Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Nigel Hinds’ letter, `There is nothing corrupt about the Minister of State’s actions’ (SN 7th April, 2016). His letter started with a 1985 quote from the late President Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham that, “In life and politics as in mathematics you have to accept the highest common factor.” Burnham stands accused or is associated with everything questionable or bad, even in matters that happened after his death. Such has become the nature of Guyana’s politics and warped recount of history.
The analogy Hinds chose to use in defence of Minister Harmon’s behaviour regarding the “honorific” appointment of Brian Tiwari and reported intervention into the work of the Guyana Revenue Authority is misplaced.
Mr. Burnham’s use of the identified analogy which he explained in the 1985 interview was grounded in a deliberate policy of his government to trade with Caribbean counterparts as against outside of the region, even if it may be costing more. He made the argument that the success of CARICOM would be aided by supporting the trade of member countries. To this end he cited the example that though Guyana is paying more for buying soap from the Commonwealth of Dominica in lieu of the said product being sourced cheaper in Europe it was his government’s preferred choice. Here is where the reference of politics (the making of a political decision), the mathematical (cost), and highest common factor (success of CARICOM) was contextually used.
The Burnham analogy does not apply to the Harmon incidents and it is hoped Hinds’ reference to it is not meant to be a dog whistle to coalition members and supporters to condone Harmon’s actions and disregard public consternation.
Those who worked with Mr. Burnham at ministerial level would be better placed to say what action(s) he would have taken in response to what Harmon has done and is accused of, or whether he would have allowed his authority as Head of the Executive/Government to be circumvented. Public evidence shows Burnham holding ministers accountable who thought they could have operated off the reservation.
To Hinds’ opinion that “it is an incontrovertible fact that aside from President David Granger; Minister Joseph Harmon is the most likely individual to lead PNCR or the APNU Coalition” such is not proven. Here are the facts and logical possibility: -The PNCR chairman is Mr. Basil Williams and as per the party’s constitution if for some reason the Leader – presently Mr David Granger- is no longer able to serve, the position is filled by the chairman until an election is held. At that election Harmon can only become leader if he contests and wins. In the APNU while not au fait with its rules – and if there exists any as to succession and elections – the leader is Mr. Granger and deputy, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine. Going by normal organisational structure or unless stated otherwise, should Mr. Granger no longer be able to serve in that position, by succession it will be filled by Roopnaraine. And in government after the President it is the Prime Minister.
While Hinds is entitled to defend Harmon he is not entitled to engage in fallacious arguments in such pursuit. It may be better for him, given his view that “The current media pronouncements on the actions of Minister Harmon are absent of any evidence conveyed to the public”, to urge the minister or government to break the silence and help to clear the air or remove suspicions.
Yours faithfully,
Minette Bacchus
