An invitation to the banquet
Peeping Tom…
Kaieteur News
December 16, 2006
The Alliance for Change is a creature of western imperialism. The Americans and British took their time and scouted for the right potential, and when they found it, they provided opportunities for an extended political internship that involved training and orientation in western political values.
The effects of that internship are now beginning to show, in a positive sense. The Alliance for Change has demonstrated that it is not going to be a laid-back party; that it intends to make its five seats in Parliament worth something.
In so doing, the Alliance for Change is putting to shame the long tenure of the main opposition in the National Assembly. Had the main opposition been doing the things that the Alliance for Change is now doing, Parliament would have been far more effective.
There is a new mood, a renewed optimism, in the National Assembly, which has very little to do with the government and more to do with the purposefulness with which the Alliance for Change is approaching its Parliamentary responsibilities.
It was the Alliance for Change that raised a question (still, I am told, to be answered) in the National Assembly about the abuse of State property for partisan purposes. This followed the Peeper's expose and denunciation of the use of State House to host a PPP fund-raising activity in September of this year.
It was the Alliance for Change also that tabled a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment in the National Assembly, a motion which will be debated within the next six months and the outcome of which will decide whether our children will continue to be flogged in our school system.
The Alliance for Change is not waiting for emergencies to arise before tabling matters before the Assembly. It is also not allowing the government to dictate what matters should be placed before Parliament.
The AFC has an agenda, and it is pursuing that agenda. Its approach is infectious as was evident during the discussions this week over supplementary provisions tabled by the government.
The PNCR's representative, Mr. Winston Murray, was in fine form in that debate, and his piercing questions about the food bill for Cabinet has caused me to wonder just what and how often are our Ministers eating during Cabinet meetings. I cannot comprehend how it is that the food bill for Cabinet Ministers can average $600,000 per month. As far as I am aware, not even a four-course meal for twenty-five persons every week can cost that much. I am asking to be invited to the next Cabinet meeting because whatever they are eating, I want to eat.
Readers will recall that just this week, I had indicated in one of my columns that Winston Murray should have succeed Desmond Hoyte and is one of the contenders likely to be considered to succeed Uncle Bob. However, I also indicated that I did not think he would be inclined to run for the leadership of the PNCR. It is unfortunate because he is by far the most superior representative that the PNCR has in the National Assembly. This was evident during the recent debate on the recent financial papers presented for approval in the National Assembly.
In the meantime, the Alliance for Change has made its next move. This time it is proceeding, as it promised during the elections campaign, to table legislation relating to freedom of information. While I support greater openness within the government, I cannot at this stage support a Freedom of Information Act, which on paper would mean very little to the Guyanese people.
The Alliance for Change is moving too quickly to have a Freedom of Information Act and will be doing irreparable damage to the objectives it is seeking by attempting at this stage to implement something for which we are not yet ready and for which we have not developed the necessary institutional support.
I think that this legislation is premature and ought to be preceded by a number of things. I will explain what I mean. Before we move towards a Freedom of Information Act, we have to develop the institutional capacity and working experience of Parliament as an oversight body. For example, I have always advocated in these columns the need for greater use to be made of Parliamentary oversight, something that the PNCR has failed to do.
I am not satisfied, for example, that the Sector Committees are being fully utilised because there are many things that are taking place within government for which public administrators should answer before the Sector and Public Accounts Committees. I hope that when next the Public Accounts Committee meets it will demand the food bills for Cabinet meals and I hope this time we will not be told that the bills were destroyed in the floods.
Until such time as we strengthen and make greater use of the oversight mechanisms; until such time as greater resources are allocated to the Auditor General's Office; until such time as the government is forced into timely reporting of the performance of the economy and other financial and economic indicators, which incidentally it is obligated under our laws to do; until such time as public accountability to Parliament is entrenched, only then can we take this accountability to the next level through the enactment of a Freedom of Information Act.
The Freedom of Information Act, in any event, as a mechanism for allowing the public greater access to public records, is a western myth, something that I will expose in a subsequent article. However, for the time being, I commend the good intentions of the AFC but ask that they not table a measure that is likely to be left on the legislative shelf without any real effectiveness.