Tough times ahead, but Guyanese can make it
THE International Monetary Fund (IMF) has sounded the warning and the people in the Caribbean, including Guyana, can brace themselves for some very harsh economic times. This is due mainly because of a slowdown in economic growth over the next two years as a result of a recession in the United States.
This a matter of grave concern to all of us as the IMF has painted a gloomy picture in terms of growth in the region which the institution says will slow to 4.4 percent this year and slowdown even further in 2009. Already the region’s people are buckling under severe food shortages and rising prices which have already led to social disorders in some countries in the region.
Global warming and climate change have already had telling effects on the world’s population and the prognosis is that millions of people will face starvation this year. This is indeed a sad tale, and quite rightly, Caribbean leaders have come together to form a common front to tackle food shortages and rising prices.
However, this will be an uphill task since the IMF has suggested that the Caribbean should not expect any relief from the rising cost of living which has hit countries across the world. The IMF has also predicted that prices in the region will increase by 7.9 percent this year while it is likely to drop back next year to 5.7 percent.
Only recently we saw riots in Haiti, Asia and Africa etc. which were prompted by soaring food prices that are hitting the vulnerable very hard.
The Guyana government has been keeping abreast with the situation and has already started taking certain steps to cushion some of the effects the rising prices will have on the people. The people recognise that in Guyana there are abundant supplies of food, especially agricultural produce, but some adjustments will have to be made to our eating culture.
Our Ministry of Agriculture has made tremendous strides and implemented numerous projects and programmes, to ensure that food supplies are sustained and not out of the reach of the average Guyanese. Some of the positive moves by the Ministry recently include diversification and a heavy injection of funds in the pig sector. Guyanese are aware that we have enough pork, beef, mutton, chicken, eggs and fish, vegetables and ground provision, rice and sugar, and in a move to bring down or regularize the price of flour and flour products, the government recently withdrew the licencing regime for the importation of the commodity.
At the moment we are in the process of harvesting a bumper rice crop which will satisfy both local demand and external markets, and when the state of the art sugar factory at Skeldon comes into operation later this year there will be increased sugar production from which the entire Guyanese nation will benefit.
While the signals are a source of worry, the Guyanese people are not likely to be so much affected like their CARICOM counterparts who depend largely on food imports to satisfy their needs.
The Guyana government must also be lauded for taking a firm position not to divert agricultural products for the manufacture of Ethanol fuel. This practice of using up large stocks of corn, wheat and other grains for the manufacture of Ethanol has significantly contributed to the shortage of supplies of these crops, and has also caused prices to increase.
We believe that with the resilience of the Guyanese people, it will not be too difficult for us to get out of this period, especially against the backdrop of our huge agricultural potential which has not been fully unleashed as yet.
Mr Sharma must be more professional
April 15, 2008
Dear Editor,
I really cannot understand the role of television personality Mr CN Sharma. I was told that Mr Sharma aired a person on his ‘Voice of the People’ programme calling for the death of the President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Now to my opinion this brings freedom of speech and professional journalism into disrepute. It is my gut feeling that Mr Sharma believes he is a powerful individual in this country. He speaks carelessly without due care and consideration. No intelligent person who pretends to be in the journalism field and is the owner of a television station should behave in such an irresponsible manner. He does not have any respect for the law but cries out when strong penalties are carried out against him. Not one of his advisors seems to know better because they are supporting him when he violates the law.
The President of this country is a human being like Mr Sharma and all others. Therefore from time to time he would make mistakes but how useful will it be if we join with the illiterate to use strong inappropriate words against him without thinking of the results.
I have one piece of advice for Mr CN Sharma, tone down and please do not get carried away with the support you are receiving with your ‘Voice of the People’ programme. This is the way people react when they can obtain something free of cost.
Think for yourself and apply just a small amount of professionalism when you are hosting your programme. I can tell you very honestly you were totally wrong to encourage that illiterate caller on air. Please accept your fault and let this ban be the last for your television station.
Yours faithfully,
Tajpaul Gainda
Support closure of Sharma
IT is most unfortunate that it has reached a stage where a local TV station has to be suspended because of unethical broadcasting. But the offence is very serious.
I fully support President Jagdeo for his action to ban the operation of Mr. Sharma’s television station for four months due to irresponsible broadcasting and breaching television protocols.
As I understand it, President Jagdeo did not suspend the Channel because of the remarks made on the first day but because of the presumptuousness of Mr. Sharma to air that exact programme three times without deleting or editing it. This is an act of sheer recklessness.
I read in the newspapers, Mr. Sharma is taking the issue to Court because his lawyer Nigel Hughes advised him that Mr. Jagdeo being the subject of the complaint was in no position to close the station. But Hughes did not tell Mr. Sharma that President Jagdeo is the Minister of Information and can make his rule in this regard and more so him being the threatened subject.
Sharma said he believes that the Government is not pleased with his decision to allow regular airtime to the Opposition Parties. Why would the Government be upset with this decision? I would more think that the Government feels sorry for Sharma since he is being used by the other so-called Parties as a tool to attack the Government, hoping to destabilize it.
Mr. Sharma you are wrong but want to play strong in this situation. Put yourself in the President’s boots. I think you would have revoked the licence rather than enforcing only a suspension.
Why don’t you come out of the clutches of your advisers? Don’t you realize they are using you, Mr. Sharma?
PATRICIA MAHENS
Govt. was elected by majority of people
ONCE again we are hearing that threatening the life of the President in the public media is freedom of speech.
Once again all must be reminded that freedom of speech comes with consequences.
It is most ludicrous for the AFC to compare the ruling PPP/C Government to Burnham and Hoyte illegal governments of the past.
The AFC must be reminded that this Government was elected by the majority of people for the people of Guyana.
Channel 6 and Sharma were very lucky to be on air for so long.
It's about time action be taken against this vile TV station and its owner.
AFC has to be out of its mind to say this Government is dictatorial and worse since the days of Burnham.
First of all, if this Government was dictatorial and worse, Sharma would never be on the air to make his mischief.
Secondly, the AFC would not be a political party to come to the defense of Sharma.
Thirdly, the AFC and Sharma will never be able to call for mass street protest in Guyana.
Fourthly, Sharma and the AFC would never have any news media in which to write about this episode.
If this PPP/C Government was dictatorial, the voices of Sharma, AFC and PNCR would have been silenced a very long time ago.
It's about time this Government act as it is mandated to act for the majority of people that elected it to Govern.
So it's bravo to the PPP/C Government and good riddance Sharma and Channel 6 are gone.
T. KING
Sharma must learn from mistakes
FREEDOM of speech and expression is healthy in any democratic society such as ours in Guyana.
However when threats are being uttered to any particular individual or groups then it’s not tolerated. And it’s being viewed as unwarranted and unwelcome.
Therefore a strong message is being sent to the proprietor of Channel 6 to be responsible for what the station is broadcasting to the world.
I must give credit to CNS Channel 6 for showcasing most of the shortcomings in society.
Many contents aired on Channel 6 are in the interest of the underprivileged. No one will deny that but there is the use of intemperate language that separates what is being considered acceptable.
There are certain limitations and guidelines that a medium needs to adopt and unfortunately this specific channel needs to understand that being controversial and not screening certain comments will end up in this current dilemma that they are being faced with in having their broadcasting licence revoked for four months. This is not the first time Channel 6 was warned for unwarranted comments and unhealthy contents aired to the populace.
When a democratic Head of State is being threatened with death, it’s totally unacceptable. And maybe this channel will understand and reconsider what is allowed to be broadcast to the world.
These days in Guyana everyone easily criticizes the government even for the heavy rainfall … There was once a time when Guyanese could not even hold peaceful demonstrations. How soon we forget.
I sometimes wonder if a television transmission licence would have been granted to so many independent broadcasting houses in Guyana if the opposition PNC regime were in power. Let alone criticizing them.
Any democratic society in the world will do exactly what was done to Channel 6. Some will go to the extent in revoking their licence indefinitely,
So Mr. Sharma during this suspension period its time to rethink and learn from the mistakes that Channel 6 had made to cause harm to itself and tarnish its image.
AYUBE KHAN
Toronto Canada
PPP says Channel Six has a history of violations
THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) yesterday commented on the suspension of Channel Six licence, which, it claimed, is causing opposition forces to make the issue one of freedom of speech.
A press release from the ruling party added that Channel Six has had a long history of violating broadcasting rules, and to talk about killing any individual is unacceptable. To do so in relation to the Head of State is much worse.
The statement said it should be noted that if the Channel Six proprietor recognized that a caller talking about killing the President was a violation when it occurred live on television, why should he continue to rebroadcast the same programme at least on three occasions.
The PPP noted that this is not the first time that Channel Six sought to create problems and incite the people.
“We recall that during the 2005 floods, Channel Six aired a programme showing the President dancing with Minister Gail Tiexeira. The impression conveyed was that while a large section of people were suffering, the president and ministers were enjoying themselves,” the release said.
It pointed out that in fact the clip showed on the station was taken at a Christmas party a year earlier.
“This type of behaviour is unacceptable in our democracy,” it continued.
“We must have standards and ensure that in our society laws are upheld,” the release said.
The PPP said that it hopes that such violations of the broadcasting licence would not be repeated by Channel Six or any other medium in the future
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Racist Caribbean Media?
Dear Editor
I am being charitable to the Caribbean Media by not agreeing with my friend from Ozone Park, Queens, who describes the Caribbean media as "racist". He asked which Caribbean country will allow someone to go on TV and threaten to kill the Head of State? Not once, but twice. Well, the truth is I can't see it happening in the New York where I live. The media here are much more responsible than Sharma's CNC in Guyana; they will not allow any crazy kook to go on aair threatening the President of the Unites States or for that matter, any politician.
I doubt that would be allowed in Trinidad, or Barbados, or some of the smaller islands that are still British colonies. Jamaica? Maybe, but I don't think so. Anyway, the TV station's license in Guyana was suspended for four months. You would not believe the hypocrisy and double-standards of Caribbean media who let loose a fusillade against the Guyanese government, screaming and whining about 'freedom of the Press', blah blah blah.
