Dear Editor,
On the occasion of the commencement of the 3rd session of the United Nations (UN) Permanent Forum on the People of African, I noted that the PPP/C had gone into accelerated propaganda drive in its effort to push back on the exposure of its hypocrisy in relation to the UN Decade for the People of African Descent. As I pen this letter, that propaganda campaign is in full swing with non-descript pseudo Afro-Guyanese organizations joining in that malicious and spurious campaign.
The Association of People of African Descent (APAD) which declared its existence in 2023 has since been identified as having been established by the Government. In the words of Minister Oneidge Walrond: “In 2023, the Government launched the Association of People of African Descent.” APAD’s existence has since been marked by patent silence, except for a letter in the ongoing campaign, to which not even a signature of an author has been attached. Similarly, another pseudo organization bearing the name Afro Guyana Unity/ Afro Guyanese Union has surfaced as another protagonist of the propaganda, yet their public missive is non-descript and specifies that the signature of the author was withheld. I wish that they could be found at their publicized address: 592 Section A Block X Diamond East Bank, Demerara or contacted on their publicized contact number: 6328585.
The Singh`s should be lauded for showing an interest in the Decade and its beneficiaries. Their limitation and inability to empathize with the people of African descent should, however, be taken into consideration, when attending to what they have to say. Simply put, they don’t wear the shoes and cannot experience where it is pinching. Worse yet, their pronouncements suggest that they are not even trying to wear the shoes of the African Guyanese. Their mission is advancing the PPP/C propaganda agenda.
Ravin Singh, in his missive contended that IDPADA-G’s subvention should have been stopped in 2019, since according to him, IDPADA-G`s mandate was to prepare a plan, which was accomplished in 2019. Kudos to Ravin for his admission that there was a mandate that was fulfilled. What he also stated, but seem not to understand, is that the mandate provided for “mechanisms for implementing, superintending and monitoring the plan as may be deemed necessary”. It is that function that necessitated IDPADA-G’s existence unto the end of the Decade.
Further, Robin Singh’s condemnations are laughable, but should be rebutted since the Decade is a serious matter that should not be reduced to a joke.
Robin Singh, clearly, like many others, is still to grasp an understanding of the intent of the Decade. He contends that equality prevails in Guyana, hence there is no need for special attention to issues affecting African Guyanese. The logic of that contention is that there is no need for special attention to any group except the manner in which the Sugar Workers and the Amerindians are being given special attention. Robin clearly does not understand that when people are aggrieved or disadvantaged there is need for equitable treatment as a precondition for them to benefit from ‘so called’ equal provisions. We may all have ‘so called’ equal access to health care, but if the system is unresponsive to health peculiarities of specific demographics, and does specifically and exceptionally resource its response, then equal access would not have the effect intended by the provision of the service. Equity is in such circumstances required as a precondition for equality to be realized.
The reality is that there are legal and institutional frameworks in our society that still disadvantage one or the other group. And, even, in the instance where those frameworks have been changed, groups may still be suffering from the residual impact, thus requiring special attention to overcome the residual effect, thus putting them on the same footing with the others, who may not be suffering from such residual effects.
Unfortunately, Robin’ s deficient understanding of the issue at hand, leads him to label the proponent of equity as a racist, not to mention that racism is about privilege based on racial/ethnic superiority rather than any other factor, which may fuel discrimination.
Further, Robin is clearly disrespectful to the African Guyanese community. It is public knowledge that former President David Granger called on the community to organize, however the groups were engaged in discussions for over a year (Sept, 2016 to Dec 2017), and consensually came up with the IDPADA-G model, which culminated in an open, transparent and unanimous election of the chairperson of IDPADA-G. It would take a devious liar to say otherwise, since otherwise cannot be proven. Granger did not appoint Alexander.
Additionally, questioning the rental of Robert Corbin’ s building and Desmond Hoyte’s former residence is a red herring. The process was transparent and open, including seeking the state’s assistance to find accommodation. The decision met the predetermined criteria. One main such criterion was accessibility. We found Regent Rd. extremely convenient and accessible to our membership. Corruption and unethical conduct in Guyana is as such that it is hardly expected that business would be conducted otherwise. IDPADA-G challenges the corrupt minds to fault its adherence to ethical practices in the conduct of its rentals. What’s wrong with doing business with Corbin. Isn’t he entitled to conduct clean business in Guyana?
IDPADA-G having been duly constituted was not, and is not, subjected to any other amorphous group making decisions for, or about, it. The groups which constituted IDPADA-G never convened any meeting at which a decision was made to disband IDPADA-G or disrobe its leadership.
In most regards, if not all, IDPADA-G has conducted its business transparently, openly and accountably in the face of external hostility and the usual internal differences of opinion.
Indeed, IDPADA-G has no equivalent in the Caribbean. That is quite understandable. Where else, except for Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname and Belize do we have plural societies that require special attention to the diverse groups? In the case of the three exception mentions, their post emancipation experiences and their management of ethnic relations have been quite different to what we experience in Guyana.
Robin’s attempt to compare IDPADA-G`s call for funding with the establishment of a Ministry as is the case of the establishment of Ministries for the Indigenous peoples and agricultural activities is but a straw house. We are clearing showing how equity is at work for those communities, while there is push back on the call of the African Guyanese community for equitable treatment. Suffice to note that the Amerindians have their council that is funded by Government and through which the dedicated funds are channeled.
Notably a request as simple as the call for the comprehensive teaching of Guyanese History in our schools, inclusive of the contribution of the African Guyanese to Guyana’s development is met with the ridiculous contention by Minister Walrond that there is no such deficient in our school curriculum. No wonder, she accused Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes of misrepresenting the conclusion of the UN’s Human Rights Committee when he quoted thus: ”the Committee remains concerned about the absence of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that may extend beyond discrimination in employment, provide full and effective protection against all forms of discrimination prohibited under the Covenant, including direct, indirect, and multiple discrimination” and concluded that the quote reflected his view of the state of things in Guyana. She contended that the quote was related to another sentence in which the Committee “also” expressed “concern about … ill treatment of and violence including sexual violence on transgender individuals in police custody and prisons”
The use of “also” in that sentence is clearly disjunctive, yet she presents it as conjunctive in her attempt to accuse the Attorney of misapplying the quote; and dispel the Committee’s general concern about discrimination in Guyana.
What’s confronting us is clearly a case where the Government contends that there is no need for a designated programme for the Guyanese of African descent for the Decade, and has not articulated such a programme. Yet, they wish to be lauded as advocates of the Decade.
Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
