Dear Editor,
I extend thanks, on behalf of Mr. Raja Singh, to the Minister of Education, Mrs. Priya Manickchand, for the quick response and satisfactory resolution to his matter as contained in the letter from her PR Department official Ms Suelle Findlay-Williams titled: `Ministry of Education acknowledges debt to weeder‘ (SN 10.24). Now for whatever it is worth, I must object strongly to some of the comments made by Ms. Findlay-Williams in that same letter.
First, Mr. Singh stands by the statements made through me. He insists that he wrote the incumbent minister repeatedly; that he visited her office repeatedly (“at least a dozen times”) and was turned away repeatedly.
His hand delivered letters were always politely received, but that was as far as he got. Additionally, he maintains that he visited the ministry “over a hundred times” as he worked across the street once weekly. He made his begging, forlorn weekly visits for literally years “to try his luck” in desperate efforts to get an answer.
This included the Permanent Secretary’s office, and Mr. Liverpool, and Mr. Kishore. That is, until he gave up and stopped going to the ministry. I don’t think there is anything sensational about any of this.
I must take offence to the foregoing when just yesterday a very senior public school official related to me that she gave up on her acting allowance after repeated writings and visits to the same Ministry. That allowance has never been paid.
In terms of the names, I apologize if the comma separating “Permanent Secretary, Mr. Liverpool, and Mr. Kishore” did not make matters clear enough; or “were all approached” indicating three individuals, as opposed to “were both approached” did not pinpoint the nuanced use of our language.
Those writings and visits were deposited and made respectively to the PS and Mr. Liverpool and Mr. Kishore. I understand that there is indeed a Mr. Liverpool at the ministry and a Mr. Kishun and not a Mr. Kishore.
I don’t see the difficulty in connecting the dots and names; or how any of this remotely resembles the “sensational” or is “defamatory.” Surely, there is context and connectivity.
As part of my own due diligence I asked Mr. Singh three times as to the number of visits, and whether he spoke with the minster or PS. He confirmed the information, as presented by me.
I close by thanking, once again, the Hon Minister and Ms. Findlay-Williams for the courtesy of a timely response and the promised even timelier resolution to this issue.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
