An administration is judged by its performance

Dear Editor,
The New PPP/C Administration is in office, and has commenced immediate work on the economy. It has been an uphill task ever since the first day on the job, and continues to be so because, with each passing day, newer obstacles to progress are being unearthed, and those have to be dealt with before moving on.
The point I am making is: when a new administration comes into office, you will judge its performance on its accurate assessment of the situation with which it is confronted, before it moves on to the next phase. This is all bundled up in its Mission and Vision Statement.
For starters, all hands are on board as each Ministry tackles the task before it. I am talking about the immediate assessment of the damage caused by floodwaters along the Corentyne Coast, the construction of the stelling at Leguan, or getting power up and running at Matthews Ridge. Of note is that a stelling has to be completed at Leguan, for which $413M was already expended to a contractor by the previous PNC Administration. To date, nothing has been done. The incoming PPP/C Administration, as a Mission Statement, ensured that work must be shown for monies spent; hence, the ordering of the immediate resumption of this project.
I know that astute leadership of the Honourable Bishop in that Ministry would see work being done to a successful completion.
Similar achievements can be seen in the Agriculture Ministry, where solid groundwork had to be undertaken by the minister involved, and urgent work had to be done to the flood-stricken areas on the Corentyne Coast. Minister Mustapha quickly mobilised heavy equipment machinery to clear the clogged canals to get the floodwaters out and bring relief to the residents there. That is astute leadership and delivery of service, all to the benefit and development of the respective communities.The same could be said of power generation in communities in the Matthews Ridge, Port Kaituma District. Those places have been without power since March of this year. That is really tough experience for the residents of those communities.
Notwithstanding the constraints involved, the new administration forged ahead with restoring power to those affected areas, having given assurance that power would be restored there.
The questions one is forced to ask are: What was the stewardship of the former Administration? What was their governance factor like, in light of the foregoing exposures? Had they no governance guidelines? Where were their governance principles? We are talking about a PNC Administration that inherited a sound economy; where did our taxpayers’ dollars go? Can anyone give a plausible explanation to these pointed questions? And if I may add, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Heaven help us!

Respectfully,
Neil Adams