Minister of National Security, Gary Griffith, may seem intemperate in his utterances at times but his move to extend the retirement age of the men and women who serve in the T&T Defence Force by three years seems to be a positive and reasonable approach.
Speaking at Thursday's post-Cabinet news conference, Mr Griffith, himself a high-ranking former member of the Defence Force, said the reason the extension of the retirement age was "to assist in dealing with the manpower shortage we have now."
But more than a manpower shortage–of which the minister did not provide enough details in his post-Cabinet address–is the fact that if the compulsory retirement age in the Defence Force is 55, and some are required to retire at 45, then many are leaving the service at the peak of their intellectual and physical powers.
But the minister needs to explain why did Cabinet take a decision to extend the retirement age of members of the Defence Force by three years, yet only agree to a one year extension of the tenure of Chief of Defence Staff Major General Kenrick Maharaj.
Unfortunately as in several other matters, forthright and thorough-going explanations are not given by government ministers. Only last week Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, in this crucial time of falling energy prices, made an announcement with little detail about how the Government is to deal with the dramatic fall in prices and revenue from the country's economy.
Incidentally, subsequent to the outcry from many sections of the country, the Prime Minister suggested that the detailed information would be coming from her ministers. The nation still awaits those details.Very significantly, Minister Griffith did not go beyond general arguments about experienced officers being needed to give the country a reasoned argument as to why Major General Maharaj is needed to continue in office.
In what ways and through what means has the head of the Defence Force performed with distinction so as to deserve an extension of his time beyond the official age of retirement?Has he contributed in a significant manner to solving the crime situation in the country, and what of his performance in his substantive job that makes him so indispensable?
Without such explanations could it be interpreted that the Government has some special reason, which it cannot address openly to the nation, for wanting a certain individual as head of the Defence Force in this election year? What such a move does is to allow questions to be raised over why the head of the defence force is being kept on. That is unwanted speculation about the commander of a critical security institution.
Most recently, the Government wanted to take similar action in the police service to retain ACP Wayne Dick. However it backed down after the police associations strenuously objected to such an action.In the instance of the Major General without an equivalent association raising issues, the Government has pressed on with the move, unconcerned about how it would be seen by the public.
The rigour lacking from the Minister's attempt to justify the retention of officers after their retirement date also lacked a balanced argument to the obvious concern that retention of Major General Maharaj and such persons may block the path for others behind him to ascend to the highest levels in the Defence Force.
All that is required is for the minister to return to this issue with the level of detail that the public requires in this and all other matters.