Do as I say and not as I do

Sep 29, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The admonition, “Do as I say and not as I do” is often used to illustrate hypocrisy. Expect it, then, to appear often when dealing with politicians, the biggest hypocrites of all.
In May 2013, two years before the APNU teamed up with the AFC to oust the PPP/C from government, the APNU called for an independent investigation into polygraphs test employed by the Guyana Energy Authority.
The APNU, then claimed that polygraph tests have been proven to be unreliable indicators of lying and therefore should not be used as the only basis for terminating an employee. The APNU went as far as citing a US Court of Appeals decision which upheld the right to exclude evidence from polygraph testing, on the grounds that such evidence is not generally accepted as scientific in nature.
When it assumed office in 2015, the APNU did launch that independent investigation into GEAs use of polygraph testing. The auditors, in that instance, found that in the absence of laws for guiding polygraph testing in Guyana, the Guyana Energy Agency’s (GEA) involvement in such acts was illegal.
According to a Kaieteur News report, the auditors also found that the GEA, in some cases, kept on employees who did not pass the test while in over 20 instances, it terminated those who failed or refused to take the test. The tests were reportedly employed without any reasonable suspicion that the persons tested were involved in some illegal activity.
In other words, there was no probable cause for the testing. No evidence was also found of employees being asked whether they consented to the tests. These findings vindicated the APNU’s 2013 criticisms of polygraph testing.
Two months after becoming an AFC Minister, the Minister of Public Infrastructure, was quoted as saying that he planned to approach Cabinet with a memorandum to determine government’s position on polygraph testing and whether the practice should be discontinued. According to online news service, INEWS, the Minister said that he does not believe that polygraph testing was the best option. He was quoted as saying, “I find it difficult to see how that can be an assertive way to determine if anybody is credible or not.”
Well apparently, either the memorandum was not submitted or was not considered, or, if it was, Cabinet took a supportive position towards polygraph testing because in December of the same year, the Minister of Public Security signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Drug Enforcement Agency which provided for polygraph testing of security personnel.
Around the same time, the Guyana Chronicle carried a report that one of the dismissed employees had since been unable to find a job and was being stigmatized because of the test results.
Yesterday’s newspaper reported that two polygraphists from the Jamaica Constabulary Force had visited Guyana and had conducted 16 polygraph examinations for the security detail of Guyana’s president. The unit which conducted the polygraph tests was said to have received high commendations for their professionalism and expertise.
How times have changed. Five years ago, APNU was opposed to polygraph testing. Three years ago, it received advice that in the absence of polygraph laws, such testing was illegal.
The APNU has now come full circle. From condemning polygraph testing, it is now supportive of it. If this is not political hypocrisy, then what is?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News