by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 14 October 2007)
Humans always seem enamoured when they encounter people with money, power or fame. It usually takes a lot to impress me, but when I am impressed by someone it is not normally because that person has money, power or fame. A sharp mind and a good heart are what usually impress me instead.
However, I have to admit that I was impressed by money this week when I read that the richest person in China is a woman. Yang Huiyan, the 26-year-old daughter of a self-made real estate tycoon, is worth a US$16 billion fortune.
In a nation where it is still desirable to have a boy instead of a girl so the family can depend on the male to care for the parents later in life (China has a one child policy for population control), this is a remarkable accomplishment for a woman to achieve the position of a billion dollar heiress.
Perhaps I am so impressed because we just do not read much about rich Asian women and I suppose my ignorant assumption has always been that we do not hear about them because there are none. Then bam, the richest person in China is a woman. Way to go, girl!
The British author of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling, is another woman who has recently made her mark on the world as one of the richest people in England. Rowling was a poor single mother who used her fantastically creative mind make her filthy rich.
Oprah Winfrey has been on the rich list for a few years now. Winfrey made her money on television and although she is not overly aesthetically pleasing, she used her “womanly” attributes to express a caring and nurturing persona that won over millions of women around the world.
Women are the ones who made Oprah rich. A majority of those who watch her show and buy her magazines are female. Women trust her to be open and honest about her struggles in life – as well as her triumphs. Women can identify with her. Oprah has now moved into a philanthropic phase with her money.
I remember when I first heard about Oprah’s wealth. I was surprised because women just did not make that kind of money. However, things have changed and when I heard about Rowling’s wealth I was not the least bit surprised, just highly pleased. There are rich women galore nowadays.
So why should I care about a rich heiress in China? Because this is history in the making. It was not too long ago when women did not get inheritances. The sons got the family money. Even if a woman received an inheritance from her father, she was not allowed to oversee the money. Her husband was the one to make all the legal decisions about the woman’s inheritance.
In fact, this demeaning custom is still practiced in far too many cultures today. However, I have hope that if China, a nation where female foetuses are killed every day simply for not being male, has the capacity to allow the richest person in that nation to be a woman, there is certainly hope for the rest of the world as well.
It is only a matter of time now before women begin to top the list of the world’s richest people. This year, Forbes Magazine named the richest person in the world to be a man from Mexico who made his money in the telecom business. He is worth US$59 billion.
I was mildly impressed with this man’s story simply because he is from Mexico and because someone had finally taken Bill Gates spot at the top of the list. However, I was far more impressed with China’s richest person.
I have no desire to make tons of money. If I did, I certainly would not be a columnist. No one ever goes into journalism to be rich because this career does not pay the big bucks it takes to become a tycoon. However, I do have one great desire that never seems to fade – to one day see gender equality as a norm worldwide.
When a Chinese woman becomes the richest person in her nation, I know my dream of gender equality is getting closer to coming true.
Still, I do wonder where the richest woman in Guyana would fall on a list of the nation’s wealthiest people. Would she be five on the list? Would she be 50 on the list? Or would she be 500 on the list?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Stella Says…A Marriott hotel could be very good for Guyana
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 12 October 2007)
I have always loved to travel, but when I travel it is important to me to find a hotel that has a familiar name. At this point in my life I am more of a Hilton girl than a Marriott girl, but if there is no Hilton hotel where I am going, a Marriott hotel will do just fine in a pinch.
Even though I have an adventurous spirit, there is something very comforting about staying in a hotel that has a familiar name, which is why I am pleased with the news of a Marriott hotel being built in Guyana.
Moreover, I can say with full confidence that many people from the U.S. and Europe will feel the same comforting feeling when they search for accommodations in Guyana and find a five-star Marriott on the list.
I have travelled to many states in the U.S. and to other countries and I’ve stayed in some really nice hotels and some really raunchy hotels. Those bad hotel experiences – with bugs in the bed, sticky floors and nasty bathrooms – are the reason I have learned to seek out hotels with familiar names.
Marriott has an international reputation for maintaining a certain standard of excellence, not only in cleanliness and top-notch facilities, but also in customer service. In fact, customer service is the second most important aspect I expect from any hotel, restaurant or store – after cleanliness.
So why am I giving the readers in Guyana an American view of the Marriott? Because the fact that a Marriott is being built in Guyana is a gigantic step toward boosting tourism. The introduction of a major hotel chain in Guyana is a definite sign of good things to come.
When I visit Guyana, if I do not stay with family I stay at the Pegasus. I have enjoyed my time at this fine establishment and I will probably stay there again on my next visit. Like I said, I like a familiar face. However, my desire for familiarity does not in the least negate the wonderful prospects of an introducing an international hotel chain to Guyana.
Trinidad has a Marriott, St. Kitts has a Marriott, Aruba has a Marriott, Curacao has a Marriott, and so does the Grand Caymans and St. Thomas. I also read about a Marriott opening in Barbados this year. These are all very serious tourist spots, so just imagine what it could do for Guyana’s tourism sector to be added to this fun-in-the-sun Caribbean vacation list.
I do, of course, have some reservations about building yet another hotel in Guyana when it does not seem as if the established hotels – just built in the last year – can keep their rooms filled. However, this is one time when I am going to hold my tongue concerning my reservations because I know how good this can be for Guyana.
Perhaps the next five years will see a growing tourism sector and even more hotels will come to Guyana. Maybe next time a Hilton. I know it is uncharacteristic of me to be so optimistic, but even in the U.S. it is very promising to see a Marriott come to a community. It means money will soon come to the community too.
Typically, when a Marriott opens in an area, it spawns several other businesses too, like restaurants, retail stores and tourist spots. Dozens of jobs are created and the community thrives financially.
It is heartening to see the government make some wise financial decisions for a change. Now the only question remaining is whether the government can protect these new businesses from the money laundering drug lords, whimsical politicians and crooked government officials.
If the government is serious about letting the world know that Guyana is a tourist friendly country, then it time to start genuinely cracking down on crime. It is obvious that several measures have been taken to spruce Guyana up, repair some of the roads and open interesting tourist spots – like the new mall.
These will all attract tourists, but will those tourists be safe once they get here? The Marriott will attract even more tourists, which is what we all want and hope. We want the tourists to come – and to bring lots of money with them.
Here’s hoping someone in the government is giving at least a little thought as to how to protect the tourists and the tourism businesses or all of this hard work will be for naught.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 12 October 2007)
I have always loved to travel, but when I travel it is important to me to find a hotel that has a familiar name. At this point in my life I am more of a Hilton girl than a Marriott girl, but if there is no Hilton hotel where I am going, a Marriott hotel will do just fine in a pinch.
Even though I have an adventurous spirit, there is something very comforting about staying in a hotel that has a familiar name, which is why I am pleased with the news of a Marriott hotel being built in Guyana.
Moreover, I can say with full confidence that many people from the U.S. and Europe will feel the same comforting feeling when they search for accommodations in Guyana and find a five-star Marriott on the list.
I have travelled to many states in the U.S. and to other countries and I’ve stayed in some really nice hotels and some really raunchy hotels. Those bad hotel experiences – with bugs in the bed, sticky floors and nasty bathrooms – are the reason I have learned to seek out hotels with familiar names.
Marriott has an international reputation for maintaining a certain standard of excellence, not only in cleanliness and top-notch facilities, but also in customer service. In fact, customer service is the second most important aspect I expect from any hotel, restaurant or store – after cleanliness.
So why am I giving the readers in Guyana an American view of the Marriott? Because the fact that a Marriott is being built in Guyana is a gigantic step toward boosting tourism. The introduction of a major hotel chain in Guyana is a definite sign of good things to come.
When I visit Guyana, if I do not stay with family I stay at the Pegasus. I have enjoyed my time at this fine establishment and I will probably stay there again on my next visit. Like I said, I like a familiar face. However, my desire for familiarity does not in the least negate the wonderful prospects of an introducing an international hotel chain to Guyana.
Trinidad has a Marriott, St. Kitts has a Marriott, Aruba has a Marriott, Curacao has a Marriott, and so does the Grand Caymans and St. Thomas. I also read about a Marriott opening in Barbados this year. These are all very serious tourist spots, so just imagine what it could do for Guyana’s tourism sector to be added to this fun-in-the-sun Caribbean vacation list.
I do, of course, have some reservations about building yet another hotel in Guyana when it does not seem as if the established hotels – just built in the last year – can keep their rooms filled. However, this is one time when I am going to hold my tongue concerning my reservations because I know how good this can be for Guyana.
Perhaps the next five years will see a growing tourism sector and even more hotels will come to Guyana. Maybe next time a Hilton. I know it is uncharacteristic of me to be so optimistic, but even in the U.S. it is very promising to see a Marriott come to a community. It means money will soon come to the community too.
Typically, when a Marriott opens in an area, it spawns several other businesses too, like restaurants, retail stores and tourist spots. Dozens of jobs are created and the community thrives financially.
It is heartening to see the government make some wise financial decisions for a change. Now the only question remaining is whether the government can protect these new businesses from the money laundering drug lords, whimsical politicians and crooked government officials.
