Dear Editor,
As I reflect on David Hinds’ letter to the press dated June 11, 2019, captioned “There is a difference between whistle-blowers and political spies”, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the political opportunism of David Hinds.
But reading his piece confirmed in my mind with much clarity that Dr David Hinds is not the sort of public commentator who can bring reason to the “political and intellectual chaos” in Guyana.
I say this because what is in the Guyana Standard News (Gov’t needs to flush out PPP moles from public service – David Hinds) clearly attributed first to Dr Hinds that he said: “the Government needs to flush out PPP moles from Public Service”.
This is not reconciling to what Dr Hinds is saying in this letter.
Rather, what Dr Hinds sought to do with his letter was cast aspersion on the Leader of the Opposition and former President of Guyana, Bharat Jagdeo. But he failed to deal with the comments attributed to him just over a week ago in the Guyana Standard News.
My fore parents taught me that we must beware of such persons who seek to distort the issue by distracting and sidestepping the source of the debate as they attempt to change the narrative and tag the issue on someone else. Aren’t people who embody such characteristics liars, cheats and intellectual slime?
This is what the Guyana Standard News quoted Dr Hinds as saying: “he shares this concern of the PPP’s access to citizens’ personal information while noting that the Government needs to act quickly and flush the public service of PPP moles”. As an academic, what evidence does Dr Hinds have that the whistleblowers are PPP moles or work for the PPP? Or is this his attempt to deceive the nation with his brand of subterfuge and trickery?
Dr Hinds is further quoted by the Guyana Standard News as saying that “the PPP is using the public service to undermine the Government and “it is just plain wrong”. Again, where is his evidence that the PPP is doing this? Why can’t public servants who genuinely care about the levels of the financial waste in this Granger regime not leak information to the public as a means of bringing this financial plunder to an end?
Reading Dr Hinds’ letter leaves the impression that he has suddenly woken up from a deep slumber. Hello, is anyone at home upstairs Dr Hinds? From day one, team Granger attacked many professionals in the public service and only this month we were reminded that two endangered species – one Valmiki Singh in the Telecoms Sector and one James Singh in the Forestry Sector are soon to be axed.
So, is Dr Hinds encouraging the construction of public service with no independence of mind and no persons with adequate professional competence to ensure that checks and balances are adhered to at all times? Is Dr Hinds advocating for a public service that is totally populated by political minnows and bootlickers?
We had such a situation in 1976 when Burnham made the Sophia declaration when he said that the “State is but an arm of the party”. And guess where that took the nation? Within a decade of such a sycophantic PNC attitude of mind, Guyana was totally bankrupt, uncreditworthy in the books of the international donor community and was experiencing the highest rate of malnutrition and ailments ever seen in all of the histories of independent Guyana.
Is this what Dr Hinds is condoning? Is he “ok” with putting into the grave, all of the political principles his former leader, Dr Walter Rodney, preached? Some honesty for once, Dr David Hinds, would be a welcomed ingredient to the public political discourse. Especially in these challenging times, it is mandatory especially from people like Dr Hinds, who tries so hard to claim the title that he is an independent thinker. Or is it all a political sham and what we are seeing here is more hot air from another first-class political BS artist who claims that they are for the empowerment of the people?
Regards,
Sasenarine Singh
