Dear Editor,
There is so much talk of ‘human development’, hardly implemented however by any proven action of what is understood to be ‘development’; but more critically, who is ‘human’. In respect of both terminologies the definitions are essentially political leaving ‘citizens’ (too many) puzzled, some indeed quite dismayed. When one reads the several thoughtful observations on local incidents wherein the ‘human’ condition is ignored, and ‘development’ is crippled, one feels depressed, pessimistic about the future.
For example, there is the imperious, if not ‘inhumane’, undertaking to terminate the services of insubordinate ‘untrained teachers’ who are required to meet ‘developmental’ standards all at the speed of ministerial demands, the insinuation being that all must ‘develop’ at the same rate. Not totally irrelevant is the exactly comparable expectation of the intelligence of ‘beginners’ appointed to the level of directorates, but who are not subject to any performance evaluation except possibly by those they in turn disappoint and, in some cases, the ‘opposition’.
But perhaps the most fundamental experience of ‘human development’ so stressfully (and lengthily) discussed in the press is about the reported miniaturization of the ‘security’ of the humanity of a female guard ‘imposed’ upon the residence of an apparent non-government official. According to the reams of discussion across the nation the uniform worn would have appeared to have misrepresented identification of the human being involved, as distinct from the very Guyana Police Force, her employer probably leaving many colleagues to ponder upon the trustworthiness of their employers and, by extension, those who manage them.
The issue of trust would appear to have been compounded by the questionable state of mind expressed by a female Directorate of the Public Prosecution’s Office regarding the substance of a complaint by a female servant of the people not an inkling of sympathy for the possibility of truth contained in the substantive ‘legal’ complaint leaving observers, however distant, to identify the insinuation of: i) male superiority; ii) social inequality; iii) most profoundly, the unspoken racial division underlying this ‘legal’ process. For too many on whatever side of the divide, the abovementioned experience serves as a most discomfiting indicator of how callous is the interpretation of ‘human development’ a message for the generations to come, however religious they may be. Please, where is the principle of MORALITY?
Sincerely,
Conscientious Observer
