Shallow criticisms of President Ali’s address

Dear Editor,
There appears to be an observable coordinated shift in focus from the usual constant attacks on Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo to now His Excellency Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali, the President.
Of recent, some of the most outlandish, some of the shallowest, most baseless and ludicrous criticisms, of the President have surfaced in certain sections of the media. In particular, an anonymous columnist/column took issue with President Ali’s address at the opening of the 46th Regular Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Governments of Caricom. The author expressed his/her disappointment because he/she was expecting the usual diplomatic-styled rhetoric.
The mystery author then characterised the President’s delivery as “theatrics”.
Contrary to the anonymous author’s opinionated column, President Ali is an authentic, dynamic, and highly respected leader regionally and globally. The anonymous author is perhaps too accustomed to the usual fluffs and rosy speeches by most leaders. In fact, the recently concluded energy conference had a few such “fluffs and rosy-styled speeches”, that were not necessarily grounded in reality and pragmatism, and were not actionable. To put it nicely, such speeches are academic-type speeches.
This is not President Ali’s style. President Ali is action-oriented, results-driven, and more importantly, he is a realist and pragmatist. This is demonstrated in his consistent scholastic deliveries that are always robust and profoundly passionate; not theatrical.
The mystery author then went on to argue that President Ali outlined unrealistic targets to be achieved by 2030, and that he failed to set out the road map. However, if the author had really paid attention, the President did set out the framework through which those targets can be achieved. More so, he outlined actionable items for immediate implementation. Furthermore, that was not the forum to lay out a road map. The forum for that was the working sessions that followed.
It is quite unfortunate that Government’s many critics do not even have the capacity to perform a proper critique; a critique that is robust, constructive and meaningful, together with an alternative menu of solutions, and the pros and cons of each. As a society, there is a great need to improve the quality of discussions, criticisms and debate we advance on issues of national importance.

Yours respectfully,
Joel Bhagwandin