Adam Harris must be given his due

Dec 03, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I do not write letters to the press because of a noticeable tendency on the part of those who respond to attack the author, rather than attempt to demolish his arguments.
Yet I have to confess that I am an avid reader of the letter columns and not infrequently begin my morning newspaper browsing there. Letters from frequent writers like GHK Lall, R. Williams, Frank Fyffe and others of that genre are more than illuminating and sustain a political and social discourse so badly needed in an otherwise deformed polity.
However, notwithstanding this self imposed injunction, I am constrained to respond to the misapprehensions on the Adam Harris superannuation matter purveyed by D. Sukhdeo.
In his first letter callously titled “What benefits are we talking about in regard to Uncle Adam”, he averred that Harris was not entitled to superannuation benefits because he had resigned, and proceeded to set up some additional premises which he felt should preclude the payment of such benefits, some of which are of questionable validity. But I wish to take issue with his presumption that the GM was misguided (to put it mildly) to have processed benefits for Harris and worse still that he had no right to bind the PPP administration.
It seems maladroit on the part of Mr. Sukhdeo to presume that the GM will make such a fundamental mistake as to accept a resignation letter from an employee without being aware of the legal incidents attaching to such an actuality, especially since he knows the GM who happens to be his batch mate at university and who he ought to know had a background in Human Resources Management among other things. It is reasonable to expect that professionals in the field of personnel and labour relations would be up to speed with all the various forms of separation and their implications.
For Mr. Sukhdeo to assume otherwise borders on disrespect and it is fair to assert that for him to proceed to proffer advice on this wrong assumption, which would have a tendency to impugn the integrity and demean the professionalism of others, appears to be reckless.
Moreover, by injecting himself into this matter in the way in which he did can convey the impression that Senior Personnel at the Presidential Secretariat lack the expertise and acuity to adjudicate this simple matter with efficacy. This is patently not the case. In fact, an article in the Kaieteur News of November 16th, Blame the Government column provided a candid and accurate chronology of the case.
The simple fact is that the then Minister and his senior advisors were involved in the matter ab initio. It is ridiculous for Mr. Sukhdeo to think that the GM would deign to commit the PPP administration as he asserts to such expenditures without the direction or at least the concurrence of the Board, which is appointed by the Government.
In any event the joining together of fragmented service in the public sector require the express approval of the Minister in accordance with the Pensions Amendment Act of 1976. And why would Mr. Sukhdeo further assume that there was no direct political oversight on such a sensitive issue as the severing of the Editor-in-Chief of the national newspapers.
Actually, the GM took into account the intimation by Harris of his willingness to quit in the interest of all concerned subject to the payment to him of his benefits and the indicative willingness of the Minister to facilitate that course of action. Consequently, based on his training and outlook, he sought to bring Harris within the protection of the relevant legal instruments that govern such matters. He felt duty bound to do so.
The other aspects of Mr. Sukhdeo’s excursus do not merit discussion and in any event will not add clarity to the relevant issues. Suffice it to say that the state can separate an employee from his employment at any time and to determine what benefits if any to pay in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.
Adam Harris did not resign his employment and Mr. Sukhdeo, based on his own professed wisdom, ought to know that for these purposes Adam is a layman and is free to use terms loosely to describe his separation. But professionals are not free to do so. Some terms in various disciplines and professions become concepts and some phrases become terms-of-art. As such professionals in those disciplines and professions are bound to use and construe them in a predetermined manner. For instance, Sukhdeo and the GM would know the difference in personnel and labour relations between dismissal, termination, resignation, redundancy and the legal incidents attaching to them; and to employ them advisedly. Harris has no such obligation.
Finally, it is not my inclination to attribute low motives to persons who may express honest opinions on matters of public interest but one is wont to wonder what may have predisposed Mr. Sukhdeo to use his time and energies to proffer unsolicited advice with the clear purpose of negating the rights of a humble man when it was clear that the administration had already determined that Harris deserved and would be paid his well deserved benefits.
Name and Address Withheld

---

---