If the government is serious about letting the world know that Guyana is a tourist friendly country, then it time to start genuinely cracking down on crime. It is obvious that several measures have been taken to spruce Guyana up, repair some of the roads and open interesting tourist spots – like the new mall.
These will all attract tourists, but will those tourists be safe once they get here? The Marriott will attract even more tourists, which is what we all want and hope. We want the tourists to come – and to bring lots of money with them.
Here’s hoping someone in the government is giving at least a little thought as to how to protect the tourists and the tourism businesses or all of this hard work will be for naught.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Stella Says…Another Guyanese family gets protection from Canada, not from Jagdeo
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 10 October 2007)
Yet another family from Guyana was recently granted protective asylum in Canada. It seems President Jagdeo could not protect this family from his whimsical politicians, corrupt government officials or nasty drug lords after the man was approached with an offer of a bribe last June to use his position as a wharf manager to allow drug shipments to pass through in rice shipments headed for the U.S.
This is how the situation was described in a Hardbeatnews.com article from yesterday, “In his affidavit, the claimant said that when he refused the bribe, he was verbally abused and threatened. Five days later, he said he received a cell phone call telling him he knew too much and would be eliminated.”
The article continued, “Subsequently, the Guyanese national claimed he was forced to flee a group of apparent kidnappers and later the windows at his home were shot out. He said police did nothing despite several reports and alleged that the police and “senior politicians” are being paid off by drug dealers in his homeland.”
I don’t mean to nit-pick, but this does not sound like the business friendly atmosphere the President portrayed at GuyExpo just a few days ago.
I do realise that this promise of protection extended to businesses by the President may indeed be a new policy that would not have been in effect in June. I also acknowledge the fact that Jagdeo did not promise protection from the drug lords. On the other hand, surely this is something that can and must be addressed.
I am sure President Jagdeo meant to include those nasty drug lords when he said he would protect the businesses in Guyana. Likewise, I am also quite sure he meant to include protection from the government officials who work hand-in-hand with the drug dealers. Yep, I’m sure he did.
The Hardbeat.com article said, “The [Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada] ruled that the ‘claimant’ along with his wife and five-year-old daughter is in need of protection by authorities [in Canada] since Guyana police did not give him the protection he needed from drug barons, whom he had refused to work with.”
It really makes me mad when I hear that upstanding citizens like this family are chased out of Guyana by criminals because they were not protected after taking a stand for doing the right thing. This man made the difficult choice to make the right decisions for Guyana and as a repayment of sorts, Guyana’s authorities turned their back on him.
This situation makes me wonder what would have happened if this man had just accepted the bribe of US$20,0000 per shipment of cocaine allowed through the wharf. Would the police then have protected him? Would his family be safe? Would he still have the life he built in Guyana instead of being chased off to another country?
Late last year Stabroek News ran an article about 67 Guyanese who were granted asylum in Canada during the years of 2005-06. The article said, “According to Mamann and Associates Immigration lawyers, the majority of Guyanese seeking refugee status in Canada, do so because of the criminalisation of the Guyanese society and the fear that they are victims of criminal gangs with political associations as well as for a number of political reasons including assassination, reprisals, victimisation and discrimination.”
Note the interesting trend of the reasoning for the Guyanese who seek asylum in Canada. These people are not just running from the overt criminal elements, but from the “criminal gangs with political associations.”
There is no doubt the drug lords, murderers and thieves instil fear into these good people, but it is those whimsical politicians and shady government officials who really scare people. Criminals can be expected to behave in an unlawful manner, but we expect more from the leaders of a nation and it is a terrifying thing when they behave just like the criminals.
What a joke that the world is informed of a family that needed protective asylum from Guyana at almost the same time the President is promising protection. Obviously the President needs to try a lot (lot, lot, lot, lot) harder if he expects any business to take his promises seriously.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 10 October 2007)
Yet another family from Guyana was recently granted protective asylum in Canada. It seems President Jagdeo could not protect this family from his whimsical politicians, corrupt government officials or nasty drug lords after the man was approached with an offer of a bribe last June to use his position as a wharf manager to allow drug shipments to pass through in rice shipments headed for the U.S.
This is how the situation was described in a Hardbeatnews.com article from yesterday, “In his affidavit, the claimant said that when he refused the bribe, he was verbally abused and threatened. Five days later, he said he received a cell phone call telling him he knew too much and would be eliminated.”
The article continued, “Subsequently, the Guyanese national claimed he was forced to flee a group of apparent kidnappers and later the windows at his home were shot out. He said police did nothing despite several reports and alleged that the police and “senior politicians” are being paid off by drug dealers in his homeland.”
