Dear Editor,
As the presence of military veterans becomes more visible in the new government, concerns and differences have surfaced over such personnel developments. Some of this is part of a manufactured campaign, and some part of an enduring political mythology. The question is: How should these men and women be really viewed?
First, and for the most part, these ex-military officials represent a pool of talent and expertise, inclusive of advanced education, management expertise, and hands-on working experience gained over lengthy periods in varied areas. It should be tapped now. Some of this was tapped very visibly before, at senior levels, by the previous administration (Singh, Gajraj, Chabilall et al), and behind the scenes from the lower ranks. Rightly so, nobody complained, or had a problem then.
Second, these officers, with few exceptions, have served this country with dedication and distinction over a span of decades. Whatever their political preference and the degree of their ethnic loyalty, those did not interfere with adhering to constitutional obligations to the state. Today, they are willing to serve. They are well equipped to serve. There is a crying need for them to serve. Let them serve.
Third, a handful of them have origins in Queen’s College; it is admirable that their chosen path of endeavour was the military’s Cadet Officer Corps. I submit that such a decision and record can only be a fillip to their resumé. They could have proceeded elsewhere; they decided to serve their country.
Fourth, I think that the public service in Guyana could benefit from the discipline, focus, and dedication that a military background usually inculcates. Further, active service, as in the US and Israel, provides a solid, sterling complement in any run for political office. The same should become part of the landscape here. It might incentivize the visionary (and the hesitant) to become part of the military when very young.
Fifth, I have heard of a poll that was conducted, which resulted in high marks for the army in the category of “Trust” and that target audience included Indians. If accurate, this speaks for itself, in that the army came out ahead of the Guyana Police Force in this respect.
Having said all of the foregoing, the time has arrived for leading politicians and political groups to discontinue tainting (if not demonizing) these sons of the soil. The hazy, omnipresent cloud that hovers ought to be dispelled. It is imperative that these same political parties strive diligently and honestly to speak to truth of the role, the loyalty, and the integrity of the military, and the place it could occupy in building this nation.
To be sure, there has been individual perversity, but there must, however, be the readiness to not tarnish the entire body through deliberate inaccuracies, clever innuendoes, or outright falsehoods. This is wrong, and can accrue to the detriment of this society. Most of all, there should be abstaining from using this group for racially divisive purposes through fearmongering. Leaders have gone to great lengths to ignore the mammoth drug and money laundering industries, and minimize the chronic excesses of the police force. In contrast, there is this continuing private whispering campaign, and a fading public one, that seeks to vilify and degrade.
In conclusion, the facts and circumstances when considered in toto point to men and women who have been, and can be in the present and future, much needed assets to lift and carry this society forward.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
