Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Morlu's Poor Performance Defense

No Garbage Can Change the Grade
…Of John Morlu’s Maritime Performance 2007

By Bill K. Jarkloh

Poverty and the insatiable greed for material gains and finances most often blinded many people who professed to be knowledgeable and honorable. But woefully, they later find themselves in the gutter when the truth they intend to kill at the platform of gullibility starts to unravel itself in the course of time.

The background of this article is from condemnation heaped on the NEW VISION Editorial Board of which I am a part in the Liberian media for analysis that led to poor performance judgment passed on the Commissioner of the Bureau of Maritime for the Republic of Liberia during the NEW VISION’s evaluation of the performances of public servants in the Liberian officialdom.

However, it is a pity. Certainly it is a pity for one who supposed to encourage the Maritime Commissioner to buckle up on making the once flourished but now diminishing Liberian Maritime program serviceable to the people to instead sprout up and masquerade as though he is an authority that sector of society. It not just a pity, it is equally woeful for him especially to have chosen to defend the ruining of this lucrative sector, especially in the wake of public opinion on performance of officials in this segment of the society.

While it may be a reality of humanity that not very one is principled, one Fahresta A. Faresta’s defense against the grading of the Maritime Commissioner John Morlu in the yearend edition of the NEW VISION raised eyebrows in many sectors of the maritime community of Liberia and the public in general.

But for me, I harbor no doubt that this Fahresta. A. Fahresta is one unprincipled journalist who traded the power of the ink between Roosevelt Johnson and Charles Taylor. On account of his unprincipled-mindedness, he transferred his loyalty to Charles Taylor only in pursuit of the dollar when the Johnson scenario on the Liberian militia-political landscape was crushed.

This gravy seeking writer has now become the defender of John Morlu, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Maritime who scored “poor” during last year’s bureaucracy at the Maritime Bureau. He has erroneously wrote without conscious an analysis that “The Liberian dailies are flooded with instances where most media institution lacking the requisite qualifications or the ability to raise any sound argument and discuss a critical national issue, have selected to blackmail and all sorts of negative insinuation as weapons to either humiliate or harass public officials on what the ‘think’ should be and not what is required of that official or public institution.”

Why, then, didn’t he want to use his right name if he were writing with conscience and was assured that his arguments were on fertile ground? Anyway, this writer uses the name Fahresta A. Faresta because he wants to remain anonymous, fearing that there will be a come back by the NEW VISION editorial staff. Hmmmm!!!!!!

Fahresta, as he may call himself, is practically lingering in confusion of thoughts. He lacks sound analysis of the issue and devoid his trash of investigation. This is why some readers, as I heard, referred to his piece as “garbage or a trash”. He is confused because he doesn’t know what he meant by the dictions he used.

For instance, he said the NEW VISION does not possess the “requisite qualifications to discuss or ability to raise any sound argument and discuss critical issues.” But this means too that he doesn’t either understand the diction “blackmail”. How dare this ill-informed masquerader telling people with internationally acclaimed practice and knowledge, fumbling with words in reference to genuine opinion expressed.

This is an indication that he’s a dollar agent, blinded by what he was paid to castigate people whose international background and understanding of the Liberian politics and bureaucracy he does not know.

This paid agent, will never produce any prove of blackmail, although he has the burden of proof. If he doesn’t mind, may we define to him blackmail? Blackmail refers to extortion by threats of public exposure. Better still, “blackmail” refers to forcing public official to do what he does not have to at the alter of threats to expose his misconduct. Giving these working and lexical meanings of the word blackmail as used by Fahresta, can he indicate when and where any member of the editorial staff of the NEW VISION visited Mr. Morlu or any senior staff of the Maritime Bureau with threats to expose him if he did not comply. Nonsense!

