Dear Editor,
I note a letter by Mr. Christopher Ram in the Stabroek News dated November 6, 2024, and captioned “The cited provisions of the FMAA do not cover this one-off cash grant”. Was Mr. Ram expecting me to cite from all the 87 clauses, and all 54 pages of the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) and fit it into one letter in the Stabroek News?
I have always been taught by my elders in Alexander Village (a social setting that has also produced Mr. Ram), that it does not matter what people think of you. What matters is after reflecting on the issues deep within our core, we must know what was our intent and what we did and if we are satisfied that we were true to our purpose and the additional information provided subsequently, does not adequately convince us otherwise, then we must stand our ground. If Mr. Ram thinks there is a technical deficiency in my public position on this matter, he is entitled to do so and therefore I welcome his statement. However, what is extremely important is that in the realm of sharing ideas, the framework for the engagement must at all times, be respectful. I will allow the reading public to conclude on the tone and intent of Mr. Ram’s letter and mine.
Regardless, after reading Mr. Ram’s correspondence, I am yet to be convinced that the Laws of Guyana are inadequate to support the G$100,000 cash-grant payout pro-cess. Therefore, I stand by my original position that the FMAA, in its fullness, is more than adequate to satisfactorily fulfill the implementation of the Government’s intent to distribute G$100,000 to all eligible Guyanese. Therefore Editor, my pure intent was never to cherry-pick, but to reflect on the law, more specifically the FMAA, a law that I have read, interpreted and adhered to, many times in my professional career. My letter was solely intended to stimulate public debate maturely. But as wisdom determines for us, “shooting the messenger” only serves to validate the message we are trying to bury. I thank Mr. Ram for the six (6) questions, but it would be remiss of me to ignore the fact that all six (6) of these questions were more than adequately addressed by the Hon. Vice President of Guyana, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, at his weekly press conferences. It would be rather presumptuous of me to seek credit by repeating the Hon Vice President’s public statements on this matter.
In conclusion, this letter was written in my personal capacity as a Citizen of Guyana, but even if the letter was written in my professional capacity as a diplomat, I would be doing my public service to the State. In my diplomatic training, I am guided by many compendiums of wise counsel including “Satow’s Diplomatic Practices” (Chapter 27, page 556) which establishes that modern diplomats are progressively expected to project their government’s policy. For the record, this G$100,000 one-off cash payout is a Government of Guyana policy. As to the other personal polemics launched at me by Mr. Ram, while I am surprised by his choice of words and implied positions, they are irrelevant to the debate and thus cannot benefit from my considerations.
Regards
Sasenarine Singh
Citizen of Guyana