Recently, they were screaming about Stabroek News not getting ads from the government. Now, friends, you tell me if all the media in Trinidad are allocated same number of Government ads. Everyone knows 95.5fm is the 'official' lottery station and gets more ads than most radio stations; Newsday is the favored newspaper, getting more ad than other print media. Indian-oriented radio stations receive less.
Someone should have a friendly chat with these hypocritical Caribbean media about thei disgraceful anti-Guyana Government stance while they ignore imbalances in their homeland. Like I said, I don' think they are racist by attacking the Indian-based Government in Guyana. I give them the doubt that they are honourable men and women.
Fortunately, we have some journalists with integrity and honour, with the testicular fortitude to go against the hypocritical stance of the majority of Caribbean media. See below for Rickey Singh's article "MEDIA ABUSE AND FREEDOM", KAIETEUR NEWS' Editorial and Columns, and letters published in the Guyanese media. Oh no, not the Stabroek News, they are now the unofficial mouthpiece of the Opposition and are rabidlty anti-Government, anti-Jagdeo.
How many of these self-righteous Guyanese media would have been allowed to rant and rave under the Burnham dictatorial Mugabesque regime? No, they are not racist, they simply can't live with a Government lawfully and legally elected by the Guyanese people, a government that just so happens to be supported by the majority of Indo-Guyanese while the anti-Government media is more than 75% Afro-Guyanese.
I urge you to be objective: don't listen only to the PNC lackeys and anti-Jagdeo marhcing band in the Guyanese and Caribbean media; there are many other journalists in Guyana, or who know of Guyana, with the real story. I am sure the Caribbean media, including the Trinidad Express, will print this letter and Rickey Singh's column, who is carried regularly in the EXPRESS newspaper.
Richard Seecharan
Caribbean Center for Democracy and Social Justice, Intl.
Queens, New York
CCDSJintl@gmail.com
Guyana Chronicle, Sunday April 13, 2008
MEDIA ABUSE AND FREEDOM
An Editorial Viewpoint
By RICKEY SINGH
IN GUYANA, following the political culture of party paramountcy that smothered press freedom, there has evolved, over the years, the twin problem of gross abuse by the private media in opposition to government's policies and programmes and, on the other hand, sycophantic misuse of state media to propagandise achievements.
Much of these scenarios are often played out primarily in the electronic media sector where what passes for "television networks" operate in a virtual wildwest atmosphere. The anti-government media bawl 'foul play', when challenged by reports in state media, and both often engage in a mix of arrogance and poor professional judgement. The ultimate losers in the process are, of course, the Guyanese people who are quite familiar with examples.
Regrettably, media organisations representing practitioners of the journalism profession get caught up emotionally in the cross-fire between the government and the private sector media. A common cry is of "denial of press freedom".
With next month's observance of "World Press Freedom Day" (May 3)--an occasion designated by the United Nations to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the media--we will no doubt be treated to some old and new developments in Guyana and elsewhere about media freedom and responsibility.
This past week in Guyana came news about the resumption of public sector advertisements to the Stabroek News. It is a welcome development, though no official explanation was offered up to the time of writing.
It's quite likely that no such official explanation may be forthcoming, particularly as it was never publicly announced when the actual crude implementation of decision to suspend the flow of ads was taken 17 months ago--to the benefit of another privately owned newspaper.
Then followed announcement of the decision by President Bharrat Jagdeo (also Minister responsible for Communication) to suspend, for four months, effective from midnight yesterday, the licence under which "CNS Channel 6" has been operating by its owner, businessman and politician Chandra Narine Sharma.
The action followed recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) that had investigated a highly inflammatory "Voice of the People" programme on Channel 6. There were subsequent invitations to Sharma, first by Dr Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, and later by the President himself, to discuss infringements of the licence granted Channel 6 and to show cause why sanctions should not be taken, including suspension of licence.
The transcript of the relevant offensive claim of "incitement to crime" with a specific threat by a caller to "kill (President) Jagdeo", was released to the local and regional media by GINA. The alleged "crime" was made all the worse by an unedited repeat of the relevant programme, even after the ACB had received an apology from Sharma.
Without going into details and implications of this case at this time, those who have quickly jumped to the defence of CNS Channel 6--starting, predictably, with the opposition parties--but surprisingly including also the Guyana Press Association and one editor who should know better--some attention ought to be paid to a current related controversy in Jamaica.
It is the case of recommended sanction by the Jamaica Broadcasting Commission (JBC)--the first such body to exist in CARICOM--against the "NewsTalk 93FM" radio station for transmitting "derogatory and abusive comments" by one of its talk show hosts (Kingsley Stuart) that included verbal salvos against an employee of the University of the West Indies, and failure to offer an appropriate apology.
The matter has been referred for relevant action by the Minister of Information (Olivia 'Babsy' Grange) with suspension of the station's licence as an option, but with the minister having the right to exercise discretion, depending on a written response from the management of "NewsTalk 93 FM".
A decision in this matter may be forthcoming within the next 48 hours. Those in Guyana who behave, quite expediently at times, as if developments about freedom of the press have no relevance to their own expressed local concerns and agendas, should, with some humility, restrain themselves in responding to the current case of CNS Channel 6 and the Jagdeo administration.
My column
Turning a wrong into a right
Today, I run the risk of being ostracized because I have a view that may not coincide with the rest of the crowd over the suspension of the licence of CNS 6. I may not be the best there is to argue a point and I am not going to fool myself that I am a paragon of virtue but I must add my two cents here because on Friday night I saw many of my colleagues rushing to support Mr. Chandra Narine Sharma in the wake of the revocation of the licence for his television station.
As I sat at Kaieteur News trying to put the Saturday paper to bed, I watched some of my media colleagues making their appearance on the CNS 6 screen and condemning the suspension. There were those reporters and other staff members who know me very well and know that I am never one to shy away from a confrontation, especially if I believe that the person at the receiving end is being victimized. They jokingly asked me why was I not at CNS 6, knowing fully well that I still had the paper to put to bed.
Overwhelmingly my colleagues contended that President Bharrat Jagdeo was wrong to order the suspension. Some contended that the penalty was too harsh and still others took the moral high ground that since the President was at the centre of the issue he should have recused himself from passing judgement against Mr. Sharma.
I am inclined to support the latter view because I firmly believe that if one is aggrieved, one is not likely to be impartial. I have been the victim of such a scenario and the pleadings got nowhere.
Early last year Justice B.S. Roy contended that I had committed contempt against him when I wrote a column questioning his ruling, or more particularly, his decision to grant an injunction against businessman Umraow. My lawyer was none other than Khemraj Ramjattan who was also the lawyer for Mr. Sharma on Friday.
While he did say to me that Justice Roy should not hear the contempt, he never made such an argument before Justice Roy because he knew that such a pleading would have fallen on deaf ears. It had happened numerous times before and in each case the judge heard the contempt. There was precedence for President Jagdeo's action and set by none other than the court.
About the President being wrong I hold the opposing view. Immediately I recalled the Super Bowl half time show during which Janet Jackson performed and inadvertently had her breast exposed. It was an accident but the people who regulate the American media landscape, even if they did think so, decided that a wrong had been committed and they were not sparing with their punishment. No amount of apology saved Janet Jackson or the television station that broadcast the show.
The fine levied against the television network would have crippled the Guyana economy and I can say nothing about Janet Jackson's punishment. There was no hue and cry by the 250 million Americans because they know the rules.
My contention is that Mr. Sharma knew the rules and therefore he should have been prepared for the sanction when it came. This may sound harsh but I am not inclined to allow my emotions to determine any issue.
Many years ago, ever since I was the Editor-in-chief with The Evening News, I often heard Mr. Anthony Vieira say that he would not be caught broadcasting any live call-in programme. He knew the angers and he took great pains to avoid the pitfalls.
In the case of Mr. Sharma, I recalled talking to him about a delayed broadcast system some seven years ago. He said that it was not necessary because the people were educated enough to know that they cannot say certain things on live television. Others of my colleagues contended that there was none, such is the level of broadcast knowledge among my colleagues.
Mr. Sharma, for all the faith in the people, ended up getting cussed with the foulest language on his own programme. That should have been a wake-up call but for some reason it wasn't. He continued along his merry way, undoubtedly working in what was for him, the masses who had no voice in the society.
Mr. Sharma has had his licence suspended before, on one occasion for one month and his move to the court did not save him. By the time it came up he was back on the air. There were also threats of suspension against HBTV Channel 9 and in one case that station had to go off the air for three days. With a measure of compassion, the people who instituted the penalty allowed the sanction to occur at a time when the station would have lost the least revenue. This was not the case with Mr. C.N. Sharma who later bemoaned the fact that he was not given adequate notice. He had advertising commitments and to be given no time to honour them would seem harsh but the legal minded people would argue that compassion is often not crucial to a decision.
I must now examine the perceived threat. The caller proclaimed that she would kill Jagdeo if anything should happen to her family. On Friday night, Mr. Sharma described her as a 78-year-old woman. The legal representatives said that the government should have gone against the caller and in my book they should have. But it is here that I see another problem. The very public would have cried shame on the government for picking on an old woman.
It happened when a woman poisoned her two children. She had killed in a most horrible way but the society felt pity for her and none other than Dr Cheddi Jagan, as President, proclaimed that the woman would not suffer the death penalty even before the case was determined in the courts.
Then there is the case of the 71-year-old woman who is accused of battering her reputed husband. Believe it or not, there were people, among them reporters, who felt that the woman should not have been charged. They would not have held the same view had the killer been a man.
Guyana is a peculiar society that tends to ignore petty wrongs until these become monsters. A boy kicks a man and the man slaps him, rest assured that the people in the vicinity would cry shame on the man. It is our penchant for ignoring the little things that has made us the complaining people we are when these things come back to haunt us.
Mr. Ramjattan said, Friday night, that the government was using a hammer to kill an ant and that may appear to be the case. Interestingly, none is disputing that Mr. Sharma broke the rules and some punishment is due. It is the severity that has people talking although I wonder whether there would not have been talk had there not been any punishment at all.
Having said all that, I must find fault with the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting. The body, on February 29, informed Mr. Sharma that he was forgiven for the broadcast on February 21 and that his apology was accepted. The committee went on to state that there would be no action for the ill-advised broadcast of the old woman's comments.
Then on March 10 the very committee decided to punish him because he had rebroadcast the offending statement on February 22 and again on February 23, long before the very committee had exonerated him. That is gross inefficiency.
The suspension issue would be talked about for some time because some people are put of a job at this time when living conditions are not any easier. I hasten to say that Mr. Sharma is not a poor man and he may consider paying the staff during the period of the suspension because when all is said and done, he is in part responsible for their unemployment.
Peeping Tom
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ACT ULTRA VIRES
If the order closing Channel 6 for a period was made by the President, then there is nothing that anyone can do to reverse that decision no matter how wrong, right or indifferent it may be anyone feels about that decision.
One of the lawyers supporting Mr. Sharma claimed on television that the President was breaching the law. I do not agree.
It was further suggested that in cases where the President acts ultra vires, that his constitutional immunity does not hold. I also do not agree with this point because the constitution is far from mute on this score.
The actions of the President cannot be inquired into by any court of law. As such the sanctions imposed by the President cannot be the subject of judicial review.
Article 182 of the Constitution of Guyana provides that no act done by the President shall be challenged, whether criminally or civilly, in a court of law. This speaks for itself.
The fact of the matter however is that there is no need at all for the President or his advisers to even invoke Article 182 in his defence. The President is the subject minister for communication. The subject minister has certain powers under the law amongst which is the suspension or revocation of a broadcasting license. So the President as the subject minister for communications cannot be acting ultra vires in the case of CNS Channel 6.
I equally reject the argument that the President cannot stand in judgment of himself. It has been argued that the President is the subject of the complaint made against Mr. Sharma and therefore it constitutes a clear case of bias for him to be adjudicating on the matter.
Those who advance this argument seem to have missed some important things. The first one is that the President is not the subject of the complaint. The President did not need to make a determination as to whether the statements made about him were appropriate.
Mr. Sharma through his apology to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) implicitly deemed the statements as inappropriate.
So there was need for the President to pronounce on the comments made about him.
The issue was not so much what was said about the President, but rather, having heard what was said, why were the comments allegedly rebroadcast. Therefore, the only issue at hand was the question of the penalty to be imposed.
In this regard, it has been argued that the ACB merely asked Mr. Sharma to apologize. I am not aware that the ACB has any such powers to impose sanctions. The ACB is merely an advisory body.
The second thing that was missed by those who claim that the President cannot sit in judgment of himself was that the President did try to have someone else hear the matter. He did ask Dr. Luncheon to deal with the issue but Mr. Sharma through his lawyers filed an objection to Dr. Luncheon hearing the matter.
So what other options were there open to the President, as the subject minister, other than to conduct the hearing himself? I hope the Guyana Press Association which through its President indicated that it was interested in an impartial and transparent process would appreciate the objection that was made when the matter was to have been heard by Dr. Luncheon.
Further, I do not agree that the President in summoning Mr. Sharma to a hearing was usurping the functions of the ACB. As indicated before, the ACB was constituted as an advisory body to the subject minister.
I am not aware that the ACB has any standing in the law but I am subject to correction. Even if however it does, the ACB is not the adjudicating body. Those powers are vested in the subject minister who is advised by the ACB but who is not compelled to go along with this advice.
The ACB, it must be recalled, emerged out of discussions between former leader of the PNCR, Desmond Hoyte and President Jagdeo. The ACB came about because of the fears that the powers granted to the subject minister in the wireless laws could be used in an arbitrary manner. Those powers, as is known, give the subject minister the right to suspend or revoke the licenses of television stations.
Hoyte was interested in ensuring a fair process and of ensuring that the subject minister would not use these powers at his whim and fancy. Thus, it was agreed that when it comes to applying sanctions for alleged violations, the subject minister would be advised by the ACB. Whether this was implemented in law, I am still not certain.
The agreement between Hoyte and Jagdeo provided for the opposition to recommend one of the persons on the ACB. But it must also be clear that person does not represent the PNCR. That person is there in his professional capacity.
It is a similar situation with the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The opposition nominates some commissioners but this does not mean that those persons are opposition representatives.
The ACB was constituted by Hoyte and the government as an advisory body to the subject minister. However, later when a television station aligned to the PNC was taken off the air for a few days, the PNCR by its public pronouncements de-recognized the very ACB that it helped establish.
During that episode, the PNCR was highly critical of the ACB and it was surprising that as part of the defence of Mr. Sharma, the PNCR referred to the admonitions of the ACB.
As things stand, therefore, the only issue having regards to the apologies offered by Mr. Sharma was the nature of the sanctions to be imposed on his station.
The station will now be off the air for four months. Those who say this is too harsh should therefore indicate whether they would have agreed with a lesser penalty. But in so far as to whether the President acted within his powers, there can be no doubt that he did.
KAIETEUR NEWS Editorial
Sunday April 13m, 2008
Consistency is the key
The decision by President Bharrat Jagdeo to suspend the licence of CNS 6 has been the talking point ever since that station went off the air at midnight on Friday last. There have been a lot of legal pronouncements, and even laymen have been arguing law as they see it.
One argument is that the President had no locus standi to effect the suspension, given that there was no recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting for such a suspension.
Indeed, the Advisory Committee is merely what the name suggests—advisory. There can be no stipulation, therefore, that the advice must be accepted, as is so often the case with most advice proffered by people entrusted with such a task. The argument, therefore, is that if there is no advice then there should be no action.
It would suggest, therefore, that those people who have been appointed to advise the President are the people who must dictate whether he acts or not. But in no part of the world must the tendering of advice precipitate action. Life does not operate that way, and surely no people, having voted for a leader, would expect that leader to act only when he is advised to do so.
The guideline that governs the ACB clearly states that the ACB would act on complaints from the public and would make a determination, then advise the Minister of Information about the recommendation for execution. By the same token, the Minister, of his own volition, could be a complainant.
No law would recommend that the complainant under such circumstances, report to the ACB, which would then listen to the complaint and then make a recommendation to the very complainant for determination.
The complainant this time around was President Bharrat Jagdeo who, because he was the aggrieved party, opted to have his Cabinet Secretary determine the issue. The person against whom the complaint was made decided to move to the courts, precluding the Cabinet Secretary from hearing the matter on the grounds that he had no locus standi.
This meant that the President, who is also the Minister of Information, was made to act in that capacity; and act he did, much to the annoyance of sections of the society, to the extent that people are citing social reasons.
What must be taken into account here is the fact that a wrong was committed and there was action, no matter how harsh that action may be. Harsh actions invariably hurt people, and there is bound to be some fallout.
When all is said and done, the real problem appears to be the application of double standards. A prevailing view is that justice is not dispensed evenly, and it is here that one must now call on the relevant authorities to ensure that justice must not only appear to be done, but must be done in a manner that the same punishment for the same offence is meted out to the errant individual or group.
This time around, the errant broadcaster is CNS 6 and that station has been dealt with condignly. One is now left to wonder whether similar condign action would have been taken against a broadcasting entity that might have committed a similar breach.
Make no mistake, there have been some serious breaches of the broadcast licences by all and sundry who accommodate live call-in programmes. Some of the vilest language could be heard on stations dubbed as entities that openly support the Government, and one cannot at any time recall any sanction—at least a sanction to which the public was privy.
To make matters even worse, things are such that rumours begin to surface. One rumour was that armed ranks had surrounded the home of Mark Benschop because he dared to call in to CNS 6 in the wake of the report of the closure. This was not true but it surely highlighted the way in which people see the Government acting against its critics or those perceived to be perennial critics.
If justice is dispensed fairly then there would be no such rumours and feelings of ill will and charges such as we are hearing at this time. Perhaps no one has gone on any station with a threat to kill anyone; perhaps that threat was what provoked the suspension.
It is time that there be consistent approaches to breaches of the regulations.
Sharma was ill advised
The decision by CNS Channel 6 owner and host of the 'Voice of the People' programme, CN Sharma to go to the courts to cancel a meeting called by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat with him was ill advised.
The meeting as I understand it, was called for Sharma to show cause why his license should not be revoked or suspended following remarks made by a caller to one of his live shows a few weeks ago.
I was listening to that programme and from the response that Sharma gave to the caller, I am of the opinion that he knew that he was in trouble immediately as the caller uttered the damaging statement.
Sharma is no dunce; he may not be very proficient in his articulation, but he 'knows where it's at'. He even went as far to apologise after the caller was cut off. So, why the big fuss now?
As far as I am aware the Government or Bharrat Jagdeo has never made any attempt to close down Channel 6 or have his programme pulled off the air. With the number of infringements being committed daily on that channel it would be the easiest thing to have the license suspended and or revoked.
I have heard persons being vilified, abused and threatened on that channel, some by name and some by their designation and place of employment. There seems to be no attempt at 'quality control' so persons do and say as they please in the name of freedom of expression.
It is not uncommon for you to hear persons threatening senior public officers by telling them that "I will put you on Sharma." Sharma and the Management of the channel need to be weary of this. This could also backfire on them.
There is a movie by the name of 'Some Times in April' which was shown recently on several channels. It is a movie that tells of some of the atrocities that transpired during the genocide in Rwanda when the Tutsis were being killed by the Hutus.
That Genocide was sparked by some irresponsible reporting that led to one journalist being taken before that international criminal court for crimes against humanity.
These are things that persons who advise, Sharma if they had his interest at heart, would have been telling him. I can understand Corbin and the PNCR jumping, it seems, to his aid, after all they have their free air time to protect.
Sharma needs to be careful with these guys; he would do well to remember the treatment meted out to him after the failure of CREEP (committee for the re-election of the President) to have Hoyte re-elected in 92.
We all know that there is no part of the world that any person would have been allowed to 'carry on' the way that Sharma does and get away with it. The freedom of speech, like any other freedom, has its limitations. Whenever these freedoms are exercised, they should not cause other persons to not enjoy their freedoms also.
To issue a threat is unlawful in any part of the world notwithstanding the freedom of speech. The same goes for libel and a number of other offences that could be committed by speech.
If it is that Sharma did not willfully allow the infringement, then he should not be fearful of attending the meeting and presenting his case. He will have to present a defence anyhow. We have this attitude in Guyana that it is inappropriate for the authorities to ask some one to explain their actions. We see the same thing happening when the police stop persons during their routine operations.
This culture has evolved as a result of the propaganda that continues to be published by opposition elements. This could be one of the causes of the daring disregard for the rule of law and order that has be exhibited by some sections of the society.
Sharma has a golden opportunity to come good; he should apologise and use his programme to educate, while entertaining.
I am not at all surprised by the PNCR statement on the issue, given the quality of the party's weekly dose of hate speech in the form of the Nation Watch programme. They have every thing to gain by conflict in the society and so they will encourage conflict where ever they could create it.
The claim that government is harassing Sharma is amusing. It seems as if it is all right for Sharma to sit in his studio and harass whomever he chooses daily; but if any person should call him to account for his actions, then it is harassment.
Jean Ramroop
I wholeheartedly agree with the Government
Many will suffer in terms of providing for their families, etc, for the next four months, now that CN Sharma's TV Channel- Six has been pulled off the air. Well I wholeheartedly agree with the Government on this matter, and Mr. Sharma had better be thankful that his channel wasn't suspended for a longer period. That is the result when those who have been entrusted with the disseminating of the day's news, current affairs, etc, cross the parameters of good journalism and enter into an arena that promotes hate, and discord.
Surely, the next four months will allow Mr. Sharma to think about what he allowed to happen on that call-in programme that brought on this whole mess.
Surely, this must be an example to others who may want to emulate this kind of political grandstanding. They must realise that in Guyana there is the law of the press, and boundaries that should not be entered and crossed. If they do, then there would be consequences.
I am being charitable to the Caribbean Media by not agreeing with my friend from Ozone Park, Queens, who describes the Caribbean media as "racist". He asked which Caribbean country will allow someone to go on TV and threaten to kill the Head of State? Not once, but twice. Well, the truth is I can't see it happening in the New York where I live. The media here are much more responsible than Sharma's CNC in Guyana; they will not allow any crazy kook to go on aair threatening the President of the Unites States or for that matter, any politician.
I doubt that would be allowed in Trinidad, or Barbados, or some of the smaller islands that are still British colonies. Jamaica? Maybe, but I don't think so. Anyway, the TV station's license in Guyana was suspended for four months. You would not believe the hypocrisy and double-standards of Caribbean media who let loose a fusillade against the Guyanese government, screaming and whining about 'freedom of the Press', blah blah blah.
Recently, they were screaming about Stabroek News not getting ads from the government. Now, friends, you tell me if all the media in Trinidad are allocated same number of Government ads. Everyone knows 95.5fm is the 'official' lottery station and gets more ads than most radio stations; Newsday is the favored newspaper, getting more ad than other print media. Indian-oriented radio stations receive less.
Someone should have a friendly chat with these hypocritical Caribbean media about thei disgraceful anti-Guyana Government stance while they ignore imbalances in their homeland. Like I said, I don' think they are racist by attacking the Indian-based Government in Guyana. I give them the doubt that they are honourable men and women.
Fortunately, we have some journalists with integrity and honour, with the testicular fortitude to go against the hypocritical stance of the majority of Caribbean media. See below for Rickey Singh's article "MEDIA ABUSE AND FREEDOM", KAIETEUR NEWS' Editorial and Columns, and letters published in the Guyanese media. Oh no, not the Stabroek News, they are now the unofficial mouthpiece of the Opposition and are rabidlty anti-Government, anti-Jagdeo.
How many of these self-righteous Guyanese media would have been allowed to rant and rave under the Burnham dictatorial Mugabesque regime? No, they are not racist, they simply can't live with a Government lawfully and legally elected by the Guyanese people, a government that just so happens to be supported by the majority of Indo-Guyanese while the anti-Government media is more than 75% Afro-Guyanese.
I urge you to be objective: don't listen only to the PNC lackeys and anti-Jagdeo marhcing band in the Guyanese and Caribbean media; there are many other journalists in Guyana, or who know of Guyana, with the real story. I am sure the Caribbean media, including the Trinidad Express, will print this letter and Rickey Singh's column, who is carried regularly in the EXPRESS newspaper.
Richard Seecharan
Caribbean Center for Democracy and Social Justice, Intl.
Queens, New York
CCDSJintl@gmail.com
Guyana Chronicle, Sunday April 13, 2008
MEDIA ABUSE AND FREEDOM
An Editorial Viewpoint
By RICKEY SINGH
IN GUYANA, following the political culture of party paramountcy that smothered press freedom, there has evolved, over the years, the twin problem of gross abuse by the private media in opposition to government's policies and programmes and, on the other hand, sycophantic misuse of state media to propagandise achievements.
Much of these scenarios are often played out primarily in the electronic media sector where what passes for "television networks" operate in a virtual wildwest atmosphere. The anti-government media bawl 'foul play', when challenged by reports in state media, and both often engage in a mix of arrogance and poor professional judgement. The ultimate losers in the process are, of course, the Guyanese people who are quite familiar with examples.
Regrettably, media organisations representing practitioners of the journalism profession get caught up emotionally in the cross-fire between the government and the private sector media. A common cry is of "denial of press freedom".
With next month's observance of "World Press Freedom Day" (May 3)--an occasion designated by the United Nations to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the media--we will no doubt be treated to some old and new developments in Guyana and elsewhere about media freedom and responsibility.
This past week in Guyana came news about the resumption of public sector advertisements to the Stabroek News. It is a welcome development, though no official explanation was offered up to the time of writing.
It's quite likely that no such official explanation may be forthcoming, particularly as it was never publicly announced when the actual crude implementation of decision to suspend the flow of ads was taken 17 months ago--to the benefit of another privately owned newspaper.
Then followed announcement of the decision by President Bharrat Jagdeo (also Minister responsible for Communication) to suspend, for four months, effective from midnight yesterday, the licence under which "CNS Channel 6" has been operating by its owner, businessman and politician Chandra Narine Sharma.
The action followed recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) that had investigated a highly inflammatory "Voice of the People" programme on Channel 6. There were subsequent invitations to Sharma, first by Dr Roger Luncheon, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, and later by the President himself, to discuss infringements of the licence granted Channel 6 and to show cause why sanctions should not be taken, including suspension of licence.
The transcript of the relevant offensive claim of "incitement to crime" with a specific threat by a caller to "kill (President) Jagdeo", was released to the local and regional media by GINA. The alleged "crime" was made all the worse by an unedited repeat of the relevant programme, even after the ACB had received an apology from Sharma.
Without going into details and implications of this case at this time, those who have quickly jumped to the defence of CNS Channel 6--starting, predictably, with the opposition parties--but surprisingly including also the Guyana Press Association and one editor who should know better--some attention ought to be paid to a current related controversy in Jamaica.
It is the case of recommended sanction by the Jamaica Broadcasting Commission (JBC)--the first such body to exist in CARICOM--against the "NewsTalk 93FM" radio station for transmitting "derogatory and abusive comments" by one of its talk show hosts (Kingsley Stuart) that included verbal salvos against an employee of the University of the West Indies, and failure to offer an appropriate apology.
The matter has been referred for relevant action by the Minister of Information (Olivia 'Babsy' Grange) with suspension of the station's licence as an option, but with the minister having the right to exercise discretion, depending on a written response from the management of "NewsTalk 93 FM".
A decision in this matter may be forthcoming within the next 48 hours. Those in Guyana who behave, quite expediently at times, as if developments about freedom of the press have no relevance to their own expressed local concerns and agendas, should, with some humility, restrain themselves in responding to the current case of CNS Channel 6 and the Jagdeo administration.
My column
Turning a wrong into a right
Today, I run the risk of being ostracized because I have a view that may not coincide with the rest of the crowd over the suspension of the licence of CNS 6. I may not be the best there is to argue a point and I am not going to fool myself that I am a paragon of virtue but I must add my two cents here because on Friday night I saw many of my colleagues rushing to support Mr. Chandra Narine Sharma in the wake of the revocation of the licence for his television station.
As I sat at Kaieteur News trying to put the Saturday paper to bed, I watched some of my media colleagues making their appearance on the CNS 6 screen and condemning the suspension. There were those reporters and other staff members who know me very well and know that I am never one to shy away from a confrontation, especially if I believe that the person at the receiving end is being victimized. They jokingly asked me why was I not at CNS 6, knowing fully well that I still had the paper to put to bed.
Overwhelmingly my colleagues contended that President Bharrat Jagdeo was wrong to order the suspension. Some contended that the penalty was too harsh and still others took the moral high ground that since the President was at the centre of the issue he should have recused himself from passing judgement against Mr. Sharma.
I am inclined to support the latter view because I firmly believe that if one is aggrieved, one is not likely to be impartial. I have been the victim of such a scenario and the pleadings got nowhere.
Early last year Justice B.S. Roy contended that I had committed contempt against him when I wrote a column questioning his ruling, or more particularly, his decision to grant an injunction against businessman Umraow. My lawyer was none other than Khemraj Ramjattan who was also the lawyer for Mr. Sharma on Friday.
While he did say to me that Justice Roy should not hear the contempt, he never made such an argument before Justice Roy because he knew that such a pleading would have fallen on deaf ears. It had happened numerous times before and in each case the judge heard the contempt. There was precedence for President Jagdeo's action and set by none other than the court.
About the President being wrong I hold the opposing view. Immediately I recalled the Super Bowl half time show during which Janet Jackson performed and inadvertently had her breast exposed. It was an accident but the people who regulate the American media landscape, even if they did think so, decided that a wrong had been committed and they were not sparing with their punishment. No amount of apology saved Janet Jackson or the television station that broadcast the show.
The fine levied against the television network would have crippled the Guyana economy and I can say nothing about Janet Jackson's punishment. There was no hue and cry by the 250 million Americans because they know the rules.
My contention is that Mr. Sharma knew the rules and therefore he should have been prepared for the sanction when it came. This may sound harsh but I am not inclined to allow my emotions to determine any issue.
Many years ago, ever since I was the Editor-in-chief with The Evening News, I often heard Mr. Anthony Vieira say that he would not be caught broadcasting any live call-in programme. He knew the angers and he took great pains to avoid the pitfalls.
In the case of Mr. Sharma, I recalled talking to him about a delayed broadcast system some seven years ago. He said that it was not necessary because the people were educated enough to know that they cannot say certain things on live television. Others of my colleagues contended that there was none, such is the level of broadcast knowledge among my colleagues.
