Dear Editor,
When the controversy about the sudden 50% raise for the higher echelons of the administration unfolded I wanted to see it in black and white, and I did so with calculator in hand. I realised that for annual wages of $9,000,000 a year, it worked out to about $750,000 a month, plus allowances; an executive could be comfortable with that, though it’s not a salary of tremendous proportions. My issue is, that I have had to argue for a reasonable wage in my field, and artists are perceived to be cheap. As an illustrator and writer I can remember an engagement with an international body here, which refused to pay me for scripting and illustrating a graphic magazine until she contacted my peers in Peru and Brazil and realized that I was truthful when I alleged that I charged 1/5 of international rates. Our intellectual property is so taken for granted. One aspiring politician in 1990 lifted the logo of the Jaguar from my comics, and I had to take him to court; Nigel Hughes championed my case pro bono. I’m careful to throw stones on special service worth; I can remember PPP Minister Frank Anthony telling me at an exhibition that I wanted to be too well paid for my work, why had I not replied?
I was not surprised at the cabinet-parliamentary raise of pay. But it should have come a little later. I usually cut out some articles and letters as reference material, and one such was a letter on August 15, 2015 in Stabroek News by E B John. I have a collection of his, because he always presents tables/charts to support his topics.
This topic was “There is disparity in the salaries of parliamentarians”; read it and you’ll understand. The problem in this case comes with campaign statements competing against the reality of the times. Now, comparative raises have to also come for John Public. Ministers have to earn that money in our interest; so far I can point to a few who are, and are filling the policy vacuum with reasonable opportunities for the long marginalised.
That this was not a secret decision is somewhat commendable; it came from the horse’s mouth. Speaking of that mouth, the essence of the public rage ‒ 80% of it, that is ‒ lies with the arrogance, convoluted, pompous logic and disrespectful tone of the messenger. All of us over the past twenty years, outside of drugs, smuggling, backtracking and money laundering, or those of us who were luckily and legitimately placed in the legal business of mining, can now breathe much better. Others prospered and survived as part of or with links to groups within the PPP government that prospered.
The rest of us were catching, surviving either on old money, remittances or selling narcotics to our neighbours. There were the ‘poor rich,’ meaning honestly enduring, but stressed; barely paying the monthly debts, always late. Those who struggled openly against the PPP felt it worse.
Thus, we have a right to feel entitled to our opinions and respect. The paradox rests with the opposition PPP/C, which paid some of its members and associates unjustifiably more than the sum total of the 50%. And of all the people to have an opinion ‒ Bharrat Jagdeo? His government’s NIS-CLICO deals broke the first-named institution and under his watch our value system was turned upside down.
In politics it’s out-of-power engagement that inspires. I can point to President David Granger, Nigel Hughes and his wife, Ministers Roopnaraine, David Patterson, Ronald Bulkan, Volda Lawrence and my friend the AG, Basil Williams, whose fieldwork in desperate times past must be remembered. The AG is out of the 50% contention; his position as well as those of the Chancellor and Prime Minister have had scales fixed in sequence for over three decades, and I know he has earned this for services pro bono publico.
This cannot be disputed; and when this country for over a decade was haunted by the Phantom and death squads, he was there, in court, at the extra-judicial funerals and vigils. It was he who took up Mark Benschop’s case of vindictive incarceration, and championed the causes of many young men identified by the drug militias for arrest by the police when they could not murder them. I am comfortable that the office of the AG is in Basil William’s range of responsibility.
The ministers have to manage our interests, like the excellent drainage work, but it is necessary to place oversight on the Republic of City Hall, in the interest of our contracted young workers. I cannot help commenting on the statesmanship in the handling of our border controversy in our vulnerable position; it is superb, and all within five months. APNU+AFC must however understand that they came through our ‘will’ to replace a political cabal which included some less than admirable people as well as misfits, but they have also brought some. Thus, they should be like the sleepless sentinel of the Rainbow Bridge, and listen to our contentions, feel our apprehensions and manage, not rule.
I must say this as I conclude: In cultural industries it is inspiring that for the first time in twenty-five years we in the Arts are now been listened to, and accommodated to design policy in our interest. This will lead in the long term to job creation and the capacity for wealth building for the Arts-extended community. No doubt Sport will soon require such a policy effort.
That 50% has to translate into vigilance that listens to our ideas and concerns and works with us to regain too much lost time, lost lives and values buried in the abysmal shadows.
Yours faithfully,
Barrington Braithwaite
