Dear Editor,
An erroneous and lamentable article was published in the Guyana Chronicle of February 1, 2013 under the caption ‘Kumar charges Opposition with frustrating local government elections,’ in which PPP/C MP, Neil Kumar accuses the opposition of “frustrating the efforts of the government to discuss the local government Bills and, subsequently hold local government elections” (sic). This article arose from an interview held at Mr Kumar`s office in Middle Street and aside and apart from the many ridiculous and unfounded contentions of Mr Kumar that it contains, there are basic factual inaccuracies. Among the latter are the following: (i) he states that local government elections are supposed to be held every two years; the fact is that they are to be held every three years. (ii) He further states that at the first meeting of the Special Select Committee (SSC) held in December 2012 that “the Opposition had demanded to be represented by five persons while the government had four representatives”; fact is that the composition of the SSC had earlier been determined by the Committee of Appointments and the purpose of the first meeting was to elect a Chairperson. (iii) He refers to discussions by the SSC on the “Elections Commission Bill”; no such Bill exists; the Bill that was discussed was the Local Government Commission Bill 2012, Bill No 13 of 2012. And (iv) perhaps most humorous was his belief and interpretation that the “ABC” diplomats who had recently issued a joint statement calling for the holding of local government elections without delay, represented Argentina, Brazil and Chile!
A separate article appears in the Guyana Times also of February 1, 2013 quoting Local Government Minister Ganga Persaud as saying that the last meeting of the SSC was adjourned by the Chairman, MP Basil Williams “following dispute over the minutes.”
It is clear from the above that the PPP are on a propaganda offensive (as well as an offensive one) to misrepresent and distort the truth using media outlets that they control, as it relates to the work of the SSC charged with refining the four Bills now before it, the passage of which is a pre-condition for the holding of local government elections.
Having been treated to the above mischievous misrepresentation of events the public ought to know the truth. The meeting had to be adjourned not only because the Minutes of the Fourth Meeting were poorly written and contained serious flaws, which they did. The other reason for the adjournment had to do with what was clearly a coordinated effort by government members to misrepresent decisions that were taken at the previous meeting. Specifically I refer to Clause 4.(1) and 4.(1),(b) which were concluded and resolved by majority position. These two clauses changed the composition of the proposed Local Government Commission from six to seven members and for three such members to be appointed by the President, acting on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. The unresolved clause was 4.(1) (c) which deals with the appointment of the seventh member. The opposition members, though in a majority, acquiesced to calls from the government members to not make a decision/determination on our proposal for this member to be a nominee of a trade union in the local government field (and we proposed two such unions) but to defer such decision for the next meeting.
Lo and behold we were told by government members at the meeting in question that it was agreed that the entire clause 4, ie, 4.(1)(a),(b)&(c) would be discussed at the next meeting! Faced with this blatant attempt at re-opening decisions previously taken, the opposition members felt it to be a sufficiently important issue and principle to be definitively determined only after accurate minutes were available, based on verbatim recording, before proceeding, lest the future work of the SSC suffer similar fate. Unless this kind of behaviour is nipped in the bud, this process would have no end.
MP Kumar`s clumsy attempt to link the opposition as being the cause of delays in the process is without foundation. At the very first meeting in December 2012 which was for the purpose of electing a chairperson, I advised the meeting that Dr Ramayya who was unavoidably absent wanted me to convey his vote for Mr Williams to be the chair and that he hoped members would respect his wishes, even though absent, so as to not delay the work of the committee. The government members ignored his stated desire which only meant delaying the inevitable as once Dr Ramayya was present at the following meeting, the same result was had. Secondly, at the third meeting of the SSC, Chairman Williams recommended that the committee meet twice weekly which did not find favour with government members.
We believe that the public is well aware of who is responsible for local government elections not being held for many years and who it is that is denying them this right. It can only be the government which has been in control of the process for the past twelve years.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Bulkan