Mr. Sharma, for all the faith in the people, ended up getting cussed with the foulest language on his own programme. That should have been a wake-up call but for some reason it wasn't. He continued along his merry way, undoubtedly working in what was for him, the masses who had no voice in the society.
Mr. Sharma has had his licence suspended before, on one occasion for one month and his move to the court did not save him. By the time it came up he was back on the air. There were also threats of suspension against HBTV Channel 9 and in one case that station had to go off the air for three days. With a measure of compassion, the people who instituted the penalty allowed the sanction to occur at a time when the station would have lost the least revenue. This was not the case with Mr. C.N. Sharma who later bemoaned the fact that he was not given adequate notice. He had advertising commitments and to be given no time to honour them would seem harsh but the legal minded people would argue that compassion is often not crucial to a decision.
I must now examine the perceived threat. The caller proclaimed that she would kill Jagdeo if anything should happen to her family. On Friday night, Mr. Sharma described her as a 78-year-old woman. The legal representatives said that the government should have gone against the caller and in my book they should have. But it is here that I see another problem. The very public would have cried shame on the government for picking on an old woman.
It happened when a woman poisoned her two children. She had killed in a most horrible way but the society felt pity for her and none other than Dr Cheddi Jagan, as President, proclaimed that the woman would not suffer the death penalty even before the case was determined in the courts.
Then there is the case of the 71-year-old woman who is accused of battering her reputed husband. Believe it or not, there were people, among them reporters, who felt that the woman should not have been charged. They would not have held the same view had the killer been a man.
Guyana is a peculiar society that tends to ignore petty wrongs until these become monsters. A boy kicks a man and the man slaps him, rest assured that the people in the vicinity would cry shame on the man. It is our penchant for ignoring the little things that has made us the complaining people we are when these things come back to haunt us.
Mr. Ramjattan said, Friday night, that the government was using a hammer to kill an ant and that may appear to be the case. Interestingly, none is disputing that Mr. Sharma broke the rules and some punishment is due. It is the severity that has people talking although I wonder whether there would not have been talk had there not been any punishment at all.
Having said all that, I must find fault with the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting. The body, on February 29, informed Mr. Sharma that he was forgiven for the broadcast on February 21 and that his apology was accepted. The committee went on to state that there would be no action for the ill-advised broadcast of the old woman's comments.
Then on March 10 the very committee decided to punish him because he had rebroadcast the offending statement on February 22 and again on February 23, long before the very committee had exonerated him. That is gross inefficiency.
The suspension issue would be talked about for some time because some people are put of a job at this time when living conditions are not any easier. I hasten to say that Mr. Sharma is not a poor man and he may consider paying the staff during the period of the suspension because when all is said and done, he is in part responsible for their unemployment.
Peeping Tom
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ACT ULTRA VIRES
If the order closing Channel 6 for a period was made by the President, then there is nothing that anyone can do to reverse that decision no matter how wrong, right or indifferent it may be anyone feels about that decision.
One of the lawyers supporting Mr. Sharma claimed on television that the President was breaching the law. I do not agree.
It was further suggested that in cases where the President acts ultra vires, that his constitutional immunity does not hold. I also do not agree with this point because the constitution is far from mute on this score.
The actions of the President cannot be inquired into by any court of law. As such the sanctions imposed by the President cannot be the subject of judicial review.
Article 182 of the Constitution of Guyana provides that no act done by the President shall be challenged, whether criminally or civilly, in a court of law. This speaks for itself.
The fact of the matter however is that there is no need at all for the President or his advisers to even invoke Article 182 in his defence. The President is the subject minister for communication. The subject minister has certain powers under the law amongst which is the suspension or revocation of a broadcasting license. So the President as the subject minister for communications cannot be acting ultra vires in the case of CNS Channel 6.
I equally reject the argument that the President cannot stand in judgment of himself. It has been argued that the President is the subject of the complaint made against Mr. Sharma and therefore it constitutes a clear case of bias for him to be adjudicating on the matter.
Those who advance this argument seem to have missed some important things. The first one is that the President is not the subject of the complaint. The President did not need to make a determination as to whether the statements made about him were appropriate.
Mr. Sharma through his apology to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) implicitly deemed the statements as inappropriate.
So there was need for the President to pronounce on the comments made about him.
The issue was not so much what was said about the President, but rather, having heard what was said, why were the comments allegedly rebroadcast. Therefore, the only issue at hand was the question of the penalty to be imposed.
In this regard, it has been argued that the ACB merely asked Mr. Sharma to apologize. I am not aware that the ACB has any such powers to impose sanctions. The ACB is merely an advisory body.
The second thing that was missed by those who claim that the President cannot sit in judgment of himself was that the President did try to have someone else hear the matter. He did ask Dr. Luncheon to deal with the issue but Mr. Sharma through his lawyers filed an objection to Dr. Luncheon hearing the matter.
So what other options were there open to the President, as the subject minister, other than to conduct the hearing himself? I hope the Guyana Press Association which through its President indicated that it was interested in an impartial and transparent process would appreciate the objection that was made when the matter was to have been heard by Dr. Luncheon.
Further, I do not agree that the President in summoning Mr. Sharma to a hearing was usurping the functions of the ACB. As indicated before, the ACB was constituted as an advisory body to the subject minister.
I am not aware that the ACB has any standing in the law but I am subject to correction. Even if however it does, the ACB is not the adjudicating body. Those powers are vested in the subject minister who is advised by the ACB but who is not compelled to go along with this advice.
The ACB, it must be recalled, emerged out of discussions between former leader of the PNCR, Desmond Hoyte and President Jagdeo. The ACB came about because of the fears that the powers granted to the subject minister in the wireless laws could be used in an arbitrary manner. Those powers, as is known, give the subject minister the right to suspend or revoke the licenses of television stations.
Hoyte was interested in ensuring a fair process and of ensuring that the subject minister would not use these powers at his whim and fancy. Thus, it was agreed that when it comes to applying sanctions for alleged violations, the subject minister would be advised by the ACB. Whether this was implemented in law, I am still not certain.
The agreement between Hoyte and Jagdeo provided for the opposition to recommend one of the persons on the ACB. But it must also be clear that person does not represent the PNCR. That person is there in his professional capacity.
It is a similar situation with the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). The opposition nominates some commissioners but this does not mean that those persons are opposition representatives.
The ACB was constituted by Hoyte and the government as an advisory body to the subject minister. However, later when a television station aligned to the PNC was taken off the air for a few days, the PNCR by its public pronouncements de-recognized the very ACB that it helped establish.
During that episode, the PNCR was highly critical of the ACB and it was surprising that as part of the defence of Mr. Sharma, the PNCR referred to the admonitions of the ACB.
As things stand, therefore, the only issue having regards to the apologies offered by Mr. Sharma was the nature of the sanctions to be imposed on his station.
The station will now be off the air for four months. Those who say this is too harsh should therefore indicate whether they would have agreed with a lesser penalty. But in so far as to whether the President acted within his powers, there can be no doubt that he did.
KAIETEUR NEWS Editorial
Sunday April 13m, 2008
Consistency is the key
The decision by President Bharrat Jagdeo to suspend the licence of CNS 6 has been the talking point ever since that station went off the air at midnight on Friday last. There have been a lot of legal pronouncements, and even laymen have been arguing law as they see it.
One argument is that the President had no locus standi to effect the suspension, given that there was no recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting for such a suspension.
Indeed, the Advisory Committee is merely what the name suggests—advisory. There can be no stipulation, therefore, that the advice must be accepted, as is so often the case with most advice proffered by people entrusted with such a task. The argument, therefore, is that if there is no advice then there should be no action.
It would suggest, therefore, that those people who have been appointed to advise the President are the people who must dictate whether he acts or not. But in no part of the world must the tendering of advice precipitate action. Life does not operate that way, and surely no people, having voted for a leader, would expect that leader to act only when he is advised to do so.
The guideline that governs the ACB clearly states that the ACB would act on complaints from the public and would make a determination, then advise the Minister of Information about the recommendation for execution. By the same token, the Minister, of his own volition, could be a complainant.
No law would recommend that the complainant under such circumstances, report to the ACB, which would then listen to the complaint and then make a recommendation to the very complainant for determination.
The complainant this time around was President Bharrat Jagdeo who, because he was the aggrieved party, opted to have his Cabinet Secretary determine the issue. The person against whom the complaint was made decided to move to the courts, precluding the Cabinet Secretary from hearing the matter on the grounds that he had no locus standi.
This meant that the President, who is also the Minister of Information, was made to act in that capacity; and act he did, much to the annoyance of sections of the society, to the extent that people are citing social reasons.
What must be taken into account here is the fact that a wrong was committed and there was action, no matter how harsh that action may be. Harsh actions invariably hurt people, and there is bound to be some fallout.
When all is said and done, the real problem appears to be the application of double standards. A prevailing view is that justice is not dispensed evenly, and it is here that one must now call on the relevant authorities to ensure that justice must not only appear to be done, but must be done in a manner that the same punishment for the same offence is meted out to the errant individual or group.
This time around, the errant broadcaster is CNS 6 and that station has been dealt with condignly. One is now left to wonder whether similar condign action would have been taken against a broadcasting entity that might have committed a similar breach.
Make no mistake, there have been some serious breaches of the broadcast licences by all and sundry who accommodate live call-in programmes. Some of the vilest language could be heard on stations dubbed as entities that openly support the Government, and one cannot at any time recall any sanction—at least a sanction to which the public was privy.
To make matters even worse, things are such that rumours begin to surface. One rumour was that armed ranks had surrounded the home of Mark Benschop because he dared to call in to CNS 6 in the wake of the report of the closure. This was not true but it surely highlighted the way in which people see the Government acting against its critics or those perceived to be perennial critics.
If justice is dispensed fairly then there would be no such rumours and feelings of ill will and charges such as we are hearing at this time. Perhaps no one has gone on any station with a threat to kill anyone; perhaps that threat was what provoked the suspension.
It is time that there be consistent approaches to breaches of the regulations.
Sharma was ill advised
The decision by CNS Channel 6 owner and host of the 'Voice of the People' programme, CN Sharma to go to the courts to cancel a meeting called by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat with him was ill advised.
The meeting as I understand it, was called for Sharma to show cause why his license should not be revoked or suspended following remarks made by a caller to one of his live shows a few weeks ago.
