admin

PAHO and Africa CDC strengthen collaboration to address access to essential medicines and vaccines Sep 23, 2024 News Kaieteur News – The Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) last week signed an agreement with the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) to collaborate on equitable access to vaccines, medicines and other strategic health technologies. In a press release PAHO said under the shared vision, the two organisations will leverage their respective expertise, including through PAHO’s Regional Revolving Funds, to strengthen regional regulatory, innovation and production mechanisms, and feed into the development of the African pooled procurement mechanism and promotion of local manufacturing of essential medicines, vaccines and public health supplies for Africa and the Americas. The organisations will also collaborate  to advance research, innovation and digital transformation of health systems to respond to current and emerging public health challenges, as well as to enhance prevention, preparation and response to health emergencies. Since the COVID-19 pandemic “our goal is to create a more resilient Region,” Dr. Jarbas Barbosa, PAHO Director said during the opening session of the visit on 18 September. This includes “increasing regional manufacturing capacities and providing innovations to our Member States that will boost the Region’s goal of decreasing dependency on a global response in critical emergencies or future pandemics.” “We hope this exchange meeting will improve our collective expertise and strengthen our efforts to address the public health needs of our respective regions,” he added. “Today marks a new chapter in the partnerships between our two regions, Africa and the Americas. United by our shared missions of supporting our respective Member States to strengthen health systems and respond to emergencies, Africa CDC and PAHO look forward to a strategic collaboration for global health security,” Dr. Jean Kaseya, Director General, Africa CDC said. “PAHO’s knowledge and experience in pooled procurement mechanism operationalisation, will greatly benefit the Africa CDC as we strive to implement the decision of African Heads of States and Governments to establish the African Pooled Procurement Mechanism (APPM) to improve access to quality and affordable health products and promote the localization of manufacturing,” he added. The signing took place following the first official visit of a high-level Africa CDC delegation to the PAHO Headquarters in Washington D.C. from 18-20 September. The visit also included a discussion on the Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing (PAVM), an initiative established by the African Union in 2021 to enable the African vaccine manufacturing industry to develop, produce, and supply over 60 percent of the total vaccine doses required on the continent by 2040. Discussions also touched on the collaboration to strengthen and grow South – South cooperation to address health challenges and leverage the opportunities that both regions offer. During the meeting, PAHO experts shared their knowledge and experiences, including on the evolution and operationalisation of the PAHO Regional Revolving Funds. Issues such as demand consolidation, planning and forecasting, quality and logistics were also discussed, as was the importance of strengthening regulatory and regional production strategies. Africa CDC also briefed PAHO on the current Mpox continental response plan, including collaborative efforts with partners to prevent deaths and facilitate access to life saving vaccines. The organisations also looked at ways to continue to foster collaboration on broader strategic priorities in both regions with an aim to deliver on their mutual mission of improving and safeguarding health. “Africa CDC looks forward to this cooperation and mutual learning from both our regions to achieve better health outcomes in Africa and the Americas,” said Dr. Kaseya. “We are keen on exploring the opportunities this collaboration presents,” Dr. Barbosa said. “Together, we can achieve important advancements in public health and ensure equitable access to health technologies for all.” Related Similar Articles

A call for Ministerial restraint Sep 23, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom Kaieteur News – The roles of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, once neatly demarcated by the lines of constitutional and administrative propriety, have become increasingly blurred, distorted by the whims of successive governments. This encroachment upon what should be the sacrosanct independence of the civil service is not merely an affront to good governance; it is emblematic of the erosion of the very principles that separate operational function from policy direction. Ministers have long overstepped their boundaries. They have been meddling in matters that fall squarely within the domain of administration, a territory that should be governed by Permanent Secretaries without the intrusion of political direction. At the heart of this dysfunction lies a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a willful disregard, of the division of labor between the Minister and the Permanent Secretary. The Minister is tasked with policy—what is often referred to as the “general directions” of government departments. This general direction, however, should not be confused with micromanagement, as is all too often the case. Ministers are meant to set broad goals and leave the minutiae of execution to the Permanent Secretary, whose administrative purview encompasses the day-to-day workings of