Different strokes

Forked tongues

Normally we don’t have a problem with the caution “different strokes for different folks”. Hey, we’re not all the same and what may be nectar for you might be bitter bile for me. But what we do have a problem with is when the strokes aren’t administered in a consistent manner. Then we have to question the bona fides of the strokers.
Take what just went down in Parliament. You remember that the opposition had drawn a line in the sand that declared: “ROHEE SHALL NOT SPEAK IN PARLIAMENT!” Right?  We won’t bore you with all the arguments around motions and court rulings and Committee of Privileges and Speakers and standing orders and all that jazz.
The bottom line, we assumed, was that the opposition had some principle to back their position. We may’ve differed with the opposition about the merits of their case, but we never doubted their sincerity about their cause. Isn’t this what democracy was all about? We agree to disagree.
But now we’ve just had the rug pulled from under our feet and we’re discombobulated, about the opposition and their principle underlying their pledge not to let Rohee utter a word as minister in the hallowed halls and walls of Parliament. Seems that the opposition’s principle was quite pliable. According to David Granger, his party had agreed to let Rohee speak in Parliament as minister of home affairs. Gasp!! How did this earth-shattering change of heart (and twisting of principles) come about?
“We were given the impression that a request had been made for Mr Rohee to speak on a matter concerning the attack on the General Secretary of the People’s National Congress, Oscar Clarke.” Gasp! And double gasp! Clutching of chest!! You mean that it was not okay for Rohee to speak as minister of home affairs on the most far-reaching proposals to reform the police force in decades, but it’s okay for him to speak just because he’ll be mentioning the attack on the PNC’s general secretary? My! My! My! This is right in line with the notorious editorial of the Kaieteur News where they’d callously suggested that criminals in certain areas ought to ‘know better’ than to attack a PNC official. We can just hear those criminals protest, “How racist!! We’re equal opportunity hoodlums!” Here, Granger seems to be suggesting that concerns about PNC trump concerns about national security.

What’s going on?
As an ordinary Joe trying to get by, your humble Eyewitness is stumped by the banking business. How come all these banks are announcing billions – yes, billions! – of dollars in profit year after year, yet when the Eyewitness checks his savings accounts all he sees is a paltry two per cent in interest on top of his hard-earned deposits. (He won’t make you laugh by revealing the size of those deposits… but just imagine what two per cent of almost zero will get you!) So Eyewitness then asked around about what makes the banking system tick. Basically, they collect our deposits; give us the lousy two per cent interest and then go out and lend our money at 17-20 per cent interest. Quite a racket, eh? When you think of it, it’s a licence for banks to practically print money.  So what do the banks have to say about this? Their standard retort is to cry that they’re never sure as to whether the people they lend our money to will repay them! They call it ‘risk’. Have you even heard such a crock?? Have you ever tried to borrow money from a bank? They have you put up everything, including your firstborn, as collateral.  And after making the same billions every year, what risk?

Debt and growth
Nagamootoo’s making a fuss about Guyana’s total debt. He claims we’re approaching the PNC‘s US$2.1 billion debt of 1992. Would somebody tell him our economy’s eight times larger than in 1992. Sustainability of debt depends on your revenue, Naga Man.