Speeches in the National Assembly

Mrs. Backer: My rising here can almost be said to be fluff in the sense... [Interruption] I am going to say this before the Hon. Member Mdm. Teixeira says so, because after Mr. Nandlall speaks and Mr. Williams and the mover of the motion destroy him, in terms of the presentation it will be, in that sense, fluff. But for the few minutes that I will be standing here..., because I do not want to stand in the way as you have rightly said, Mr. Speaker, the impending duel between the Attorney General and his senior. I would not say his shadow. I understand that during the extended recess that daggers and swords have been sharpened, face masks have been sent for, from France with the help of Mr. Greenidge. I do not want to stand between that and I know that the press is anxious.
I want say to one or two things about governance because in my opinion this comes down to governance to an extent. I remembered the first time I entered Parliament, somewhat younger then, Mr. Nadir sat somewhere at the back there, on this side - I do not know if people could remember that. He is still at the back, but he was at the back over here - and he came, as it is known I am prone to drama, with an entire windscreen because...   [Mr. Greenidge: Was he selling, again?]     He was not selling... he was wanting to make the point in a very visual way as to how unreasonable the Government was. It was to do with tint and how deep it could be tinted, and so. Mr. Nadir brought the entire windscreen.    [Dr. Norton: Which Government?]    It was the PPP Government. He said it was so blind that he had to bring the entire windscreen to show the Members. The next Parliament Mr. Nadir was sent to the eastern side of the House.
That is why I want to make the point with governance. Mr. Winston Murray got up and made an outstanding presentation, if I say so, myself. I am glad my colleague is saying that he invariably did. Do you know what, Mr. Nadir said, about   this Government which boasts about governance and boasts about democracy? He took a $100 bill, a blue $100 bill, out of his pocket and said, “I do not see Murray’s name here.” At that time it was Mr. Kowlessar. He said, “Do you know whose name is here? It is Mr. Kowlessar’s. You all could have your say but with our majority...” - I am paraphrasing - “...we will have our way. You could have your say, but it is Kowlessar’s name that is here. Mr. Winston Murray, it is not your name. We will have our way.”
That is the democracy that the PPP understands, and practised in the Eight Parliament, at least when he was here, and it continues to do that. A sensible Government, which is wedded to the idea,... Remember this is a Government that does not believe in shared governance; this is a Government which says that if there is one more than the Opposition...   [Mr. Greenidge: We are kings.]   We are kings. It is must be able to decide everything without reference to the Opposition. That is what the PPP stands for, as we stand here today. If the Members do not stand for that let them get up and say they do not. They are quiet. The point is that...
Prime Minister and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs [Mr. Hinds]: I would like to get up and say that the PPP/C has always been for shared governance.  We have made many an attempt; we have spoken about our trial at the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) to have an experience that would have created the trust which might have led to other things, but that was frustrated so I do object. I maintain that we, the PPP/C, have always been for shared governance and we have issued a paper on building trust for political cooperation.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, only last week when the Hon. Prime Minister spoke, he did say that the PPP/C was committed to shared governance, but it must rest on a foundation of trust. Being that as it may Hon. Prime Minister, I understood that and I know that you did make reference to Mayor and City Council and to the paper that had been circulated many years ago. On that point of clarification, it is allowed.
Mrs. Backer: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that. I hope that the press has heard that too because, if that is so, then the suggestion that will follow immediately hereafter should be easily embraced and will give us the honour to build trust. The point I was making was that if  the Government - I nearly said a sensible Government, but I do not want to say that - is understanding the reality of numbers and now committed to shared governance one would have thought that there would have been a conversation, “ Look, what is it that you all want?”  It is a genuine conversation. It is not just a little thing that we are ready when you are ready. It is a genuine conversation as to how we can sit down together, as Guyanese, and craft a budget that could have the support of the vast majority of Guyanese. The proof is in the eating. Do not just come and tell us that you are wedded to this or you are unwedded to that. We know that many people who are wedded commit adultery, so the wedding is not the important thing, it has to be the commitment.
I want to say that that is how any government, which is forward-looking, would have approached this budget, but it  has sound the one-seat dictatorship so much, both locally and overseas, that it is now beginning to believe this song, but the song is an...   [Ms. Teixeira: What does it have to do with the motion on the floor?]    What it has to do with the motion? I remember that I was going to ignore you completely, so speak on.
