propaganda press! state sponsored, people powered.

Peeping Tom -T WO STEPS FORWARD, THREE STEPS BACKWARDThe PPP is reducing the proceedings within the National Assembly to a farce. In the process it is proving why a parliamentary democracy must be judged on substance and not form.
A parliamentary democracy cannot be sustained solely through legislative reforms or simply because of the holding of free and fair elections. Without the politics of accommodation, it will quickly be eroded.
Take for example what occurred last Thursday when the Leader of the Opposition asked some questions of the Prime Minister concerning the compensation plan for the farmers affected by the clearing of the backlands in Buxton.
Every question on the subject that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister was deferred to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. There was nothing wrong with this since the questions concerned matters that could rightly considered as being concerned with agriculture.
However, when the minister rose to answer those questions, he hardly gave a straight answer to any of the questions. Instead, in the vast majority of instances what we got was a verbal jig that in physical terms resembled a popular dance in my day known as the Lambada.
The Peeper would have lost patience with this bobbing and weaving, the verbal shuffling and downright disrespect that was shown for the highest forum in the land.
But we must give the Leader of the Opposition credit. He had the interests of his constituency to attend to and he bore up with all the dodgy answers that were given. In the process he exposed the PPP for what it is.
The Leader of the Opposition asked who was in charge of the compensation exercise. He could not get a straight forward answer despite rising on more than one occasion to ask supplementary questions on this very point.
The Minister, wearing a top-class designer suit, rose to his feet and began to silkily dance all around the issue, speaking about the process moving forward but never being clear as to whether it is the Office of the President, the Joint Services or the Ministry of Agriculture that is heading the compensation process.
Now it is quite possible that the question of compensation will involve a number of agencies. However, in the final analysis, there has to be one agency/one person that is responsible. A simple answer therefore by the Minister that so and so is responsible would have sufficed. But no, answering questions by the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament has taken on a new style.
I cannot understand why it is the government cannot give a straight answer as to who is ultimately responsible for the compensation that will be offered to farmers. The Peeper would not have been surprised, as so too the National Assembly, if the government had pointed out that it was the Office of the President. After all, is that not modus operandi in this country in recent years that almost everything has to involve New Garden Street?
The Leader of the Opposition also wanted to know as to the specific compensation that will be offered. Again the Minister began to take evasive tactics. He said that the government had a comprehensive list for permanent and cash crops as well as livestock and that he had a copy with him which would be made available publicly and also to the members of the National Assembly.
The Leader of the Opposition then rose and indicated that since the Minister of Agriculture had the list whether he would be willing to give him a copy.
The Minister rose and said that out of courtesy he wanted first to give it to the committee representing the farmers. Of course the Minister seemed to have forgotten that he was addressing the highest forum in the land and it is this institution that has to be paid the highest courtesy.
The Leader of the Opposition then rose and indicated that he was a member of the committee representing the farmers and therefore the minister could give him the list.
The Minister rose and replied that fortunately or unfortunately, Mr. Corbin was not the Chairman of that committee.
The Leader of the Opposition then asked about the time frame for the compensation exercise. The Minister rose to reply that he could not give a definite time frame since some matters could take longer than others.
The Leader of the Opposition rose again to try to nail the Minister down to a time frame for the entire exercise. Again he got nowhere.
He then made a plea in the form of a question for some interim payment to be made, considering the plight of the farmers. The Peeper did not wait for an answer. I had had enough of what was taking place.
That display along with the rejection of a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition condemning the Lusignan massacre has clearly driven home the point that when it comes to parliamentary democracy, Guyana has moved two steps forward through free and fair elections and constitutional reform but three steps backwards solely because of the attitude of the PPP in the National Assembly.