Dear Editor,
Mr Arif Bulkan has jumped into the deep end of the polygraph pool without realizing there was no water in the pool. Most of what he wrote about and cobbled together as an ‘analysis’ can be found on the internet debate website on polygraphy.
The Government of Guyana was very much aware of the pros and cons of the debate and the efficacy of polygraphy before we took the decision to embark on polygraph testing. We did so with our eyes wide open. And that is the sovereign right of any government. Some think it is was wrong to do so and that is their right. But in the final analysis, decisions have to be taken and governments must be decisive in this respect.
We never said that polygraphy is a panacea for addressing corruption at all levels. Indeed, we recognized there are other measures that must be taken to deal with this social malady. The recent passage of a number of items of anti-crime legislation in the National Assembly including the wire-tapping legislation and the anti-money laundering and countering of terrorism legislation, among others, will, cumulatively, contribute effectively to the administration’s fight against corruption in all its manifestations.
This government is adopting measures which the previous administration never took. Comparative analysis is critical in evaluating the performance of one administration or another.
Mr Bulkan should do the research on what the PNC did to address corruption during their term in office. The Kwayana v David Singh case might be of interest to him.
The PPP/C administration is not committed to talking shop about corruption; on the contrary, it is committed to rooting out corruption wherever and whenever it is to be found. In so doing, it is likely to incur the wrath of the apologists, political opponents and armchair academics who seek to besmirch the efforts of the government by articulating views which they hope would embarrass the government. They spare no effort to lecture the government about the dos and don’ts of governance. To them they know it all!
It appears that Mr Bulkan has joined the rickety bandwagon whose passengers are having a difficult time convincing others about ‘corruption at the highest levels of government.’ The point is that they have failed because they do not have a shred of evidence to prove anything against a single minister of government. It is all talk and nothing more than talk.
Mr Bulkan hasn’t the slightest clue about what it means to be a member of cabinet and maybe he never will. Cabinet is a collective decision-making body. Once cabinet takes a decision on any matter, that’s it; every man Jack or woman Jenny falls in line. It would be foolish if not highly indisciplined for a cabinet minister to strike out on his or her own and to go public against a cabinet decision. In fact, it would be better for that minister to walk rather than face the likelihood of being booted out by the President. Mr Arif Bulkan and his ilk would rub their hands in glee were that to happen.
Mr Bulkan knows little about my history in politics and moreso, about my personal life. I too know little or nothing about Mr Bulkan’s professional or personal life. Thus I am no position to question his integrity as a lawyer or otherwise.
The citizens of Guyana are free to comment on my conduct, statements and/or performance as a minister of government. However, when it comes to my personal integrity that is a totally different matter. In this regard, Mr Bulkan is way out of line.
Finally, as regards my ability to travel to the United States, Mr Bulkan by admission is clearly in the dark. Since he has the proof/evidence that my US visa was “cancelled” he should provide the public with the proof/evidence to embarrass me even more. I never said my US visa was cancelled; others did, and sadly, Bulkan swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Talk about commonsense!
Yours faithfully,
Clement J Rohee
Minister