the Ministry, including human resource management, budgetary considerations, and other operational tasks. To allow Ministers to concern themselves with such trivialities as personnel disputes or internal squabbles is to undermine the very architecture of governance. It is not simply a matter of inefficiency, but a structural fault line that renders both policy and administration weaker, less effective. When Ministers dabble in the everyday affairs of their Ministries, they divert their attention from the larger strategic issues they were appointed to address. The Permanent Secretary, meanwhile, is marginalized, rendered impotent by the encroachment of political will into what should be the objective, politically neutral space of administration. In the idealized form of governance, the Minister and the Permanent Secretary perform their functions in tandem, each operating within their clearly defined roles. The Minister, empowered by the electorate and the broader political establishment, provides the vision, the overarching strategy and policies. The Permanent Secretary ensures that this vision and policies are implemented. But the moment a Minister feels compelled to deal with a disgruntled civil servant or to weigh in on personnel disputes, the balance of this relationship is shattered. Consider, for instance, the delicate issue of disciplinary action within a Ministry. The mere suggestion that a Minister should be involved in any dispute between a public servant and a member of the public, or even between two employees, is not only a breach of established protocol but a clear violation of the apolitical nature of civil service. In such matters, the Permanent Secretary is the authority, empowered by the civil service code and administrative law to manage disputes, oversee disciplinary actions, and maintain internal harmony. The Minister’s involvement would be akin to a CEO attending to squabbles between office clerks—undignified, unnecessary, and ultimately damaging to the governance structure. The Minister, to be clear, is not without recourse in matters of importance. Should a policy issue require attention, the Minister can call upon senior public officials, requesting a briefing or a report on matters directly related to policy implementation. This is both within their right and essential to maintaining accountability. But even in such instances, the Permanent Secretary should be present, ensuring that the boundary between policy oversight and operational execution remains intact. Ministers should never, under any circumstances, involve themselves in the private disputes – such as those between government employees and members of the public. Has there ever been a concerted effort to educate and orient Ministers about their specific role within Ministries, especially in relation to the responsibilities of the Permanent Secretary? Given the persistent overreach of Ministers into administrative matters, it is worth questioning whether formal programs or initiatives have been established to clarify the boundaries between policy direction and day-to-day operations. Such orientation could help curb the recurring issue of Ministers encroaching upon the operational domain, which rightly belongs to Permanent Secretaries, and ensure that both parties can work within their respective spheres to improve governance. The creeping overreach by Ministers has been allowed to fester because of a broader malaise within the civil service, particularly in post-colonial states. The civil service, once an institution prized for its independence and impartiality, has been gradually converted into an extension of political power, more concerned with appeasing political masters than with upholding the principles of neutrality and efficiency. The bureaucratic machinery has been politicized, and in this context, it is unsurprising that Ministers feel emboldened to step into administrative affairs that should be beneath their notice. Successive governments have taken advantage of this weakened civil service, arrogating to themselves an increasingly intrusive role in administrative matters. Where Permanent Secretaries once wielded considerable authority over the inner workings of Ministries, many of them have seen their powers  been steadily diminished, reduced to little more than errand-boys or girls for politically appointed Ministers. This subjugation of the civil service is not merely an affront to administrative law; it represents a profound failure of governance. The origins of this political intrusion can be traced to a fundamental lack of respect for the autonomy of the civil service. Politicians, distrustful of the technocratic elite, have sought to bring the civil service to heel, transforming it into a political arm of the government rather than a separate and independent entity. In this model, the Permanent Secretary becomes a functionary, beholden to the Minister’s whims rather than to the principles of good governance. The inevitable result is a civil service that is no longer capable of providing the objective, non-partisan advice that is crucial for effective policy-making. The remedy for this state of affairs is neither complex nor novel; it requires only a reassertion of the roles and responsibilities that were once so clearly defined. Ministers must be reminded of their purpose: to provide political leadership and policy direction, not to meddle in the daily operations of their Ministries or in disputes between government workers and members of the public. Ministers should be focused on the big picture, leaving the Permanent Secretaries to handle the administrative complexities that allow Ministries to function smoothly. Governance is at its most effective when policy and administration operate in harmony, each respecting the other’s domain. The Minister provides the vision; the Permanent Secretary ensures its execution. When these roles are respected, government operates smoothly, efficiently, and in the best interests of the public. When they are not, the result is dysfunction, inefficiency, and, ultimately, confusion, and injustice. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)          Related Similar Articles

