Dear Editor,
The caption of your news story, ‘Pushed to lead opposition coalition, Joe Singh has “no plans,”’ (SN, June 27), was not borne out by the details of the story. Read again what your writer wrote: “With strong emphasis on his reputation for quality leadership, Major General (rtd) Joe Singh is being quietly pushed as the person to lead an opposition coalition at next year’s general elections. Stabroek News was unable to speak with Singh directly; however, in response to a query at his office about his plans after stepping down as GT&T CEO, an aide told this newspaper that he said ‘he had no plans.’”
There are two different things happening in that extracted piece. One, the writer noted that Mr Singh is being quietly pushed as the person to lead an opposition coalition in next year’s elections, and two, when his office was asked what he plans to do after leaving GT&T as its CEO, he said he had “no plans.” His office’s “no plans” response was a direct response to what he planned to do after he leaves GT&T, not a direct response to whether he would consider any invitation or offer to head up a coalition of opposition parties to contest the 2011 elections, and this is now your reporter’s homework since he did not get the type of direct response most readers would really love to know.
I am not sure Mr Singh, who is not known for granting interviews or making public statements, will prematurely bare his post-GT&T plans for his personal and family life, or even any political inclinations he may have, but I am sure he must be intrigued by the growing interest in his name being mentioned as a 2011 presidential candidate. Still, no one knows where he stands on or his grasp of hot-button political issues, on regional issues and world issues. No one knows what he would like to see done frontally and urgently to address governance of the country, including whether he thinks national security should take precedence over the national economy or if the two should be given equal attention and how that can be done. Does he belong to any political party right now?
What is rather instructive to note, however, is that based on the consensus of folks I spoke with in the past about Mr Singh is that his public persona and profile seem to transcend race, thus making him ideally suited for a national position of leading a country of diverse ethnic backgrounds, but especially given the negative impact the PPP and PNC’s decades-old race-based politics have had on our unity and development. But like I adverted to above, he has his work cut out in areas outside the race issue, and so, since we can conclude he pretty much has the race issue squared away or may need to answer some minor questions on it, the other bigger issues relate to national security and the national economy. Personality is not enough!
Back in 1990, when the country was preparing for elections, and the Guyana Association for Reform and Democracy (GUARD) was picking up steam as a movement aimed at helping to usher in the return of free and fair elections, I remember talking with a friend in New York about the movement becoming a political party, given the names of the prominent personalities associated with it. I then ventured a name not associated with it – Mr Patterson Thompson (formerly of Bidco and the CAIC, and who also was a member of a Georgetown-based group called COMPASS, established to help provide suggestions and advice to the government, but much to the chagrin of the government) – as someone who could be the movement’s presidential candidate, and my friend quickly turned to me and said one rule of thumb in such emerging political situations is to steer clear of naming personalities to lead until you have determined policies, programmes and a clearly defined purpose and also until you know where the persons of interest stand on issues related to the movement or party’s agenda.
It was a fairly valid piece of advice and one which I would love to apply in this case where Mr Singh’s name is being mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for an amalgamation of opposition parties and concerned civic groups, and the public seems not to know anything remotely significant about his political views and positions. Given the gravity of the socio-economic situation in Guyana, and given his level of dedication in leading the nation’s primary security entity, it may have dawned on him in the last five or ten years that there is something he could do to help, even if being a presidential candidate never crossed his mind.
However, if the thought did cross his mind or if he is mulling such a move as part of his civic duty in the nation’s interest, he has a narrow window of opportunity in which to make his position and plans known to the public, so that civic society stakeholders and opposition political playmakers can move on with their process of elimination.
Clearly, all this talk about a coalition of opposition parties is nothing new, but what seems markedly different now from four years ago is that, despite the appearances to some of infrastructural developments, this government is dogged by a history of wanton corruption, unbridled arrogance, discrimination and vindictiveness, as well as multiple unsolved murders, free-wheeling drug smugglers and money launderers during its period of office. More than that, there seems to be a mood among a growing number of Guyanese, especially of the two major races, that neither the PPP nor the PNC has delivered on ethnic unity, which is essential to development.
Should there be a coalition of opposition parties with a clearly defined agenda, strategy, system of timely delivery and accountability, and there is a consensus candidate, I can only hope the people of Guyana are allowed to vote and not be intercepted by any political shenanigans playing out in which Parliament is misused to allow for any shared governance deal between the President and the PNC Leader. I can also only hope that should we experience a change of government in 2011 that the same coalition leaders commit to doing a top to bottom overhauling of government, including drastically amending the constitution to reflect the will of the people and not the parties in power.
If Mr Singh ever becomes the candidate some are eagerly pushing for, and he goes on to win, he has to specifically commit to leading a government that will respect the rights and will of the people and uphold the rule of law while keeping the three main branches of government separate. But I would also really love to hear his opinion on party paramountcy, because during the PNC-era, party paramountcy allowed the PNC’s flag to fly alongside the Golden Arrowhead and the army’s flag in Camp Ayanganna’s compound, and the army was also misused as a partisan political weapon. The army and police need to return to their rightful professional place in our society and end the political inteferences.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
