Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the letter from the Hon Minister of Citizenship, Mr. Winston Felix titled, `A comprehensive plan for the overhaul of outdated systems in the passport office has been placed before parliament’ (SN July 10). Circumstances did not permit an earlier reply, which is now shared.
For starters, thanks are extended to the Hon Minister for sharing in an extensive manner, which included the progressive and the defensive. Unfortunately, the latter included things found offensive. Elaboration follows.
It is laudable to learn of some of the thinking, proposals, and plans that are on the drawing board. I find them agreeable, especially given the legacy issues, and the known lengthy neglect of prior years. Regardless of my position, this can only bode well for all citizens once they become reality and take root. This was the progressive.
The defensive was where the Hon Minister rightly stated that for all of this to occur would be a prodigious task for any government. Again, I agree. But then he proceeded: “…Mr. Lall’s admonition that…30 days is long enough to fix this is both disingenuous and uninformed.” I must object most strenuously to this mischaracterization of what I wrote. To do so, I offer the same two letters of my mine referenced by the Hon Minister, in both of which the language could not have been more specific.
First, in the letter titled, Where have all the ministers gone” (SN June 14), I wrote, “….I respectfully suggest that a contingency plan is direly needed…” and later, “….if this cannot be remedied visibly within 30 days, then something has to give and someone has to go.” I emphasize CONTINGENCY PLAN; and remedied VISIBLY. In other words, what is needed is a Plan B; that is short-term and certainly neither structural (to use the minister’s word overhaul) nor long-term in nature.
Second, in my letter captioned, “There is something wrong with the ordeal at the passport office” (SN June 30), I wrote, “I venture to offer the following Band-Aids…” First, there was contingency plan and now there are Band-Aids. Whatever our differences, I am certain that the Hon Minister and I can agree that Band-Aids signify temporary, stopgap, and short-term. It is because of my use of these very specific words that I take serious offence at the use of “disingenuous” and “uninformed.”
Editor, I submit that for me to expect the “prodigious task” of overhauling the decades-long ignored passport office to be executed in 30 days is the equivalent of all of us expecting clean governance and clean business in a similar time span. Somebody decided to take a jab; I wish it was one above the line. Now I, too, should stop here, but I am sufficiently concerned to go further.
I ask myself whether there was careless oversight, sloppy misinterpretation, or something more ominous. The latter would be reminiscent of the previous government, whose communication standards were characterized by misdirection, exaggeration, and verbiage sleight-of-hand. I would hope not and I think not. I do expect better.
And now there are two more things for the Hon Minister (and this government) to ponder. I could not help noticing the repeated use of 23 years of this and that. It certainly did happen, and most of Guyana felt the pain. However, I respectfully urge this government to desist and focus on its own agenda. The gone folks made a living for an eternity it seemed about “28 years.” Look where they are today.
Last, I conclude by reminding one and all that long lines (and for a long time) were associated with the APNU’s ancestors. Now one line is as good as any for sharp political purposes. Why give anyone such a gift? If there is a known maximum daily intake permissible at the passport office, then find a way for the surrounding street to be clear. I have said enough.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
