Dear Editor
FORMER Alliance for Change (AFC) Member of Parliament Charrandass Persaud’s decision to cast his vote, along with those that defeated the coalition government, can only be described as a political rat out. It was unsuspecting, as it was shocking, since it was not expected.

To be precise – he entered the National Assembly and sat on the government benches as one of its thirty-three MPs. In the end, he betrayed them all. He, therefore, committed the classic Judas Act.

If his actions would have numbed his coalition colleagues, then it sent a tsunami surge through the thousands of coalition supporters who would not have been expecting such treachery, much less the type that would have brought about the stipulated constitutional end of their government, causing an election to be imminent.

Certainly, for whatever reasons Persaud would have given for such an act of unforgiven disloyalty, there were avenues that he could have pursued, beginning with urgent discussions with his coalition leaders as a means of resolving whatever these issues were. And if after such efforts, there was no change, then he ought to have resigned and go public with his dissenting views.

The Westminster system allows a cabinet minister to resign his/her office, and support his/her particular view by way of becoming a back-bencher. The latter option could not have been available to Persaud, given the fact that he had been a Member of Parliament. But, there are two issues, among those which he has tendered as reasons for the knife that he pushed into the back of his coalition colleagues, that are interesting for the dishonesty and prejudice which they represent.

How can he, in all good and fair understanding, criticise the coalition government’s decision to give former prime minister Hamilton Green the pension to which he had a legal entitlement because of service to country? Editor, it needs not be repeated that Green had been reduced to a beggar as he repeatedly requested the then PPP/C administration to right this anomaly. It would seem that Persaud has something personally against the former prime minister. But whatever it is, Green would have served this nation, and so earned the right to such an emolument, no more or less than Ramotar, who would have served as President for only three years.

And for his reference to this national political elder receiving some kind of a payment from the PNC: If I have read him correctly, is he saying that such is all that Green is entitled to? Or that the latter party must be responsible for his entitlement?

As an attorney, as I understand him to be, this is grossly convenient, displaying definite bias, prejudice along ethnic lines, and surprising ignorance. Certainly, Persaud must be aware that even though Green had been a member of the PNC party, that he had served the nation through the government formed from the latter party. He must, therefore, be reminded that it was the state which paid him his salaries etcetera, and which must also be responsible for his post- state service entitlements, whatever they must be.

I cannot understand this claim against the APNU coalition, either coercing its junior AFC partner to agree with its policies, or that the latter has been complying with the wishes of its largest ally without question. Where had been Persaud when Minister Trotman voiced, publicly, his objections to a section of the Cyber Crime Bill?

It would seem that Persaud and others of his ilk had expected that there would be daily political fights between the two political principals, because of disagreements. Of course, like all coalitions, there are disagreements; however, in the larger business of governing in the best interests of the nation, they have done remarkably well.

Also, Persaud’s party– the AFC– has a stake of four key cabinet offices, which along with the other members from the other components of the coalition, are part and parcel of the cabinet decision-making process – collective responsibility. So, where is the coercion, or submissive status that he has tagged the AFC?

Given the fact that Persaud now claims that he voiced his dissatisfaction internally yet he had campaigned on the party platform along with prime minister Moses Nagamootoo, and even assured of his support prior to entering the Assembly chamber, points to a well-planned and orchestrated decision, and not one that had been overnight, or a snap-of-the-finger act. And if one is to believe the contents of a recording currently viral, Persaud is dead guilty of the most infamous act of political treachery thus far in Guyana.
Regards
Earl Hamilton