Opposition, for the sake of it, could be unproductive for a party and also hurtful for a country's national interest.

This observation is informed by our experiences in Guyana where the parliamentary opponents of the governing PPP/Civic, and particularly the PNC/Reform, have so often in the past opted for confrontational and sterile opposition politics in preference to bi-partisan efforts in the national interest.

It could, however, be said that, to a great extent, both the PPP/Civic and the PNC/Reform have been fairly consistent in their unwavering support for the progress of the regional economic integration movement as characterised by CARICOM.

Regrettably, with a change in government in our sister neighbouring state, Trinidad and Tobago, this no longer seems to be the case.

The disappointing positions being adopted within recent times by the opposition UNC on some sensitive issues of importance to the future advancement of the CARICOM, contrast with that party's policies when in government.

Having demonstrated its commitment to the major goals of CARICOM during its first terms, as well as the unfortunate interruption of its second term in government, the UNC has recently been sending some rather negative policy signals.

First, it chose to link constitutional reform as a condition of support for the creation of a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as a final regional appellate court to replace access to the Privy Council in London.

By last week, its parliamentarians were opposing, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, passage of legislation to facilitate the free movement of skilled CARICOM nationals within the Community.

The UNC's right to change its stand in opposing measures and policies it once favoured, granted with some reservations, is one thing.

But to engage in such contradiction with the kind of unnecessary divisive rhetoric that flowed from its Senators and MPs, is rather appalling. Especially with the involvement of former cabinet ministers on the issue of free movement of identified categories of skilled CARICOM nationals.

One MP was so dismissive of the CCJ that he seems to have forgotten that it was under the UNC's administration that negotiations were completed for Trinidad and Tobago to be the operational headquarter of this regional court.

When, subsequently, its former Attorney General called for Haiti to be excluded from the provisions to facilitate free movement of skilled CARICOM nationals because of fears that Haitians would simply flow into Trinidad and Tobago to provide cheap labour, that was, to say the least, a low blow.

Nor did an MP of Prime Minister Patrick Manning's ruling People's National Party distinguish either himself or his party and government when he chose to engage in race-baiting talk.

He was to suggest that perhaps the UNC was interested in regional unity if it involved countries like Guyana and Suriname where the population are more like those of Trinidad and Tobago with an implicit reference to the populations of East Indian descent.

Both those UNC and PNM parliamentarians spoke as if they do not understand the current unpreparedness at present of Haiti to access full membership of CARICOM or the significance of free movement of Caribbean nationals in the functioning of the Caribbean Single Market and Economy.

In the process, they succeeded in telling their public more about their own negative, unhelpful attitudes towards the fostering of Caribbean unity.