Sukhdeo resorts to clairvoyance

Dec 17, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In his last letter on the Adam Harris episode Sukhdeo asserts that the issue would have taken a different twist if the PPP had treated a PPP supporter similarly, i.e. join his fragmented service together for the purpose of affording him superannuation benefits. How does Sukhdeo know this? Such a leap would be called a stretch in journalistic jargon.
It is more than speculation and may more appropriately be characterised as clairvoyance, since he essays a prediction by reaching into the minds of opposition politicians.
In the case of the PNC they erected the basis for such an outcome by enacting the enabling legislation – Pensions (Amendment) Act 1976.
It seems both reasonable and logical to conclude therefore that they did so to facilitate such an outcome. I cannot read the minds of the PNC politicians since I am not gifted with such prescience, so I have to espouse the logical conclusion proffered above, which is that their obvious intent was to enable the joining of service.
Sukhdeo keeps insisting that he would like Adam to receive his benefits, but has advanced every reason available to him why he should not – shades of the soft impeachment of Mark Anthony perhaps – but then Mark Anthony in the end admitted that he had not “come to praise Caesar but to bury him”.
And just in case every other argument fails, he has by implication invoked the principle of lashes to seal his case when he refers to the length of time that has elapsed since this matter arose – perhaps he needs to be apprised of the principle of continuing breach. It seems like Sukhdeo wants to approbate and reprobate at the same time.
Concerning the apparent length of time it took Adam to prosecute his claim, it has to be stated in the first place that Adam kept raising this matter all the time both privately and publicly in the media.
The apparent delay in its finalisation has been explained by a Government spokesman in the “Blame the Government” column referred to before.
It states in part that “Harris is not the only person who has had to wait a long time for benefits, nor is he the first”, then proceeded to give precise reasons for the delay in Adam’s case specifically. As a former civil servant Sukhdeo ought to be able to evaluate the efficacy of that account. Why then does he continue to be so perplexed at the so-called delay in Adam’s case? I wonder what he would say if he learns that in 2007 personnel of a constitutional body charged with such matters informed a former civil servant in writing that they would retire him from August 1980 and compute his benefits accordingly.
About his assertion that Adam, as a veteran journalist, ought to know the difference between resignation and retirement, what I did state is that Adam should not be expected to know the legal incidents attaching to the term resignation.
If he did it is hard to see that he would prosecute a claim for terminal benefits on the basis of resignation. This would not only be unorthodox but stunningly asymmetrical. And with regard to the misunderstanding that the seemingly innocuous term resignation can generate, Sukhdeo only has to refer to the TESPA, which he quoted.
In the original Act resignation was provided as a basis for severance pay. Later, when the full implications of the application of the provision were realized, the Act was amended removing the provision. Clearly the full impact of the term was not fully comprehended by the legal draftsmen or the Government. How much more so would the implications of this term not confound a layman?  The same can be said of another of the terms that fall under the rubric of separation, which is dismissal. In Guyana the Government could have arguably dismissed a public servant at pleasure.
In other Caribbean jurisdictions this antiquated notion has been put to rest by case law – Endel Thomas vs. AG of T&T and express legislation.
The case of Evelyn vs Chichester had left the matter wide open in Guyana although my trade union friends would argue strenuously that a proper interpretation of provisions in the constitution would require cause to be provided and a right to be heard – later case(s) may have introduced some certainty to the matter.
These two examples, and there are many more, in respect of unfair dismissal, etc. serve to illustrate how much trouble these separation concepts can present even to persons learned in the law.
With respect to the letter-writer being unnamed, I believe that articles in the press by contributors like  “Parrot”, “Peeping Tom” and “Blame the Government” should generally carry by-lines and photographs as is the case in the Nation Newspapers of Barbados, for instance, notwithstanding that there can be an allowance for the use of nom-de-plume in well justified cases. The same can generally apply to letters. However in the case of letters, one has to be mindful of the fact that Guyana is arguably still an imperfect democracy in which speaking truth to power carries consequences which can be dire, and which few citizens can withstand. Not all writers operate from under the safe canopy of the PPP like Sukhdeo.
Additionally it can be contended that a letter without a name has the advantage of enabling the reader to rid himself of any a priori judgment, resulting from associating the writer with a political party or race group which can cause him to view the contents from within a particular prism rather than objectively. As such there are good arguments both ways in the case of letters.
This is my last letter on this matter which has moved from the eligibility of Adam Harris for payment of terminal benefits to a battle of ideas between Sukhdeo and his unnamed nemeses which I have no appetite for.
Finally, after considering the thrust of Sukhdeo’s missives, I am still curious about the motive of this seemingly conflicting gentleman.
(Name and Address Withheld)

---

---