THE EDITOR, Sir:
ON FRIDAY, February 22, you published a most damaging editorial which ascribes to me sentiments which with respect, Mr. Editor, do not represent either my convictions pronouncements or behaviour.
Let me clarify and provide the context of a phrase (not a full sentence) attributed to me.
For the record: The reporter asked me about the party's reaction to the repeated scandals that the administration... (sic) He enumerated a few. Among these was NetServ.
My response was: "As we see from the poll results on NetServ the public does not know about the individual incident and does not seem to be aware of those things." I did not stop there but explained: "There is, however, public resonance around the issues of corruption and the misuse of public funds. As a political movement, the PNP is not overly concerned about the effect "on the ground" but, more fundamentally, about the integrity of our party and about issues of governance."
I also spoke to another of the Gleaner's reporters on Saturday, February 16. At that time, I expressed in no uncertain terms that the PNP was not overly concerned about our electoral fortunes, as that was not the issue. To my mind, the real issue is that of the integrity of our Party; that, historically our Party had always been the one that would take the higher moral ground. I made it clear that, while due to lack of adequate information, I could not comment on the individual case (NHDC) I was concerned about the Administration being constantly stigmatised as 'corrupt.'
I made similar comments to the electronic media on Tuesday, February 19.
It is interesting that the editor chose to quote from a report which is clearly inconsistent with my earlier expressed views.
For the record: At no time did I make light of the misappropriation of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds, or give an excuse for corrupt behaviour. At no time have I either now or then condoned any flippant expenditure of public funds.
I have always been unequivocal in my condemnation of less than due regard for public property, funds and other assets. To suggest otherwise would be a total misrepresentation of my public and private posture, actions and behaviour.
Finally, Mr. Editor, you seem to disregard context, an important element in determining meaning. Any answer given depends on the question asked. One phrase cannot determine meaning.
I am, etc.,
MAXINE A. HENRY-WILSON
General Secretary
People's National Party