I don’t mean to nit-pick, but this does not sound like the business friendly atmosphere the President portrayed at GuyExpo just a few days ago.
I do realise that this promise of protection extended to businesses by the President may indeed be a new policy that would not have been in effect in June. I also acknowledge the fact that Jagdeo did not promise protection from the drug lords. On the other hand, surely this is something that can and must be addressed.
I am sure President Jagdeo meant to include those nasty drug lords when he said he would protect the businesses in Guyana. Likewise, I am also quite sure he meant to include protection from the government officials who work hand-in-hand with the drug dealers. Yep, I’m sure he did.
The Hardbeat.com article said, “The [Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada] ruled that the ‘claimant’ along with his wife and five-year-old daughter is in need of protection by authorities [in Canada] since Guyana police did not give him the protection he needed from drug barons, whom he had refused to work with.”
It really makes me mad when I hear that upstanding citizens like this family are chased out of Guyana by criminals because they were not protected after taking a stand for doing the right thing. This man made the difficult choice to make the right decisions for Guyana and as a repayment of sorts, Guyana’s authorities turned their back on him.
This situation makes me wonder what would have happened if this man had just accepted the bribe of US$20,0000 per shipment of cocaine allowed through the wharf. Would the police then have protected him? Would his family be safe? Would he still have the life he built in Guyana instead of being chased off to another country?
Late last year Stabroek News ran an article about 67 Guyanese who were granted asylum in Canada during the years of 2005-06. The article said, “According to Mamann and Associates Immigration lawyers, the majority of Guyanese seeking refugee status in Canada, do so because of the criminalisation of the Guyanese society and the fear that they are victims of criminal gangs with political associations as well as for a number of political reasons including assassination, reprisals, victimisation and discrimination.”
Note the interesting trend of the reasoning for the Guyanese who seek asylum in Canada. These people are not just running from the overt criminal elements, but from the “criminal gangs with political associations.”
There is no doubt the drug lords, murderers and thieves instil fear into these good people, but it is those whimsical politicians and shady government officials who really scare people. Criminals can be expected to behave in an unlawful manner, but we expect more from the leaders of a nation and it is a terrifying thing when they behave just like the criminals.
What a joke that the world is informed of a family that needed protective asylum from Guyana at almost the same time the President is promising protection. Obviously the President needs to try a lot (lot, lot, lot, lot) harder if he expects any business to take his promises seriously.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Friday, October 05, 2007
Stella Says…Guyana’s leaders need to leave the young women alone
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 07 October 2007)
I wonder if those who sexually molest young women ever ponder the consequences of their actions. Surely the humanity inside even these monsters would force them to contemplate the lifelong damage inflicted upon their young victims.
For whatever reason, even if there is a fleeting tinge of remorse, sexual predators disregard the severity of their injurious ways and choose to instead cause great physical, mental and emotional harm to these young women (and sometimes young men as well).
Which is why it is quite comforting to see the Ministry of Human Services take proactive steps to protect society from sexual deviants by initiating research that would provide the foundation to revamp the nation’s sexual offence legislation and violence against women and children.
A Stabroek News article from Friday stated, “The research found that a level of male violence is widely tolerated, reducing support for women who might otherwise report the criminal offences against them.” I saw a sample of this tolerance first hand this week in the letter pages of Kaieteur News.
In this newspaper’s Thursday edition, letter writer S.A. Peters was attempting to make a point that law enforcement response to shootouts does not come close to the response for lesser criminal acts.
Peters said, “Mr. Editor, this is Guyana, and riding without a bicycle light, riding a motorbike without a helmet, a drunken man slapping his wife for dinner, cussing the next door neighbour, fetching out dirt from a vacant plot of land, among other petty offences, will see the police in their numbers, armed with SLRs and other weapons, ready to slap the law book in the faces of folks who just deserve a warning, a traffic offender's ticket, or made to pay a little fine before the court.”
Please note that Peters likened a drunken man slapping his wife around because he wants dinner to trivial acts like riding a bicycle without a light, cussing out a neighbour or fetching dirt from a vacant lot. This statement is a perfect example of the tolerance society has concerning violence toward women.
In my opinion, if that husband wants dinner so badly – he can cook it himself or starve, but don’t dare hit that woman.
A huge victory was recently made for women in America when Warren Jeffs, a leader of a polygamist cult group, was convicted of two counts of being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl by forcing the young woman into marriage and to have sex with her first cousin.
