Dear Editor,
I reject the contentions of the letter written by Ms Melanie Morrison, captioned ‘Mr McAllister was properly withdrawn from Parliament,’ that was published in the Stabroek News on December 16. It was a fanciful distortion of the facts. I must therefore correct the record as follows:
1. The letter delineated an official party position. Its specificity on the Disciplinary Committee proceedings against Team Alexander as well as its conclusions is redolent of authorship by the PNC leadership itself. There is no ‘Melanie Morrison’ in the PNC leadership or with access to such information.
2. I served as a ‘special assistant’ to President Desmond Hoyte and not as a “personal assistant.”
3. The writer’s assertion that I never considered Corbin’s rationale for James McAllister’s recall from Parliament is false. Mr Robert Corbin and I communicated extensively on this matter. He proffered his versions of the facts and circumstances in several emails to me, in an attempt to justify his initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Team Alexander.
I considered his representations and found them to be trifling. I advised him that the draconian measures then under contemplation were unwarranted and that a reprimand was appropriate in the interest of party unity. I also told him frankly that any attempt to recall or expel McAllister or censure Vincent Alexander or any other person would be vindictive, and that under that circumstance he and the party would lose my support.
4. The writer ludicrously asked “Did Mr Trotman leave the PNC because of Mr Corbin?” I am putting it to the writer that Raphael Trotman left the PNC because of differences with Corbin, and so did Stanley Ming and the entire Reform Group.
5. Having been roundly condemned for excluding McAllister from Parliament, Corbin is now attempting to re-characterize the controversy. In a December 8, interview on CNS TV 6, he obfuscated the issue, evaded responsibility and cowardly threw up a subterfuge about executing the decision of congress and the disciplinary committee. He also claimed that McAllister’s absence from Parliament precipitated his recall − nonsense of course! His vendetta against McAllister and Team Alexander has been well publicized. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings were a charade and have no credibility. Further, the constitution invests recall powers solely in Corbin in his capacity as Representative of the PNC’s list, and not in any party disciplinary authority. He therefore bears personal responsibility for his act.
6. I am very disturbed by claims by both Corbin and the writer that McAllister resides and works overseas while receiving a parliamentary salary. In the said December 8 interview, Corbin stated that “The party was forced to take the action it did against McAllister… It had nothing to do with his campaigning with Alexander for the leadership of the party… Instead of still trying to participate and represent the people in the Parliament, he is overseas working, drawing salary overseas and not attending Parliament…” Corbin has also claimed that McAllister was absent from Parliament for an extended period without permission. However, the Parliamentary Standing Orders, Chapter XIII: 105 state: “An elected Member who without leave of the Speaker… for more than six consecutive sittings occurring during the same session and within a period of not longer than two calendar months, he or she shall vacate his or her seat…” Consequently, if McAllister was absent without permission for an “extended period,” why didn’t the Speaker declare his seat vacant in accordance with the aforementioned standing order?
7. Corbin as Opposition Leader is a constitutional officer who is expected to get his facts right. His allegation that McAllister is working overseas is false, and can place McAllister’s immigration status in peril. McAllister can defend himself ably, but I seriously question Corbin’s motives. He surely knows that McAllister is on sabbatical in the US and is in no way employed. Even if such a rumour came to his hearing, it is his responsibility to first seek verification before repeating it publicly. In light of the Bush administration’s draconian immigration policies, we in the leadership of the Caribbean-American community are indignant about those who place our nationals’ immigration status in jeopardy. Corbin should therefore correct the record and cease his assertions.
8. By raising this issue Corbin has opened a can of worms. It is known that two past PNC MPs were allowed to remain in Parliament and receive a salary under Corbin, despite a prolonged absence from Parliament overseas.
9. The writer also asked why Desmond Hoyte didn’t support Alexander over Corbin for the chairmanship of the PNC. I don’t think that the writer really wants to go there. Corbin, having indicated that he was uninterested in the chairmanship, subsequently was nominated for the said office. This caused Murray to decline his nomination, much to the chagrin of Mr Hoyte. Hoyte’s subsequent support for Corbin was in the interest of party unity − a leadership quality which Corbin does not possess.
10. I wish that Mr Corbin and his supporters would stop throwing up distractions and address the salient issues of his failed leadership; why the PNC has suffered three rifts under his leadership; the party’s ongoing decline and its historic defeat in the 2006 elections; losing six seats in Parliament and many others in the various RDCs. These are all contentions that McAllister, Alexander, Gaul, Sunday Stabroek, Ram, I and many others have raised.
11. Finally, I maintain that Robert Corbin is a compromised, inept, failed leader. He should resign and allow a new leader with a new vision to emerge in the PNC.
Yours faithfully,
Rickford Burke
