented that her take-home pay is $64,000 monthly while the vituperative Presidential Adviser on Governance Gail Teixeira receives (as opposed to earns) a monthly salary of approximately one million dollars and whose secretary earns a mere $42,000 monthly and former President Jagdeo, a pension package of $3 million monthly. The point being alluded to is the inequity and injustice that characterizes this rogue administration. The said policewoman was revolted that $200 million of public funds could be wasted on a bag of mischief called the Rodney Commission of Inquiry. For myself, I am concerned that super salaries can be paid to ‘advisers’ within Office of the President such as Desmond Kissoon who acts as a commissar prosecuting a vicious PPP agenda of political control in Region Nine or former head of the army Joe Singh, to name but two persons.
History will record that the role, authority and independence of the National Assembly was totally sidelined in the 10th Parliament. Perhaps, many might feel that the majority in the House were too tolerant in the face of PPP’s disrespect and abuse. This, however, is all now history.
I hope that the Speaker does not view my suggestion which follows, as impertinence. Given his qualifications and considerable experience, his role should be to expose the PPP on the hustings not to burnish their tarnished and tattered credentials.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Bulkan, MP
APNU
