Breaking the law: should squatters be held responsible?

Dear Editor,
I do not pretend, nor could I arrogate onto myself the position of moral gatekeeper of politics in Guyana, as a few individuals seem to relish. While compassion is an element of politics, it is not the dominant factor. To what extent could a Government exercise compassion? This is a difficult decision and several factors must be considered. For sure, the context and circumstances, including legality, should be central considerations. My question is this: “In the decision-making process, should we allow any form of illegality to become a casualty of compassion?” I do not think so.
Mr Nigel Hinds indicated in his letter that GuySuCo’s explanation of the extent of the damage to the lands at Success was “an unrealistic stretch.” This is a gross under-representation of the massive damage amounting to over $2 billion that was inflicted by the squatters on cane cultivation. GuySuCo ‘s technical officer, Gavin Ramnarain, stated that 17,000 sugar cane species were destroyed while it takes a process of between 14 to 18 years before a specie could be cultivated for commercial purposes.
I hope that Hinds was not subliminally trying to invoke ethnic tension by infusing ancestral land claims into the picture. What Nigel should worry foremost about is that the PNCR Government was in power for 5 years, and they did nothing significant to regularise land claims, ancestral or otherwise, and also failed to issue house lots to thousands of deserving applicants! Instead, the PNCR seemed more pre-occupied in (i) issuing land titles to friends and cronies without any transparency, accountability, and at far below prevailing market prices, with notable examples being along the proposed Ogle to Diamond bypass road; and (ii) delaying the grant of land titles to Amerindians. In contrast, the PPPC Government issued over 110,000 house lots and built several hundreds of houses between 1992 and 2014. In their determined effort to house the nation, their (PPP/C) plans to distribute another 50,000 house lots in the next five years is on track.
Nigel Hinds is seemingly concerned about the flooding of the squatting area, but is oblivious to the squalid conditions under which squatters live. Others, including myself, have been equally concerned not only about the flooding at Success but also the plight of the homeless across the country. The Sarah Johanna protest on the East Bank of Demerara is supposedly another case of squatting on private lands. These two examples suggest that the Government, with the assistance of stakeholders, has to develop a national policy towards squatting.
Nigel believes that labelling the squatting area at Success, “Quamina” would, among other things, lend credibility to his raison d’etre. He seems to believe that compassion must override all legal and social considerations. According to Nigel, the offences of trespass and destruction of property should be ignored based on his novel ancestral land claim, plus compassion. Would a Judge exonerate a convicted offender who stole money to buy medication for his dying mother? The offender will be sentenced accordingly but the sentence is likely to be mitigated by compassion.
Nigel used this opportunity to advocate for inclusive/shared governance. He said: “it is vitally important for persons who are viewed as traditional PNC supporters, to be placed in positions of leadership to allow real and not illusionary inclusivity towards nation-building.” When the PNCR was in power, Hinds did not advocate for the Government to get PPP/C operatives into strategic positions of governance. But more importantly, aren’t PNCR’s operatives already dominant in the public sector? Is Nigel arguing for greater representation? However, there is no evidence that shared governance will bring better results than the competitive “winner takes all” (WTA) system, which functions well in all Caricom countries. Nothing is wrong with the WTA system; what is wrong is people’s hardened attitudes. What is needed instead is an attitudinal transformation.
Finally, here is a perplexing comment by Nigel: “the coalition did not tear gas or shoot at the folks in Ashmins building or at GECOM Headquarters, or those individuals surrounding the buildings.” As if humiliating diplomats was not enough, why would the PNCR tear gas election observers, party representatives, and the press in the Ashmins building? Those folks did not commit any crime but were there to monitor the Region 4 vote tabulation, but instead saw the building converted into a nerve centre for an electoral insurrection.

Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh