Arguments need more 'meat'
Published:Tuesday | March 26, 2013 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
The Gleaner made some good points in its March 25 editorial but did not go far enough. Here's what I am suggesting that the editorial writer do from now onwards:
In response to point number one: "Indeed, this newspaper has previously, and more than once, highlighted the several members of this administration, in the Cabinet and out, who are caught in the net of the Peter Principle. They were long since promoted beyond their level of competence." Be specific; name names; let us know your thinking. Your readers can no longer tolerate your cowardice.
In response to point number two: "Further, even a cursory look at the public sector should convince the prime minister that several ministries, agencies and departments can be collapsed into each other, and eliminated, because they have nothing to do or duplicate the work of others. That would guide the PM on the shaping of a new Cabinet and the structure of Government." Call them out. Be specific. Give the PM something to go on. Let us know you know what you are talking about.
Too often we get these Mickey Mouse assertions with no meat on them. Support your arguments by giving the facts, as you know them. Give us the evidence or don't go to court. Accusations are not enough. If you should not, cannot, will not do it, keep your mouth shut. We don't want to hear it. What are you afraid of? Fear itself?
RANIMOR MANNING