To have allowed the abuse of state assets to continue without registering protest would have been to neglect responsibility to the electorate

Dear Editor,

I refer to Dr Hinds’ letter to the editor in your Monday, September 15, edition entitled ‘No-confidence motion should be used as leverage for constitutional reform and a general political solution.’

I have noted Dr Hinds’ reference to the paucity of information on the basis for the No Confidence (NC) motion..

Might I start with an apology for the inadequacies in fully articulating the events and underlying considerations which led to the NC motion. In addition to the basis which Dr Hinds has set out for political parties’ interest in elections, I would like to offer for his consideration an additional element. There comes a time in the life of the Republic where the plunder of the state’s assets and resources by those in whose care they have been entrusted has reached such astronomical levels that to permit it to continue without the registration of the strongest possible constitutional protest is a neglect of one’s responsibility to the electorate.

The Minister of Finance by his most recent unauthorized and specifically opposed expenditure displayed the ultimate sign of contempt and disregard for the National Assembly. He effectively demonstrated that he was not and had no intention of being constrained by the National Assem-bly in his management of the state’s resources. In a word, he not so subtly said to the National Assembly that they were a dentally challenged canine incapable of restraining his excesses. To have permitted this to continue for another two years would have been a sign of either resignation or worse, surrender by the elected majority in the House.

I have noted Dr Hinds’ agreement that the NC motion was not inappropriate but has suggested that it should be used as a basis for a national front government.

Nothing would please me more than to secure such an objective, but any suggestion by the movers of a NC vote that an interim national government was the objective would have exposed us to ridicule and allegations of hubris. You may recall that before we laid the motion we wrote to President Ramotar setting out our view on the critical state of our nation and our willingness to discuss these events.

Despite its discourteous and contemptuous treatment by the addressee we again wrote to the President describing the critical state in which the nation had found itself. I believe not uninspired by the lead actor in Dirty Harry, the President’s response was “Make my day.” It is difficult in an environment in which the lives of the nation and its citizenry are treated with such scant disregard to push for a serious discussion on an interim government of national unity. I support the concept but the power lies not in the hands of the apparent powerless. The tone of the conversation is invariably always dictated by those who are clothed with the instruments of power.

Yours faithfully,

C A Nigel Hughes