It is about time these twisted leaders were held accountable for the damage they inflict on young women. Last year someone told me about a Guyanese politician who had young women in and out of his house on a constant basis. I have also heard stories about a national leader with several young women on his lap at one time in a public place.
Albeit, these are just rumours and the girls involved were seemed to be above the age of consent, yet if this is true to any degree I cannot help but think that about the damage being inflicted on these girls that will last for the rest of their lives.
Do these leaders ever put their penises on hold long enough to consider the long-term ramifications of their actions? Those young women may think they are having a good time hanging out with “powerful” men, but one day it will dawn on them that they are being used and abused just to satiate the sexual appetite of an adult who should be helping them and knows better than to behave in such a distasteful manner.
These young women should be receiving worthwhile guidance from these leaders – not be expected to service their sexual desires. Legally these men may not be doing anything wrong since these girls would be old enough to consent to their actions, but morally these men are simply deplorable for what they are doing to these girls.
These are not the type of leaders Guyana needs. For heaven’s sake, I have daughters of my own and if I found they were being used by one of these perverted politicians I would make sure the entire nation knew exactly what had transpired and expose that “leader” for what he really is.
Any new sexual offence legislation being considered by the Ministry of Human Services may not be able to protect Guyana’s young women from these community leaders and oft times the girls do not listen to their parents’ good advice to stay away from such filth.
However, the people can demand a higher level of moral conduct from these leaders by exposing them at every turn until they are too embarrassed to show their face in public or to expect sexual favours from another young woman.
If society continues to turn a blind eye to this type of behaviour from leaders in the community – whether businessmen, politicians or other leaders – these young women will continue to be damaged just so a man can feed his ego.
If these men are so bent on their sexual satisfaction and they cannot get an intelligent woman who is their own age to listen to their nonsense for two seconds, let them get well acquainted with their own hand to find satisfaction – but leave those young women alone!
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 07 October 2007)
I wonder if those who sexually molest young women ever ponder the consequences of their actions. Surely the humanity inside even these monsters would force them to contemplate the lifelong damage inflicted upon their young victims.
For whatever reason, even if there is a fleeting tinge of remorse, sexual predators disregard the severity of their injurious ways and choose to instead cause great physical, mental and emotional harm to these young women (and sometimes young men as well).
Which is why it is quite comforting to see the Ministry of Human Services take proactive steps to protect society from sexual deviants by initiating research that would provide the foundation to revamp the nation’s sexual offence legislation and violence against women and children.
A Stabroek News article from Friday stated, “The research found that a level of male violence is widely tolerated, reducing support for women who might otherwise report the criminal offences against them.” I saw a sample of this tolerance first hand this week in the letter pages of Kaieteur News.
In this newspaper’s Thursday edition, letter writer S.A. Peters was attempting to make a point that law enforcement response to shootouts does not come close to the response for lesser criminal acts.
Peters said, “Mr. Editor, this is Guyana, and riding without a bicycle light, riding a motorbike without a helmet, a drunken man slapping his wife for dinner, cussing the next door neighbour, fetching out dirt from a vacant plot of land, among other petty offences, will see the police in their numbers, armed with SLRs and other weapons, ready to slap the law book in the faces of folks who just deserve a warning, a traffic offender's ticket, or made to pay a little fine before the court.”
Please note that Peters likened a drunken man slapping his wife around because he wants dinner to trivial acts like riding a bicycle without a light, cussing out a neighbour or fetching dirt from a vacant lot. This statement is a perfect example of the tolerance society has concerning violence toward women.
In my opinion, if that husband wants dinner so badly – he can cook it himself or starve, but don’t dare hit that woman.
A huge victory was recently made for women in America when Warren Jeffs, a leader of a polygamist cult group, was convicted of two counts of being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl by forcing the young woman into marriage and to have sex with her first cousin.
It is about time these twisted leaders were held accountable for the damage they inflict on young women. Last year someone told me about a Guyanese politician who had young women in and out of his house on a constant basis. I have also heard stories about a national leader with several young women on his lap at one time in a public place.
Albeit, these are just rumours and the girls involved were seemed to be above the age of consent, yet if this is true to any degree I cannot help but think that about the damage being inflicted on these girls that will last for the rest of their lives.
Do these leaders ever put their penises on hold long enough to consider the long-term ramifications of their actions? Those young women may think they are having a good time hanging out with “powerful” men, but one day it will dawn on them that they are being used and abused just to satiate the sexual appetite of an adult who should be helping them and knows better than to behave in such a distasteful manner.
These young women should be receiving worthwhile guidance from these leaders – not be expected to service their sexual desires. Legally these men may not be doing anything wrong since these girls would be old enough to consent to their actions, but morally these men are simply deplorable for what they are doing to these girls.
These are not the type of leaders Guyana needs. For heaven’s sake, I have daughters of my own and if I found they were being used by one of these perverted politicians I would make sure the entire nation knew exactly what had transpired and expose that “leader” for what he really is.
Any new sexual offence legislation being considered by the Ministry of Human Services may not be able to protect Guyana’s young women from these community leaders and oft times the girls do not listen to their parents’ good advice to stay away from such filth.
However, the people can demand a higher level of moral conduct from these leaders by exposing them at every turn until they are too embarrassed to show their face in public or to expect sexual favours from another young woman.
If society continues to turn a blind eye to this type of behaviour from leaders in the community – whether businessmen, politicians or other leaders – these young women will continue to be damaged just so a man can feed his ego.
If these men are so bent on their sexual satisfaction and they cannot get an intelligent woman who is their own age to listen to their nonsense for two seconds, let them get well acquainted with their own hand to find satisfaction – but leave those young women alone!
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Stella Says... Religion and politics aside, family values is about valuing the family
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 05 October 2007)
This week someone who reads my columns sent me an email suggesting, “Perhaps you may consider writing on family values as a change from your usual socio/political polemics.”
Obviously this reader hasn’t a clue as to how dicey a term like “family values” can become in my hands, but it sounded like so much fun to take this reader up on their suggestion that I just could not resist.
The term “family values” is actually very fluid in that it does not assign itself to simply one set of moral codes. In the U.S. the conservative religious right uses the term to define their own moral code while at the very same time very liberal groups also use it to describe their moral agenda. England, Australia and China all have their own definition as well.
The other day someone asked my husband if he had seen something I had written (it was as if they were trying to snitch on me for saying something that obviously offended this person’s conservative leaning). I suppose this person thought my husband would be just as offended, but instead his frank reply was, “Yes, I saw what she wrote. I was there when she wrote it.”
I am not sure if this person assumed my husband would somehow chastise me for writing something offensive, but that is not how things work in my marriage. I do not interfere in my husband’s decisions concerning his company and he does not interfere with my job as a columnist.
We may ask each other for advice about certain decisions, bounce ideas off of each other and encourage each other when needed – as it should be any healthy relationship – but we do not interfere in each other’s jobs. This is how I would define one of my own family values: being there to support other family members while allowing each person to reach their fullest potential uninhibited by superfluous critique.
My definition of family values would not include such trivial issues as sexual preference or abortion rights. Instead, my definition would centre on values that strengthen the family and bond the family unit together regardless of political, social or biological inclinations.
Likewise, my definition of a family does not need to include both a mother and a father either. Since there are millions of mothers around the world raising children on their own (and some fathers doing the same), it is obvious that both parents are not compulsory to facilitate a family. In my opinion, anywhere there is a group of people living together and sharing their lives with each other – that is a family.
I should point out that my ideas on family values are not mandated by any religious code. Although I understand there are some who feel there can be no family values if there is no religious code, I find that religion is oft times opposed to certain family values I hold dear – like the equality of women.
The same person who suggested I write about family values attached one of those cutesy email sermonettes in the correspondence. The latter part of the sermonette said, “Are you aware that if we died tomorrow, the company that we are working for could easily replace us in a matter of days. But the family we left behind will feel the loss for the rest of their lives?”
It continued, “And come to think of it, we pour ourselves more into work than into our own family, an unwise investment indeed, don't you think?” This brings me to one of my other family values – fathers who stick it out with their families no matter what.
I have seen so many fathers walk away from their families for any number of lesser prizes in life – a mistress, a job, a fleeting dream, etc. The only real prize worth anything in life is our children, the rest is just fluff.
One day that mistress will be gone, that job will be done and that dream may or may not be realised – but none of it will matter one iota. The only thing that will matter is whether those children had a father. Not a fly-by-night father who is here today and gone tomorrow, but a real daddy who is there everyday through thick and thin.
I bet my friend who suggested I write about family values had no idea what my definition would be. Putting religion and politics aside, family values is all about valuing the family.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 05 October 2007)
This week someone who reads my columns sent me an email suggesting, “Perhaps you may consider writing on family values as a change from your usual socio/political polemics.”
Obviously this reader hasn’t a clue as to how dicey a term like “family values” can become in my hands, but it sounded like so much fun to take this reader up on their suggestion that I just could not resist.
The term “family values” is actually very fluid in that it does not assign itself to simply one set of moral codes. In the U.S. the conservative religious right uses the term to define their own moral code while at the very same time very liberal groups also use it to describe their moral agenda. England, Australia and China all have their own definition as well.
