Labelling of a welcome ceremony as excess sounds desperate

Apr 07, 2018 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
In response to my letter on the welcome home for the Honourable Prime Minister, Minette Bacchus attempts to demonstrate that the APNU+AFC government is acting without prudence and proper public relations. She also attacks me personally, even though she doesn’t know me nor do I her.
In an elevated form of discourse you win respect and audience by attacking the arguments to which you are opposed, rather than the individual. It is very inappropriate and crass to label someone because of their views.
I have never and will never make a judgment on Ms. Bacchus or align her with a political outfit because of our opposing views. I do strongly suggest that she check her facts before publishing them, as she opens herself and Kaieteur News to legal issues. She labels me an AFC supporter. I have never been in anyway affiliated with or supported the AFC.
I have and will never encourage executive lawlessness, and suffered under the PPP when I spoke out against it. My scorn and contempt for the rapaciously corrupt, and discriminating PPP regime, and my support for the good governance brought back by the APNU+AFC Administration, is well known.
Ms. Bacchus intones that the larger issue is that taxpayers should not ‘fund’ a welcome ceremony. What taxpayers should not fund is a private post-surgery vacation for the Prime Minister and his family, but a simple welcome ceremony that demonstrates respect, warmth and care for the second highest office holder in the land is totally appropriate. The cost of such an event is minuscule when compared to its value. Ms. Bacchus seems to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. This government has reduced the excesses of the previous government in mammoth ways, and having some speeches and flag wavers at the airport to show appreciation for the Prime Minister does not raid the treasury in the way that it was previously done. How does this simple event compare to:
-The millions spent on a minister’s cosmetic (not life-saving) dental work?
-Using state funds to develop and move the NCN tower at the palatial and scandalous Pradoville 2 Housing Scheme?
-Parliamentary approval of the ‘daylight robbery’ pension package that Jagdeo gave himself?
-The ridiculous acquisition of the state property Red House for a paltry sum by the PPP?
-Government advisors being paid millions?
-Acquiring of prime state lands for government officials at grossly undervalued prices?
Those are examples of executive lawlessness, not a simple welcome ceremony.
In every modern democracy, medical coverage for elected office holders is provided for by the state, and in those same states, access to health care and its quality needs continuous improvement.
Office holders including public servants are paid and receive benefits based on their office. Should a clerk/typist be paid the same salary and benefits of a Permanent Secretary? Should a Permanent Secretary not be given a driver and official vehicle because a clerk/typist doesn’t get one?
Ms. Bacchus states that the current government is practicing what it accused the former government of. Nothing could be further from the truth. Show me one current government minister that acquired money and wealth in the short time span that the previous government ministers did.
The previous government was so ridiculous that they didn’t care about the ‘optics’ Ms. Bacchus referred to. Yes, the government increased the salaries of ministers, and they were clear that they expected the ministers to focus on their work, and not acquire assets by corrupt means. It must be noted that at the same time the salaries of opposition parliamentarians, including the Opposition Leader, increased.
The previous government sold state assets for giveaway prices to their benefactors. Those are examples of executive lawlessness and an abuse of taxpayer money, not a simple welcome home ceremony. I further challenge Ms. Bacchus to prove that the annual jaunts to Babu John to remember Cheddi Jagan was not at least part-funded by taxpayers under the PPP.
I will readily agree that this government is not one that ‘dresses’ up its actions by costly public relations. They are too transparent for their own good. They refuse to waste taxpayers’ money on massive public relations bills, and pay ghost letter writers (another corrupt activity of the PPP regime). The government is open with the conduct of its business, so they do not need to waste taxpayers’ money on costly spin doctors to “Tell them that the thing nah look good, and it gun backfire.”
In a functioning democracy like ours, the people will decide on the fate of this government in 2020, and I am sure that when you compare the track record of this government and the PPP on wasting taxpayer dollars, it will be a no-contest in favour of the APNU+AFC coalition.
The current government is fiscally prudent with the management of the nation’s coffers, and in no way behaves like the previous one. There is no established or prima facie evidence of corruption and collusion by the political directorate, and this must be commended.
Attacking and labelling individuals, and the labelling of a welcome ceremony as excess, sounds as desperate as the PPP. I can anticipate Ms. Bacchus’ response, but would not respond further at the risk of sounding like her.
Yours truly,
Jerrick Rutherford

---

---