If only dem government vehicle could talk Sep 23, 2024 Dem Boys Seh, Features / Columnists Kaieteur News – Dem boys seh deh got some government big ones who like fuh use police escort and outriders fuh clear traffic when dem running late fuh de cricket. De CPL matches sweet, but dem latecomers more sweet, zooming through traffic like de road build just fuh dem. De problem start when de lil man in de government see this. Now everybody think de government vehicle is dey personal car. Dem boys seh some of dem government drivers does abuse de government vehicles. You see dem at de market, loading up greens like dem running a lil stall. Dem school children getting VIP drop-offs, not in a regular car, but in de taxpayers’ property. De man seh if yuh peep outside de schools early morning, yuh could swear de government running a new transport service. Dem ain’t stopping dey. Some of dem fetching supplies from de hardware store. Dem boys see one fetching a fridge one day and a barrel of cement de next. No wonder so many people rallying fuh be drivers in de government. But it get better. De man who claim he too busy fuh his official duties does always find time fuh pick up his outside woman from work. De government vehicle real handy fuh dem secret rendezvous, yuh know. Dem boys seh de only ting left is fuh dem to start using de blue lights when dem heading to de love nest. De worst is de party-goers. Dem out late, liming, and de government ride getting a proper workout, carting drinks, fetching party crew and blasting music. De car rocking harder than de sound system in de backseat. Is no wonder so much government vehicle park up at de mechanic. Dem getting into accident left, right, and center. Dem boys seh if de government vehicle could talk, it woulda cry out fuh help. Dem getting used more fuh private business than official work. But dem boys seh, when yuh using something yuh ain’t pay fuh, yuh does treat it like a free-for-all. Dat is why dem vehicles never lasting long, always in de repair shop. Talk half. Leff half. Related Similar Articles

Ralph Ramkarran’s main concerns on constitution reform are misplaced Sep 23, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Kaieteur News – I refer to SN Sunday’s Editorial titled “Ramkarran and the CRC.” In doing so, I wish to focus on five issues that fall outside the criticisms of the PPP for its “dilatoriness and slackness” and its disinterest in any fundamental reform. The first issue concerns the suggestion that there is something indecent, even illicit, that the mandate of the current Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) is almost identical to its 1999 predecessor. I, for one, would have been most surprised if the two documents were not, in fact, identical in almost all regards. The 1999 CRC Act was passed unanimously in parliament. It enjoyed the blessings of the two main political rivals and other stakeholders. It permitted every aspect of the country’s political and social fabric to be examined. It makes full political and common sense for the 2022 CRC Act to piggyback on this existing national consensus (rare as it is) for its germination. Put differently, plagiarizing the 1999 Act (as Ramkarran unfairly describes it) was the path of least resistance. The second issue concerns the fact that the current agenda does not include recommendations for a “national, inclusive, governance model.” Mr Ramkarran sees this as a problem. But such language is also missing from the 1999 CRC Act. Yet, that omission prevented neither robust debate publicly and within the commission nor public submissions on inclusionary democracy and power-sharing. The CRC agenda should be interpreted as ends (goals), not means. Ends, therefore, such as “improving race relations and promoting ethnic security” or ensuring “the views of minorities in the decision making process and conduct of government are given due consideration” can be achieved through several means, including through the establishment of a “national, inclusive, governance model.” As such, based on the 1999 experiences and a proper reading of the mandate of the CRC, I do not share Ramkarran’s unease. Thirdly, I am however in full support of his call for an inquiry into the adequacy and efficacy of the 1999 constitutional amendments. In October 2019, in a letter to SN titled “We need a systematic evaluation of the 1999/2000 constitutional reforms”, I wrote: “Such an evaluation must include impact assessments and performance audits of the specially-designed agencies and mechanisms and, most definitely, must include satisfaction and perception surveys of the population. This is a massive undertaking and must be well designed and funded and expertly conducted.” Mr. Ramkarran, however, gives the misleading impression that the 2022 CRC Act does not cater for such an inquiry. It does. Apart from several general references to “review of the Constitution”, Section 7(4) specifically states that “The Commission shall have the power to conduct any inquiry or investigation within its term of reference.” Surely, a review of the