APNU and red herrings

I READ Kaieteur News’ article (Thur. Sept 11th, 2014) under the caption “Looming debate between GFC and APNU …GFC declines to submit info on Bai Shan Lin Logging operations to APNU MP.”

Having read the article under the above-mentioned caption, it is my understanding that the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) provided documentation on the Bai Shan Lin logging operations for the proposed debate between the Commissioner of Forests, Mr. James Singh, and APNU’s MP Joseph Harmon, so the caption in this regard is totally misleading, since information was already provided to Harmon. Harmon seems dissatisfied with the information provided to him by the GFC. The KN article said, “Commenting on the information he did not provide, Singh made it pellucid that the politician would have to secure such from the relevant authorities as what he provided is within the direct purview of the GFC.” If Mr. Singh of the GFC made these comments, it is my view that he is correct and in order since he cannot release documentation into the public domain not within the purview of the GFC. All that Harmon has to rightly do is to secure such documentation from the relevant body. For the proposed debate, it seems that Harmon wants a ton of documentation. Unfortunately Harmon is not requesting forestry deals made prior to 1992, such as those made by Hamley Chase, Former PNC Parliamentarian, to be included in the ton of documentation he requested. In relation to the proposed venue for the debate, Harmon seems dissatisfied as well. I get the impression that Harmon does not know the difference between a professional debate and a street corner political meeting. I am convinced that in any debate between James Singh, Guyana’s Commissioner of Forest and APNU’s MP, Joseph Harmon on Guyana’s Forest Sector Harmon will be whipped and whipped badly. Is this the reason why Harmon has started his hue and cry about documentation and debating venue? PETER PERSAUD