The decision by the National Assembly to approve the restoration of a historical government of Guyana subvention granted to the Critchlow Labour College (CLC) is nothing more than a PPP orchestrated public relations stunt bringing shame and disrepute to the National Assembly.
The decision by the National Assembly to approve the restoration of a historical government of Guyana subvention granted to the Critchlow Labour College (CLC) is nothing more than a PPP orchestrated public relations stunt bringing shame and disrepute to the National Assembly. The vote taken by the Assembly brings to bear the level of lawlessness that our country has sunk when the highest decision making forum of the land where laws are made and respected can be used to encourage violation of the Constitution and bylaws of the CLC and disregard for the right to Freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution.
In principle the GTUC appreciates the motion brought by AFC MP Trevor William, college alumni. The GTUC recalls being approached on more than one occasion by representatives of the APNU who wanted us to make a deal to have FITUG on the college’s board in return for the grant. It was made crystal clear the GTUC would not be Advancing Rights and the Rule of Law at the national level and at the same compromise these universal principles in our organisations. It is clear that some decisions in the House are being made absent an understanding of the issues, role and responsibilities of the MPs and the laws that should be guiding their actions.
The college, a private institution is owned by the GTUC and both are governed by their own laws guided by the national laws. For the Assembly to arbitrarily take a decision to impose a new management structure on the college is a usurpation of the by-laws of these institutions and a matter no law-abiding citizen should countenance, much less be voted on in the Assembly. When it comes to the determination of composition of boards, the Assembly should address this on state boards such as NICIL and NCN. The college’s board has two representatives from the government- one from the Ministry of Education and one from the Ministry of Labour. The vote taken by the National Assembly now adds four government controlled FITUG members making government’s influence six against the GTUC’s four, on a college owned by the GTUC. The GTUC is not prepared to sell its rights to the government or to any other.
The GTUC has a proud history of being independent, regardless of the political support of its leadership, and this goes back to the days of Joseph Pollydore, who though a friend of Forbes Burnham was not afraid to challenge and or provide GTUC’s support for industrial actions against successive PNC administrations. This right to self-determination and independence the GTUC guard zealously and will not compromise it to enjoy any other right. Rights are non-negotiable. Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, whom the college is named after, fought for universal education, Pollydore realised it through the establishment of the college. It is in the interest of the current cadre of leadership to zealously defend and advance this legacy.
Today the GTUC calls on those in the national assembly who premised the granting of government’s subvention on unity, to look within themselves. The PNC was birthed out of the PPP. The AFC was birthed out of the WPA, PNC and PPP. Perhaps this august body should go back to the PPP from whence they originated. Those who call for unity within the trade union movement have themselves come from fractured bodies but now zealously guard their right to independent existence and self-determination must respect FITUG’s right to pursue its own pathway. They must understand that the GTUC bears no ill will or malice to the PPP FITUG and will unite with any labour organisation or body sharing common interest based on universal laws, conventions, charters and declarations.
Assertions made in the National Assembly of the college being engaged in financial impropriety with use of state funds are hereby questioned. Information to the contrary can be verified from the Auditor General’s Reports and should have been sought or provided in the National Assembly to aid in its decision making. The public is reminded that the GTUC and its attendant arms had two sources of revenue intakes- state and non-state- managed in separate accounts. The Auditor General’s office audited the state’s revenue, whereas the non-state funding account is audited by a private firm consistent with the national law of a private institution and the records submitted to the relevant government agency. These documents are all accessible to government and the public.
Allegations made by Minister Nanda Gopaul are unfortunate since he was elected Treasurer of the GTUC by popular support, defeating the popular Selwyn Felix of the CCWU. Nanda Gopual knows the rules governing the GTUC. With the exception of Boysie Ramkarran in 1984 GAWU never fielded a candidate for the presidency of GTUC. Hence the concern about GAWU’s genuine interest in leading the GTUC becomes a genuine question to be answered. Particularly so since GAWU a founder member of the PPP FITUG has never held the president or general secretary of that body, instead content to remain in secondary positions to Carvil Duncan of the GLU, Grantley Culbard of CCWU, and Kenneth Joseph of NAACIE.
The GTUC has engaged the opposition on the Bauxite Company of Guyana Incorporated (BCGI) matter and to date none has made a public commitment to address the transgressions and violations meted out to these workers. It is this same disregard that led to the government in 2012 to want to impose increase electricity charges in Linden which resulted in deaths and injuries of persons fighting for the protection of their rights and upholding of the law. GTUC notes the haste within which a vote was made from the opposition and government sides on the matter of the CLC grant and calls on this august body without delay to address the outstanding matter of BCGI.
When state advertisement was returned to Stabroek News, a private entity, there was no pre-condition for representatives of Chronicle or any state media to sit on its board. Neither has the opposition set a pre-condition for their representation on the First Lady’s charity which receives state’s funding. The same goes for Cheddie Jagan Research Centre, another beneficiary. None has asked GAWU to put representatives from the GTUC on its college’s board. The PPP knows the GTUC will stand its ground on universal Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and national laws and will not accept the imposition of the National Assembly, which has no authority over it. For the PPP, this vote in the National Assembly is the cover it needed to continue its discriminatory actions. The opposition has sadly given their discriminatory acts legitimacy.