previous reforms qualifies. Fourthly, Ramkarran’s call for the scrapping of the current CRC process “since the work the CRC 2022 is required to do has already been done by the CRC 1999” is out of sync with the rest of his case. Surely, at least, we should wait on the conclusions of the very inquiry for which he advocates. That inquiry, who knows, may highlight deficiencies in and recommend improvements to the 1999 reforms. That aside, I interpret him to be supporting his call for scrapping also because he believes that the mandate of the current CRC does not address the powers of the President and inclusive governance. Again, once we interpret the agenda of the CRC as ends (desired futures) and not means (pathways), then all good solutions can be considered. For instance, no direct mention exists in the 1999 CRC Act on presidential powers, yet that reform process instituted the two-term presidential term limit. Indeed, it would be hard to exclude a discussion on the powers of the president once we are serious about addressing such agenda items as the full protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of Guyanese, strengthening the independence of the judiciary, and enhancing integrity in public life. Fifth and finally, Ramkarran is right to express concern over the likelihood that the current CRC process will overlap the next election campaign season. I believe however that public disinterest (his main concern) is a challenge even now outside of the election season. The CRC would have to therefore invest heavily in public education and awareness. Yours respectfully, Sherwood Lowe Related Similar Articles

An open letter to those leading Sep 23, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Kaieteur News – You are not to use the ways of those that enslave others to enslave your own people. Those not of our homeland are not those who we allow to rule over us. As wealthy and as knowledgeable as they may seem, it is not their place to govern by influence over our people. If their ideas bring illness to our people and ruin to our land then we must not use their ideas, but hold fast to what is best for us. The wealth of our land is for us to use and we must be selective in our choice of business partners. If we cannot manage our own internal affairs properly, we will also lose control over our homeland. When the idea of sending deportees back to our land was first proposed, I opposed it. We were told that no visas would be issued if we refused. The government of the day chose to accept them and the result has been a weakening of our law and order and the loss of many lives due to bloodshed. People speak of “the troubles” and the cause. We must also look at the precursors that have led to the weakening of our society. During the embargo when some with influence chose to resort to illegal means to bring in funds, our leaders objected. But those who betray those close to them chose otherwise. More bloodshed came upon our land and it has now grown out of control. We must unite to rid our land of the evil that has grown upon it and we must regain control over our homeland. We must also regain control over our resources and remove the corruption that is robbing us of our wealth. We must reject the greed as seen in pigs. We must embrace the strength of our own ways. Ours is not the way of impoverishing our people by taking their health, taking their strength and taking their wealth. We know that the sea level will rise by many feet and that the increasing temperature will make life unbearable near the equator, yet we waste resources where we are below sea level and aid in the localized temperature rise. If the Saharan dust from across the ocean can reach us so can the problems of climate change and the waters of the Antarctic. The glory of a leader is no greater than the glory of the nation being led. It is our responsibility to ensure that we take higher ground and prepare for the worst. Our homeland has not been secured and we must secure it. This is and must remain our national priority. Build a bridge only if it will withstand future threats of flooding, build a road only if it will not be easily washed away, build a school where it will last for generations. We must keep our land from flooding and we must invest in a secure future. If land is taken from our people to build that more secure future, we must replace it in a better place where their future is also more secure and they will no longer need to move. The future welfare of our people is and must remain that which guides us. Sincerely, Mr. Jamil Changlee Related Similar Articles

The Constitutional reform process Sep 23, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Kaieteur News – This column has many times drawn attention to the fact that constitution making or remaking is not for amateurs, and from my assessment thus far, none of us have the expertise to anticipate the vicissitudes of the reforms this society requires and at the very least we need to have some broad idea of what we are trying to achieve. The following lengthy quotation from Giovanni Sartori (Comparative Constitutional Engineering. (1997) Macmillan Press, London) written around the time of the last major constitutional reform, suggests that although the entire reform environment must have significantly improved since the mid-1990s, one needs to acquire the right expertise and be on the guard for politicians, who will attempt to use the occasion and the commendable efforts at public participation to inject all manner of untenable outcomes. As he noted, ‘To be sure, change by reform is always difficult. Once an electoral arrangement is in place, its beneficiaries protect their vested interest and struggle to go on playing the game by the same rules that they know’. This gets worse when, as is the case in Guyana, ethnic visions that have been fostered over decades are in still in play. ‘Do changers know how to change whatever it is that they seek to change? And, narrowing the question to the issue at hand: whence and how do present-day electoral system-makers (or remakers) seek inspiration? By looking at the cleavage structure of their societies? By excavating into the deeper determinants of their history? Of course not.  Across the world, the drafters of electoral systems look cursorily at existing systems, cantily ask for expert advice from self-styled experts and end up adopting the system that they perceive to their own immediate advantage – with many hurrays to history, social determinants and noble traditions. There is little that scholars can do with regards to the politicians’ self-interest – other than showing that they are or might be wrongly understood. Still, scholars are supposed and required to give sound advice: – regardless of whether it is being heeded. And here is the rub: are the present-day political scientists capable of giving sound advice? Based on the views that I have briefly reviewed, the answer must be no. … I submit, that our alleged electoral experts have largely failed to develop the expertise that is required of them and that much of their current counselling is poor and plainly wrong. As I propose to beginning by showing, contrary to the prevailing wisdom, the effects of electoral systems can be adequately predicted and determined.’ The political system is the set of formal and informal institutions and behavioural patterns that constitute the government. It is a subsystem that interacts with other nonpolitical subsystems of the social system. The electoral system is itself a subsystem of the political system that determines how votes are translated into seats at national, local and other relevant elections and thereby is affected by the behaviour of the voter.  The major difference between electoral systems is whether they translate votes on proportional or majoritarian principles. Important too is who controls the selection of the winner: the person voting or someone else, e.g. a political party. Today, the political system needs to respond constantly and adequately to changing political life: novel forms of political activity, mass communication, demands for greater popular participation, ethnic diversity, rising expectations, the extension of the scope of governmental activity, etc. Reforms are intended to enhance the democratic interplay of the above structures and goals within the specific context of Guyana. Make no mistake, we could – as we have done before – easily mess this up.  For example, the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is the foundation of the liberal democratic system to which we claim to aspire. Yet at the turn of the 20th century, after almost a decade of political disturbances, we went to constitutional reform and created a judicial platform that for almost the entire period since then has been without the two leaders of the judiciary being confirmed in their positions. Yet we feel free to walk around claiming that Guyana has one of the best democratic constitutions in the world because we instituted a whole host of hardly functioning committees and left them in a majoritarian framework in a deeply ethnically politically divided society! It gets worse, for it is obvious that the political elite does not understand what impartially means: it is as if it does not recognise the importance of the notion that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. It takes the executive members and close associates of its ethnic political parties and appoints them to chair constitutional commissions and committees that are supposed to be impartial! It may well be that its reluctance to confront the existing ethnic cleavage has blindsided it, for as Sartori recommended, any constitutional reform that seriously looks back ‘at the cleavage structure of (Guyanese) society’ should not have allowed such a travesty! For a start, as in other countries, Guyana badly needs an ‘independent’ advisor on ethics if only to educate the public and not thus normalise this kind of amoral political behaviour. In the context of what is currently taking place and as a backdrop to the reform process, it is worth noting that there is a big difference between stable autocratic and stable democratic political systems. The optimal working of political systems depends on good political leadership and effective political structures and processes. Since the quality of the political leadership is often decisive in democratic or autocratic countries, the arrangements that provide methods of selecting able leaders and replacing them are critical for the maintenance of political stability and development. Some, authoritarian systems have not only been stable but have demonstrated impressive capabilities for survival and economic grow, e.g., Singapore and China.  