An imposition of convenient amnesia – Part 4
-The PNC stifled the development of young people
IT has become mind-boggling today to see how the Opposition would make you believe that they have the welfare of young Guyanese at heart, but when during its tenure in government, the youths were not only marginalised, but were subjected to various means of oppression.
While together with the masses they suffered the same fate from a collapsed economy that resulted in bankruptcy, opportunities for their development and advancement were extremely limited, if not non-existent. From a nutritional standpoint, their physical development was stymied.
Much was already said about the dire situation regarding the availability of basic food and clearly the negative impact it precipitated with regards to healthy growth. That needs no convincing. The lack of basic food was not confined to biological and humanitarian effects, but it impacted youth development in many ways. The situation forced a large number of young boys and girls into the arduous everyday task of farming in support of parents in an effort to try and put some form of food on the table.
It must be noted that this was not the case where a child then had the option of assisting whenever he/she could and still be able to do the things that are an engrained in normal childhood; they basically had little or no choice. It became a norm to see young children with garden forks, cutlasses and shovels, tilling land and tending to crops every day. In many instances, they had to fetch water from nearby trenches or long distances to provide some form of nourishment for the crops. Some may want to question what is wrong with children doing such tasks and would label this article as an attempt to disparage the PNC.
For those who may harbour such sentiments even today, as a reminder, a child between eight and twelve years having to stand in the harsh heat of the sun and withstand rain to deliver the tasks mentioned, could not be humane. Mind you, the children and the parents, may not, and I am emphasizing may, have even considered it as being inhumane. In the same vein, the parents may not have even contemplated or heard of the term, child labour. It was basically a family effort for survival. A ten year old fetching a bucket of water from long distances or forking solid ground to plant a seed could never have been easy and would probably be unacceptable in some parts today and within the current mindset of some.
Those now who enjoy a far better life and who may want to see it differently, must be asked if they would today see their children engaging in such tasks and not be concerned about the effects on their development. As a matter of fact, the welfare of children today has become so protected, that, for many, engaging in such tasks may not even be contemplated. While children still assist with chores, the situation is vastly different today than it was then. In the past, as a result of children engaging in those onerous tasks, unfortunately, many were forced to opt out of school for it became extremely difficult for that type of multitasking.
Of course, there were those who sacrificed and multitasked with the hope that education would provide the ticket out of such dire circumstances. One simple statistic would help to better understand an aspect of this. Then, only about thirty-two percent of the children were at school. Compared to now, the country has achieved universal primary education and is on the verge of achieving the same in the secondary category. The reasons for such low figures under the PNC rule would not have confined to children being engaged in onerous tasks alone, but was compounded by the deliberate failing of students in assessment examinations simply because there wasn’t enough schools for accommodation.
I alluded to that in a previous article. But the point being made here, is that under the PNC, which is now in disguise as the APNU/AFC coalition, the nation’s youth were deliberately stifled and forced to endure in laborious tasks thereby curtailing whatever opportunities may have been available for their development, both physically and academically. They were not a priority and when one is to listen to the same leaders of the PNC, APNU/AFC today, you would conclude that they are the bastions of security with regards to children’s welfare. Clearly they are not given their track record.
But if there were doubts given the passage of time, only in 2014, the Opposition cut the budget to deny loans for students attending the University of Guyana and from the Amerindian development fund similarly denying hinterland students opportunities for advancement. This was part of an agenda to stifle the country and its people; an agenda which has not changed despite changes in the Opposition’s name. In the next edition, I would examine the physiological scars the PNC’s National Service inflicted on the young minds. It was a service with a focused agenda which was not in keeping with the welfare of youths. Of course, the PNC wouldn’t admit to that.

By Teayken A. Dhigg