The other day someone asked my husband if he had seen something I had written (it was as if they were trying to snitch on me for saying something that obviously offended this person’s conservative leaning). I suppose this person thought my husband would be just as offended, but instead his frank reply was, “Yes, I saw what she wrote. I was there when she wrote it.”
I am not sure if this person assumed my husband would somehow chastise me for writing something offensive, but that is not how things work in my marriage. I do not interfere in my husband’s decisions concerning his company and he does not interfere with my job as a columnist.
We may ask each other for advice about certain decisions, bounce ideas off of each other and encourage each other when needed – as it should be any healthy relationship – but we do not interfere in each other’s jobs. This is how I would define one of my own family values: being there to support other family members while allowing each person to reach their fullest potential uninhibited by superfluous critique.
My definition of family values would not include such trivial issues as sexual preference or abortion rights. Instead, my definition would centre on values that strengthen the family and bond the family unit together regardless of political, social or biological inclinations.
Likewise, my definition of a family does not need to include both a mother and a father either. Since there are millions of mothers around the world raising children on their own (and some fathers doing the same), it is obvious that both parents are not compulsory to facilitate a family. In my opinion, anywhere there is a group of people living together and sharing their lives with each other – that is a family.
I should point out that my ideas on family values are not mandated by any religious code. Although I understand there are some who feel there can be no family values if there is no religious code, I find that religion is oft times opposed to certain family values I hold dear – like the equality of women.
The same person who suggested I write about family values attached one of those cutesy email sermonettes in the correspondence. The latter part of the sermonette said, “Are you aware that if we died tomorrow, the company that we are working for could easily replace us in a matter of days. But the family we left behind will feel the loss for the rest of their lives?”
It continued, “And come to think of it, we pour ourselves more into work than into our own family, an unwise investment indeed, don't you think?” This brings me to one of my other family values – fathers who stick it out with their families no matter what.
I have seen so many fathers walk away from their families for any number of lesser prizes in life – a mistress, a job, a fleeting dream, etc. The only real prize worth anything in life is our children, the rest is just fluff.
One day that mistress will be gone, that job will be done and that dream may or may not be realised – but none of it will matter one iota. The only thing that will matter is whether those children had a father. Not a fly-by-night father who is here today and gone tomorrow, but a real daddy who is there everyday through thick and thin.
I bet my friend who suggested I write about family values had no idea what my definition would be. Putting religion and politics aside, family values is all about valuing the family.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Stella Says…Can Jagdeo protect businesses from his own whimsical politicians?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 03 October 2007)
Guyexpo 2007 is officially over. The booths are being disassembled, the merchandise is being hauled back to the places of business and the Sophia Exhibition Site will soon return to its normal state.
From all reports, the expo was a success and even better than in former years. It is encouraging news that this showcase of local (and international) businesses was such a hit even though there is a segment of society that I’s suffering financially.
However, of late it would be difficult to ignore the frustrated tone emanating from the business community due to any number of unresolved issues – including the large number of crimes targeting businesses.
Another of the many problems always causing frustration for the private sector is the red tape and endless bureaucracy standing in the way of creating a healthy business environment. As such, it was quite encouraging to hear President Jagdeo reinforce the fact that he intends to stand up for the business community.
At the opening of this year’s Guyexpo, the President said, “I want all investors to know that if you obey the law and practice good corporate governance, my government will not stand in your way. Your investments will be protected by law and not subject to the whim of politicians, and you will be supported by economic policies that are unambiguously pro-business, pro-profit and pro-growth.”
Putting aside my sarcastic whit long enough to be highly impressed by the President’s acknowledgement that there is indeed corruption amongst those in his administration, still this statement begs a few questions of which no one has yet to ask.
The very first question the President’s statement stirred in my ever-churning brain is regarding those “economic policies that are unambiguously pro-business, pro-profit and pro-growth.” Since this sentence was preceded by a sentence that gives the impression that the President is going to protect businesses from his whimsical politicians, can we expect new legislation to be introduced that will send crooked politicians to jail for demands of bribes, kickbacks and other corrupt practices?
Also, should businesses only expect the President to protect them from whimsical politicians or does this protection also extend to the various shady officials all the way down the governmental food chain? Surely the President is well aware that corruption and whimsical ways are evident in more than just his politicians.
The next question has to do with the phrasing of the first sentence in this short quote, “I want all investors to know that if you obey the law and practice good corporate governance, my government will not stand in your way.” Firstly, I can see a million ways in which this statement could be used to give the government a reason to stand in a business’ way on nothing more than a whim – which counteracts the next sentence.
