|
|
| |
Citizens of the World by Donald Ramotar |
|
| |
We are almost at the end of May, yet to date very little rain has fallen in this season that is known as one of our rainy periods. This could be another sign of climate change that is being so often spoken about today.
More and more people have come to the conclusion that the world is definitely experiencing changes in the environment. This idea is not now confined within the walls of academia, but the ordinary man is convinced of it also.
Some of the manifestations of this phenomenon can be found in the fact that the weather has become less predictable than before. We have also seen the devastation caused by floods due to excessive rainfall and devastating fires caused by prolonged droughts.
Very often, these two phenomena occur simultaneously in the same country. The US, and recently Australia, experienced this double whammy.
We are also seeing the increased occurrence of natural disasters. Hurricanes and cyclones have become frequent and have increased in intensity.
Most people are content that the cause of these changes have to do with mankind’s activities. In the drive to consume more, to accumulate riches, we are causing serious harm to our environment, which can have really destructive consequences for our planet.
Forests have been cut down, thus releasing tons of carbon that they have trapped for centuries. We are burning more and more fossil fuels to energise our economy and/or to transport us from place to place.
At the same time, we have been engaged in wasting of resources at an unbelievable level. We drive huge cars, often for pleasure, often only carrying ourselves from point to point.
Nowadays, we are also observing that our behaviour in the agriculture sector, using huge amounts of insecticides, is creating another serious problem. It is believed that excessive use of chemicals is the cause of the disappearance of bees from their hives.
This is a very serious situation, as it will negatively affect all people since it is the production of food that I am speaking about.
What is depressing about all of this is that we know that what we are doing is bad, yet we continue on that course as though we are unable to help ourselves.
The question we have to ask is why is it or what is it that is driving us to continue on this path knowing the harm we are causing?
It is clear that the way we do things have to change. We cannot continue to seek to dominate the world and its resources without expecting that others will try to do the same.
The drive to maximize profits is leading to greater competition within and between nations. This is leading to the abuse and wasting of our natural resources and, at the same time, the pollution of our environment.
It is rather discouraging to note that another chase for resources could very well be beginning in the Arctic, as Russia has already planted its flag, thus its claim to part of the region.
What this suggests is that instead of working to reverse the harm already done, we are preparing for the day when more harm would be done and the resources in that area will become available for exploitation due to the melting of the Arctic ice.
This seems to be really shortsighted, since if that stage is reached, it is clear that the ecology could become so damaged that its ability to sustain life could be called into question.
Clearly, we need a new system, a new framework, within which to conduct our world’s business.
Instead of competition, we should seek more cooperation. Instead of fighting to control the world for our own country, we should seek to make it a better place for ourselves and future generations.
Let us remember the old saying: “no man is an island.” Indeed, we are all citizens of the world!
|
|
| |
|
Adoption of Children Bill 2009 by: Mohabir Anil NandlallAttorney-at-Law & Member of Parliament |
1. The Bill that is before this House is but only one piece of a scheme of legislation, some which have already been brought to this House, and some which are soon to come, which are all designed and intended to reform and modernize our laws in respect of promoting and protecting the welfare of our children.
2. This administration has always viewed our country’s children as the nation’s future and has always regarded an investment in the youths of our country as an investment in our country’s future.
3. The Adoption of Children Act, Chapter 46:04 of the Laws of Guyana, which this Bill shall repeal, was enacted on the 3rd August, 1957 – some half of a century ago. Most naturally, our society has evolved and changed substantially from then to now. It is a cardinal principle that the laws of any country must be changed, reformed, updated and modified to meet the needs and vicissitudes of a changing society so that it can capture and express the realities, aspirations and values of that changing society. For if the laws of any society remains stagnant and static, it can easily become outmoded and irrelevant. Society will then be forced to look outside of the law to regulate its affairs and conduct. The ineluctable consequence is invariably anarchy.
