- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Despite securing the principled support of the AFC for the Hydroelectric Bill, the PPPC Members of Parliament attempted to force the AFC to support either both the Bill and the Motion, or none at all.
The 'bullyism' and attempt to dominate the National Assembly by the minority PPPC Government forced the AFC to withhold its support for the Hydroelectric Bill.
In reacting to the parliamentary oppositionâs vote against two pieces of legislation for the Amaila Falls Project, President Ramotar said, âThis is a very dark day for our country.â
The President told this news site that the Opposition â A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC) is hell bent on opposing development for Guyana and its people.
President Ramotar briefly recalled the Opposition voting against appropriations to keep consumers from feeling the brunt of increased tariffs and for allowing GPL to improve their service.
Government Chief Whip, Gail Teixeira in her contribution to the debate last night told the House the IDB representatives are currently in Guyana, and met with the APNU and AFC on Wednesday evening but that the meeting gave no indication on the position of the opposition on whether they supported the project.
Additionally, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds revealed that the funds which are already committed to the project are in jeopardy, as those monies have a shelf life.
The Prime Minister believes that the Amaila Falls Project has been âgreatly woundedâ and that it is a sad day for Guyana. The IDB representatives observed the proceedings of the National Assembly yesterday.
Say no to PPPC bullyism!
These 2 clowns don't trust their economics guru--the flour mill man to advise them, they want to wait on advice from the IDB. Sase gone fu channa.
Moses and the parliamentary opposition have taken a principled approach to PPP/C financial requests. There must be quid pro quo.
With only 49 per representation, the PPP/C wants the majority opposition to support all government measures and proposals without conceding anything to the opposition in return.
Local government elections are important, a purely democratic imperative, but the PPP seems to be avoiding that question for selfish existential reasons.
In the old days when the PPP wore opposition shoes, they rightly criticized the PNC regime for not holding local government since 1970. Why doesn't the PPP/C want such elections now?