A moral gatekeeper of Guyanese politics

DEAR EDITOR,
There is still hope in Guyana for the good and betterment of some Guyanese to redeem themselves from any sense of finality that paints a picture of doom and gloom and, look forward to the day when a sense of tranquility will finally prevail with good triumphing over evil.
In the ambience of Navratri, with Guyanese and the rest of the world observing the essence of the Universal Mother’s doctrine of this theme, arising with the refreshing Atlantic Ocean breeze, is the honesty and integrity portrayed by the renunciation of dual citizenship of technocrat Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, Oneidge Waldrond-Allicock.
“Despite advice that this provision did not extend to technocrats,” the Minister said, “Out of an abundance of caution, I decided to renounce my citizenship to put the matter beyond all doubt and avoid any distraction to the good work of the government.”
She must be commended for her advertent display which reflects royalty, nobility and loyalty.
On the other hand, there are destabilizers bent on a destructive course to undermine democracy, place an indent on the lives of Guyanese, create mayhem and chaos in society, usurp peace, spread mischief, seed doubts and despair in the minds of the gullible and naive, derail the economy and to impede progress of the country.
Take for example the head of a trade union organization who has arrogated to himself the role of a moral gatekeeper of Guyanese politics.
He has criticized the PPP/C government handling of the Success squatter problem but kept silent when his PNC/R government bulldozed squatter settlement at Lodge, Greater Georgetown.
The danger of illegal squatting has been exemplars by the fallen tree that injured seven squatters.
Not to mention the squalor of the area. How could he focus on compassion alone when the squatters committed two major offenses, namely trespass and destruction to property?
Indeed the latter damage was estimated at $2billion. Acquiescing that squatting is an illegal act and not supporting squatting for public health reasons, why wasn’t this problematic issue highlighted with the previous government and a solution resolved? Would a compromise have been too challenging or contradicting to that administration or too accommodating for comfort?
Why should the government allow the squatters to continue to break the law? Isn’t it enough for the government to provide them with alternative shelter, and include them in the list for house lots?
It was stated by other writers that the Success squatters have created a bad precedent. Emboldened by the defiance of the Success squatters, the squatting community at Johanna Cecilia picketed for their rights to have house lots.
The Attorney General and the Minister of Housing had to visit that community, listen to their concerns, and try to work out a legal solution. Other squatting communities will seek similar treatment.
Recently, he went to West Coast Berbice, accompanied by two aides who brandished cutlasses to enforce a land claim based on supposedly ancestral rights.
Villagers there claimed that they have been eking those lands for decades.
As a self-announced moral activist, why didn’t he take the matter to court to have a ruling?
Why didn’t he produce his title deed? Why did he resort to fear and intimidation tactics (video refers).
Then the regards to the mother of all fraud and corruption, he never condemned the blatant act of Clairmont Mingo to call out fictitious figures in respect of Region 4 voter tabulation.
This deprived act was observed by the world on internet and TV, including accredited local and international observers, who all condemned the attempt to perpetrate an end total coup d’état in bright daylight and in the presence of the world. How could a moralist remain silent on this colossal travesty?
It is this same morally self-anointed trade union that caused over 500 workers to lose their jobs at Kwakwani because he wrongfully called for industrial action which forced the company Rusal, to close down bauxite operations. Since the closure of Rusal operations, what compassion did this individual impart to the unfortunate workers?
Instead he has left them with considerable pain and despair. Isn’t it fair to ask the applicable question, how can he live with his conscience inflicting this unconscionable act on his fellow citizens?
When the PNC/R closed four sugar estates and threw 7,000 workers on the breadline, this union official failed to condemn this brutal act or express solidarity with the sugar workers.
Again, quite relevant is to query, what lesson is he giving his children and others by not participating in an exercise of national emergency but one of political expediency? Indeed, something is seriously wrong with this picture with a conflict of interest involving the element of condoning and condemning!
And at the West Coast Berbice uprising, the union leader failed to condemn the arson, looting, and destruction to property on innocent people who were passing through the village. One cannot be selective on issues of morality.
Double standards are unacceptable.
There are other instances of moral contradictions.
He has put himself into this dilemma because of his loyalty to his political party. Nothing is wrong with that. Everyone is free to choose his party of choice.
But having made your decision, you have to live with it. There are many who have eschewed pointed involvement for selective participation in the preference of discriminative choices. The convenience of discerning silence speaks louder than volumes of words.
Respectfully,
Jai Lall