4. I humbly submit that it is against this backdrop and from this perspective that this series of children legislation must be viewed in order to appreciate not only their philosophical raison d’etre but also their utilitarian objectives. It is crucial that I emphasize that the Government, in recognizing the pivotal importance of these series of legislation, did not hastily rush to enact them. But rather embarked upon a long process of consultations, lasting over one decade with various stakeholders, soliciting their views and inputs. That process of consultation did not end when these pieces of legislation were promulgated in this House, but rather it continued with these Bills being remitted to Select Committees for further consultations, deliberations and discussions.
5. I make this point with emphasis because often times this administration is unfairly accused of not consulting. These Bills are indeed the product of wide consultations. We believe in, and indeed we practice, governance by the people for the people.
6. I now wish to highlight some important aspects of this Bill, vis-à-vis, the current Adoption Act, in order to illustrate the progressive changes which this Bill will bring to the legislative landscape of this country.
7. The Bill is much more elaborate than the current Act and it outlines in commendable details the principles which a decision maker must have regard when considering the adoption of a child. The common thread running through these principles is that the welfare of the child must be paramount. Fundamentally, it mandates that the views of the child must be allowed to be expressed and must be taken into account. It further obliges the decision maker to have regard to the socio-cultural, religious and economic ties and background of the child and that that background and history must be preserved.
8. It allows for the views of the parents of the child to be taken into account. It also obliges the decision maker to take into account the psychological, emotional and educational needs of the child and any peculiar social experience, for example, abuse, ill-treatment, violence or any deviant behaviour to which the child may have been exposed. The current Act is silent on all these matters. The express mention of the aforesaid factors must be regarded as a fundamental improvement and a progressive development of our law in this regard.
9. The Adoption Board, which is established under this Bill, must consist of suitably qualified personnel, trained in the area of social work, sociology, psychology and an Attorney-at-Law.
10. Again, these are additional provisions which are absent in the extant legislation. This Bill also makes provision for the establishment of specialized agencies to facilitate the process of adoption. Again, no such provision exists in the current legislation. This must be a welcomed modern development as it is common knowledge that such agencies exist in various countries and perform that vital function of assessing persons’ suitability to undergo the adoption process.
11. The Bill also makes it a criminal offence for any person to make or receive payment or reward in respect of the adoption process. The clear intention here is to prevent the mischief of a person profiting off the adoption of a child. Again, our current legislation is silent on this issue.
12. This Bill limits the age of an adopting parent to sixty five (65) years. The clear intention here is an attempt to ensure that the adopting parent is physically and otherwise capable of parenting the child and it further provides that the Applicant, or in the case of a joint application, that one of the Applicants is at least 18 years older than the child. The purpose must be that there should be a sufficient disparity in terms of age and presumably maturity between the potential parent and the child in order to ensure that the welfare of the child is better served.
13. If a child is over fourteen (14) years, that child must consent to the adoption. Here again, the child’s views must be taken into account. The Bill also contains a number of provisions which are designed to ensure that as far as possible, the consent of the parents of the child is sought and secured before any adoption order is made. Most of the aforesaid protective mechanisms are absent in the current legislation. And those that are mentioned in our current Act are not stated with the requisite specificity and details which are contained in this new Bill.
14. This Bill also contains a series of provisions which are intended to legally equate an adopted child, as far as possible, with a child that is not adopted. These include the child’s right to property, proceeds from insurance policies and benefits under the Dependants Pension Fund Act.
15. I have only outlined some of the issues which are contained in this Bill and which are absent in the present Act. There are, of course, various others. It is important to note also that several important aspects of the current legislation have been retained almost verbatim.
I have looked at similar legislation in several Caribbean countries and in my humble view, this Bill is as elaborate as any, but yet more advanced and encompassing than most. Indeed, this Bill presents a model legislation that I am confident that other countries will seek to emulate. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting this Bill and commending it to this House for its unanimous approval. |
|
Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean decline this year
by Odeen Ishmael |
Migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) living in the more developed countries will send back to their home countries US$64 billion in 2009, US$4 billion less than in 2008. Nevertheless, this total represents more than the sum of foreign direct investment and official development aid combined. As the global economic crisis continues, the flow of remittances is expected to be reduced by about 7 percent, according to reports emanating from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and other international financial bodies.
Already, this reduction is vividly noticed in recipient countries. Earlier this month, the Planning Institute of Jamaica noted that inflows to that country for the first quarter of this year dropped by 15 percent to US$414.6 million compared to the same period last year.
The IDB has also reported that remittances to LAC in the fourth quarter of last year declined to $17 billion, 2 percent less than in the same period in 2007. The Bank also declared that this trend would continue throughout 2009. The scale of the decline will depend immensely on the length and severity of the economic crisis in major remittance “source countries”, particularly the United States, Spain Germany, Italy and Japan.
Two years ago, the IDB had optimistically predicted that, given the then existing economic and demographic trends in LAC and in the industrialized countries, remittances to LAC would continue to grow and surpass $100 billion a year by 2010. Definitely, this amount will not be achieved as a result of the sharp economic downslides in the industrialised countries during the past year, and the IDB and other international financial bodies are now busily revising their figures downward.
A reduction in remittances became noticeable early in 2008, and by the end of the year the $69.6 billion migrants sent home to the region barely increased by less than one percent over 2007. This slowdown is obviously the result of the economic recession which has brought about job losses in construction, manufacturing and tourism, the sectors attracting the greater proportion of the immigrant labour force.
A study on migration and remittances released this month by the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System (SELA) reveals that on an average, 65 percent of migrants remit to their families, amounting to over 20 million people. IDB statistics show that for 2008, of the US$69.6 billion sent home to the region, the largest beneficiary was Mexico with US$25.1 billion. Other large recipients were Brazil (US$7.2 billion), Colombia ($4.8 billion), Dominican Republic ($3.1 billion), El Salvador ($3.8 billion), Guatemala ($4.3 billion), Peru ($2.9 billion), Jamaica ($2 billion), Honduras ($2.7 billion), Haiti ($1.8 billion), Nicaragua ($1 billion). Guyana received $414 million, down from $423 the year before.
The remittances, in most cases, are direct related to numbers of each country’s migrants living in foreign lands.
Significantly for some countries, remittances, according to the MIF, amounted to a high proportion of their GDP, and much more so for those with poorer economies. For Guyana it was 36.7 percent, Haiti 30 percent, Honduras 21.6 percent, Guatemala 12.7 percent, El Salvador 18.3 percent, Nicaragua 18 percent and Jamaica 17.9 percent.
Actually, remittances prove to be even more practically significant to recipient families in each country. A 2007 World Bank report, “Remittances and Development: Lessons from Latin America”, indicates that some of the positive effects of remittances include higher savings, better access to health and education, improved housing, increased macroeconomic stability and entrepreneurship, and reductions in poverty and social inequality. The report also shows that that the money migrant workers send back to their home countries is linked to lower poverty levels and improvements in education, health and housing. The report adds: “The role of remittances in the region cannot be overlooked. . . They help poor families increase their savings and keep children in school.”
Interestingly, that report also explains that in countries like Mexico and El Salvador, remittances primarily help the poorest segments of society, while in other countries such as Peru, Haiti and other Caribbean countries, they tend to benefit the middle class much more. This is because most migrants from Mexico and Central America come from the segments of the population with the lowest education levels, while those from the Caribbean and South America tend to possess a higher education level than the rest of the population in their home countries.
Clearly, remittances being sent particularly to the Caribbean and Central America prove to be a very significant source of income for some families, and a reduction of earnings by migrants in developed countries would reduce the amount sent back home. This could have a detrimental effect in the standard of living for many citizens in those sub-regions.
What must also be borne in mind is that more people than it is possible to count through official indicators, (i.e., data from money transfer agencies and banks), may well depend heavily on remittances. Actually, a large amount of the money sent home by migrants from the developed countries goes unchecked as it is sent through family friends and other informal means rather than through the money transfer agencies. Because of this factor, some analysts feel that the amount of remittances to the region may be much higher than the revealed official figures.
On the wider perspective of LAC, through growing unemployment in immigrant communities and the reduction in earnings, roughly one million people will not send money back to the region this year. The SELA study, mentioned earlier, reports that only 40 percent of those unemployed will continue to remit, and 25 percent of these employed will send 10 percent less of what they typically send to their families. The SELA document goes on to say that about one million households that previously received remittances will not receive any in 2009, while another 4 million will receive 10 percent less. The countries to be more affected by this situation are Haiti, Honduras, Guyana, Nicaragua and Nicaragua.
The crisis in the USA has impacted heavily on migrants from LAC since their unemployment rates in that country are higher than average. Roughly 65 percent of the migrants lice there and it is from there 75 percent of the remittances originate. Over in Spain which has attracted migrants from Latin America, the unemployment rate for those migrants stands at 17 percent with about 350,000 migrant losing their jobs in the past year. The decline of remittances from Europe, and more particularly Spain, is also due to the fact that migration of Latin Americans to that part of the world has declined in the past five years.
But the devaluation of the US dollar and also the declining value of the Euro to the US dollar since the last quarter of last year have also resulted in the lowering of remittances. For instance, Latin Americans living in Spain and other European countries send home funds in euros which do not fetch a high rate of exchange in their home countries as before.
Further, the SELA study explains that immigrants have been affected by increased anti-immigration sentiments and deportations. The US Department of Homeland Security, more than 320,000 people were deported in 2007, with 96 percent coming from LAC. Deportations increased to 359,000 in 2008, with most being of the “non-criminal” type. Obviously, this heavy flow of deportations has acted to reduce the flow of remittances since they are no longer in the work force in the “source country.” The European Union has also clamped down on Latin American immigration and has also begun to deport “illegals” to their home countries.
Of interest to note, too, is that with the current economic crisis in the USA and other developed countries, the remittance flow is taking a reverse trend in some countries. This is because a growing number of families in LAC are now sending money to their unemployed relatives living in those developed countries to help with the payment of their rent and with other expenses such as school fees.
Currently, a large proportion of the remittance is sent through money transfer operators, with commercial banks having a relatively small share of the market. Since fees for this service amount to up to 20 percent of the amount sent, governments should work with financial institutions to lower these costs. Considering that last year more than US$300 billion was sent home by migrants worldwide, the “middle-men” indeed received a sizeable chunk of migrants’ earnings. The World Bank has stated that the collaboration between governments and financial institutions can increase the possibility for at least the “legal” migrants to send money through bank accounts, which could result in a significant reduction in the transfer fees. In the home countries, especially in LAC, credit unions and microfinance companies could easily be the main disbursing agents since these, rather than the commercial banks, tend to be closer to the majority of those who receive remittances from their families. All of this, in turn, can positively influence local financial development.
[The writer is Guyana’s ambassador to Venezuela and the views expressed are solely his.]
|
| |
ATONEMENT by Ralph Ramkarran |
A headline in the Sunday Stabroek quotes Dr. Richard Van West Charles as saying that there should be an apology for past wrongs. It also quotes Mr. Vincent Alexander as responding that all parties need to atone.
When sensible people do something wrong, they know that they must own up and apologize. They know that if they don’t, there are likely to be consequences. The PNCR was in office between 1964 and 1992. Broadly speaking three events occurred which traumatized the Guyanese people, namely, the repeated rigging of elections to stay in office, the implementation of authoritarian methods of rule and the destruction of the economy. The PNCR denies that the first two ever happened. In relation to the economy, it has repeatedly argued that its destruction was not deliberate but was consequential upon external circumstances and a hostile international environment. This argument has been rejected by many.
Since free and fair elections in 1992, resulting in the end of PNC rule, there have been many calls for an apology from the PNCR. There have been no comparable calls for the PPP to do likewise but there have been efforts by the PNCR to ensnare the PPP in this situation in order to establish some sort of equivalence to demonstrate that the PNCR and the PPP are equally responsible for the state of Guyana in 1992. The allegation is that the PPP was engaged in the burning of cane fields which the PPP denies. Mr. Emile Mervin, in a letter in the SN on May 27, referring to the accusation of burning cane fields, asks about the ‘ill-advised economic policies that destroyed the country.’
The rigging of 1968, 1973, 1980 and the 1985 elections, as well as the 1979 referendum in Guyana, are well established. Some years ago, Raphael Trotman, then a leading member of the PNCR, suggested that an apology was necessary. Leadership aspirant, Dr. Richard Van West Charles, has now supported the suggestion for an apology. We can conclude therefore that, despite the PNCR’s decision at a recent Congress calling for a Truth Commission where all can confess their guilt, opinion in the PNCR is still divided on an apology.
The PNCR’s call for a Truth Commission ignores the circumstances in which it was successful in South Africa. It was established shortly after the fall of apartheid when emotions were raw. At that time there was, understandably, a clamour for crimes during the apartheid era to be investigated and the perpetrators punished. The ANC government felt that the process of healing and reconciliation which it and its leader, Nelson Mandela, had instituted would be derailed by what might appear or be presented as persecution of the White minority even though there was evidence available to mount prosecutions.
The idea of the Truth Commission was to avoid such a situation. It provided that prosecutions would not be pursued against persons who had committed crimes, appear before the Commission, confess their crimes in the presence of the families and obtain their forgiveness. There was therefore a tremendous incentive for persons to own up and apologize lest they be arrested, charged and perhaps convicted and fact the full rigour of the law. In Guyana, when the PNCR went out of office, the PPP/C declared a policy of ‘no recrimination’ and, as a result, no prosecutions were undertaken against any member of the PNCR arising from its activities in government such as the rigging of elections. In Guyana today, 17 years after PNC rule there is no incentive for anyone to appear before a Truth Commission and confess because there is no fear of prosecution. The proposal of the PNCR, therefore, will be of no effect in resolving its dilemma.
Answering the call for an apology by fudging the issue is an attempt to evade responsibility and will not work for the PNCR. The victim of a wrong can forgive. But unless the wrongdoer takes responsibility, resentment, anger and distrust can fester. The PNCR is a political party operating in an adversarial political environment in competition for votes. As a serious political party it should understand the need to win votes away from competing political parties. If it doesn’t it will forever remain a minority party relying on its ethnic support for mere survival rather than broadening its political base and improving its electoral prospects. An apology will allow it to appeal to non-supporters without having to answer questions or deal with suspicions about whether it will ‘do it’ again. It can never overcome those suspicions unless it apologizes.
The PNCR mistakes the call for an apology as a call by or on behalf of opponents as a political tactic to win a political point and to give them a political advantage. In some cases this might be so. But, on the other hand, some supporters of the PPP may well feel that it is to its advantage for the PNCR not to apologize so that its supporters would maintain closed minds to the PNCR. But, as I said elsewhere, Guyana needs a strong opposition and an apology will enable the PNCR over time to remove the basis of suspicion in which it is held by many and facilitate its return to potential acceptability if its policies win support in the marketplace of normal politics. |
| |
Cheated but not defeated, depriving Cheddi Jagan of power |
Guyana was granted Independence from Britain on May 26, 1966. The date was fixed in London at the Independence Conference, which convened on November 2, 1965. The conference was not attended by Dr. Jagan or the PPP. In a letter dated October 26, 1965 Dr Jagan explained his reason for declining thus: “It is my considered view that it would be a betrayal of trust were I to head a PPP delegation to the London talks on freedom and independence when there is a state of emergency in British Guiana and a virtual police state is in being.”
At the conference attended by Burnham and D’Aguiar the date of independence was fixed- Burnham pledged to work for racial equality in the new Nation. One must remember that it was the PPP that first won political office for Burnham on April 27, 1953 when the PPP won 18 of the twenty four seats in the House of Assembly. As stated on page 38 of Stephen g. rabe’s US Intervention in British Guiana “The party also celebrated the multiracial nature of its triumph. One of its Afro-Guyanese candidates won the seat in a majority Indian district. Janet Jagan also won a seat. The party badly defeated the National Democratic Party, a multiracial party composed of British Guiana’s small conservative middle class. The National Democrats only won two seats. The victorious party chose six members – three blacks and three Indians – for Governor Savage’s Executive Council. Both Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham were among the six who joined the Executive Council. In April 1953, the PPP established a precedent that has held throughout the colony and nation’s political history: whenever a free and fair election has been held, the PPP has garnered the most votes.” In the books conclusion on page 175 we find the explanation for the division of our society and the reason why Dr. Jagan was cheated out of his rightful place as the leader when Independence was finally granted: “The US intervention in British Guiana/Guyana from 1953 to 1969 confirms the well known reflection of Thucydides in international relations – large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must. Through overt political and economic pressures and covert conspiracies, the United States achieved its goal of depriving Cheddi Jagan and the People’s Progressive Party of power and insuring that Forbes Burnham and his People’s National Congress dominated the newly independent nation. U.S. Policymakers generated political instability and economic chaos and incited racial warfare in the British colony. They also succeeded in overawing British officials, demonstrating to the British that they could not control British Guiana without U.S. Cooperation. Like the Indians of Guyana the British had to accept the extension of US power and accede to US demands.”
Dr. Jagan was aware of these dynamics and wisely stayed away from the London conference as he always maintained that his first priority was to secure independence from colonial rule. In a statement issued on November 19, 1965 Dr Jagan said: “The People’s Progressive Party, the vanguard of the National Liberation Movement welcomes the announcement that British Guiana will soon attain nationhood.
All who suffered from the terrible pangs of colonialism should breathe a sigh of relief that this period is about to come to an end, but here in Guiana our jubilation must be tempered by the fact that while glowing statements are being made about freedom, our country continues to be ruled under a state of emergency and several Guyanese are detained without charge or trial.
In welcoming the announcement, however, the PPP has no misconceptions as to the type of independence which is now being ushered in and to the period of repression it will have to endure.
As soon as the constitution is available the PPP will state its views on it, but form the information available it is satisfied with the correctness of its stand in boycotting the conference. The PPP’s presence would have added respectability to yet another fraud, to decisions long ago made for the British Government by Washington.
The conference has exposed the utter hypocrisy of the British Government. It has entrenched in the constitution, now described as a good and sound foundation, what only yesterday the leaders of the British Government, when in opposition, had described as a “fiddled constitutional arrangement” The British Government seems capable of affording a high degree of honesty only when in opposition and at the electoral hustings.
The Labour Government’s failure to help create conditions for the out of a real and lasting solution to the country’s political problems must be understood in the context of its role as the junior partner of Anglo-American imperialism and as the upholder of imperial economic interests as have been so amply demonstrated by its recent action in Malaysia, Aden and Rhodesia.
The PPP will therefore intensify its struggle to reunite the working class, continue to work for a political settlement and for genuine independence for our country.
For the Guyanese people a new stage in its struggle for genuine independence has now been reached. The stage has now been set for the U.S. sponsored neocolonialism regime to consolidate a Latin American type of dictatorship in Guyana. We must work hard to build a broad based unity for the attainment of a truly national; democratic, anti imperialist and socialist Guyana, and keep and extend the rights and freedoms we have so far won.”
Dr Jagan was correct and the people of Guyana had to endure a dictatorship until the return of democracy in 1992 after the first free and fair election in 28 years. Dr Jagan was returned to his rightful role as the leader of our nation. At his swearing in ceremony on October 9, 1992 he said: “After I had first been declared winner of the 1947 general elections, I said “We the people have won.” Forty five years later I can now say once again “ The people have won” We went to the elections with the slogan “ time for change: Time to rebuild” We have attained the first objective of as change in Government. Now all of us together, whatever our party, political affiliation, whatever our race or ethnicity, whatever our creed, must put our shoulders to the wheel. It is time to embrace each other and work arm in arm to rebuild our beloved Guyana.”
Dr. Jagan and his successors have always maintained the faith and continue to work with all to build Guyana. We must however be on the look out for those who will forever try to divide us as they did in the fifties and sixties. |
| |
Party Outreach |
This week a number of Party groups across the country took advantage of the good weather to hold their annual fund raiser. One such group was the Grove/Herstelling Group. This is a group, which has among its members, some very prominent and experienced Party members, including the party organising secretary Ulric Ramanah.
The group’s fundraiser took the form of a barbeque, which was held at the Farm Community Centre Ground. On entering the compound one could see that adequate preparations were made for a wide cross section of guests. There was a little merry-go-round for the kids. This particular ride is owned and operated by Mr. Sarju, who can be seen at many Party events. He always ensures that the rides are safe and well-managed and all the kids have fun when Sarju is on the ground. Music was provided by Dwight, who has a very good selection of popular music. In no time one felt the beat and started to sway to the powerful sound of Dwight’s music. In the far corner was a well stocked bar.
The barbeque was supplied by a group of party volunteers headed by Patrick Dyal. Boxes were well prepared beforehand, so there was little or no waiting time at the collection counter. Pick up was by ticket only, many of which were pre-sold. Anyone without a ticket could have bought from group member Reginald Depoo, who was responsible for on-site sales.
The group barbeques are excellent opportunities for Party groups to socialize with members of their communities as they provide an informal forum for interaction with members of the communities, which we have an obligation to serve. They also provide an excellent opportunity for Party leaders, as well as new group members to get to know each other and members of the community. Many a problem can be solved and many tasks identified for further group action, as party members discuss community concerns with the persons attending a well organized group event.
The Herstelling group’s barbeque was a resounding success and all members of this group should be commended for the hard work put in to organize this event. Other groups are encouraged to follow suite and to seek guidance and/or assistance from Freedom House or the Party’s fund raising committee if they have not had a group event for the year, or if they need help in organising their events. |
| |
PARTY LIFE Essequibo PYO Conference |
Young political leaders from across Essequibo Coast gathered last Saturday at Anna Regina, Essequibo for the Progressive Youth Organization annual regional conference. The young leaders used the occasion to review the work of the organization over the last year, discussing the challenges and what can be done to surmount them. They also discuss their successes and how these best practices can be shared with other regions. Of utmost importance to the young leaders are the political developments nationally and internationally. The conference was declared open by a former member of the Progressive Youth Organization, who is now a Central and Executive Committee member of the Peoples Progressive Party Comrade Ally Baksh. In his remarks, he urged the young leaders to learn more about the history and the proud traditions of the Progressive Youth Organization. He spoke about his role in the PYO, and how these experiences shaped him into a strong party comrade and prepared him for leadership.
The highlight of the conference was the keynote speech delivered by Dr. Frank Anthony, First Secretary of the Progressive Youth Organization. In his detailed presentation he spoke to the members on the history of the PYO, categorizing it into three periods, the struggle for independence, the struggle against the PNC dictatorship and the consolidation of democracy in Guyana.
Speaking on the history of the Progressive Youth Organization he reminded the members that the PPP at its second congress took a decision to form a youth section. This decision was implemented on the 6th September, 1952 with the formation of the Pioneer Youth League. The Pioneer Youth League was instrumental in mobilizing young people ages 21 and over to participate in the first General Election which was held under Universal Adult Suffrage on the 24th April, 1953. The Peoples Progressive Party won a massive victory gaining 18 of the 24 elected seats. But the people’s victory was short lived with Burnham opportunism plunging the party into a week of crisis, and 133 days on the 9th October, 1953 the British government suspending the Constitution. Many leaders of the PPP were jailed during the period. Martin Carter the national poet who was thrown into jail wrote an anthology called Poems of Resistance, reflecting the mood of the times. The Pioneer Youth League was declared as an illegal organization and banned. It resurfaced several times under various names from 1953 to 1957. Until in 1957, after another PPP victory at the General Elections that it regained legitimacy. It was in this year that youth section at its first congress adopted the name Progressive Youth Organization.
Dr. Anthony explained that the struggle for independence was initiated by the Peoples Progressive Party, and that the PYO played an integral role in that struggle. He recalled on the 13th July, 1964 how Michael Forde was killed, when he removed a bomb from the Progressive Bookshop at Freedom House. Today Michael is regarded as hero within the ranks of the PYO.
In the struggle against the PNC dictatorship, the PYO was again at the forefront. He recalled that on the 10th July, 1973, two comrades Parmanand Bholanauth and Jagan Ramessar were killed in defense of the ballot boxes at Number 63 Village in Corentyne. These comrades are today referred to as the Ballot Box Martyrs. They were also many PYO comrades who were beaten and jailed because they dared to oppose the dictatorship.
He said that the 5th October, 1992 ushered in a new period in Guyanese history. It marks the triumph of democracy over dictatorship and a new democratic beginning for our peoples. It is essential that we nurture and protect our democracy. To do this we have to develop leaders at all levels, communities, regional and national, and that we must forge alliances with progressive organizations.
He explained to the young leaders that the essential task of each comrade is to educate his or herself about the organization, for them to understand the values and ethics of the party. He explained that our principles make us fundamentally different from the other political parties. Our party is a people friendly party; our arms are open to all regardless of race, religion, gender or age. Our approach is to win as much supporters as possible. To do this we must rely on the old and tested method to walk the community street by street taking to people individually or collectively, getting them to understand their problems, and helping them to resolve them. We must not be afraid to offer leadership. We must also use these occasions to educate people about our policies, and dispel the myths and misconceptions that our opponents peddle.
He commended the young leaders on their achievements thus far, and said that the Progressive Youth Organization would continue to offer them courses on politics, leadership and statecraft. He said that the PYO will provide them with various opportunities to test what they have learnt. It is expected that over the next year, the spectrum of activities offered in Essequibo will expand, new alliances will be forged and membership will increased.
After Dr. Anthony’s presentation a new Progressive Youth Organization regional committee was elected. The committee will coordinate the activities on the Essequibo coast for the next year. At the close of the conference, many of the young leaders said that they felt motivated, and that they are going back to their respective groups with renewed vigor and a clear mandate of what must be accomplished in the next year. Many of the members said that this conference was indeed a great success. |
| |
Guyana History Notebook TELEGRAM (No. 90) FROM GOVERNOR OF BRITISH GUIANA TO COLONIAL SECRETARY (7 October 1953) Compiled
by Odeen Ishmael |
This week we continue our series of documentation surrounding the suspension of the constitution and the ousting of the democratically elected PPP government by the British colonial rulers.
INWARD TELEGRAM
TOP SECRET
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES
FROM BRITISH GUIANA (Sir A. Savage)
Cypher D. 7th October, 1953.
(O.T.P.) R. 8th ,, ,, 04.35 hrs.
IMMEDIATE
TOP SECRET AND PERSONAL
Personal No. 90
Your top secret and personal telegram (No. omitted) paragraph 2.
I have since informed you in my top secret and personal telegram No. 85 that it was unlikely that any action would be taken to place persons named under restraint at the outset. I have now further considered the matter in consultation with the Security Liaison Officer and Members of the Executive Council other than Party Ministers and I am convinced that such action should not be taken unless developments in the situation demand it. Required information will, however, be sent to you as requested if any arrests are subsequently made.
2. Passage in paragraph 1 of H.M.G.’s proposed statement relating to placing of leaders under restraint should therefore be deleted.
3. The above was drafted before the receipt of your top secret and personal telegram No. 71. I have again considered the matter most carefully, but whilst I appreciate the risk of leaders stirring up disorder etc. I still feel very strongly that it would be a grave mistake to anticipate action on their part with consequent loss of goodwill and support of large section of the community. Withdrawal of portfolios might well foment overt action by leaders and provide immediate justification for detention. For those reasons I feel bound to adhere to previous views would urge that the decision be left to me.
4. Present intention is that announcement will be made here at 7.30 local time on 9th October.
/Distribution |
| |
|