As we are witnessing in Guyana, the key to their success is their ability to control social development, to manage and prevent change and to bring under governmental direction all the forces that may result in innovations that are threatening to the system. Democratic polities hold that acceptable and able political leadership is more likely to be found where there is free and open competition for leadership positions. Representative democratic systems also adhere to other democratic values: freedom of expression, information and association, checks and balances on the executive, respect for civil liberties, the rule of law and the independence of the legislature and the judiciary and equal capacity to participate and help in making informed political, electoral and non-electoral decisions. There must also be an attachment to principles of local democracy and a focus on the common good, in contrast to emotional, parochial ethnic appeals and coercion, etc. In democratic countries, this kind of formal and informal institutional interaction is a major determinant of policy outcomes and is frequently the target of various kinds of political action for change. In the United States, for example, such major institutional reforms as the direct election of the Senate in 1913 and the limitation on presidential terms in 1951 were made by social pressure for constitutional amendments (https://www.britannica.com/topic/ political-system). Sincerely, Dr. Henry Jeffrey Related Similar Articles

It is time leaders desist from such unsavory behaviours and end the blame game Sep 22, 2024 Letters Dear Editor, Kaieteur News – There is always a dull moment in my native land Guyana. When one believes things will get better, it gets WORSE. The past week was quite an eventful one, from Ms. Melissa Atwell’s family, latest being Mr. Ivor Thom. Earlier in the week of September 16, 2024, a young Afro Guyanese Entrepreneur, who operates a wash-bay in the community of Tuschen, East Bank Essequibo took to his social media platform bringing to attention to the world what he has been experiencing in his community. I publicly commend him for his bravery. Too long Guyanese are hurting in silence, but gradually they are building courage to speak out and speak up against wrongful acts being perpetuated on them. That young man, Joel Dodson poured his lungs out of the frustrations he faced daily by neighbors. Editor, where has the spirit of community cooperation gone? Where is the love and compassion for each other as Guyanese? Why should an individual endured daily persecution for conducting an honest dollar to provide for his family, as we are reminded in Genesis 3:19, “by thy Sweat, thou shalt eat bread…” It was painful to hear him reference several businesses doing similar activities as he is and he is the only target for his neighbours. Hearing that officials from CHPA visited the location and was hard on young Dodson by allegedly casting a blind eye on the other businesses, was clearly a target on Mr. Dodson. Where are we heading as a society and how did we get here? If it was discovered that persons are operating businesses at their residence, then all should be guided accordingly by CHPA. Editor, may I also point out that wash bays have become a popular business for many individuals, more so, young people and these businesses are operated on Government reserves. In the video seen, Mr. Dodson is operating his business on Government reserves, as the others are doing in the community. Editor, I am compelled to briefly address an article carried in Kaieteur News of Saturday, September 22, 2024 of a sad experience Mr. Ivor Thom, former Administrator of the Burrowes School of Art endured by the tongue of Minister Charles Ramson, forcing him to tender his resignation. Editor, how can a sitting Minister make such a comment to Mr. Thom, a renowned and accomplished Sculptor, “your image is not a reflection of what he wants for this ministry.” I find such a comment to be offensive, out of place, despicable, disrespectful and disgraceful from a sitting Minister. It is telling any right-thinking Guyanese of African Ancestry what this PPP/C regime thinks of them. Perhaps, the Minister can inform the public what he meant by such a comment made to Mr. Thom. Mr. Ramson should be reminded that this nation is made up of six races, all created in the image and likeness of God. Who are you to determine or define one’s image, Mr. Ramson? Editor, as a proud Afro-Guyanese, I will not allow the likes of a Ramson, or his colleagues in the PPP/C to define who I am. It is TIME this NONSENSE ends. We are all Guyanese and should not be looked at with scornful eyes or from different lens. I can only imagine how humiliated Mr. Thom felt at the moment. I hope that he will not allow such utter nonsense by Mr. Ramson to break him, his spirit or discourage him from his focus. He must know who he is and his worth. I must applaud the affected students of the school for speaking out, in condemning the actions by Minister Ramson and whoever the driver was in the red SUV. Minister Ramson should be reminded of his role, “a policy maker.” If a report was made against Mr. Thom, to him, then any good administrator would ensure that the report is forwarded to the Human Resource Department, through Mr. Thom’s immediate supervisor. Mr. Ransom in my view has crossed the line! Editor, I have had several encounters with Mr. Thom, very soft spoken, respectful and always willing to share his knowledge, a few adjectives to describe this son of Guyana’s soul. I therefore conclude that all right-thinking Guyanese should raise their voice against the racial remarks made against Mr. Thom and called on Mr. Charles Ransom Jnr to publicly apologize to Mr. Thom. Our nation has been divided along racial lines; it is time for a National Reconciliation against this demonic spirit that has taken center stage in our society. It is TIME leaders desist from such unsavory behaviours and end the blame game as to which political party or political leader is ‘racial or racist.’ May God help us as a Nation! Yours sincerely, Annette Ferguson, MP Related Similar Articles