Dear Editor,

Having read Sheila Holder’s letter in SN, August 31 captioned ‘Supported report submitted to National Assembly not appointments,’ Ms Holder is advised that the Appointment Committee Report which she admittedly supports is made up of content and if she supports the report with her vote it confirms that she also supports the content. A report and its content are not separate entities; they are intertwined and cannot be divorced. You support one, you support the other.

I am appalled to observe the public reference of a private discourse with the Alliance for Change (AFC). On August 18, I privately wrote the AFC’s leadership, including Ms Holder, expressing my concerns and the views of independent labour about the appointment of labour representatives on the Public Service Commission (PSC). To me the issue of trust is always an essential ingredient in building relationship in pursuit of achieving common goals. In any relationship where trust is lacking there will be endless problems and I hope this is not the point at which we have arrived.

The members of the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU) who are employed in the public service are appointed by the PSC. This raises a legitimate question as to whether Ms Holder made the effort to collaborate with the GPSU before voting in favour of the report that excludes the union from taking its rightful place on the PSC. In this instance it is not what the AFC/ Ms Holder thinks or wants, it is the GPSU and its constituents that matter, and which Ms Holder should have been paying premium attention to.

Ms Holder has reportedly said “that it is important to remember that the Constitution speaks of the independence of all persons who sit on the Commission and opined that if this is observed there shouldn’t be any real problems” (SN, July 18, 2010). This is feigning ignorance of the realities in the society since this does not happen. This notion where persons believe in addressing issues in the abstract in relation to the realities in the society speaks of a level of arrogance in ascribing unto themselves the authority that they know what is good for the people. The constitution is dead at its heart unless it is activated by the people, and the parliamentarians have a responsibility to make sure that the interests of the cross-section of the populace are protected at all times. The issue is not about Vera Naughton, it is about the principle of the right to representation by a union of one’s choice which Ms Holder seems contemptuous of.

The labour landscape has to be known to every leading politician in this country, and the act of voting to support a report that has ensconced in it the marginalization of the GPSU, in this instance, has to be seen as either lack of foresight or a misunderstanding of the role of the opposition in parliament, which is to represent the minority’s interests. The issue of citizens and organizations’ rights cannot be dealt with outside of the wishes of the individuals who are directly affected. This issue of barter voting, where today you vote for and tomorrow you vote against, is unacceptable when it borders on the rights of citizens that parliamentarians are elected to protect and advance, and it has to be seriously addressed. To realize any objective the opposition bench will have to fight for it, and this nonsense where the opposition becomes divided on several fundamental issues that address the basic human rights of citizens has to be revisited. While the opposition is divided in its support of these basic rights, everyone on the government benches supports the government discriminatory and anti-holistic development strategy and programmes.

It is expected that the opposition and the labour movement will be the gatekeepers in advancing and protecting any democracy.

Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis