Dear Editor
REFERENCE is made to Kaieteur News story of December 15, 2019, captioned: “PNC/R stalwarts among casualties in ambassador’s SHAKE UP.”

Is this caption constructed in a manner to play to the gallery, thereby conveying that well known interpretation of ‘jobs for the boys’? For this propaganda have at times been peddled by the PPP/C opposition in a tongue-and-cheek manner, in the direction of the President David Granger-led administration, unsupported by any evidence. In fact, it has been just another one of the Robb Street gang’s slimy resorts, deviously seeking to attribute one of its well-known cronyism practices to the coalition government.
Of course, the particular diplomats, identified, with the exception of one, have all been associated with the party of their choice, the PNCR; and through its governments, both past and present, have contributed in different capacities, at different periods in service to their country. Their record is there as testimony to such an effect.

However, in recalling those high diplomats, President Granger has again demonstrated that his administration is about adhering to strict principles of public administration and organisational requirements, particularly as they relate to such a high-end ministry, the function of which is to conduct Guyana’s international relations with the rest of the world, with a specific eye to the domestic benefits to be garnered, for country always is a priority.
Therefore, President Granger’s policy is not about sinecures and the perpetuation of an ‘old boys’ club, for benefit, long past when such official appointments ought to have ended. This was the policy of the PPP/C governance which relied more on political loyalty than with performance, and which saw many of its mission heads holding down their appointments for over two decades. Such an extraordinarily lengthy period of occupation at the apex of diplomatic representation would not do positives for the development and professionalisation of such a key service in any jurisdiction.

One can also refer this blinkered management ideology to the question as to how many cabinet re-shuffles took place during the 23 years of the PPP/C regime’s tenure. Were there ever? Not as far as memory can advise. Now, compare such stagnation to the current tenure of the current administration, and the difference is clearly seen. The president made cabinet changes when they had to be made, particularly in the interest of better governance, and the type that must be able to satisfy propriety.
The Kaieteur News headline has therefore been done for politicking purposes; cheap journalism, as has been its policy since 2015, and for mischievous reasons. Finally, it deliberately misses the intent and purposes of the President’s actions with regard to the de-politicisation process of the country’s diplomatic service.

Regards
Earl Hamilton