Dear Editor,
One is particularly disappointed in the presentation published in the Sunday Chronicle of March 30, 2008, titled: Where is Marginali-sation?
The simplistic submission offered, in an attempt to debunk the perception, and indeed the assertion, of the marginalisation of what are described as ‘Africans’ (and ‘Others’) vis a vis ‘Indians’ was extremely disappointing.
Prem Misir may not only be aware of it, but his haste to do his ‘master’s bidding’ is in fact reflective of an operative who is marginalized to the extent of having to sacrifice independent judgement. ‘Marginalisation’ as portrayed in numbers only, has little or no relevance in evaluating the substantive psychological condition which obtains. Being a Permanent Secretary, for instance, provides no immunity against the process. Indeed the incumbent may be much more exposed to the negative experience, given the environment of micro-management which he or she must endure.
‘Marginalisation’ in our society has to do with how sycophantic one becomes as a consequence of routinely applied stressors. There are numerous examples of this process observed in the overall governance structure, which actually have nothing to do with race. The unconstitutional and focused attack on the pivotal position of the Speaker of the National Assembly is the most recent, and perhaps the most publicly offensive display, coming as it did after one of the Home Affairs Minister’s inane performances in the House weeks ago; and the perverse pronouncement from the Presidential Secretariat on the pre-eminence it has assigned itself (‘executive prerogative’) over the National Assembly.
Another blatant attempt to make ‘mice’ of ‘men’ is the Administration’s treatment of stakeholders in civil society. The contempt the former shows for the citizenry who, despite the extant record, continue in the delusion that they can dialogue on a level playing field with their imperators, is an indicator of the ‘marginalisation’ effect.
But of course there are institutions and professionals (outside of the Public Service) who are explicitly targeted, without reference to race. Once they are presumed to be too independent and/or not to favour nor support the Administration, they are appropriately sanctioned, e.g. the removal (or denial) of print and other media advertisements; the withdrawal of contracts; the prevention of access to certain (business) concessions.
Instances of these exist in the forestry and printing industries. Indeed the very repetition of awards and rewards to a specific coterie of individuals and firms, immediately minimises the ability of their comparators to survive and/or thrive.
Dr Misir carefully overlooked the fact that the Joint Services are substantially ‘Africanized’, the very reason they are so emasculated, and the ‘sting’ extracted from them. The GDF and GPF consist of disjointed leadership groups who are now so thoroughly confused, that they lack any sense of direction, as well as the self-confidence to make decisions. So that when the police are unsure whether or not to arrest, they shoot to kill – selected ‘Africans’. Where else can one find such a demeaned organisation? Except perhaps, if you look hard enough you may find a very depleted Valuation Division.
Perhaps, however, our greatest disappointment lies with the palpable weakness of the judicial system, which involves practitioners of the highest intellectual calibre on both sides of the so-called ‘ethnic divide’. The fact that a Justice Reform Project has been initiated is a clear recognition by all concerned (including the donor community) of how minimalised the system is in current practice.
‘Marginalisation’ is reflected in the insolence explicit in the non-response to a complaint or request; and in the more active spin operations mounted to insult one’s intelligence.
But it would be unfair to witnesses, readers and those who have suffered the effects of this degradation, not to address the spurious over-simplification of the meaningless tables of ‘ethnic distribution’ in the Public Service, proffered by Misir.
First of all it should be understood that the Public Service Commission itself is a rather marginalized institution. It is not consulted, and therefore maintains no records of the contract employees so prevalently recruited by the Administration. Basically these are of two categories. The first consists of identified personnel who are appointed into positions in the Public Service on contracts un-related to the Public Service Rules and Regulations.
They are paid gratuities (after a minimum six months’ service); but it is understood that despite their non-Public Service status, they are still considered eligible for the annual across-the-board increases. It makes no demand on one’s imagination to identify the beneficiaries of this selective process, which involves any level of employee below that of Permanent Secretary, and includes motor vehicle drivers.
The second category consists of the persons appointed to the various donor-funded projects, which interestingly enough tend to be perpetuated for indefinite periods. With the higher level of salaries payable within the project sub-culture, and despite the recruitment procedures dictated by some Agencies, the final results of that process do not necessarily reflect the level of transparency expected.
In establishing these project units, positions comparable to those within the very Public Service entity where the donor funded project is located, are inflated for compensation purposes, even though the competencies required are no greater than those of the counterpart public servant.
When one reverts to Misir’s Permanent Secretaries, it would be useful to compare the service records (and therefore experience) of the ‘Indian’ appointees with those of their ‘African’ counterparts. The former are more likely political appointees starting at the top; the latter career public servants.
This raises the issue of promotability. Misir should be asked to comment on the record of experience of promotions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the last decade, for example. The situation is likely to reflect the same stultification obtaining in a number of Ministries, where coincidentally ‘Africans’ are usually the parties most affected.
A significant number of Ministries report as much as 40% vacancies; but the proportion of ‘Africans’ who have been in acting positions for up to ten years invites serious attention.
And while in this position of limbo, too many are retired, without consideration of the impact on their pensionable benefits.
Amongst others, one of the more fundamental of the ‘marginalisation’ exercises perpetrated on every public servant, irrespective of ethnicity, is the annual distribution of across-the-board increases. It cannot be described as an ‘award’ since it ignores performance of any standard or kind. The perception is that they are all herd animals, whose contributions are unworthy of distinction.
Most alarmingly this flawed salary administration principle has since been imposed on the staff of the largest of our Public Corporations – GuySuco, in contradistinction to the payment of production incentives to GAWU categories. This commitment to demotivating our managers’ productive capabilities continues to defy comprehension.
The GuySuco experience reveals, in turn, the emasculation of the decision-making process at the level of the Board (consistent with the experience of other Public Corporate Boards).
A related article published in the Stabroek News of Thursday, March 3, 2008, provides eloquent testimony to the political intrusion in the decision-making process regarding the Skeldon Factory Project. Those who know the sugar industry may detect other organisational weaknesses, not yet evident to an impetuous Minister. In the article referred to there was mention of anonymous officials (one of whom was not permitted to speak to the media); but no reference to the GuySuco Board nor its executive management team.
Which brings us to the question of membership of Boards of Public Corporations (and their CEOs). Could Misir avail the public with the ‘ethnic’ distribution in this regard? Perhaps Regional Executive Officers in the Regional Administration should also be identified in the analysis.
With reference to Guysuco in particular, he may also wish to check the ‘ethnic’ distribution of the executive management staff, including Directors and General Managers. In the process he should enquire when last an ‘African’ was appointed General Manager of a sugar estate.
The factual situation has reached a point where the perception is that even expatriates are preferred over ‘African’ competencies in the sugar industry.
In the final analysis ‘Marginalisation’ is a cancer by which all ethnicities are afflicted.
Yours faithfully,
Eliah Bijay
