The pathetic defence of Joe Harmon by Hinds

Dear Editor,
You do have patience and lots of forbearance to have published Nigel Hinds defence of Mr Harmon in garrulous style. Quite a challenge to read his weak defence via interrogatory challenges.
The commentaries by Chris Ram and Anand Goolsarran are very pertinent despite Nigel Hinds classification of verbal assaults, but as he is defending the wanderings of Mr Harmon, he would of course decry and debase any negative expression on Mr Harmon’s behaviour.
That Mr Harmon would close his eyes to the various machinations he himself is reported to have made some comments on in the past, plus the well known facts that the previous government had close ties with the two parties viz BK and Bai Shan Ling, then ‘buddy up himself’ with them, is a clear case that his mental acuity is suspect. The activities of those two parties have been a great cause of unease for the people of Guyana and even now as for example the land deals, the tax free vehicles, etc etc. Did Mr Harmon not know nor hear about the unpleasant activities of these two parties?
How come ‘everybody know’ except he?
But Nigel Hinds would want us to believe that even if Mr Harmon knew or heard of them, he, Mr Harmon, being of superior knowledge in law, psychology, business, honesty and social committment could not let any failures therein cloud his vision that he could proceed without any fear of disapproval with his actions.
Yep! the customary political blindness that the people have to accept what you do as you know best.
Well Mr Harmon is dead wrong and should be not only be scolded for his open indiscretions and political blindness, but sent packing forthwith.
I will follow Nigel Hinds numerical listings but not as many:
1. the honorific appointment of BK was foolish that when the President learned about it, he himself rescinded it to express his displeasure;
(Mr Harmon’s first X on his way out)
2. the Minister responsible for business did not know that he had a person to advise him on business;
(Mr Harmon’s second X on his way out)
3. Mr Harmon’s trip to China does not fall within his portfolio as he was the main official whereas the main officials should have been the Minister of Business and the Minister of Foreign Affairs;
(Mr Harmon’s third X on his way out)
4. Mr Harmon’s buddying up with those two persons does raise suspicions on sincerity of purpose a la “show me your company and I can tell who you are”!
(Mr Harmon’s fourth X on his way out)
5. if Mr Harmon was the politician who interfered with the scheduled seizure actions of the GRA, then like as in Macbeth “ out brief candle…out!” The nice genteel honourable thing for Mr.Harmon to do is to hand in his resignation and not wait for the axe.
Think deeply I say to him and act promptly.
 Carl Veecock

President Burnham would not allowed Harmon such latitude

Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Nigel Hinds’ letter “Arguments in support of Joe Harmon” (KN 7th April, 2016). His letter started with a 1985 quote from the late President Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham that, “In life and politics as in mathematics you have to accept the highest common factor.” Burnham stands accused or is associated with everything questionable or bad, even in matters that happened after his death. Such has become the nature of Guyana’s politics and warped recount of history. The analogy Hinds chose to use in defence of Minister Harmon’s behaviour regarding the “honourific” appointment of Brian Tiwari and reported intervention into the work of the Guyana Revenue Authority is misplaced.
Mr. Burnham’s use of the identified analogy which he explained in the 1985 interview was grounded in a deliberate policy of his government to trade with Caribbean counterparts as against outside of the region, even if it may be costing more. He made the argument that the success of CARICOM would be aided by supporting the trade of member countries. To this end he cited the example that though Guyana is paying more for buying soap from the Commonwealth of Dominica in lieu of the said product being sourced cheaper in Europe it was his government preferred choice. Here is where the reference of politics (the making of a political decision), the mathematical (cost), and highest common factor (success of CARICOM) was contextually used.
The Burnham analogy does not apply to the Harmon incidents and it is hoped Hinds’ reference to it is not meant to be a dog whistle to coalition members and supporters to condone Harmon’s actions and disregard public consternation.
Those who worked with Mr. Burnham at ministerial level would be better placed to say what action(s) he would have taken in response to what Harmon has done and is accused of, or whether he would have allowed his authority as Head of the Executive/Government to be circumvented. Public evidence shows Burnham holding ministers accountable who thought they could have operated off the reservation.
To Hinds’ opinion that “it is an incontrovertible fact that aside from President David Granger; Minister Joseph Harmon is the most likely individual to lead PNCR or the APNU Coalition” such is not proven. Here are the facts and logical possibility:-The PNCR chairman is Mr. Basil Williams and as per the party’s constitution if for some reason the Leader-presently Mr David Granger- is no longer able to serve, the position is filled by the chairman until an election is held. At that election Harmon can only become leader if he contests and wins. In the APNU while not au fait with its rules-and if there exists any as to succession and elections-the leader is Mr. Granger and deputy, Dr. Rupert Roopnarine. Going by normal organisational structure or unless stated otherwise, should Mr. Granger no longer able to serve in that position, by succession it will be filled by Roopnarine. And in government after the President it is the Prime Minister.
While Hinds is entitled to defend Harmon he is not entitled to engage in fallacious arguments in such pursuit. It may be better for him, given his view that “The current media pronouncements on the actions of Minister Harmon are absent of any evidence conveyed to the public”, to urge the minister or government to break the silence and help to clear the air or remove suspicions.
Minette Bacchus.