Moreover, what qualification - meaning requirement, skill or condition etc. – does a Liberian medium that has been following the performance pattern of officials occupying public positions – in the agencies or ministries - throughout the year need to pass judgment of poor performance by public bureaucracy? Fahresta’s arguments were very obnoxious, detestable, despicable and abhorrent indeed.

Assuredly, there is no gainsaying that this so-called Fahresta’s analogy and/or discernment of the grading of the Maritime Bureau’s commissioner is instead influenced by the dollar, by gullibility that grew out of sheer frustration of failure to achieve, this is coupled with his sheer ignorance of the practical Liberian bureaucracy. This is why it is rather a pity for this pen-peddler to think that the well-paid, professionally qualified and competent and internationally acclaimed members of editorial board of the NEW VISION have traded on cacophony of innuendoes and unsubstantiated citations in the grading of John Morlu at the Maritime.

Maybe this so-called Fahresta needs to know that no member of the Editorial Board of the NEW VISION will fall for any amount of the American dollars, the British pound or the Euro that popularly in demand here to fight against the truth, neither will any member of the NEW VISION editorial dive for meager amount such as US$200-$500 to write trash against the editorial judgment passed by any media institution for that matter against poor performance of any public servant as Fahresta did.

Therefore, the NEW VISION is announcing that it takes the challenge, considering that the finality of this war launched would further disgrace the paymaster or throw him out of the Maritime sector, while at the same time exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of paid agent Fahresta – if in fact it is his real name. For the NEW VISION, it is determined to expose Morlu as a way of further validating its judgment of Morlu’s performance for the time he served the Maritime Bureau as Commissioner [see more revelations in today’s edition].

That’s not all. Fahresta’s faulty exposé will be x-rayed here too. The NEW VISION will also expose his gullibility and ignorance in whatever available and possible. By so doing, he must be told that successes in public service are not abstract; they but tangible or physical. May we ask Fahresta and his master Morlu: Has the Maritime Institute reopened since the war was over and Morlu assumed the mantle at the Bureau of Maritime’s leadership? If yes, has any desired ordinary Liberian been afforded an opportunity to benefit from the Maritime program of Liberia?

Assuming the answer yes also, when and how many Liberians enrolled in that institution since the postwar period under Morlu’s administration? How many Liberians have been sponsor to international maritime institutions around the world, not to mention the International Maritime University? How many Liberians has the Morlu Administration sent work on vessels flying the Liberian flags? These are some of the performance-factors that engender mass public benefit and therefore good score for him, and not ones such as a conference engineered by a bureaucrat for the sole purpose of “licking fingers” at the expense of the state and its resources (we will come to that later).

Sorry, I am going too far. Let us respond to concerns raised by the paid agent – Fahresta. In is article – 2007 FLUNKIES & ACHIEVEMENTS - SENIOR OFFICIALS OF GOVT. UNDER X-RAY (John Morlu, Maritime Commission Scores “Poor” A Rejoinder By Fahresta A. Faresta. In this embodiment of disjointed analysis ditched out to the public to justify some drops from Morlu’s pocket, Fahresta was reacting to the section of the NEW VISION’s grading that states that the Morlu Administration was rocked by rampant corruption, tribalism and nepotism.

In propounding his argument, he was quizzical, asking “What a cleanup campaign would dismiss and bring back the most prohibited debris as [stated] in the case of [the NEW VISION’s grading of] Mr. Morlu? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! I laugh at Mr. Fahresta.

Why didn’t he ask: “Why was Mr. Morlu, a confirmed Commissioner of the Bureau of Maritime dismissed, and after a media debate regarding the legal status of his successor, Cllr. John Steward in the United State, brought back as Acting Commissioner? Fahresta, why did the President take Morlu back as acting commissioner and as proper and confirmed commissioner? Up to date, Morlu hasn’t been sent to the Senate for confirmation following his woeful dismissal and face-saving lobby that took him back to the BMA.

Does Fahresta think Morlu is still standing a better chance, after he was demoted from the office of the Maritime Commissioner [thrown down from grace to grass – I mean dismissed] and then brought back as Acting Commissioner of Maritime? This situation in fact validates the portion of Morlu’s poor mark graded him by the NEW VISION. This is why the editorial was quizzical as to whether there is brain drain in the Maritime sector of Liberia.

This guy, Fahresta, is indeed either bankrupt intellectually or blinded by the dollar in discussing public issues! Why should a sound man dare to state that an editorial judgment is opinionative? What he thinks a media judgment is? Is it not an opinion? So who has lived with the acute poverty of sound judgment or unintelligent sense of thought? The one who has issued a valid opinion on another’s performance or the one who says an opinion is ‘opinionative?” What an embarrassment to the inky fraternity?

Oh no! I was taken away by the flow of thoughts, forgetting that Fahresta A. Fahresta was just trying to earn a dollar from Mr. Morlu’s pocket. This cannot be false; we saw a US$500 check of the Maritime paid to a sisterly media institution to sponsor pages for the publication of these incoherent arguments, leaving the question: Will that change the grade point?

For fact, anyway, it puzzles me to know that Fahresta is defending the practice of corruption and nepotism at the Maritime. He asks for “modicum” or an ounce of evidence to substantiate attributions of rampant corruption, nepotism or tribalism to the Morlu administration. So we are now refereeing him to the front-page story in our today’s edition indicating the Morlu administration’s corruption.

Besides, Fahresta must forget the dollar a bit, brave the storm and get principled to look at dismissals (or so-called retirements) and subsequent appointments made by Commissioner Morlu in such offices as the office of the Assistant Commissioner for Small Wateraft, the Office of the Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Maritime, the Office of Permanent Representative to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and two research officers at the Bureau when people that serve for more than 30 years are still in office because of Morlu’s favor.

Obviously, I wouldn’t call names, but counter-checking the information will reveal more than indicated herein. Or should we lead a microphone to the Maritime Bureau, seeking to investigate and unravel these allegations in spite of facts on hand? Will Morlu submit himself to journalists to quiz him on his these facts?

My God, if the media in Liberia was saturated with failed fellows as alleged by Fahresta, it can never be the NEW VISION. All of the editorial staff members of the New VISION are collegians and acclaimed journalists. The all earned ether degrees, diplomas and certificates in colleges and universities; some are campaigning for Bachelor and Master Degrees and are established citizens of Liberia. None, I mean none is a misfit or is intellectually and professionally bankrupt like Fahresta. Maybe this misfit wants to draw the NEW VISION editorial staff to his level of thinking or achievement, materially or intellectually.

Besides, all of them are well paid – not a hundred US dollar or two hundred US dollar. They are all paid by United Nations standard. This is why they wouldn’t fall for anything like Fahresta. This standard of achievement makes the editorial staff difficult if not impossible to buy in a manner such as the way Morlu bought Fahresta.

This is reason for my worry as to why Fahresta is murmuring when Morlu who was graded “poor” stuck in his shell. What fish has Fahresta to fry in this grading matter, which is intended to encourage better performance in officialdom? Anyway, I rest a bit. We will deal with other issues that Fahresta raised in subsequent editions.

All to say for now is to advise him against this sort of misconduct which has the propensity to rob him of opportunities. When those whop should hire you get to know that you are cheap and unprincipled, you are finished on the job market; there will be no better employment for you.

Consequently, Fahresta is advised to conduct himself well. Conduct himself professionally well to be able to get good job that will not allow him destroy himself as he has been doing. But he will linger into abject poverty and will always stand in need of meager resources that will degrade him professionally and introduce him to scorn unless he stands for reputation, unless he’s principled and unless he knows that the truth is the pivot of not journalism alone, but for success in humanity. Bye-bye and check you up, Mr. Fahresta A. Fahresta in our next edition. If Fahresta will, he may insist on this battle. But posterity is the ultimate judge for us all.

No comments: