Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Deon Abrams’ letter ‘There was no reference to Lincoln Lewis in my programme’ (SN, December 17). Let me from the outset disabuse him of the notion that the response to Minster of Finance Winston Jordan’s discussion on the programme ‘Groundings,’ which Mr Abrams hosted, provided an opportunity to “use [him].” There is no need to, and the programme was only mentioned to provide the evidence in my rebuttal.
The national budget underpins the developmental plan of a country, lays out where the revenues would be sourced and expended, and the role of the people in the process. In discussing the 2017 Budget, including the view of the social partners’ (trade unions and private sector) opinions on it and outreach to leaders in the National Assembly, the Minister’s statement about “the one who does be writing in the newspapers” was a clear reference to me. If the programme’s host paid no attention to this or it eluded him such did not happen with me.
The Minister of Finance is a public servant who has taken an oath of office to serve the people. Being paid by the people to be in service to them means he can be held accountable by any citizen or group, at any time. He carries a greater responsibility to address any matter raised by the public objectively.
In taking the time over the years to make myself au fait with accepted universal principles and issues of governance, Mr Abrams is being assured that speaking to matters of such a nature from a position of conviction, is not weakness or an attempt to flaunt knowledge. These are important tools in the struggle to realise good governance, to which I am committed.
Where he has now immersed himself in the discussion let him bring to this nation’s attention evidence of his claim that my letter constituted an “unmerited attack [on the Minister that] carries numerous allegations that were all untrue.” The letter that has become his source of contention is, “It is expected that leaders in the National Assembly would acknowledge responsibility to the people and hold the meeting as requested by trade unions, private sector” (SN, December 13).
As an educator he ought to know the importance of evidence. And as a politician at his level, he should know that gut feelings ought not to guide public discourse or action. A further display of such conduct is seen in the mischaracterisation of my reference to Clarence Ellis.
My introduction of Ellis’s name was prefaced by this statement: “As an aside, note is taken that in the debate the Minister was proud to promote a budget of conflicting economic models, by saying he ‘cut his teeth’ under the leadership of Clarence Ellis, who was Chairman of the State Planning Commission.” I disagree with the Minister’s use of Ellis’ name to give credibility to his performance and to issues within the budget that would have conflicted with Ellis’s stance on governance, and I cited instances to support my view.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
