.jpg)
For a political Opposition leader of the perceived stature of Mr. David Granger, to utter that the cuts to Budget 2013 have not been effective, begs the question as to his understanding of national politics, and his role as a national leader.
Surely, this retired Brigadier General and Commander of the national army, and academic, has been a huge disappointment in the eyes of his many constituents and supporters, and to the nation in general, as far as his participatory role in the nation’s politics has been.
So much had been expected of him when he announced his candidature for leadership of the senior political Opposition party, the Peoples National Congress, and subsequently being elected leader.
Having served the nation at that very important level of the national military, one would have thought that finally,here’s an Opposition Leader who truly understands the meaning of the national interest, and its indispensable importance to the nation’s social and economic development. Instead, his strategies thus far, betray a total lack of understanding of what it means to serve in the best interests of Guyana.
An overwhelming example of this ‘dangerous unawareness’ has been his coalition’s persistent refusal of non-support for legislative bills introduced by the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee. In fact, this intransigent and unpatriotic action on the part of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), has been manifest in the many statements by Granger seeking to denigrate the minister’s competence. It has assumed the proportions of a personal vendetta by the former against the latter.
How can Granger continue with this unintelligent parliamentary stance, especially given the fact of the Court’s decision that decreed the minister’s right to speak in Parliament, as a duly elected representative of the people? Of course, this had the effect of annulling his party’s no-confidence House motion against the Home Affairs Minister.
As a persistent critic of the government’s security measures, what is Granger’s rationale for withholding support for the most comprehensive security sector reforms ever unveiled in this nation’s history? He has continued much in the same vein, with another such action of non-support with regard the recent Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2013; the Motor Vehicles Amendment and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2013; and the Fire Service (Change of Name) Bill. These Bills are all initiatives designed to enhance the nation’s judicial system with the introduction of technology, bring more order to the nation’s highways with regard to traffic, coupled with the imposition of penalties for errant road users, among other regulatory measures. Even the Fire Service will benefit from such legislation.
Since these measures are designed for the nation’s well-being, it stands to good reason that regardless of differences of any kind – they ought to be supported. For no responsible Opposition Leader that loves his/her country and cares about its safety and protection from acts of criminality, refuses support for any programme that guarantees the state’s sustained existence.
It is highly inconceivable that an important national leader like Granger could still indulge in the kind of political regimen that can bring no probative value to the nation’s development, nor add to its moral advancement. Neither does such engender any kind of intelligent observation among the younger citizens, who will be ultimate adjudicators of such blandness in years to come.
For Mr. Granger, unfortunately, his very unpatriotic concepts and practices as they relate to the national interest are what clearly define his leadership.
Surely, this retired Brigadier General and Commander of the national army, and academic, has been a huge disappointment in the eyes of his many constituents and supporters, and to the nation in general, as far as his participatory role in the nation’s politics has been.
So much had been expected of him when he announced his candidature for leadership of the senior political Opposition party, the Peoples National Congress, and subsequently being elected leader.
Having served the nation at that very important level of the national military, one would have thought that finally,here’s an Opposition Leader who truly understands the meaning of the national interest, and its indispensable importance to the nation’s social and economic development. Instead, his strategies thus far, betray a total lack of understanding of what it means to serve in the best interests of Guyana.
An overwhelming example of this ‘dangerous unawareness’ has been his coalition’s persistent refusal of non-support for legislative bills introduced by the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee. In fact, this intransigent and unpatriotic action on the part of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), has been manifest in the many statements by Granger seeking to denigrate the minister’s competence. It has assumed the proportions of a personal vendetta by the former against the latter.
How can Granger continue with this unintelligent parliamentary stance, especially given the fact of the Court’s decision that decreed the minister’s right to speak in Parliament, as a duly elected representative of the people? Of course, this had the effect of annulling his party’s no-confidence House motion against the Home Affairs Minister.
As a persistent critic of the government’s security measures, what is Granger’s rationale for withholding support for the most comprehensive security sector reforms ever unveiled in this nation’s history? He has continued much in the same vein, with another such action of non-support with regard the recent Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2013; the Motor Vehicles Amendment and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2013; and the Fire Service (Change of Name) Bill. These Bills are all initiatives designed to enhance the nation’s judicial system with the introduction of technology, bring more order to the nation’s highways with regard to traffic, coupled with the imposition of penalties for errant road users, among other regulatory measures. Even the Fire Service will benefit from such legislation.
Since these measures are designed for the nation’s well-being, it stands to good reason that regardless of differences of any kind – they ought to be supported. For no responsible Opposition Leader that loves his/her country and cares about its safety and protection from acts of criminality, refuses support for any programme that guarantees the state’s sustained existence.
It is highly inconceivable that an important national leader like Granger could still indulge in the kind of political regimen that can bring no probative value to the nation’s development, nor add to its moral advancement. Neither does such engender any kind of intelligent observation among the younger citizens, who will be ultimate adjudicators of such blandness in years to come.
For Mr. Granger, unfortunately, his very unpatriotic concepts and practices as they relate to the national interest are what clearly define his leadership.
