It is clear that the PPP is on a propaganda offensive

Dear Editor,
An erroneous and lamentable article was published in the Guyana Chronicle of February 1, 2013 under the caption “Kumar charges Opposition with frustrating local government elections” and in which PPP/C`s MP, Neil Kumar accuses the Opposition of “frustrating the efforts of the Govt to discuss the local Govt Bills and, subsequently hold local Govt elections” (sic).
This article arose from an interview held at Mr. Kumar`s office in Middle St and aside and apart from the many ridiculous and unfounded contentions of Mr. Kumar that it contains, there are basic factual inaccuracies. Among the latter are the following : (i) he states that local govt elections are supposed to be held every two years -the fact is that they are to be held every three years !, (ii) he further states that at the first meeting of the Special Select Committee (SSC) held in December 2012 that “the Opposition had demanded to be represented by five persons while the government had four representatives” -fact is that the composition of the SSC had earlier been determined by the Committee of Appointments and the purpose of the first meeting was to elect a Chairperson, (iii) he refers to discussions by the SSC on the “Elections Commission Bill” ! -no such Bill exists; the Bill that was discussed was the Local Govt Commission Bill 2012, Bill No. 13 of 2012 and (iv) perhaps most humorous was his belief and interpretation that the “ABC” diplomats who had recently issued a joint-Statement calling for the holding of local govt elections without delay, represented Argentina, Brazil and Chile !
A separate article appears in the Guyana Times also of 1st Feb., 2013 quoting Local Govt Minister, Ganga Persaud as saying that the last meeting of the SSC was adjourned by the Chairman, MP Basil Williams “following dispute over the minutes” !
It is clear from the above that the PPP is on a propaganda offensive (as well as an offensive one) to misrepresent and distort the truth and using media outlets that they control, as it relates to the work of the SSC charged with refining the four Bills now before it, passage of which are a pre-condition for the holding of local govt elections.
Having been treated to the above mischievous misrepresentation of events the public ought to know the truth. The meeting had to be adjourned not only because the Minutes of the Fourth Meeting were poorly written and contained serious flaws which it did.
The other reason for the adjournment had to do with what was clearly a coordinated effort by govt members to misrepresent decisions that were taken at the previous meeting. Specifically I refer to Clause 4.(1) and 4.(1),(b) which were concluded and resolved by majority position.
These two clauses changed the composition of the proposed Local Govt Commission from six to seven members and for three such members to be appointed by the President, acting on the advice of Leader of the Opposition.
The unresolved clause was 4.(1) (c) which deals with the appointment of the seventh member. The opposition members, though in majority, acquiesced to calls from the govt members to not make a decision/determination on our proposal for this member to be a nominee of a Trade Union in the local govt field (and we proposed two such unions) but to defer such decision for the next meeting.
Lo and behold we were told by govt members at the meeting in question that it was agreed that the ENTIRE clause 4., i.e., 4.(1)(a),(b)&(c) would be discussed at the next meeting ! Faced with this blatant attempt at re-opening decisions previously taken, the Opposition members felt it to be a sufficiently important issue and principle to be definitively determined and only after accurate minutes were available, based on verbatim recording, before proceeding, lest future work of the SSC suffer similar fate.  Unless this kind of behavior is nipped in the bud this process would have no end.
MP, Kumar‘s clumsy attempt to link the Opposition as being the cause of delays in the process is without foundation.
At the very first meeting in December 2012 which was for the purpose of electing a Chairperson, I advised the meeting that Dr Ramayya who was unavoidably absent wanted me to convey his vote for Mr. Williams to be the Chair and that he hoped members would respect his wishes, even though absent, so as to not delay the work of the Committee.
The govt members ignored his stated desire which only meant delaying the inevitable as once Dr Ramayya was present at the following meeting, the same result was had.
Secondly at the third meeting of the SSC, Chairman Williams recommended that the Committee meet twice weekly which did not find favour with govt members.
We believe that the public is well aware who is responsible for local govt elections not being held for many years and who it is that are denying them this right. It can only be the govt who have been in control of the process for the past twelve years.
Ronald Bulkan