Dear Editor,
My colleague and I, like many others who have always respected his persona, were relieved at the clarification offered by Major General (rtd) Joseph Singh of his relationship with the Office of the President, which at the same time represented him more as an adviser than as an assistant (‘Forgoing monthly salary at OP’ SN, August 1). It would be preferable to have the latter descriptor corrected in whatever MOU or contract that may have been executed to establish the relationship.
Also is there a detectable conundrum that while adviser on the subject National Resources and the Environment – a responsibility assigned to a cabinet minister, that as Chairman of the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission there is also an explicit reporting relationship to that cabinet minister?
But perhaps more importantly, and quite apart from the list of remuneration published, is the question of how similar advisory positions not identifiable in the National Estimates submitted to the National Assembly, could have been affected by the much debated cuts.
While the parliamentarians involved might know better, it would help considerably if the public which funds the budget can be appropriately informed. In this connection it would also be helpful to have explained the difference between ‘termination’ and ‘non-accessibility’ to contract pay.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
