Dear Editor,
It is 46 years since this nation secured the right to political self-determination (independence). In spite of this achievement our views remain mixed, moreso because there is yet to be an enforceable national policy to ensure respect for all with the government leading the way in said regard. To do this would be to realise peaceful co-existence and equitable development in a land bequeathed by our forebears. Some see the solution to the problems through constitutional change. I am more inclined to advance that the solution lies in holding our public officials accountable and giving the constitution a chance to work, since it is yet to be truly tested.
Note is taken of Dr Roger Luncheon’s statement that the executive plans to go to court on the budget cuts which “have placed a stranglehold on the provision of services for the president …who is the supreme authority of the land” (SN, May 24). This is a clear case demonstrating what is wrong with our political leadership and why it’s important to hold them accountable. According to Article 89 of the constitution, the president is “the supreme executive authority” which is separate and distinct from him being the supreme authority of the land. This said, the constitution at Article 50 expressly states, “The supreme organs of the democratic power in Guyana shall be- (i) Parliament; (ii) the President; and (iii) the Cabinet.”
Clearly, the supreme power is vested in the people via the parliament which remains the highest decision-making forum in the land. So while the president is the supreme authority for the executive, the parliament remains the supreme organ of the state. No one is above parliament. And since the parliament comprises our elected representatives, this much maligned and unread constitution vests the supreme power back in the hands of the people and not in an individual, and we must make it work!
The recent statement that parliament is postponed until June 7-9 and “[u]sually, the government (executive) advises the Clerk of the National Assembly when to call a sitting of the National Assembly,” (KN, May 26) ought to be of concern and deserving of clarification. Under the separation of powers principle, which informs governance in our society, the executive, legislature and judiciary are separate and independent branches. Traditionally with the executive holding the majority seats in parliament, the government side gave leadership for parliamentary sittings. In the 10th Parliament the configuration is different and the opposition by virtue of its majority needs to ascertain where the leadership of the House should be coming from.
For too long leaders are being allowed to get away with manipulating, ignoring or condemning the constitution to suit their agenda, and polarise this nation for their self-serving ends, with the masses having to suffer the consequences. The constitution is the nation’s blueprint to manage its affairs and if followed to the letter can deliver the dreams we aspire to, ie, “our collective quest for a perfect nation,” as outlined in its Preamble. No amount of constitutional change can bring about different results if leaders are not honest and are not held accountable by the people. This country faces an integrity crisis in the leadership corps, made worse by enablers/supporters of said behaviour. This is what we need to address with urgency and consistency to realise meaningful change.
Prime Minister Sam Hinds’ May 20 letter in SN, ‘The PPP/C government embarked on a programme to refashion the bauxite sector so it would be profitable again,’ is another reminder. Let me state clearly that my use of the term leadership means anyone who respects the constitution, laws, universal declarations and international conventions and guides in this regard. Those violating these instruments are not leading or giving leadership. To this end the PM’s statement that there is a “menu of measures” for Linden, when this nation is aware of the violation of Lindeners’ right to participate in decision-making (Article 13), speaks to a failure to deliver leadership. APNU leaders are on public record committing themselves to respect the constitutional rights of Lindeners which they and Mr Hinds took an oath to uphold, and the society expects adherence. And if the PM has an agreement that flows from said respect he needs to make it public.
Further, the right to freedom of expression is sacred, protected in Article 146(1) of the constitution and reinforced via Justice Chang’s 2008 Yearwood-Chapman ruling. Rights are non-negotiable, hence one does not give up one right to enjoy another right. Providing Lindeners with a broadcasting outlet to share information and ideas four years after a court’s ruling, is not a favour being granted, but admittance to a right being denied which speaks to tyranny. Additio-nally, the TV station NCN uses originally belonged to the people of Linden.
Mr Hinds is wrong on the 1983 retrenchment issue. His present position that it was an “instruction” to retrench 2000 workers is different from his original position that “nearly 2000 workers… were retrenched” (SN, May 11). As part of the team that dealt with this matter, it was 1287 workers who were identified for retrenchment and at the end of the exercise 992 were retrenched, and this was not a third of the workforce as claimed by the PM. It is noticed that Mr Hinds ignores the 2005 issue when under his stewardship every single bauxite worker was fired. This was new in the bauxite industry. And on the steam turbine bought under Dunstan Barrow as CEO of Guymine, Mr Hinds is still to come clean.
His statement that bauxite workers received tax free overtime because of “low pay” and opportunity to give them more pay is untruthful. This benefit was secured in 1988 and I was at the negotiation table after two strikes at the Linden Plant. The request for tax free overtime was argued from the standpoint that overtime worked during weekday or premium pay for Saturday and Sunday, the take home pay was almost the same as working an eight-hour day, Monday to Friday. Workers felt the tax system was a disincentive. An engagement commenced to address the grievance with then President Desmond Hoyte, LINMINE’s management and the union, after which the Inland Revenue, under Edgar Heyligar’s management, conducted a study and a recommendation was made to grant the industry exemption from tax for overtime and premium hours. This benefit was extended to sugar workers.
When a benefit is paid to someone no employer or policymaker has the right to deny the benefit unless there is an agreement between the parties. This was not done in the case of the bauxite workers and it constitutes a denial of their right.
The PM is using a ridiculous argument to justify denying Linden its electricity independence and for increasing electricity rates. He ignores too that water and electricity are factors of production and factored into negotiation as sweat equity (deferred income) which his government gave away to Cambior for US$1.00. He ignores the union’s calls to sit and handle this matter responsibly and fails to come clean to this nation about the Cambior $1.00 deal, who benefited from it, and what role the maligned NICIL, BOSAI and Linden Electricity Incorpo-rated are playing. Let him lay before this nation the truth on these matters.
The government taking the bauxite trade school “into the nation’s technical training system” is not the same as it being under company’s management, and Mr Hinds knows this. The government has not taken the sugar trade school under the nation’s technical training system, neither will it do so. Mr Hinds is reminded that income tax and NIS were deducted from the workers’ income before they received their earnings, which they shouldered. Contrary to his statement the failure to pay NIS by the bauxite company did not commence in the 1970s. The accumulated debt he refers to occurred under his stewardship as minister responsible for mining. The PM needs to stop making up stories as he goes along because he will not be allowed to get away with it.
As for the Bauxite Pension Plan, yes, the Guyana Bauxite & General Workers Union (GB&GWU) caused the government to conduct a study to have the workers’ views on the plan’s future, but the PM withholds crucial details. Immediately after the agreement to conduct the study, Messrs Winston Brassington, Sam Hinds, Bharrat Jagdeo and others went into the bauxite communities and told the workers about the ‘benefit’ of breaking up the pension plan. The workers were informed they’d be given their money to manage for themselves, to buy cars and houses, and individuals would receive millions that could take care of them for the rest of their lives. Recall is made of Mr Jagdeo saying to the workers that if they wanted their money they shouldn’s talk with Lewis, but with him. This was played in a continuous loop on NCN.
The wishy-washy explanations Mr Hinds gives for the state of bauxite and Linden today cannot withstand scrutiny. Bauxite suffered from the PPP’s discriminatory policies to bring the company to its knees and destroy the economic self-determination of a people, which started in November 1992. And these are evident in the US $1.00 sale of LINMINE to Cambior and the refusal to sell to the workers; the refusal to acknowledge and bring before the Privatization Board bauxite workers’ bid for BERMINE, who were the sole bidders; the refusal to sell BERMINE to the workers; the refusal to entertain a proposal from an African business group for Everton Plant which was ‘leased’ years after (2010) to Fidelity Investments Inc, after the equipment was left to rot, and of which NICIL is yet to make public the financial details; the refusal to inject the needed US$14 million to rehabilitate LINMINE even as in excess of US$200 was injected in sugar; the breaking up of the workers’ various contributory benefit plans.
Additionally, there are the BCGI/GB &GWU 3-year struggle; the giving away of the workers’ sweat equity for US$1.00; the taking away of bauxite workers’ tax free overtime even as it is retained in sugar; the taking away of the bauxite workers’ trade school; and the refusal to heed the community’s plans for economic self-determination.
These are not the testimonies of a people who are lazy, dependent and refuse to adapt with the times. Rather, these are the testimonies of a government which refuses to respect the people’s rights to self-determination and freedom of association and has embarked on a programme to deny them said rights. This is the worst form of attack inflicted on a group in post-independent Guyana. A change must come.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
