Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter from Neil Kumar in SN captioned, ‘Minister Frank Anthony’s record bears scrutiny with that of any of his predecessors’ (June 6). First of all, I want to thank Mr Kumar for his letter. It has brought some new information to the public’s attention and if only that was achieved by my letter, then I would have done my duty to the people. Let me correct Mr Kumar: In my opinion, Minister Anthony is the best Youth, Sport & Culture Minister ever in the history of Guyana. So this is not about the Minister, this is about the fact that 65% of the term has gone and less than 50% of the promises as per the manifesto have been delivered in this portfolio.
Minister Anthony now has to rise to the challenge and deliver, and Mr Kumar should give him 110% support. Therefore I could not comprehend his defensiveness with his excuses about postponements, re-scheduling or cancellations.
The first thing Minister Robert Persaud did when he became the Minister of Agriculture was to share a copy of the PPP manifesto with his heads of department and challenge them to implement those promises. He developed a mechanism in his secretariat to track progress. Come 2011, he can proudly put himself forward as one of the members of the PPP list of candidates to pronounce that he has led in the delivery of +80% of the promises to the people in Agriculture. Since he has consistently kept the farmers and the public up to date on the challenges he faces, there is no need to be defensive.
According to the book Contract with America (1994): “political parties prepare electoral manifestos which set out both their strategic direction and outlines prospective legislation. Legislative proposals which are featured in the manifesto of a party which has won an election are often regarded as having superior legitimacy to other measures which a governing party may introduce for consideration by the legislature.” The contract with the people to build three strategically located multi-purpose sports complexes in Berbice, Essequibo and Linden, has superior legitimacy to the other measures Mr Kumar highlighted. The promise made to the people was to build these sports complexes, and to cement the party’s legitimacy, it must do them. This is how a democracy works.
Why is the PPP allowing Mr Kumar to diminish the legitimacy of that sacrosanct document called the 2006 Manifesto? Mr Kumar’s letter suggests that it is acceptable to him to ignore, indefinitely delay or even cancel promises that the PPP made to the people in 2006. Mr Kumar more than anyone else, coming from a rural background, should identify with how important these facilities are and should move mountains to make them a reality. Suicide and crime have various causes – except sports; there is no better way than cultural and youth development activities to save a life from crime and suicide. Thus re-prioritisation of youth programmes is a definite “no-no” if you want to positively affect the crime and suicide situation in Guyana.
But let us look carefully at Mr Kumar’s letter.
1. Mr Kumar stated my criticism was ill founded. Did John Public know about the decision to put the three multi-purpose sports complexes for the three counties on hold? My understanding is that a variation has been made to the contract, and the varied contract has been implemented and Mr Kumar has totally ignored the fact that he is duty bound to tell the beneficiaries (the people) about this sub-optimal decision. If this is not plain disrespectful to the youths of Guyana, then what is it? How come the government can find money to bail out CLICO and they do not have money for these three multi-purpose sports complexes?
There are other areas of the National Budget that are less important than these facilities and I plead with Mr Kumar and the relevant decision-makers to reconsider the decision to put these projects on hold.
2. No amount of language manipulation can change the fact that the velodrome, the three multi-purpose sports complexes and the synthetic tracks are at 0% implementation, with 65% of the life of this current term gone.
3. Does anyone know anything about this well bandied about ‘Indian assistance’? Did Mr Kumar ever tell us?
4. It is obvious that Mr Kumar has been very selective in his reading, since he seems to have missed my compliment to the President, the Minister and the Government of Guyana for delivering on the National Stadium, which I believe should be renamed the Janet Jagan Stadium for her commitment to children.
However, I will now state my point of view on Carifesta X. It was a low priority project that wasted a lot of good money. It was throwing good money after a bad idea to fulfil the figment of someone’s imagination. Guyana, the second poorest country in Caricom, took Carifesta from the Bahamas, one of the richest countries in Caricom to deliver a project that Guyana could not afford. That money could have been better used to build two or all of the multi-purpose sports complexes. So Mr Kumar should not lecture me on prioritisation.
5. Mr Kumar asked if I knew that the ministry spent $100M every year on a ‘Sports Development Fund’? I thank him for this information and I am happy that the fund is in place and thus I stand corrected on this matter. However, does John Public know who the beneficiaries of this fund are? Could Mr Kumar release the names of the top 10 beneficiaries and the amounts they received, since these are public funds and hence should be public knowledge?
In conclusion, the PPP 2006 Manifesto was the road map between 2006 and 2011. That road map was marketed to the people and they bought it with their votes. I would agree the road map has to be fine tuned as time progresses, but the people must get what they bought. No one is asking for blood here; just that what was promised to the people is delivered.
Yours faithfully,
Sasenarine Singh
