Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Sep 30, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Even an old dog like me can learn new tricks. As they say, “You are never too old to learn.”
It was quite a learning experience for me recently when I tuned in to a GINA feature and heard a minister of the government speak about “decentralizing governance.” Now, don’t get me wrong, I have heard about devolving or decentralizing authority, power and responsibility, but never about decentralizing governance. But as they say every day you can learn something.
The same minister challenged anyone to produce evidence, from anywhere in the world, of a case in which one hundred house lots were approved in one day. The minister may be on solid ground here, but for now this column is not interested in one hundred house lots; it is only concerned about three which have reportedly been applied for by the ruling People’s Progressive Party.
There has been some massaging of the English language in relation to this matter. First we were told that no lots were “given” to the PPP. Now admittedly this is different from no lots were applied for or are in the process of being applied for. Then another report surfaced in the media in which it was reported that the PPP did apply for three lots but they did not receive them free. Well the fact that they may have paid for the lots does not deflect from the central concern which is about the allocation to a political party.
This matter was first brought to the attention of the public via this newspaper. In that initial report, the AFC claimed that the PPP had been allocated three house lots. It never said anything about the lots being free.
It also indicated that it was unable to find a precedent in the Commonwealth for any political party to receive house lot allocations from the government. In an official response, it was pointed out that over five hundred house lots have been allocated to organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Food for the Poor, mosques and churches.
None of those mentioned refer to political parties. The allocations for the first two organizations would not be for them but rather for them to build houses for the poor, so these lots that reportedly went to Food for the Poor and Habitat for Humanity would inevitably end up in the hands of a citizen whose house would be constructed by those organizations.
It is also acceptable that in any community, provision needs to be set aside for the religious needs of residents and therefore there is nothing unusual for lots to be allocated within housing schemes for religious organizations to build temples and mosque. These serve a social need.
The central issue is the allocation of lots to a political party in government. It is unusual and unacceptable for political parties to be granted lots in a housing scheme. This should never be allowed, and in this instance it is fraught with conflicts of interests since it is the ruling party that is benefitting from the said lots, and not just one but three.
Imagine what it means for one organization to have three lots. It means that eligible persons are denied an allocation so that it can go to a party which can afford to buy properties on the open market. Three families have been deprived of owning their own homes simply because of this allocation.
If good governance means anything to the rulers in the PPP, including those leaders who have Presidential ambitions, they should speak out against this practice. The PPP should not be receiving any land from the government. All political parties should eschew the option of receiving such benefits from the State.
Since in this instance it is the PPP that is receiving the lots, then this gives them an unfair advantage in that they have received a benefit from the State not received by any other political party.
I wonder whether the Ministry of Housing will now allocate three lots to the PNCR and three lots to the AFC and three lots to whichever political party is interested in taking up the offer.
It is extremely doubtful whether this sort of thing would have been tolerated under Dr. Cheddi Jagan. It is disappointing and regretful that the PPP which has persons of high integrity amongst its leadership would allow such a thing. I call on the General Secretary to cancel the application and to ask that the allocation be annulled.
Unless the PPP does this, it will find itself being accused of benefitting from the decentralization of governance.
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]