I want to say that if the Government was serious, we may not have been here even debating this, because we would have come to compromise. While neither side would have not got everything that it wanted, we would have been able to say to our people, the majority of people, who that we represent, that, “Look, we could not get everything for you but we have got A, B and C. The Government could have said the same thing; the AFC could have said the same thing and we would have all left here as winners, no losers, and Guyana would have also won. 
I want, having said that, to briefly reaffirm what Mr. Ramjattan has said. The Constitution is not this. The Constitution is a living thing. The Constitution is not this 200 and something articles.   Anybody who feels that all of the answers to the Constitution could be found in here that person has missed the boat. That person has completely missed the boat. Even when the Constitution is looked within ... Mr. Ramjattan spoke about article 171 (2) (a) (ii) and it is very clear. It states:
“For imposing any charge upon the Consolidated Fund or any other public fund of Guyana or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it;”
That is the exception. Mr. Ramjattan was very clear. The words are very clear.
I do not know if it is because of his height because we are both short people. I do not know if anyone would dispute that. That is the...   [Mr. Greenidge: It is vertically challenged.]    It is vertically challenged I understand, and that is the Hon. Dr. Singh, and also my colleague here. I do not want to exclude anyone.  Article 218 (2), Sir, we are talking about shared governance and I want to be fair to every side, states:
“When the estimates of expenditure (other than expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund by this Constitution or any Act of Parliament) have been approved by the Assembly a Bill, to be known as an Appropriation Bill…”
If the Hon. Minister of Finance or the Hon. Attorney General was saying that we, in this National Assembly, cannot amend a Bill, but that is what comes to the House. We have the Estimates and then when they are finished a Bill is proposed and I think it was Mr. Greenidge, the Hon. Member, who said that very correctly. The Hon. Dr. Singh got up quite proudly, and he should have been proud, to say to this National Assembly… The Bill was passed as amended. Bills are amended at almost every sitting. What is so special about the Appropriation Bill is that it cannot be amended? It was amended by this House. The Estimates were amended and they were agreed as amended. That is something that happens on a regular basis. It is not rocket science. I know the Hon. Attorney General is going to come. I understand he anticipates he would speak for an hour, Sir. I hope you are ready for that.
The other issue I want to mention is this question of where has it been done - where has it been tried?  Amendments to Estimates have been tried throughout the Caribbean, but they have not passed because the Opposition has not had the numbers. It is not that is has not been tried. For example, there was a no confidence motion. When we were in the minority, in terms of seats, a no confidence motion was moved against the Hon. Members Mr. Nadir by the Hon. Member Mr. Basil Williams and it was defeated. It was not that it was not moved. The last one we had was passed because we have the numbers.
Recently the Opposition moved a motion of no confidence against the Hon. Prime Minister of Trinidad. There was a banned on Ministers’ travelling and Members of Parliament and they are at full strength, quite rightly, and that motion was defeated. In the same way there have been attempts, in CARICOM, to amend Estimates, but they were unsuccessful because they did not have the numbers. Mr. Speaker, you yourself have said - I think everyone in this House has said - that this is a unique situation that we are in, in which the Opposition has the majority. As I said, I am very happy to hear about the Prime Minister and his commitment with the PPP. Sir, this is an opportunity that we should not lose.
I want to say that I join my colleague, who spoke on this side of the House, and my colleague that will come after me, to say that I believe that legally we can cut; we can amend. I believe also, that, on another level, in terms of governance, in terms of moving this country forward, we have a responsibility to all our electorate to sit together and come up with the budget. While it will not make any party completely happy, it will make it happy enough to be able to go out there and sell it to the people, who are not our servants, but our masters, who have sent us here to do their work and their work is to get a budget that makes space for everyone; get a budget that will help to close the disparity between the rich and the poor, between the haves and the have-nots. That is the mandate that, at least, APNU has.  It is to get a budget where the public servants will get some more money. That is the kind of mandate that we have.
As I close, I want to remind you, Sir, of the quote from Julius Caesar. I know the Hon. Prime Minister went to Queens College in the days when Shakespeare was compulsory, and of course the Hon. Member Dr. Rupert Roopnarine.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.”
If we do not grasp this opportunity now that is where we will end.
I thank you. [Applause]