Latest update December 11th, 2024 1:33 AM
Latest News
Putting context to integrity, relative to Granger’s leadership
Dear Editor,
I find a recent missive in “hindsight” 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 gave me -”concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior”.
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’ pontification of his integrity.
At his swearing in, Granger was required to hold aloft a Holy Book and repeat, “I will honour, 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 move on to revoke the leases of a few farmers in Berbice. The CJ ruled this 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 James Patterson.
He had previously asked two younger men, from the Police Complaints Authority and the Public Utilities Commission to retire because they were too old.
Does the above actions of Granger showed him to be conducive to be “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior?” (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 $1B for the controversial D’urban Park.
The rental to the tune of millions of dollars 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 entrusted 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 that I would need a copy.
Rudolph Singh
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Investment Committee’s mandate is financial not political
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There’s nothing quite as uniquely absurd as when someone misinterprets their job description.... more
High-Stakes Bid for OAS Secretary General post
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The election of a new Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS),... more
Weekend Cartoon