I was listening to that programme and from the response that Sharma gave to the caller, I am of the opinion that he knew that he was in trouble immediately as the caller uttered the damaging statement.
Sharma is no dunce; he may not be very proficient in his articulation, but he 'knows where it's at'. He even went as far to apologise after the caller was cut off. So, why the big fuss now?
As far as I am aware the Government or Bharrat Jagdeo has never made any attempt to close down Channel 6 or have his programme pulled off the air. With the number of infringements being committed daily on that channel it would be the easiest thing to have the license suspended and or revoked.
I have heard persons being vilified, abused and threatened on that channel, some by name and some by their designation and place of employment. There seems to be no attempt at 'quality control' so persons do and say as they please in the name of freedom of expression.
It is not uncommon for you to hear persons threatening senior public officers by telling them that "I will put you on Sharma." Sharma and the Management of the channel need to be weary of this. This could also backfire on them.
There is a movie by the name of 'Some Times in April' which was shown recently on several channels. It is a movie that tells of some of the atrocities that transpired during the genocide in Rwanda when the Tutsis were being killed by the Hutus.
That Genocide was sparked by some irresponsible reporting that led to one journalist being taken before that international criminal court for crimes against humanity.
These are things that persons who advise, Sharma if they had his interest at heart, would have been telling him. I can understand Corbin and the PNCR jumping, it seems, to his aid, after all they have their free air time to protect.
Sharma needs to be careful with these guys; he would do well to remember the treatment meted out to him after the failure of CREEP (committee for the re-election of the President) to have Hoyte re-elected in 92.
We all know that there is no part of the world that any person would have been allowed to 'carry on' the way that Sharma does and get away with it. The freedom of speech, like any other freedom, has its limitations. Whenever these freedoms are exercised, they should not cause other persons to not enjoy their freedoms also.
To issue a threat is unlawful in any part of the world notwithstanding the freedom of speech. The same goes for libel and a number of other offences that could be committed by speech.
If it is that Sharma did not willfully allow the infringement, then he should not be fearful of attending the meeting and presenting his case. He will have to present a defence anyhow. We have this attitude in Guyana that it is inappropriate for the authorities to ask some one to explain their actions. We see the same thing happening when the police stop persons during their routine operations.
This culture has evolved as a result of the propaganda that continues to be published by opposition elements. This could be one of the causes of the daring disregard for the rule of law and order that has be exhibited by some sections of the society.
Sharma has a golden opportunity to come good; he should apologise and use his programme to educate, while entertaining.
I am not at all surprised by the PNCR statement on the issue, given the quality of the party's weekly dose of hate speech in the form of the Nation Watch programme. They have every thing to gain by conflict in the society and so they will encourage conflict where ever they could create it.
The claim that government is harassing Sharma is amusing. It seems as if it is all right for Sharma to sit in his studio and harass whomever he chooses daily; but if any person should call him to account for his actions, then it is harassment.
Jean Ramroop
I wholeheartedly agree with the Government
Many will suffer in terms of providing for their families, etc, for the next four months, now that CN Sharma's TV Channel- Six has been pulled off the air. Well I wholeheartedly agree with the Government on this matter, and Mr. Sharma had better be thankful that his channel wasn't suspended for a longer period. That is the result when those who have been entrusted with the disseminating of the day's news, current affairs, etc, cross the parameters of good journalism and enter into an arena that promotes hate, and discord.
Surely, the next four months will allow Mr. Sharma to think about what he allowed to happen on that call-in programme that brought on this whole mess.
Surely, this must be an example to others who may want to emulate this kind of political grandstanding. They must realise that in Guyana there is the law of the press, and boundaries that should not be entered and crossed. If they do, then there would be consequences.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The HORROR under PNC rule - RODNEY murdered
Walter Rodney, Gregory Smith, and Pamela
By Parvati Persaud-Edwards
FEAR stalked the land. Freedom then was only a word found in the dictionary, and a concept cradled in the soul of revolutionaries. Police were enforcers rather than protectors, and the soldiers were terrorists holding the nation ransom to a despot.
Food was a luxury, basic items were banned and practically everyone, except for the bureaucrats – for whom nothing was restricted - became a criminal because everyone was forced to buy foodstuff on the black-market.
Housewives spent most of their days, sometimes with infants in arms, queuing up for a pound of butter, a loaf of bread, a pint of ‘kero’, or a roll of toilet tissue, being lashed to stay in line by mounted police. Babies’ milk was also banned.
Infrastructural and organisational systems had deteriorated to the point of almost complete dysfunction, so that rats were eating babies in the hospitals and the educational system became an abysmal failure as a consequence. Children were kept out of school to look after younger ones while the mothers joined food lines that stretched for blocks; or they were forced to fetch water from long distances because GUYWA, like GPL and other utility providers, was on the brink of collapse. It was during that period of ‘Empty Rice Pots’ that the culture of children selling cigarettes and sweets on the streets evolved.
It was a time when wages of Public Servants were frozen at $2,000.00 and, in order to keep jobs, Public Service employees were forced to march in sun and rain to glorify the Supreme Leader, to work for free on their weekends and holidays at Hope Estate, and to replace cane cutters as scabs.
It was a time of rigged elections, when patriots were killed defending ballot boxes and revolutionaries were killed defending the truth.
To raise a voice in criticism of the Supreme Leader or the administration courted death, jail on trumped-up charges, or terror tactics targeting one’s family members.
Infrastructure and souls were degraded and decayed and hopelessness held the land in a grip that wrested acceptance from a beaten people.
It was into such an ethos, such a dynamic of terror, that a brilliant young historian named Walter Rodney decided to join forces with revolutionaries who were courageously, at great risk and sacrifice, trying to unseat a monolithic monster, up to that time with no success.
At the time, it was perilous to hold meetings because thugs from the administration-sponsored, infamous House of Israel beat and terrorized those who participated or attended. They did not even stop at murder, and many paid the supreme price, including the gentle, peaceful photographer of the Catholic Standard, Fr Darke, who was run down and stabbed with the bayonet of a rifle in plain view of onlookers.
To misquote – It was the worse of times for this nation, but it was also the best of times, because courage blossomed in hearts like budding flowers. Spring of hope was in the air and patriots were prepared to lay down their lives – and often did, for a long-cherished dream of real freedom, which had not been conferred on this nation even after the grant of the instruments of Independence by Great Britain. Terror and fear were palpable, but so was determination.
I quote from a WPA Press Release dated 13th June 2006. “In l974, he (Walter Rodney) returned to Guyana to take up an appointment as Professor at the University of Guyana, but the Government rescinded the appointment. But Rodney remained in Guyana, joined the newly-formed political group, the WPA (Working People’s Alliance) and, between l974 and his assassination in l980, emerged as the leading figure in the resistance movement against the increasingly authoritarian PNC Government.”
In defense of Arnold Rampersaud, Rodney said: “We have had too much of the foolishness of race…I think external intervention was important in bringing the races against each other from the fifties, and particularly in the sixties. But I’m concerned with the present. If we made that mistake once, we cannot afford to be misled on that score today. No ordinary Afro-Guyanese, no ordinary Indo-Guyanese can afford to be misled by the myth of race. Time and again it has been our undoing...”
Walter Rodney’s voice resounded in the corridors of power, through the dynamic which, although not conceptually new, was being embraced and expounded by a charismatic young black leader; and people across the divides were listening and responding, to the chagrin and fury of the despots. Walter’s denouement of the administration, and his open challenge, won the admiration and respect of the working class, to the extent where the WPA was quickly evolving as a vibrant Third Force on the political landscape of this nation and providing a catalyst that propelled Guyanese out of apathetic hopelessness into a new era of optimism. Even those who did not join him liked and respected him, because his sincerity was like a beacon of light in the darkness of the prevailing times.
He was rocking the long-entrenched foundation on which the bastion of tyrannical dictatorship was built, and bridging the divides in the nation on which it thrived. The powers-that-be were not amused. This voice preaching anarchy had to be silenced.
An explosion at 8.00 p.m. on June 13, l980, rocked the nation and simultaneously brought an end to the life of Walter Rodney, along with the budding hope for a unified nation.
The plot involved betrayal so ugly that it paralleled the story of Judas. Army Sergeant Gregory Smith pretended friendship and loyalty to the WPA and Walter Rodney. He persuaded Rodney that he needed a walkie-talkie set to aid communication in his work, and that he (Smith) was in a position to provide one.
Rodney uplifted the set from the Russell Street apartment of Smith’s girlfriend, Gwendolyn Jones, unaware that a deadly explosive device, timed to detonate at 8.00 pm, had been installed inside of the receiver. Rodney was directed to park his vehicle at a distance that took him near to the Georgetown Prison and await Smith’s communication in order to test the effectiveness and range of the set.
This was an elaborate plot to blame Rodney’s assassination on misadventure, due to a failed attempt of his to bomb the Georgetown Prison. The counter-accusations of devastated WPA members, who knew the absolute impossibility of Rodney wanting to harm helpless prisoners, that Rodney had been assassinated, and that Sgt Gregory Smith had actualized the plot, brought denials from the administration that such a person ever existed. He had been spirited, together with Gwendolyn Jones and their children, out of the country by army personnel. Every trace of his existence had been obliterated and the then Government, and the army administration, maintained their contention that Gregory Smith never existed, and that he had never been a member of the GDF.
But one woman exposed this lie.
Pamela Beharry had shared the Russell Street apartment with Gwendolyn Jones, mother of two of Smith’s children, who was rebuilding her relationship with her former estranged lover, Smith, while her husband was abroad.
Beharry, who used to read the WPA pamphlets Smith brought when he visited Jones, had grown to admire the courage of young Rodney, not realizing that the radio set stored in a carton behind the sofa was destined to be the instrument of his death.
On many occasions, Smith and other army personnel often locked her out of the apartment for hours, forcing her to stay with a friend in Alberttown until they left.
On the evening after Rodney’s assassination, Beharry, who had heard that Smith was being implicated, was on her way to her friend’s house when she saw soldiers with drawn guns surrounding the house. She immediately ducked behind some bushes, crawled away, and hid under a bridge. The next morning, she telephoned her friend who worked at the Ministry of Health. Her friend was terrified and warned Pamela to hide because soldiers were looking for her.
Beharry knew that the administration was denying Smith’s existence and recognised the threat to her life, since she was the only civilian, apart from Gwendolyn Jones, who knew of Smith’s covert activities, the nature of which she was unaware prior to Rodney’s death.
Beharry still has nightmares from the days when she was a fugitive from Guyana’s army, hiding under cardboard on the streets, under bridges, behind bushes, because her relatives and friends, afraid for the safety of their families, refused to give her sanctuary in their homes, which were occasionally staked out by soldiers, so any guarantee of her safety was questionable.
Remembering a lawyer named Moses Bhagwan from the WPA pamphlets, Beharry fearfully made her way to his office. \There was a long line of people in his reception area so the secretary requested that she wait; but she scribbled a note to him, mentioning Rodney, and was granted immediate audience. When she recounted her experiences, Bhagwan took her to Miles Fitzpatrick.
Miles showed her a picture of Rodney, and she immediately recognised him as the man who had been given a radio set at the Russell Street apartment by Gregory Smith on June 13.
Beharry was secreted in the home of a religious order, and the WPA went on the offensive, forcing the government and the army to eventually admit to the existence of Smith, although they continued to deny complicity in his assassination.
Today, Beharry, a true heroine of the revolution, albeit by default, subsists on an income below $l0, 000 per month in a squalid apartment without electricity or running water. The tenement yard in which she lives is located in one of the most dangerous areas of Georgetown.
Gregory Smith was never brought to justice for his heinous crime, but justice was meted out in any case. Living all one’s life as a fugitive, with the sword of Damocles hanging over your head, scorned and reviled by all, losing a solid career with potential for a wonderful future, and being branded murderer of a national figure is no small punishment. Imprisonment within one’s soul is the worse imprisonment of all.
By Parvati Persaud-Edwards
FEAR stalked the land. Freedom then was only a word found in the dictionary, and a concept cradled in the soul of revolutionaries. Police were enforcers rather than protectors, and the soldiers were terrorists holding the nation ransom to a despot.
Food was a luxury, basic items were banned and practically everyone, except for the bureaucrats – for whom nothing was restricted - became a criminal because everyone was forced to buy foodstuff on the black-market.
Housewives spent most of their days, sometimes with infants in arms, queuing up for a pound of butter, a loaf of bread, a pint of ‘kero’, or a roll of toilet tissue, being lashed to stay in line by mounted police. Babies’ milk was also banned.
Infrastructural and organisational systems had deteriorated to the point of almost complete dysfunction, so that rats were eating babies in the hospitals and the educational system became an abysmal failure as a consequence. Children were kept out of school to look after younger ones while the mothers joined food lines that stretched for blocks; or they were forced to fetch water from long distances because GUYWA, like GPL and other utility providers, was on the brink of collapse. It was during that period of ‘Empty Rice Pots’ that the culture of children selling cigarettes and sweets on the streets evolved.
It was a time when wages of Public Servants were frozen at $2,000.00 and, in order to keep jobs, Public Service employees were forced to march in sun and rain to glorify the Supreme Leader, to work for free on their weekends and holidays at Hope Estate, and to replace cane cutters as scabs.
It was a time of rigged elections, when patriots were killed defending ballot boxes and revolutionaries were killed defending the truth.
To raise a voice in criticism of the Supreme Leader or the administration courted death, jail on trumped-up charges, or terror tactics targeting one’s family members.
Infrastructure and souls were degraded and decayed and hopelessness held the land in a grip that wrested acceptance from a beaten people.
It was into such an ethos, such a dynamic of terror, that a brilliant young historian named Walter Rodney decided to join forces with revolutionaries who were courageously, at great risk and sacrifice, trying to unseat a monolithic monster, up to that time with no success.
At the time, it was perilous to hold meetings because thugs from the administration-sponsored, infamous House of Israel beat and terrorized those who participated or attended. They did not even stop at murder, and many paid the supreme price, including the gentle, peaceful photographer of the Catholic Standard, Fr Darke, who was run down and stabbed with the bayonet of a rifle in plain view of onlookers.
To misquote – It was the worse of times for this nation, but it was also the best of times, because courage blossomed in hearts like budding flowers. Spring of hope was in the air and patriots were prepared to lay down their lives – and often did, for a long-cherished dream of real freedom, which had not been conferred on this nation even after the grant of the instruments of Independence by Great Britain. Terror and fear were palpable, but so was determination.
I quote from a WPA Press Release dated 13th June 2006. “In l974, he (Walter Rodney) returned to Guyana to take up an appointment as Professor at the University of Guyana, but the Government rescinded the appointment. But Rodney remained in Guyana, joined the newly-formed political group, the WPA (Working People’s Alliance) and, between l974 and his assassination in l980, emerged as the leading figure in the resistance movement against the increasingly authoritarian PNC Government.”
In defense of Arnold Rampersaud, Rodney said: “We have had too much of the foolishness of race…I think external intervention was important in bringing the races against each other from the fifties, and particularly in the sixties. But I’m concerned with the present. If we made that mistake once, we cannot afford to be misled on that score today. No ordinary Afro-Guyanese, no ordinary Indo-Guyanese can afford to be misled by the myth of race. Time and again it has been our undoing...”
Walter Rodney’s voice resounded in the corridors of power, through the dynamic which, although not conceptually new, was being embraced and expounded by a charismatic young black leader; and people across the divides were listening and responding, to the chagrin and fury of the despots. Walter’s denouement of the administration, and his open challenge, won the admiration and respect of the working class, to the extent where the WPA was quickly evolving as a vibrant Third Force on the political landscape of this nation and providing a catalyst that propelled Guyanese out of apathetic hopelessness into a new era of optimism. Even those who did not join him liked and respected him, because his sincerity was like a beacon of light in the darkness of the prevailing times.
He was rocking the long-entrenched foundation on which the bastion of tyrannical dictatorship was built, and bridging the divides in the nation on which it thrived. The powers-that-be were not amused. This voice preaching anarchy had to be silenced.
An explosion at 8.00 p.m. on June 13, l980, rocked the nation and simultaneously brought an end to the life of Walter Rodney, along with the budding hope for a unified nation.
The plot involved betrayal so ugly that it paralleled the story of Judas. Army Sergeant Gregory Smith pretended friendship and loyalty to the WPA and Walter Rodney. He persuaded Rodney that he needed a walkie-talkie set to aid communication in his work, and that he (Smith) was in a position to provide one.
Rodney uplifted the set from the Russell Street apartment of Smith’s girlfriend, Gwendolyn Jones, unaware that a deadly explosive device, timed to detonate at 8.00 pm, had been installed inside of the receiver. Rodney was directed to park his vehicle at a distance that took him near to the Georgetown Prison and await Smith’s communication in order to test the effectiveness and range of the set.
This was an elaborate plot to blame Rodney’s assassination on misadventure, due to a failed attempt of his to bomb the Georgetown Prison. The counter-accusations of devastated WPA members, who knew the absolute impossibility of Rodney wanting to harm helpless prisoners, that Rodney had been assassinated, and that Sgt Gregory Smith had actualized the plot, brought denials from the administration that such a person ever existed. He had been spirited, together with Gwendolyn Jones and their children, out of the country by army personnel. Every trace of his existence had been obliterated and the then Government, and the army administration, maintained their contention that Gregory Smith never existed, and that he had never been a member of the GDF.
But one woman exposed this lie.
Pamela Beharry had shared the Russell Street apartment with Gwendolyn Jones, mother of two of Smith’s children, who was rebuilding her relationship with her former estranged lover, Smith, while her husband was abroad.
Beharry, who used to read the WPA pamphlets Smith brought when he visited Jones, had grown to admire the courage of young Rodney, not realizing that the radio set stored in a carton behind the sofa was destined to be the instrument of his death.
On many occasions, Smith and other army personnel often locked her out of the apartment for hours, forcing her to stay with a friend in Alberttown until they left.
On the evening after Rodney’s assassination, Beharry, who had heard that Smith was being implicated, was on her way to her friend’s house when she saw soldiers with drawn guns surrounding the house. She immediately ducked behind some bushes, crawled away, and hid under a bridge. The next morning, she telephoned her friend who worked at the Ministry of Health. Her friend was terrified and warned Pamela to hide because soldiers were looking for her.
Beharry knew that the administration was denying Smith’s existence and recognised the threat to her life, since she was the only civilian, apart from Gwendolyn Jones, who knew of Smith’s covert activities, the nature of which she was unaware prior to Rodney’s death.
Beharry still has nightmares from the days when she was a fugitive from Guyana’s army, hiding under cardboard on the streets, under bridges, behind bushes, because her relatives and friends, afraid for the safety of their families, refused to give her sanctuary in their homes, which were occasionally staked out by soldiers, so any guarantee of her safety was questionable.
Remembering a lawyer named Moses Bhagwan from the WPA pamphlets, Beharry fearfully made her way to his office. \There was a long line of people in his reception area so the secretary requested that she wait; but she scribbled a note to him, mentioning Rodney, and was granted immediate audience. When she recounted her experiences, Bhagwan took her to Miles Fitzpatrick.
Miles showed her a picture of Rodney, and she immediately recognised him as the man who had been given a radio set at the Russell Street apartment by Gregory Smith on June 13.
Beharry was secreted in the home of a religious order, and the WPA went on the offensive, forcing the government and the army to eventually admit to the existence of Smith, although they continued to deny complicity in his assassination.
Today, Beharry, a true heroine of the revolution, albeit by default, subsists on an income below $l0, 000 per month in a squalid apartment without electricity or running water. The tenement yard in which she lives is located in one of the most dangerous areas of Georgetown.
