Latest update February 17th, 2025 1:24 PM
Jul 05, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
A great disservice is being done to supporters of the government. Those who are trying to make the government look good do not seem to have a clue about what they are doing.
Instead of making the government look impressive; instead of selling its accomplishments, the government is being exposed to criticisms. Instead of doing the government a favour, the government is being embarrassed by some of the clumsy mistakes, which are being made by those who either have been appointed or are self-anointed advocates of the ruling coalition.
Last week, the Supreme Court of the Judicature condemned social media advertisements which displayed two sitting judges as part of a campaign to suggest that the government has delivered on its promise to show confidence in youth leadership. In a strongly-worded statement, the Supreme Court of the Judicature condemned the social media advertisement and emphasised its (the Court’s) independence and integrity.
The Court rejected what it saw as an attempt to tarnish its image and discredit its reputation. It called on members of the public to refrain from associating members of the judiciary with any political party and/or activity.
No one has yet claimed responsibility for the disgraceful advertisement. No one probably will. This is one of the benefits of social media. You can disclaim responsibility and get away with it. But the particular advertisement followed a familiar script about the government delivering on its promises.
What promises? This is a foolish message to be making, because it opens the government to so many criticisms. There are far too many areas, including youth employment, in which the government has fallen well short of expectations.
It is not hard to guess with which political entities the advertisement was associated. The ads were being run for the benefit of the ruling Coalition. But the least it could have done was to try to be competent. It is obvious that those who were responsible for that advertisement have very little idea of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. Like in the past, under party paramountcy, they have wrongly associated the judiciary with the government.
They sought to use the images of two sitting judges to make a political point, and that is not acceptable in democratic states. Perhaps, it would pass muster in the former Soviet Union or North Korea, but not in Guyana. The use of the image of the judges was downright insulting and wrong.
But even more egregious is the idea of what constitutes youth. Those behind the controversial social media advertisement were desperate to find young faces to support their argument that the government was showing confidence in young people. So desperate they were, that they included persons who can be considered middle-aged.
In my book, once you are over 25, you cannot call yourself a young person. From 25 upwards to forty you are a mature adult. From 40 onwards you are middle-aged and from 65 onwards you are a senior citizen.
The government is packed with senior citizens. There are persons who have retired, are receiving a state pension, old age pension plus NIS, and still are being employed ahead of young people. As such, those trying to prove that the government was showing confidence in youth leadership were forced to use persons who really cannot be considered as young.
Some of the persons chosen are really not that young at all. One particular individual is into middle age and has been around for a long time. How that person found himself classified as a youth is beyond comprehension.
It is also unethical, highly unethical, for the images of persons to be used in a political advertisement without those persons’ permission. And it certainly is not in keeping with the independence of the public service for persons employed therein to have their images associated with a political campaign. An apology is therefore owed not just to the judges named, but also to the other persons who did not consent to the use of their photographs in that advertisement.
Another glaring mistake was that some of the persons concerned are political appointees. Some of them owe their positions to their political allegiances. Without those allegiances, they would not have been in the positions they now occupy. Some of them were not part of the governmental system and do not really exercise the sort of authority, which invests them with youth leadership responsibilities.
Feb 17, 2025
2025 West Indies Championship… Kaieteur Sports – Guyana Harpy Eagles (GHE) sits at the top of the points table ahead of the fourth round of the 2025 West Indies Championship. After three...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- I have an uncle, Morty Finkelstein, who has the peculiar habit of remembering things with... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News-Two Executive Orders issued by U.S.... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]