Is Mr. Mervin driven by fact or mischief?

Jan 20, 2011 Letters

Dear Editor,
Permit me to respond to Mr. Emile Mervin’s continued inaccuracies. In his letter (“It is time there was statutory coverage for the salaries, retirement benefits of ministers and parliamentarians”, January 13) in response to mine (“The Leader of the Opposition does not have a special retirement package”, January 11) even after being informed that it is not true the Leader of the Opposition would receive a special retirement package, which he calls a “generous retirement package,” he proceeded with this untruth by referencing the May 4, 2009 SNs’ editorial as his source.
In reading the said editorial nowhere did the writer say such benefit exists. Knowing Mr. Mervin were that so he would have with aplomb quoted the section of the editorial that said so.
Instead he has chosen to fluff his untruth with fluffier untruth. Mr. Robert Corbin in a January 12 letter, “Political objective was to serve notice to Jagdeo and PPP that PNCR was aware of their plans” also said no special retirement benefits exist for the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Mervin also ignores the fact that the House voted for the Leader of the Opposition Bill and among the House Members who voted for same were AFC Members of Parliament.
In Mr. Mervin’s January 15 letter, “Corbin needs to be publicly impassioned about hot-button issues” he continues to peddle his untruths.
He continues the rumour of a Jagdeo and Corbin third term and Jagdeo-Corbin secret talks, but again failed to provide any supporting evidence even though asked to do so.
In case Mr. Mervin missed the news report of Mr. Corbin’s meeting with President Jagdeo this information was shared in the party’s January 13 Press Statement.
The Statement said: “The Leader of the Opposition and PNCR, Mr. Robert Corbin, MP, met with President Bharrat Jagdeo at the Office of the President on Tuesday last to discuss a number of issues of concern, particularly the functioning of the Linden Town Council and the development of the Linden community. The meeting arranged at the request of the Leader of the Opposition was intended to resolve the continued interference in the management of the Council at Linden by the Ministry of Local Government which has led to almost a state of anarchy. The Interim Management Committee has been unable to function efficiently and more significantly the management and control of their staff appears to have devolved to the Minister and the Ministry.
After frank discussion on the issues it has been agreed that a joint approach by the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Local Government will be made to have all outstanding issues resolved.”
Mr. Mervin is also encouraged to visit the PNCR’s website and facebook to get the party’s press statements and pictorial evidence.
In the said January 15 letter Mr. Mervin asked, “Where is [Mr. Corbin’s] voice on the BCGI impasse?” The PNC has been and will continue to be very vocal on the injustices meted out to bauxite workers by BCGI with the support of the Government.
The party will continue the workers call for justice. It was the PNCR who in April 2010 took a No Confidence motion to parliament about Minister Nadir’s handling of the issue, and this motion was debated in Parliament in June.
When the bauxite workers and their union protested the Labour Minister’s office on November 22, 2010 to mark the one year anniversary of the unresolved dispute, the PNCR lead by Mr. Corbin was in that protest line, holding placards. It was the AFC and GAP/ROAR who were no show. Can Mr. Mervin say why the AFC was absent and if he supports their absence? Mr. Corbin also spoke with Mr. Nadir and secured a meeting for the bauxite union for November 23 with the Minister.
The information could not have missed Mr. Mervin’s attention because they were in the news, including the papers. Stabroek News also has a youtube of the November 22 protest on its site. The PNCR has also visited and gave support to the bauxite workers in the BCGI areas.
One wonders given these public facts if Mr. Mervin is driven by fact or mischief. Freedom of speech also comes with responsibility, one of which is truth and of which Mr. Mervin is acutely aware. And since it clear he has no regards for the truth, the next question is what his motive is?
B. Beniprashad Rayman

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News