At the very least there was corruption in the intention and spirit of the scholarship process

Dear Editor, I refer to the news item titled, `No corruption in scholarship awards to ministers –Granger’ (SN January 22). I am disappointed in the president. His comment and stance is what is expected of other leaders, and what was characteristic of them, where the indefensible mutated into the irrational, and brought about ridicule.

The president did choose his words with great care and caution; that much must be acknowledged. Beyond that, those same words shred into tatters before the naked truth (and inconveniences) of reality. Ponder what follows.

First, let’s say my name is Lall, and I am a minister of the government. In response to public advertisements, and on my application (presumably there was one) for a scholarship, what do I present/fill in for “Occupation?” Perhaps, I state it as one of the following: political practitioner, or public advocate, or national portfolio manager. While nebulous, this might not be altogether either disingenuous or the camouflage of subterfuge, though some elements are there. But perhaps I did confess to being a government minister or parliamentarian, which, all things considered, places me in front of the line and immediately.

Next, how do I evidence my place of work, or employer? Again, is there, the nuance and terseness of “Government Institution” or “National Development”, or similar such bland obscurantism intended to steer off course? I would like to think that scholarship applications in this country are geared to extract as much detail as possible, and with great granularity. Hence, the applying ministers are known and exceptional commodities in what is already becoming a more skewed exercise by the moment.

Further, is anybody, including the president, going to represent to the Guyanese public that the ministers seeking scholarships did not inform or discussed at length their aspirations with their senior ministers, and which were in turn escalated to the minister responsible for public service (the old PSM) scholarship awards, if not the cabinet for purposes of leave, substitution, and sure-to-follow political fallout? I would be most surprised if this matter did not rise to more elevated levels and close deliberations involving very senior people running this country.

From the ministers’ part this, to some degree, could qualify under the sprawl of that ubiquitous term known as “networking.” I could be persuaded that the awards might not be totally corrupt. Still, it smells of the improper, the unusual, the intolerable, and the unacceptable.

Once again, I make clear my belief that the ministers are entitled to higher education; but before or after their tenure, and not now. The ministers are needed now, regardless of the paucity of their presences, to learn on the job, and hands-on, in what are clearly steep and extended learning curves. Also, the ministers occupy scarce and precious scholarship spots that I would argue rightly belong to more qualified candidates. In and of itself, this is a corruption of the ideals and meritocratic visions adumbrated by the Hon. David Granger at the inception of his administration. Of this there should be no quibbling; there cannot be, as the record testifies to the accuracy of this assertion. I would go so far as to tender that if the ministers’ bids (applications) were part of a public procurement process, that they would have been denied.

Proceeding further ahead, through looking backwards, there is the record of the former head of the GRA defending the presence of his progeny in his corporate domain. A statement was issued to the effect that there was no undue influence, no conflict, and that employment was based on the merits. And the former Minister of Finance, in the matter of his spouse at the national Audit Office, spoke similarly to dilute the implications and sensitivity of the situation. Needless to say, both defences were greeted with the disdain that they deserved.

I am saying that those timeworn practices and norms were wrong and bad then; and that the scholarship awards are wrong and bad today, inclusive of appearance, odour, and principle. Incidentally, whatever happened to that old all-purpose civil service plaster called “exigencies of the service”? I believe that that applies to ministers, too; or should.

I must wonder if people are going to represent to me (and the watching, listening citizenry) that the responsible bureaucracy of scholarship screeners, processors, reviewers, and approvers were oblivious to the identity, priority, and certainty of the ministerial applicants. And further, that the consideration for scholarship awards were not reserved, exclusive, and a done deal. That is, they were a foregone conclusion from the start, where the entire process was premeditated and prearranged from the start. This, I insist is flawed, and possesses significant elements of corruption by any definition.

Taking all of the foregoing into consideration, I must respectfully question the president when he goes public and declares that there was no corruption involved. At the very least, there was corruption in intention, and corruption of the spirit and process, all of which brought to the place where things stand today. It goes without saying, that the president and I have different definitions and different standards as to what constitutes corruption. Just as clearly, it is my belief that the president is diminished by this stance. Yours faithfully, GHK Lall