Dear Editor,
I refer to Christopher Ram’s letter of February 21, 2009 in Stabroek News, with the caption ‘Most of major issues were avoided.’ Should there not be a ‘the’ in the caption? I am merely asking. And this entire exchange resembles a comedy script, may be not too funny (ha, ha), but veering in that direction. I am enjoying this!
Christopher Ram assumes that my colleagues and I have a fascination for his ‘loser’ type, scrawny, and parasitic politics; claptrap! This parasitic type of politics drives him to make populous generalized statements and questions without bringing ideas to the table; intending to attract publicity, albeit false publicity. If he is so thirsty for publicity, I would suggest that he crafts realistic and workable alternatives for his allegations against this government.
Christopher Ram says that I am avoiding issues; I am not convinced that the questions he raises are all ‘issues’; for he needs to do his homework and check the references recommended in my recent letter on this matter.
Apparently, he lacks the capacity to, or intentionally desists from complying with the recommendation to check credible sources of information. Let me say that his questions are not new and that the so-called issues he hoists are archaic; and different commentators on several occasions already addressed these matters, graduating them to the zone of acceptability and comfort for the nation.
Incidentally, a question is not necessarily an issue; and he raises questions that he thinks are issues when they may very well not be the case. Perhaps, I should provide a reference on this matter; maybe not, as he seems to have a ‘non-compliance’ streak.
My interest in this exchange with Mr Ram is to inject some kind of sustainable advocacy for compliance with the Integrity Commission Act of 1997. That is my focus, notwithstanding a few distractions not of my making, in the entire exchange with the Ram & McRae accountant.
Last week, Mr Ram made allegations of presidential violations of Article 170 of the Constitution, regarding his powers on presidential assent of bills passed by the National Assembly; and I referred him to Gail Teixeira’s response to this issue in the Stabroek News of September 21, 2008.
However, he refused to comply with this request. So let me invoke Gail Teixeira; in her letter in part, Teixeira noted: “Article 170 of the constitution advises that (2) when a bill is presented to the President for assent he shall signify whether he will assent or withhold assent; (3) when the latter he will return the Bill to the Speaker within 21 days of the date when it was presented to him for assent with a message stating the reasons why he has withheld his assent. (4) and (5) advise on what is done if section (3) occurs.”
She further stated that: “There is no provision I can find in the constitution which states explicitly the time period for the President to assent. He merely has to signify whether he assents or not to the bill being presented to him.”
I do hope that he now complies and assimilates the full reading list, in order that he can stave off himself from any unnecessary redundancy.
If Mr Ram is looking for publicity, then I would urge him to change his strategy, since he seems to be a victim of redundance.
Again, Mr Ram needs to show how a question becomes an issue. And, indeed, he should advocate full compliance with the Integrity Commission law; as compliance with the rule of law in a democracy is a moral imperative. The Integrity Commission Act of 1997 is the law of the land. And so, compliance is necessary and mandatory.
Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir
