Sunday, April 20, 2008

Where were they when dictator BURNHAM was brutalizing Guyanese?

Where were all these voices when the PNC was
committing excesses?


Dear Editor,
In 1968, the PNC ‘won’ 55 per cent of the votes cast through extensive fraud by a padded voters’ list. In the 1973 elections, the PNC told the world that it made a “breakthrough” for over two-thirds of the Guyanese electorate.
In 1973, fraud was expanded and a new dimension was added: army intervention, the seizure and tampering with ballot boxes.
Similarly, in those days, the PNC regime resorted not only to attacking those who criticise it, but also putting pressure on those who were courageous enough to expose and demonstrate the electoral fraud.
It had re-enacted the fascist National Security Act, which permits detention without trial and violations of the rule of law.
Without rigging, the PNC could not have won an election. By placing restrictions on the importation of newsprint and printing equipment, the PNC regime had severely curtailed the freedom of the press.
During the period May 1972 to May 1973, the Mirror newspaper was forced to close down three times for a total of two months because of the Government’s refusal and delay in granting licences for the importation of newsprint. Where were these voices then?
Even worse took place after the announcement of the date of elections. In early June, 1973, the Customs Department seized a consignment of newsprint for the Mirror.
It was not until strong pressure and condemnation from many quarters both inside and outside Guyana took place that the Government finally released the newsprint.
The PNC Government was trying to close down the Mirror newspaper, a paper closely associated with the People’s Progressive Party, which has for years been a severe critic of the PNC Government, yet no one protested outside the Office of the President in solidarity with the PPP.
Criticism of the Government for this move came from the Commonwealth Press Association which condemned the control of newsprint as a form of press control.
Seventeen-year-old Jagan Ramessar and 43-year-old Jack Bhola Nauth (Parmanand), the father of five, were shot dead at No.64 Village, Corentyne on election day by the Police. Where were CN Sharma and his friends then?
The rebroadcast three times of someone calling for the killing of the President cannot be condoned in any civilised country, and Mr. CN Sharma is responsible for any programme aired on his channel; the bottom line, he is the owner.
Mr. Robert Corbin is trying to exploit the situation because he is unpopular among his party comrades, and he should let good sense and judgment prevail and do the honourable thing.
Mohamed Khan


Discipline must be enforced on the airwaves


Dear Editor
The verdict is out and CNS-Channel Six is off the air.
I must say that discipline is lacking on the airwaves in Guyana and thus I fully agree with the decision of the Government. No media house must be allowed to publish or broadcast irresponsible statements that cannot be validated and are of a threatening nature.
Guyana has enough violence to now be faced with verbal TV violence.
I would like to empathise with Mr. Sharma, since he has done a service to Guyana by offering the “Man In The Street” an outlet in expressing themselves on the programme “The Voice of the People”. However, freedom of the press comes with a cost – the cost of ensuring that the published or broadcasted material is free of slander, free of libel and free of threats. I would like to encourage Mr. Sharma to invest urgently in a delaying mechanism to edit out the audio of irresponsible statements so that he can continue to serve the Guyanese people in a lawful manner.
Sasenarine Singh


President Jagdeo should not reconsider the action
taken against CNS Channel 6


Dear Editor,
I agree with Ramjattan that freedom of the press/expression is the lifeblood of any liberal constitutional democracy; but that notwithstanding, I am not aware that such freedom gives one the right to libel, slander, threaten, denigrate, malign, or ridicule people.
Similarly, freedom of movement does not give one the right to trespass, riot or loot.
Sharma is noted for his cynicism against public officials, for whom he has shown an abundance of disrespect, and this is reflected in his continuous re-broadcast of distasteful comments against members of the public, especially Government ministers.
Maybe people do not take him seriously in professional journalism, but continuously and knowingly re-broadcasting a threat to kill the President shows the contempt this man has for authority.
Of course, it is expected that the usual cabal of dissenters will support him, since this same cabal would even accuse the Government of farting if there is a bad smell in Georgetown.
With respect to the employees, they should be paid a severance pay, since the period of four months will create some hardship, and they should not be made to suffer because of Sharma’s ignorance.
The President should not reconsider his decision.
D. Sookdeo