It is not as if people have not been unjustly accused before. I am quite sure it has happened on an occasion or two – or more. Again, does the President intend to implement a fair and unbiased process in which an accused party can appeal an accusation made by whimsical politicians or shady government officials?
You see, when a businesswoman or businessman attempts to create jobs and help the local economy, there is also an element of wanting to make money for personal gain. However, if the President cannot assure these investors that they are no throwing their money down the drain, Guyana will continue to suffer economically.
The President’s assurance of protection is heartening if it is indeed genuine and not just more hot air. After all, let us not forget that he promised the very same thing two years ago and yet those pesky whimsical politicians and shady government officials still run the show. They have made the President look foolish by practicing their corruption right under his nose.
Which brings me to the last question I have concerning this short quote from the President. Does President Jagdeo actually have the power to protect the business community from the whimsical politicians in his own administration? Up until now it does not appear that he does.
Until new legislation is in firmly in place that prosecutes corrupt government officials for their whimsical ways, the President will not be able to protect the business community. The funny thing is that the President must persuade some of the very whimsical politicians themselves to pass this legislation.
In short, the President spoke some very powerful words that could mean a promising future for business in Guyana if he has the capability of carrying them out. But does he have the power to protect businesses from his own administration? Let’s all sit back and watch the show.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 03 October 2007)
Guyexpo 2007 is officially over. The booths are being disassembled, the merchandise is being hauled back to the places of business and the Sophia Exhibition Site will soon return to its normal state.
From all reports, the expo was a success and even better than in former years. It is encouraging news that this showcase of local (and international) businesses was such a hit even though there is a segment of society that I’s suffering financially.
However, of late it would be difficult to ignore the frustrated tone emanating from the business community due to any number of unresolved issues – including the large number of crimes targeting businesses.
Another of the many problems always causing frustration for the private sector is the red tape and endless bureaucracy standing in the way of creating a healthy business environment. As such, it was quite encouraging to hear President Jagdeo reinforce the fact that he intends to stand up for the business community.
At the opening of this year’s Guyexpo, the President said, “I want all investors to know that if you obey the law and practice good corporate governance, my government will not stand in your way. Your investments will be protected by law and not subject to the whim of politicians, and you will be supported by economic policies that are unambiguously pro-business, pro-profit and pro-growth.”
Putting aside my sarcastic whit long enough to be highly impressed by the President’s acknowledgement that there is indeed corruption amongst those in his administration, still this statement begs a few questions of which no one has yet to ask.
The very first question the President’s statement stirred in my ever-churning brain is regarding those “economic policies that are unambiguously pro-business, pro-profit and pro-growth.” Since this sentence was preceded by a sentence that gives the impression that the President is going to protect businesses from his whimsical politicians, can we expect new legislation to be introduced that will send crooked politicians to jail for demands of bribes, kickbacks and other corrupt practices?
Also, should businesses only expect the President to protect them from whimsical politicians or does this protection also extend to the various shady officials all the way down the governmental food chain? Surely the President is well aware that corruption and whimsical ways are evident in more than just his politicians.
The next question has to do with the phrasing of the first sentence in this short quote, “I want all investors to know that if you obey the law and practice good corporate governance, my government will not stand in your way.” Firstly, I can see a million ways in which this statement could be used to give the government a reason to stand in a business’ way on nothing more than a whim – which counteracts the next sentence.
It is not as if people have not been unjustly accused before. I am quite sure it has happened on an occasion or two – or more. Again, does the President intend to implement a fair and unbiased process in which an accused party can appeal an accusation made by whimsical politicians or shady government officials?
You see, when a businesswoman or businessman attempts to create jobs and help the local economy, there is also an element of wanting to make money for personal gain. However, if the President cannot assure these investors that they are no throwing their money down the drain, Guyana will continue to suffer economically.
The President’s assurance of protection is heartening if it is indeed genuine and not just more hot air. After all, let us not forget that he promised the very same thing two years ago and yet those pesky whimsical politicians and shady government officials still run the show. They have made the President look foolish by practicing their corruption right under his nose.
Which brings me to the last question I have concerning this short quote from the President. Does President Jagdeo actually have the power to protect the business community from the whimsical politicians in his own administration? Up until now it does not appear that he does.
Until new legislation is in firmly in place that prosecutes corrupt government officials for their whimsical ways, the President will not be able to protect the business community. The funny thing is that the President must persuade some of the very whimsical politicians themselves to pass this legislation.
In short, the President spoke some very powerful words that could mean a promising future for business in Guyana if he has the capability of carrying them out. But does he have the power to protect businesses from his own administration? Let’s all sit back and watch the show.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)