Dear Editor,
During a portion of the corruption debates on NCN Channel 11 last week, a most awkward statement was made by the former Head of the Public Service, Nanda K Gopaul who said, “What is wrong with a former President seeking to ensure that he lives a comfortable life after his presidency?” This type of statement should not be made by a minister of the government who is supposed to maintain a certain level of behaviour. As the former head of all public servants, Mr Jagdeo was expected to maintain the highest level of behaviour reflecting honesty, decency and integrity. This was aptly captured by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) as follows, and outlines how a public servant must operate:
1. He should have the highest degree of integrity and decency.
2. All his personal and public dealings must be conducted in a fair and honest manner.
3. He should lead all public servants on the delivery of the highest quality services.
4. He should exercise his stewardship over government funds in such a manner that will maximize cost effectiveness and value for money in the best interest of the people.
Nowhere there did we detect that a public servant should carry out his mandate to “ensure he lives a comfortable life” after he demits office. The record clearly shows that as the President of Guyana, Mr Jagdeo’s behaviour was nowhere close to the stipulations of the IPAC. This was the president who before and during the elections “cuss down” those who disagreed with him and did nothing to reduce corruption and the illegal trafficking of narcotics. This was the president who publicly stated that Mr Nigel Hughes would never become a Senior Counsel during his tenure. It was on his watch that Dr Roger Luncheon said that no African-Guyanese was qualified to be appointed Ambassador or High Commissioner for Guyana. And this was the president who pulled all government advertisements from Stabroek News for nearly eighteen months, then restored them and later withdrew them again, this time from all the independent newspapers. Furthermore, some of the transactions conducted by Mr Jagdeo would not withstand the scrutiny of the law or the rules of the IPAC. For example, Mr Jagdeo’s real estate transaction cannot stand up to legal scrutiny and the provisions set out in the IPAC for public servants. Was he accorded preferential treatment in obtaining his beachfront land?
So what we have observed from Dr Gopaul and Mr Anil Nandlall is the condoning of the PPP abuse of power. And as if to insult the citizens even more, under the previous government with its parliamentary majority, a presidential benefits act was passed that places no cap on Mr Jagdeo’s expenses after leaving office. But what is even more disheartening for the poor and the working class is that the majority opposition leader David Granger has been unable to bring to an end the abuse of power and the squandering of the state resources by the PPP. It has been nine months now since the elections, and Mr Granger has been mostly missing in action, while the majority opposition appears to have surrendered the battle to bring justice and fair play to the political landscape of Guyana. Not one law has been drafted, debated or passed by the opposition to remedy the immoral acts of the regime. Is this a continuation of former PNCR leader Robert Corbin’s era of tacit cooperation with the PPP? For whose benefit?
A public servant, whether he/she is in the government or the opposition is expected to have a conscience; he/she is supposed to be a practitioner of good governance, display honesty and fair-mindedness and have the courage and conviction to fulfil their duty to the people. Our foreparents believed in the fundamental Guyanese tradition that even if you have little, if you work hard, study hard and do not break the law, then you should be able to establish a decent life for you and your family. That is why salaries are paid, gratuities are granted, and pensions provided to public servants for retirement. Thus Dr Gopaul‘s statment is deserving of an explanation. Is he saying that it is okay for a public servant to increase his/her personal wealth at the taxpayer’s expense in order to make sure “he/she lives a comfortable life” after demitting office? The cardinal rule is if one is dissatisfied with one’s wages and benefits as a public servant, then one is free to seek employment in the private sector to generate the income needed to “live a comfortable life.” We are certain that private companies would be most willing to offer a former head of state a position with a generous salary. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Thanks to the corruption debates at NCN for exposing Dr Gopaul’s thoughts on what public servants should do to live a comfortable life upon retirement, and thanks to Nigel Hughes for asking the question, “Can any other Guyanese be offered beach front land for $5 million per acre?” We are looking forward to the answer.
Yours faithfully,
Asquith Rose
Harish S Singh
