Social Cohesion Ministry is more divisive than bringing people together

Dear Editor,
In a country like ours that is racially divided, the need for social cohesion is essential for long-lasting stability and growth. Long before the Ministry of Social Cohesion was established by the Granger Administration, I have been a strong advocate for the promotion of social cohesion. Years ago while living in New York, I designed and printed thousands of bumper stickers with the words “My race does not matter… I’m Guyanese and proud of it.” These were brought to Guyana for distribution.
Historically, our two main ethnic groups have been divided by racial conflicts and mistrust for each other. So uniting our people will be nothing short of a herculean task that requires real commitment and dedication. It requires leadership who is perceived to be fair, objective, and who truly understands the importance trust plays in bringing these ethnic groups together. For this reason, the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) was established under the PPP/C Administration in 2003. It is a constitutional bi-partisan body established as an undertaking by the Herdmanston Accord and by Constitutional Amendment (#2) Act of 2000. Its members require a two/thirds majority vote by Parliament to serve on that Board.
It is intended to serve all Guyanese and persons living or working in Guyana, including those who believe they were discriminated against based on their ethnicity and persons who believe others were discriminated against because of their ethnicity. It also has as its mandate the promotion of harmonious relations between races and the powers of sanction against persons who discriminate.
The distribution of busses, bicycles and boots to aid school children could easily have been done through the Ministry of Education. Instead, taxpayers’ money is wasted on the establishment of a brand-new ministry which many are convinced, mirrors the infamous Ministry of National Mobilisation that was setup by the PNC under the late Forbes Burnham as a slush fund to finance PNC activities and garner public support for their re-election campaign. This seems to be the sinister ploy behind the creation of the Ministry of Social Cohesion, and putting a hard-core PNC faithful as the minister makes perfect sense.
Minister Amna Ally is indeed hard-core, vintage PNC who still holds a strong resentment for the PPP and its supporters. Amna Ally is the worst choice to head that ministry. For in addition to her PNC activism, she lacks the personality and finesse to skilfully realise this objective. And so I often wonder if President Granger is really serious about social cohesion.
For social cohesion to work, we must be colour-blind in the way we see each other, not as Indian or African or Amerindian, but as fellow Guyanese. We must develop a higher level of tolerance for each other’s culture and religion.
We must learn to respect each other’s views and opinions more so when we differ. We must also be made to feel that despite our differences in ethnicity, we all have equal opportunities to realise our God-given potential to better ourselves and families without being discriminated against.
How this is achieved is the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Cohesion. But to date, I’ve seen no evidence that the Minister of Social Cohesion has the ability to achieve this goal. Members of Parliament are yet to see the “5-year strategic plan” that Minister Ally keeps promising to produce. Time is running out.
The Minister of Social Cohesion should be most concerned about the image she portrays to the public at large. The very nature of her job depends on it.
In Parliament, Minister Amna Ally is not only the Government’s Chief-Whip, but she has designated herself “Heckler-in-Chief” as well.
Last Wednesday during the 2017 Budget presentation, the Minister of Social Cohesion referred to PPP Member of Parliament, Alister Charlie, from Region 9 as “stupid.” Upon hearing this, the former Minister of Amerindian Affairs, Pauline Sukhai took offence to this word being used to describe a fellow Amerindian, and a heated exchange ensued which attracted the attention of the Speaker. Dr Barton Scotland enquired of Minister Ally whether in fact she used that word (considered to be unparliamentary), and if she did, to withdraw it.
So what was the response of the Minister of Social Cohesion? For the second time that day, she deliberately misled the Speaker of the National Assembly. It was her ability to tell this barefaced untruth with a straight face that prompted me to write this letter.
As a Member of Parliament, I have always shown respect to all my colleagues, including those on the Government side, Amna Ally included. But after this is published, I can expect some ‘tongue-lashing’ for having the courage to speak-out against ineptitude and arrogance, the type that has made the Ministry of Social Cohesion more divisive than bringing people together.

Sincerely,
Harry Gill, MP (PPP)