WHY HO CHING IS WRONG ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND THE JAGA

In her long post June 24 on Facebook, Mdm Ho Ching made several points relating to the presidency and national reserves. I do not disagree with her observations on past presidents but there are several points which are egregiously incorrect. I like to address these issues separately. Today I focus on the issue of the President and the jaga.

Ho Ching likened the President’s job of guarding the reserves to a jaga who is simply a watchman at the gate and doesn’t need to know what’s within the premises. Those that go ga-ga at her’s and Critical Spectator’s FB of course swallowed the idea in a heartbeat.

On the other hand, madam received massive online backlash from her detractors for that post. For much of the vitriol, no one has actually offered any reason why she is wrong. Opposition voices are loud. But please, explain to the layman why is she wrong. 

There is a little obnoxious and racist underdone here, or am I too sensitive? In days gone by, the job of jaga used to be the preserve of the Sikh community. Before there was CISCO, in days long past, burly bearded serious looking Sikhs, with their WWII Mark4 riffle, stood guard at every bank 24/7. Big, Strong and Friendly epitome of Sikh guards was Standard Chartered Bank’s advertisement slogan.

While Ho Ching is right about the jaga not entering the house to check contents, madam is totally clueless what she is talking about. In insurance, there is a different policy for the house and another for contents of the house. Likewise, the jaga is there solely to prevent break-ins and has no need to check contents. Should contens go missing without any break-ins, the Sikh can shake his head, it's not his problem.

Imagine someone asked you to stand guard over his bag and policemen passing by wanted to do a random check. Eh, goondu, try explaining the package of white powder they found inside. National servicemen doing guard duties know the routine. Each detail hands over various items to the next. You inspect all items you are taking over, sometimes including prisoners in the holding cell. When I was duty officer in a communications unit I opened the safe to check various top secret code books are where they are supposed to be. So yes, goondu, we do open the safe.

You know what is the perfect analogy madam could have used instead of jaga? Banks providing safe deposit box services. Because the banks actually hold the 2nd key to the boxes and never ever check what’s inside. However, had she referred to the banks, I will still call out goondu.

The crucial difference between the jaga and banks to the guards, me as duty officer, and the President, is very simple. In one word – RESPONSIBILITY. Jaga and banks contractually hold no fiduciary responsibility for the contents placed in their care. For the guards, me, and the President, our butts are on the line as regards the contents under our charge.

As for the jaga comment, I think madam was irresponsible and misleading the gullible public in trifling a very serious national interest. In my next blog I will explain why the President needs to know how much the reserves are.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.