Dear Editor,
In our preparation of the opposition to the application by attorneys for the NIS to delay payment of a NIS minimum pension to Mr. Shariff Zainul, a 73-year-old former carpenter, we sought information on the history of the National Insurance Scheme from the Frank Narain Parliamentary Library (Parliament Library), the National Library, the Walter Rodney National Archives (National Archives) and the Cheddi Jagan Research Institute (CJRI).
Editor, we would like to acknowledge the support and assistance offered by these four repositories of historical information. At the end of the day, we did not achieve the result we sought – a copy of the 21 July 1969 debate on Bill No. 15, the National Insurance and Social Security Bill which gave birth to the National Insurance Scheme. That unavailability is a most regrettable stain for which the post-Independence parliament must accept primary responsibility.
But to leave it there is a disservice to the four bodies, whose management and staff did their best at offering suggestions and possible alternatives. From the Parliament Library we obtained and subsequently shared with the National Archives and the CJRI, the Minutes of the proceedings of that day. The National Library brought out a copy of the resulting NIS Act and the Speeches of Dr. Cheddi Jagan in the National Assembly for that year. Strangely, despite the extensive amendments proposed by Dr. Jagan to the Bill, his contribution to that major piece of working-class legislation is not included among his parliamentary Speeches.
Without any intent at comparison, we cannot but draw attention to the exemplary support and assistance offered by the management and staff of the National Archives. While we were no more successful here than at the other places in our specific search, our experience at the Archives was reassuring and commendable. Not having located the record we sought, they resourcefully offered access to the newspapers of that year – the Guyana Graphic, the Chronicle, the PPP Mirror and the PNC New Nation, all of which contained information on the NIS.
I was impressed by the obvious dedication of the staff at the National Archives not only for going well beyond the call of duty, but for the meticulous care with which they handled the publications and implored us to do likewise. Those records are delicate, worn out by more than fifty years in existence and use. The staff accorded to these records a respect and dignity which are usually reserved for the most precious.
But there was something else that struck me. Perhaps out of nostalgia (I was 23 at that time), for a while, I immersed myself in the Mirror and the New Nation of that year. The contents of those two political publications reflect a level of discourse which was civil, respectful and informative and one cannot but contrast that with what currently takes place for journalism in this country. The editorial writers, columnists and letter writers in the publicly financed Chronicle, the NCN television network and the Department of Public Information would do well to spend some time reading those early days publications, and to ask themselves why, when and how Guyana could have become so coarse, crude and uncivil in writings and rantings.
With an oasis or two, an important fabric of society has been stripped, shredded and strewn by the participants themselves in their actual or self-appointed role as agents of the political class. The descent has been long and acute, and the real tragedy is that there is no sign of a reversal. That’s the sad state of journalism in Guyana.
Sincerely,
Christopher Ram
Christopher Ram & Associates
Attorneys-at-law
