Dear Editor,
The revelations by Senior Minister of Health, Dr Ramsammy in KN of Sunday, June 14, 2009 and the subsequent letter by Frank Fyffe in Stabroek News regarding such revelations does raise certain issues of honour, patriotism and service. But it also lends itself to serious questions. Dr Ramsammy reportedly considered resigning from his position to pursue other opportunities over the past three years.
Dr Ramsammy claims that he does not need to be a Minister but his service is required. There is no indispensability to elected office. There are numerous qualified candidates availalble to capably fill his role as Minister of Health. Dr Ramsammy’s decision is really a simple matter of choice. The Minister opts to remain in Guyana and is impoverished by this choice. His resulting alleged poverty is immaterial to the clamour for his resignation over an alleged connection to convicted drug trafficker Roger Khan regarding some security equip-ment. References to impoverishment under these circumstances can only be interpreted as a questionable and evasive attempt to garner sympathy or obfuscate.
Poverty does not grant immunity from public scrutiny. The staggering majority of Guyanese live in poverty and struggle on a daily basis with significantly less at their disposal than Dr Ramsammy. They serve this country every day. They are not indispensable. They mull other opportunities outside of Guyana. They are not allowed to claim poverty when their competency is challenged. As such, Dr Ramsammy is not an island unto himself in this nation of poor souls.
Dr Ramsammy reportedly has no property to his name. He reportedly cannot pay for a house lot or cannot afford to build a home. Is this because of poverty or choice? Surely, the Minister can apply to the Ministry of Housing to obtain a house lot and he could obtain a loan given that his salary as a Minister is probably in the upper 10th income percentile in Guy-ana. Or is a Minister provided with free or subsidized accommodation and vehicle use by virtue of his position? Dr Ramsammy indicated that his son’s medical education cost more than US$1 million, but this again is a matter of choice and has no pertinence to the issue of calls for his resignation.
Service, poor pay, wealth of opportunities and real or perceived poverty are not the issues. If one willingly chooses to serve in a position that provides poor pay when one has a choice to find better pay, or others can function equally in the same position it is ridiculous to claim financial hardship as a defence to the allegations in issue. In fact, claims of poverty may raise even more troubling concerns. Poverty is no excuse for lack of job competency. Poverty and financial status are only relevant where there is a public suggestion or allegation that the Minister allegedly benefited financially from questionable characters. Nowhere has this allegation been made, implied or stated. The demand is for an audit of his alleged conduct with respect to ‘spyware’ used by Roger Khan. Finally, one is left to wonder why is Dr Ramsammy so “poor” while other ministers and officials who are on his salary scale appear so “rich.”
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell
