Sensationalists

Wilful ignorance

One cannot blame ordinary people for being ignorant of some matters in the public domain – who can keep up with the information explosion? But what do you say about the ignorance of some gatekeepers of public trust? Wilful ignorance? Take the sensational headline in the Muckraking KN about Tender Board contract to the NEW GPC via information taken from the Auditor General (AG) Office.

The Muckraker, we know, will stop at nothing to sell a few more newspapers and take a jibe at those more successful in business. Ressentiment and all that.

But to actually alter the facts in a news report? Where did the AG Report even say that the payment was exorbitant? Even if the contract was awarded via sole sourcing (which it was not!) does the wilfully ignorant Muckraker believe that sole sourcing automatically leads to inflated costs? Or that there are no benefits to the purchaser? Let’s educate the numbskulls over at the Muckraker: every government and most corporations engage in sole sourcing. The benefits can range from being able to negotiate very toughly because of the size of the contract to the assurance of availability of critical supplies – like pharmaceuticals. But all of this is moot in the case of the NEW GPC. The Auditor General provided fuel for the bottomfeeders’ angst by falsely labelling the contract as “sole sourcing”. Not surprisingly, the Muckraker KN and the Stabber News snapped this up with alacrity. Never mind that the matter was clarified several times since the end of 2010.

Does the AG office know the difference between “sole sourcing” and “single sourcing”? Do they know that even in 2010 there were other bidders for the pharmaceuticals? Do they know that there is a prequalification process that includes domestic and international suppliers – such as IDA, PAHO, WHO, UNICEF, MedPHARM (Guyana). Do they realise that even if the NEW GPC becomes the single supplier, the government, through this process, is totally aware of prevalent prices and can (and does) bargain for the best overall prices?

Cooperation?

According to a report in our newspaper, ex-Brigadier David Granger, leader of the APNU, assured all and sundry that the APNU and the AFC were not seeking to “control” Parliament. Yes, he did speak explicitly, once again, for the AFC. Well, he certainly fooled us! Seems that even military graduates learnt “doublespeak”: control of the Speakership and Committee of Selection is not “control”. Ah well! What do we know? The actions of the AFC and the APNU were “in line with their parties’ policies”. Really? So what about all those promises by the good general and his party about “sharing power” even with the PPP, if they won the elections? Or is it that they would share if they won, but hog everything if they just won Parliament? Wow! I guess that must have been in the small print in the manifestos or was said sotto voce from the platform.

Granger assured the PPP that they shouldn’t be “concerned” about Parliament – they’d received a mandate for their actions. Their one-seat majority is a “mandate” while the PPP’s six-seat majority in the 2006 Parliament was an “elected dictatorship”! Go figure.

But all is not lost. Granger said he supports President Ramotar’s call for “compromise and consensus”. “If government advances measures, policies and plans that are in line with our visions for the country and our policies, we would have no problem giving them our parliamentary support.” Meaning if the president does what the APNU and the AFC want, he is assured of their support! What support! What generosity! What magnanimity!

Fair-weather friends

Even though his friends at UG (“Lecturers gone wild”) seemed to have forgotten him in their anxiety to have their salaries increased, we still have the Muckraker-in-Chief, Kissoon, in mind. So once again, with the 28-day deadline from Gerry Gouveia nigh upon him, we ask: Are his bags packed for Monkey Mountain?