‘A clutter of argumentation’
Dear Editor,
The letter ‘“Conflict of Interest” attacks on Patrick Yarde are unwarranted’ (Stabroek News, May 29) refers.
The quote from the articles of the Constitution of Guyana may have reached so far as to be irrelevant to what follows as “Secondly”. Notwithstanding, it would be more credible if it could be confirmed exactly when the Parliament (of the last administration) actually “determined who the GPSU representatives on the PSC should be …”, when in fact there was only one, the other being from the GLU.
Next it should be useful to be advised of the timing of the “consultation” by the National Assembly with unidentified public bodies in relation to both appointments.
On the other hand, the quote from the Article 200 (2) is accurate, with emphasis being on the word elected.
There was no evidence publicised of such an ‘election’ to the Chairmanship/ Deputy Chairmanship of the Public Service
Commission ever having taken place. As recalled, the media used the word appointed – surely a ‘confliction’ with the quoted provision of the relevant article.
It should be made abundantly clear that this particular perspective was never intended to be, nor indeed was it, an ad hominem attack. Rather an unbiased examination of the previous observations will quickly reveal the defective decisionmaking on the part of the administration which made an appointment rather than using “such consensual mechanism”.
But one is confused by the clutter of argumentation emerging from what must be an obvious mouthpiece of the GPSU, who utters the following: “… is dumbfounded by the action of ... appointing the acting Chairman of the PSC to the JSC… ” and in the same breath asserts “… the Consti-tution clearly states how the Chairman of the PSC is to be elected…”
Is the reader missing something here?
Apart from all the above, it would have been helpful to be advised if and when the union will continue its bellicose pursuit of substantial increases on public servants’ salaries so much vaunted during the hearings of the aforesaid Commission of Inquiry. The question must be asked by an intelligent membership not out of its depth, who would lead the charge in this regard, and how long from now?
In the final analysis, however, we must all remember that no country or system functions in isolation in these times, and that like it or not, the latter are scrutinised regionally and internationally against high standards of probity.
Defective models, whether of systems or personalities, too often offer opportunities to the contending parties to justify the faultlines created when it is their turn.
Already we have had other experiences of the like.