On hearing David Hinds, I wondered what victory he was talking about

Dear Editor,
I have been listening recently to a regular early-morning programme on the internet. It is a programme in which the host demonstrates very evident racial bias. For example, two callers to the programme, a man and a woman, frequently call in and could often be heard making references to East Indians in Guyana with the offensive and derogatory ‘C’ word accompanied by descriptions of Indians as “nasty”, “dutty”, “wicked”, and “evil” without rebuke or condemnation from the host whose concluding comments at the end of such calls is “thank you for your call.”
This early morning programme also carries a very noticeable anti-Government stand. On a recent programme I listened to David Hinds, who was a special guest. The main topic of discussion was the recent strike by teachers. The host of the programme was of the view that teachers should “work to rule’. One gathered that the host of the programme saw the teacher’s union issue as one between the Government and black people.
While David hinds cautioned the host of the programme on his views, it was Hinds’ own observations that struck me. Hinds noted that the approach advocated by the host of the programme could attract negative public criticism of the WPA which was to be avoided since the teachers “had the court on their side.” David Hinds was also of the view, as he expressed it, that the teachers in the case brought by their union had scored a huge victory against the Government. He reasoned that the aim of the strike was to get the Government to come to the table. Hinds felt that the teachers should hold the threat of a withdrawal of labour over the head of the Government, in their endeavour to get from the Government what they wanted.
On hearing David Hinds, I wondered what victory he was talking about. I am aware of Hinds’ bitter, strident anti-Government sentiments. (One recalls his “undermine this Government “exhortations on the east coast recently, and in relation to which he has been ignored). Hinds sounded almost orgasmic in his declaration that teachers had scored a huge victory against the Government.
But the public knows that prior to the political demonstrations conveniently described as strike action by teachers, their union, whose General Secretary is a PNC MP, had been engaged in talks with the Government and that such talks included discussion on teachers’ wages and salaries and other benefits. What David Hinds did not say, is that it was the teachers’ union that walked away from these talks with the Government thereby abandoning the causes of the teachers of this country. It may be true that David Hinds would like to see some kind of victory against the Government, given the dimming hope of an electoral victory by what is left of the WPA as a political party and even by that motley mix APNU, but this was not one such occasion for such an expectation.
On the contrary, this was a victory for the Government. The teachers’ union is back at the table for talks with the Government which they had earlier abandoned and which were intended to be for the good and benefit of teachers and the teachers are back in the classrooms.
Victoria regnat, professor. Sapientes.

Sincerely,
Selwyn Persaud