The Joe Harmon saga continues to attract attention

Dear Editor,
It is astonishing how hard of hearing, or completely reckless, or plain arrogant or all three members of the political class can be. The unpalatable stories about Mr. Brian Tiwari, PPP government contracts and Guyana’s procurement system under the PPP are known countrywide. When therefore one convinces the supporters of the APNU-AFC Alliance that they should vote to remove the PPP from office because of its corrupt administration of Guyana’s procurement system, and a personality like Brian Tiwari was somewhere near the center of what was going on, it jars one’s sensibilities that the same APNU-AFC, now in power, could even consider let alone get in bed with Mr. Tiwari as a government adviser. Three things come to mind about this case.
First, it shows Mr. Harmon’s contempt for the APNU-AFC supporters, a trait that persons who come to power seem to have in enormous supply. People in power seem to think that supporters of the government, those who helped to put them in power, are not paying attention to the things they say and do. The supporters are not stupid Mr. Harmon, they care. They have a memory.
Second, it seems highly irregular that a Minister within the Office of the President can hire Mr. Tiwari as an “Adviser”, for tasks that apparently fall under the portfolio of another Cabinet Minister. Particularly someone such as Mr. Tiwari, without (it seems) consultation and knowledge of the subject Minister, or in this particular case, other Members of the Cabinet and the President. What other possible reasons would the President have to rescind the appointment? In any case it looks bad for the APNU-AFC. The political optics are bad enough; other  issues involing questions of  qualifications and  the substance of what  Harmon did,  including the position he put the President in defy comprehension. What was he thinking?
Third, Mr. Harmon has become a key face of the APNU-AFC Administration. Unfortunately, he is responsible for a number of what Freddie Kissoon would describe as “runner stumbles”, and very damaging ones. He seems not to contemplate, for a moment, the political consequences of his utterances and actions for his government and his party, and the way supporters of the APNU-AFC would view them. And if indeed he does contemplate, his words and actions are so contrary that one must ask whether he thinks he can repair whatever damage might be done. The cumulative effect of this sort of contempt and recklessness is precisely why governments get into trouble and are eventually booted from office.
One can never be sure what factors cause each member of the electorate to vote or to stay at home on elections day. However, the conduct of the APNU-AFC Administration during the first twelve months in office was, in a number of instances, most frustrating, uninspiring and sometimes downright depressing.
One can hardly restrain oneself  from speculating that careless verbal pronouncements, contemptuous actions and reckless conduct of persons like Mr. Harmon (but not only him) is doing grave harm to the APNU-AFC support base and may have discouraged some supporters from voting in the recently held local government elections. Indeed, his words and actions make the administration appear to be rather untrustworthy, and certainly awkward, if not unhinged. The APNU-AFC has already shown its inability to overcome its serious and disorganised messaging deficiency. Beyond that it seems bent on creating the most destructive types of political narratives.
Ivor Carryl

Has power destroyed Joe Harmon?

