Putting context to integrity, relative to Granger’s leadership

Sep 17, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,
I find a recent missive in “Hinds sight” captioned, “Granger’s candidacy in 2020. A mixed bag”, a more provocative than altruistic in reality. Dr Hinds gives my head a pendulum swing on the meaning of integrity, for writing, “Granger’s strength is his personal integrity, which in our political environment is a tremendous asset.”
To regain my center of gravity, I was compelled to check the meaning of integrity from all three versions of my dictionaries. Basically, I got, “the quality of having strong moral principles”.
So I delved to “moral”. The dictionary gives me, “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour”. I don’t see any complexity in this definition so I sought to put context to Granger’s action since his ascension to the presidency, relative to Hinds’s pontification of his integrity.
At his swearing in, Granger was required to hold aloft a Holy Book and repeat, “I will honor, uphold and preserve the constitution of the cooperative republic of Guyana.” Did we get that from him? I think not. As early as May 2015 he instructed a constitutionally enshrined independent Public Service Commission to cease operation. Then he moved on to revoke the leases of a few farmers in Berbice, which the CJ denounced in court as unconstitutional.
He then went against a procedure that had been adhered to for 23 years, the Carter/ Price formula for the appointment of Gecom chairman and unilaterally appoints 84-year-old Patterson to Gecom Chair, while he had previously asked two younger men, PCA and PUC chairmen to retire because they were too old.
Do the above actions of Granger show him to be conducive to be, “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour?” (definition of moral) I think not. I am flabbergasted at Dr. Hinds for writing, “Granger’s strength is his personal integrity.”
I wonder if Dr. Hinds uses the same dictionary that I use, or is he on a mission to conjure back his column at the Chronicle?
Constitutional matters aside! The Auditor General is still waiting for the audited figures of cost estimated at close to one billion dollars for the controversial D’Urban Park from Granger’s coalition. Ten million per month continues to be paid for the rent of the controversial Sussex Street bond.
Sole sourcing of over $500 million of pharmaceuticals without the going through the orthodox tendering process, are just a few highly questionable actions that had razed the public’s confidence in the coalition.
Silence or inaction is construed as a sign of acceptance. Could Granger’s silence on these matters be alluded to his integrity? I think not. Leaders with integrity do not condone “wrong behaviour” from the people they entrust to do a job.
When the signing bonus letter surfaced after the Coalition’s vehement denial of the existence of a signing bonus, Granger’s response was, “I did it.” That was a show of autocracy- not integrity.
If Dr. Hinds gets the authority to rewrite the English dictionary, I don’t think I would be needing a copy.
Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News