Sat Ma­haraj states in the first para­graph of his col­umn in the T&T Guardian of Au­gust 2:

"The re­cent crit­i­cism aris­ing from the ap­point­ment of Jawala Ram­bar­ran as Gov­er­nor of the Cen­tral Bank can on­ly lead to one con­clu­sion-that the Peo­ple's Na­tion­al Move­ment un­der Dr Kei­th Row­ley is al­ler­gic to the pro­fes­sion­al In­di­an-Hin­du of T&T." Ma­haraj con­tin­ued to sup­port his con­clu­sion by out­lin­ing Ram­bar­ran's qual­i­fi­ca­tions and achieve­ments. How­ev­er, Ma­haraj failed to out­line the qual­i­fi­ca­tions and achieve­ments of the com­pet­ing can­di­dates.

With such an omis­sion, Ma­haraj proved that Ram­bar­ran was best among a class of one. Is it that Ma­haraj missed the point??How can he ar­rive at this "one con­clu­sion" with­out tak­ing in­to con­sid­er­a­tion all of the rel­e­vant facts in­clud­ing the de­tails of the oth­er can­di­dates?

I wish to en­light­en?Ma­haraj that peo­ple (not just the PNM) are not al­ler­gic to the pro­fes­sion­al In­di­an-Hin­du, but are very much al­ler­gic to re­cent ap­point­ments, such as ex-SAA di­rec­tor Resh­mi Ram­nar­ine, ex-min­is­ter of health/am­bas­sador to the UN Therese Bap­tiste-Cor­nelis and Min­is­ter of Na­tion­al?Se­cu­ri­ty Jack?Warn­er, to name a few, which seem to be based on cer­tain loy­al­ties rather than on se­lect­ing the best can­di­date for the po­si­tion. The con­tin­ued use of the race card by Ma­haraj is un­for­tu­nate.

JFA Jules

Arou­ca