I have said to several persons in the AFC that if the party ever goes into a retreat to analyze politics since May 2015, it would be meaningless unless they invite outside minds who are not within the AFC substance and who would be mentally free to give realistic assessments of the AFC’s performance.
It would be a futile exercise without these people, because an AFC Minister may not want to tell the Prime Minister that under his portfolio the Chronicle has remained similar to what it was under the PPP. An AFC Minister may not want to ask for the reassignment of the Minister of Agriculture.
If the two coalition parties are going to have internal reflections, then they need to listen to outside people. They bring a freshness of an unburdened mind that the burdened mind needs to have. But power always gets in the way. People with power do not listen.
I remember I was a guest on the early morning TV programme, “First Look” on Channel 9, when I was asked about Joe Harmon’s outburst about not apologizing for the ministerial salary increase. I did mention that Mr. Harmon was one of my favourite PNC leaders who may have got it wrong, but meant well.
One day after the salary increase fiasco, I called Mr. Harmon at his home and on his cell numbers to advise him that an apology was the only avenue available, and that I would gladly help to draft the kind of apology that would go a far way in redeeming the situation. He didn’t return my call.
I called Mark Archer, whom I am very fond of, and asked that he convey to Joe my strategy. I got no response. Exactly six weeks after he blurted out that he had no apology to make for the salary increase, Joe expressed contrition. What was unbelievable was that he waited and endured six weeks of devastating castigations of his politics and character before he said sorry. I am absolutely convinced that if he had done so in a very expressive way just one day after, Joe Harmon would not have gone into the bad books of many people
The sad, yet troubling thing about the AFC and PNC (I really don’t like using that acronym, APNU; I really don’t and I mean no insult to the WPA, a party I truly admire) leaders is that they do not consult “distant” people who can bring a perspective on things that they cannot see.
Outstanding in this regard was former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Blair had his “outside” coterie that he sought ideas from. Those who were close to Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan would tell you that they were very self-opinionated (due to their phenomenal achievements and towering presence) but they had persons outside of their party and governmental circles that they contacted in crisis-situations
The AFC and PNC hierarchy will continue to stumble, because they haven’t learnt anything from twenty-three years of PPP’s mountainous mistakes. The PPP went into self-destruction mode because power drove it there. Few people in this country would be dishonest to say that they didn’t offer support to the PPP after it came to power. The human mind always welcomes change, and it was twenty-eight years of PNC rule.
Nationally revered icon, Eusi Kwayana, issued a statement asking the Guyanese people to give the new president, Bharrat Jagdeo, a chance. Power destroyed the PPP and Jagdeo. It is debatable if the PPP will ever get back to office in the foreseeable future. Is the same happening to Joe Harmon?
No matter how much you are in love with the PNC as an historical institution, and no matter how you admire President Granger as a democratic, clean President, damage is occurring in the House of the Grand Coalition, and it is lacerating the hopes of a nation. The two Harmon scandals – Tiwarie-gate and BaiShanLin-gate have come too early in the rule of the Grand Coalition.
Why would Mr. Harmon want to do what he did so early in the reign of his party? What could Keith Scott have done so early in the reign of the Government to cause his transfer from the Ministry of Housing?  Why did the Grand Coalition so soon after it got into power hand itself an oceanic salary increase and do this secretly? Why do Ministers run as if they are on the athletic track from the press so soon after coming into power making people feel they are like the PPP leaders?
Obviously you know the answer –power destroys the mind, thus the capacity to reason.

Only a political numb skull will pay attention to this article.  This is standard internal politics where Basil is trying to ease one man out to make way for him (Basil) to get closer to the leader and the leadership in Congress Plass (deliberately misspelt).

Standard party politics.  Them people trying to ease Lil Joe out of pole position to the first job.

Granger can get political mileage out of this if he acts decisively by terminating Joe. But I doubt he will do this as even when pm Kamla  from trini tried this approach she still lost the elections. 

I saw Harmon at a meeting with Granger some time ago. He just sat there and said nothing...all the while with a smirk on his face. I did not trust him and I think the mess he is creating for this government should lead Granger to fire him. He will gain a lot of respect if he does.

Minister of State, Joseph Harmon

Joseph Harmon, the man who controls and manages David Granger.

This will not blow over, ‘Honourable’ Joe Harmon

Dear Editor,
If Minister of State, the ‘Honourable’ Joseph Harmon believes that by running from explaining to the nation the repulsive reports of his relationship with Bai Shan Lin and Brian Tiwarie of BK International that the country’s outrage will blow over, then I have some uncomfortable truths to impart.
The ‘Honourable’ Harmon’s (and his behavior as a public official is anything but honourable) reported actions are not just damaging his reputation. It will and it is having a ripple effect. As the saying goes, one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel.
A large percentage of the nation believed in the ability of the coalition to root out corruption when they went to the polls in May 2015. Harmon was at the forefront of the party, campaigning and using the harshest terms to describe BaiShan Lin. The populace was with him, body and soul, back then.
Fast forward to today and what do we have? We have a politician who has metamorphosed into something ugly and unrecognizable. We have a politician who has become inundated with power and is now too cowardly to face the media and through them a nation scandalized by his reported actions.
Leaders throughout history have repeatedly turned a blind eye to the ordinary man’s feelings, to their detriment. Take a walk on the streets of Georgetown (it would seem Harmon can no longer do that with his head held high) and the nation is not as tempered as I am in writing.
There are mixed feelings. Feelings of confusion, hurt, betrayal and anger prevail. For years we have lived in a society where the previous PPP administration repeatedly turned a blind eye to the nation’s anger and committed one folly after another until they were booted ignominiously from power.
And these feelings are now extending to the government as a whole, as Harmon’s continued ducking taints his colleagues. The longer government remains mum on Harmon and his future as a Minister, the more rooted will be the perception that this government is soft and weak in dealing with corruption and things that are offensive in the eyes of any right thinking Guyanese.
Harmon’s actions on a whole are tainting the coalition and are giving the opposition more ammunition to use in order to attack this government.
Minister Harmon, kindly take a leaf out of the book of the UK’s Prime Minister, David Cameron and face the nation to explain your purported indiscretions.
Randy Talbot

You can't blame Joe, he has to fill his pockets as quickly as possible before the PNC run the country completely into the ground and erase all gains made by the PPP over the past 23 years.