Archive for category: Letters to Editor

When Parliament Is Muzzled, The Street Must Speak– A Response to Rawle Small

LETTER TO EDITOR

Dear Editor,

Mr. Small’s Kaieteur News  letter  dated August 12 dresses up a dangerous illusion: that in today’s Guyana, opposition silence or “measured” responses are somehow superior to constant confrontation. That theory is comforting to the ruling party and its apologists, but it collapses the moment you step outside the echo chamber and into the lived reality of ordinary people.

We are not living in a normal, healthy democracy where you can leisurely workshop counter‑budgets while corruption, marginalization, and discrimination politely wait their turn. We are watching a PPP government that has entrenched itself in every arm of the state, politicized institutions, punished dissent, and presided over a widening sense of fear and exclusion. In that climate, “instant and constant reaction” is not a performance; it is survival politics. When injustice is daily and aggressive, delayed reaction is surrender.

Take the Barima tragedy. Instead of transparent disclosure, open debate, and genuine accountability, the Government’s instinct has been to shield itself, manage optics, and hope the story dies. If the opposition did not react loudly and repeatedly, if it did not hold the Government’s feet to the fire, the victims and their families would be left to the mercy of a political PR machine. Calling that necessary pressure “background noise” is an insult to those whose lives have been shattered and a favour to those who want the scandal buried.

Mr. Small’s neat hierarchy—policy papers at the top, public reaction at the bottom—also ignores a very inconvenient fact: the PPP has systematically strangled the very arena where alternatives are supposed to be presented. At the last sitting of the National Assembly, a raft of bills was rammed through by the Government majority without serious debate. This is not parliamentary democracy; it is legislative bulldozing. When the Speaker is used as a gatekeeper to shut down opposition voices and when bills are passed like party circulars, it is cynical to turn around and chastise the opposition for not presenting their “coherent agenda.”

You cannot demand counter‑budgets and shadow policies from an opposition whose microphones are cut, whose motions are sidelined, and whose contributions are treated as a nuisance in the chamber. If Parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp, then the street, the media, and direct engagement with citizens become the only realistic forum for dissent. Criticising the opposition for “taking it to the street” while ignoring the deliberate muzzling inside Parliament is not analysis; it is spin.

Let us be blunt: the PPP benefits from a narrative that paints the opposition as noisy, immature, and unserious, because it shifts the spotlight away from its own record—its refusal to share power honestly, its willingness to legislate without debate, and its comfort with a politicised state apparatus. Some commentators, consciously or not, are helping launder that narrative. They scold the opposition for reacting “too much” to corruption and discrimination, as though the real problem in Guyana is not the abuse of power, but the audacity of those who call it out.

Yes, the opposition must deepen its policy work, sharpen its organization, and expand its reach among workers, farmers, youth, Indigenous communities, and the most vulnerable. But we will not pretend that Guyana’s crisis is a mere deficit of opposition white papers. The crisis is a government that treats oversight as an inconvenience, that uses its majority like a hammer, and that has turned Parliament from a forum into a fortress.

In these conditions, a quiet, well‑behaved opposition is exactly what the ruling party wants. Guyana needs an opposition that is loud when it must be, unyielding when rights are trampled, and prepared to confront power in the streets when the doors of Parliament are slammed shut.

If that sounds like “background noise” to some, perhaps the real issue is not volume, but whose comfort they are protecting.

Sincerely,  

Leyland Chitlall Roopnarine

Dear Editor,

The Government’s announced plan to establish a dedicated forensic interview (FI) unit for child abuse victims is a necessary and long-overdue step toward strengthening the national response to one of the most serious social crises affecting our society.

Currently, these interviews — a critical component in securing evidence and protecting victims — are conducted by non-governmental organisations such as ChildLink and Blossoms Inc., supported by the Child Protection Agency (CPA). Transitioning this function into a State-managed unit should, in principle, improve access and timeliness. However, while this development is welcome, it does not go far enough in addressing the deeper structural deficiencies that continue to undermine child protection efforts.

The central issue is not merely who conducts forensic interviews, but the absence of a cohesive, end-to-end investigative framework. At present, cases are fragmented across multiple agencies — police, Child Protection Officers, medical personnel, and external service providers — creating gaps where accountability is diluted and critical missteps can occur. These gaps often result in delayed medical examinations, inconsistent documentation, and poorly coordinated case management, all of which can ultimately weaken prosecutions.

What is required is a dedicated, specialised investigative unit assigned to each case from the point of report through to its submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Such a unit should be responsible for coordinating every stage of the process: ensuring timely medical examinations, managing forensic interviews, liaising with child protection services, and producing comprehensive, high-quality case files. This continuity would eliminate the systemic lapses that currently allow cases to falter.

The Minister herself has acknowledged deficiencies in case reporting, noting that gaps in documentation can determine whether a matter “goes left or right.” While increased training is important, it cannot compensate for a system where responsibility is fragmented and no single entity is accountable for the integrity of the case from start to finish.

Equally concerning is the continued shortage of Child Protection Officers across regions. The existence of rapid response mechanisms is commendable, but these initiatives cannot function effectively without adequate staffing. One officer per region is not a solution; it is an admission of limited capacity in the face of a growing and complex problem.

The proposed digital tracking system is another positive initiative, offering the potential for greater visibility into how cases progress. However, tracking alone does not resolve systemic inefficiencies. It merely records them. Real reform requires structural alignment, clear lines of responsibility, and professional ownership of each case.

There is also concern regarding the extent of ministerial involvement in operational matters. While oversight is essential, the system risks inefficiency if it is subject to continuous micro-management at the political level. The role of the Minister should be to set policy direction, allocate resources, and conduct periodic audits to ensure accountability. The day-to-day management of cases must be left to trained professionals, supported by clear protocols and performance standards. Effective governance depends not on constant intervention, but on building a system that functions competently without it.

Child protection demands urgency, coordination, and professionalism. More importantly, it requires a system where accountability is clear and continuous, not dispersed across multiple actors. The establishment of a forensic interview unit is a step forward, but without broader structural reform, it risks becoming another isolated fix within an already strained framework.

If we are serious about protecting our children, then the approach must be comprehensive, integrated, and uncompromising in its focus on outcomes. Anything less will continue to leave vulnerable children exposed to the very failures we claim to be addressing.

Yours faithfully, 

Hemdutt Kumar 

𝙏𝙝𝙚 592 𝙂𝙪𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙣-𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 , 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙄𝙣 𝙂𝙪𝙮𝙖𝙣𝙖 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨.— ✦—