Dear Editor,
I recently read a letter by Mr. Christopher Ram, `Mr Corbin has an opportunity to put country and party before personal considerations’ (SN Dec 14/08) in which he suggested that the PNC leader, Robert Corbin, is putting his personal ambition ahead of what is good for his party.
I used to be a regular reader of Christopher Ram’s business column, and was impressed with his grasp of general business and economic issues. This letter by Ram, however, in my view, was a major disappointment and bad judgment on his part.
It was unfortunate that such a man would allow himself to be dragged into a bitter internal squabble in the PNC. Ram, in his letter highlighted a number of names of people who he stated left the PNC because of its present leader. Now how does Mr. Ram knows that this is indeed the fact, is he a member of the party or was he a part of some fact finding mission set up to determine why there is some defection in PNC leadership?
His bare mention of names of people without any specific explanation as to those persons leaving demonstrated that he simply just wanted to add his name to those enjoying the PNC public charade.
I know Ram used to be a vibrant member of civil society, I therefore, think that he should focus on broader issues affecting people. The citizens would love for Mr. Ram to explain to them how the Value Added Tax (VAT) can be reduced to bring some economic relief to them. Mr. Ram should also think about facilitating a workshop where he should advise citizens how they can be involved in meaningful business ventures. To get involved in a PNC tangle is premature, for a man of such immense intellect.
Further, the issues which erupted in the latest “PNC row” are very straight forward and call for that party to deal with them.
In relation to Vincent Alexander and GECOM, the fact is that the PNC and Corbin appointed one of its leaders, Mr. Alexander, to represent the party’s interest on the elections commission. From what I read the man
was also representing the PNC on the local government body, but because of a falling out between he and the party he gave up the latter position but held on to the GECOM office. So what moral basis he has for relinquishing one and keeping the other, how can he represent the PNC if he claims he has no regard for Corbin?
How can a man who is so bitter with an organization adequately look out for its interest? Alexander’s explanation as to why he refused to give up the GECOM job is that the GECOM body is constitutional, while it is true that the body is constitutional his rationale is unjustified, and baseless. He is, therefore, telling Guyanese that he will only work for them in an office that has a constitutional basis.
What kind of leader picks and chooses where and when he represents the people, clearly the question of his credibility must be called into question.
He should have relieved the party by resigning both offices simultaneously, if he does not feel he can do a good job for the PNC on one commission how can he convince the membership that he can look out for their party’s interest at GECOM.
Let fair reasoning, and good ethical practices take centre stage, and let the PNC do their own house cleaning. Mr. Ram, focus on more important things, just my advice.
Yours faithfully,
Alden Seargeant