Gregory Smith was never brought to justice for his heinous crime, but justice was meted out in any case. Living all one’s life as a fugitive, with the sword of Damocles hanging over your head, scorned and reviled by all, losing a solid career with potential for a wonderful future, and being branded murderer of a national figure is no small punishment. Imprisonment within one’s soul is the worse imprisonment of all.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Burke & Corbin: petty Power-hungry PNC stooges at war
Letter: Mr Corbin's minions cannot intimidate me
Published on Saturday, April 5, 2008
Dear Sir:
Guyana's Opposition and PNCR leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, Friday directed his "PNCR North America" group to attack me personally for CGID's statement of fact that he has been "ineffective as opposition leader, and seems to lack a vision for the country." They did not address the substance of our contention but, instead, sought to reduce a discussion on verifiable determinations to an exercise in personal vilification. It is not my desire to descend with them into the cesspool of gutter politics to hurl filth, as it is beneath my dignity. People who are bankrupt and cannot compete in the arena of ideas and lack vision, do so best. I must note however, that I have never seen as much as a letter to the press, from this so-called "PNCR of North America" group, condemning the PPP government's racism and constitutional violations. I am therefore happy that they have fired up their engines to attack me. I hope that they can overcome their smarting and personal vendetta, and direct their misplaced fire and nascent enthusiasm to the condemnation of the myriad injustices that plague our beloved homeland. I am amused that Mr Corbin could mobilize his few supporters in North America to attack me but cannot mobilize ten people for a street march in Guyana. I am even further amused that he could not muster the courage to attack and mobilize against Head of the Presidential Secretariat in Guyana, Dr Roger Luncheon, who recently referred to him as a fool. He remained as quiet as a church mouse then but has now galvanized his obsequious minions to attack me. That notwithstanding, his Machiavellian politics cannot intimidate me. Their response is bereft of substance and is symptomatic of a hollow leadership. It's school-boyish, infantile platitudes are infradig. They claim that "Rickford Burke was eager to ingratiate himself to President Jagdeo during last year's (2007) Folk Festival in Brooklyn." Even if this were true, what has is to do with the price of cheese in Scotland or Mr Corbin being an incompetent leader? It is a desperate and pitiful stringing together of a clumsy lie, by an idle mind, to spawn a mendacious cocktail of vitriol. But it is cowardly and laughable. Their statement also foolishly claimed that I asked for a photo opportunity with Jagdeo at the Folk Festival; another blatant lie. I was at the event with a New York State Supreme Court Judge, a State Senator and an Assemblyman and was introducing them to the event organizers when Jagdeo came by and photographers asked for a group photo. In any event, even if I had asked for a photo of the President, what is its relevance to a discussion about Corbin's competence as opposition leader? This is an amateurish diversion. Corbin's so-called North America group also suggested that I emigrated from Guyana while he (Corbin) remained. How imbecilic can they be? This contention would have been slightly credible and less ridiculous and hypocritical, had Corbin not asked his supporters, who have themselves emigrated from Guyana, to make this charge. Furthermore, their attack on me for emigrating is an insult to all Guyanese immigrants in New York. If this is how Mr. Corbin truly feels about us, then why come to us for financial donations? Mr Corbin's group also asked, "If, indeed, Mr Burke is interested in the removal of the Jagdeo regime, as he so robustly proclaims, perhaps he should explain why he was so eager to ingratiate himself to President Jagdeo?" I don't know what this question is expected to achieve as I have never "ingratiated" myself to Jagdeo or attempted to (or intend to attempt) to remove his regime. Mr Corbin and his supporters seem confused. CGID is not the political opposition and is certainly not in the business of "removing regimes." If Mr Corbin intends to continue to hope that others will do his job for him, then he should look elsewhere. The removal of the "Jagdeo regime" might be his agenda but it is certainly not an expressed objective of ours. I hope that his so-called North America group can actually contribute his agenda. They need not worry about ours. As we have said before, we all criticize the PPP government for its ineptitude but the truth is that Corbin and the rest of the leadership of the political opposition are in lockstep with this paralysis of incompetence that permeates Guyana's governance and political culture. I have also argued that "Mr Corbin appears to be nonplussed, like a deaf man amidst a sonic boom, as the state collapses; unmoved by events and circumstances. Citizens are murdered everyday and the Police conducts no investigations. The Chief Magistrate has been removed from office for no legitimate reason, the government commits crimes against humanity; including torture and extra-judicial killing, people are executed by death squads with alarming frequency, there is massive corruption in government, including law enforcement and the judiciary, and the country is overrun by drug-lords, with full complicity of the government. Amidst all of this, all Mr Corbin's does is "talk" at a press conferences. Is this all he can do? I hold firm to the above views and make no apologies. I will however "talk half and lef half." Rickford Burke
Published on Saturday, April 5, 2008
Dear Sir:
Guyana's Opposition and PNCR leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, Friday directed his "PNCR North America" group to attack me personally for CGID's statement of fact that he has been "ineffective as opposition leader, and seems to lack a vision for the country." They did not address the substance of our contention but, instead, sought to reduce a discussion on verifiable determinations to an exercise in personal vilification. It is not my desire to descend with them into the cesspool of gutter politics to hurl filth, as it is beneath my dignity. People who are bankrupt and cannot compete in the arena of ideas and lack vision, do so best. I must note however, that I have never seen as much as a letter to the press, from this so-called "PNCR of North America" group, condemning the PPP government's racism and constitutional violations. I am therefore happy that they have fired up their engines to attack me. I hope that they can overcome their smarting and personal vendetta, and direct their misplaced fire and nascent enthusiasm to the condemnation of the myriad injustices that plague our beloved homeland. I am amused that Mr Corbin could mobilize his few supporters in North America to attack me but cannot mobilize ten people for a street march in Guyana. I am even further amused that he could not muster the courage to attack and mobilize against Head of the Presidential Secretariat in Guyana, Dr Roger Luncheon, who recently referred to him as a fool. He remained as quiet as a church mouse then but has now galvanized his obsequious minions to attack me. That notwithstanding, his Machiavellian politics cannot intimidate me. Their response is bereft of substance and is symptomatic of a hollow leadership. It's school-boyish, infantile platitudes are infradig. They claim that "Rickford Burke was eager to ingratiate himself to President Jagdeo during last year's (2007) Folk Festival in Brooklyn." Even if this were true, what has is to do with the price of cheese in Scotland or Mr Corbin being an incompetent leader? It is a desperate and pitiful stringing together of a clumsy lie, by an idle mind, to spawn a mendacious cocktail of vitriol. But it is cowardly and laughable. Their statement also foolishly claimed that I asked for a photo opportunity with Jagdeo at the Folk Festival; another blatant lie. I was at the event with a New York State Supreme Court Judge, a State Senator and an Assemblyman and was introducing them to the event organizers when Jagdeo came by and photographers asked for a group photo. In any event, even if I had asked for a photo of the President, what is its relevance to a discussion about Corbin's competence as opposition leader? This is an amateurish diversion. Corbin's so-called North America group also suggested that I emigrated from Guyana while he (Corbin) remained. How imbecilic can they be? This contention would have been slightly credible and less ridiculous and hypocritical, had Corbin not asked his supporters, who have themselves emigrated from Guyana, to make this charge. Furthermore, their attack on me for emigrating is an insult to all Guyanese immigrants in New York. If this is how Mr. Corbin truly feels about us, then why come to us for financial donations? Mr Corbin's group also asked, "If, indeed, Mr Burke is interested in the removal of the Jagdeo regime, as he so robustly proclaims, perhaps he should explain why he was so eager to ingratiate himself to President Jagdeo?" I don't know what this question is expected to achieve as I have never "ingratiated" myself to Jagdeo or attempted to (or intend to attempt) to remove his regime. Mr Corbin and his supporters seem confused. CGID is not the political opposition and is certainly not in the business of "removing regimes." If Mr Corbin intends to continue to hope that others will do his job for him, then he should look elsewhere. The removal of the "Jagdeo regime" might be his agenda but it is certainly not an expressed objective of ours. I hope that his so-called North America group can actually contribute his agenda. They need not worry about ours. As we have said before, we all criticize the PPP government for its ineptitude but the truth is that Corbin and the rest of the leadership of the political opposition are in lockstep with this paralysis of incompetence that permeates Guyana's governance and political culture. I have also argued that "Mr Corbin appears to be nonplussed, like a deaf man amidst a sonic boom, as the state collapses; unmoved by events and circumstances. Citizens are murdered everyday and the Police conducts no investigations. The Chief Magistrate has been removed from office for no legitimate reason, the government commits crimes against humanity; including torture and extra-judicial killing, people are executed by death squads with alarming frequency, there is massive corruption in government, including law enforcement and the judiciary, and the country is overrun by drug-lords, with full complicity of the government. Amidst all of this, all Mr Corbin's does is "talk" at a press conferences. Is this all he can do? I hold firm to the above views and make no apologies. I will however "talk half and lef half." Rickford Burke
Friday, April 4, 2008
Freddie - PNC whiner boy; AFC picking up PNCR’s “fire-rage”
Peeping Tom
UNCLE FREDDIE WRONG AGAIN!
Ow, Uncle Freddie, you aren’t tired of being wrong? Yuh wrong, but is a good thing that yuh not strong, because there is nothing more wrong than a man who is both wrong and strong.You ain’t shame that the educational psychologist listed nearly twenty grounds on which you are wrong? Ow, Uncle Freddie, yuh mean is bluff yuh did bluffing about the Oedipus Complex?Then, only yesterday Bisram wrote to correct you on a number of issues. He, too, says that you are wrong. His poll projections have, time and time again, been proven right; so tell me, Uncle Freddie, how come this man is so accurate yet you accuse him of being a pretender?Then there is the man who you say you will reply to his every letter. The man said that you were wrong about him and his geography. Is everybody saying that yuh wrong, Uncle Freddie. Parrot seh yuh wrong. Blame it on the Government seh you wrong; now Peeper gat to tell you yuh wrong again.Ow, Uncle Freddie, why yuh wrong so often? Is it because you are running out of criticisms of the Government? I know you don’t like the Government, but please try to be a little more accurate at times, so that you could enjoy some credibility. Give Jack he jacket. Give the Government some credit when credit is due. Stop being so one-sided! You becoming like a stuck record. From the time somebody open the newspaper and they see you write about the PPP, they can close the newspaper. They know that is sheer criticism yuh penning about the Government.Open yuh eyes and tek the blinkers off! How could you say that the PPP worse than Burnham? If they so bad, how come you doing so well? You forget the days when you used to have to fetch water fuh bathe? When you used to have to ketch bus to go to work? Now the economy improve and yuh living in skyscraper, driving fancy SUV, and even thinking about going on extended weekend trips to Berbice when the bridge complete.Ow, Uncle Freddie, how come you wrong again about the bridge? Dat is a beautiful bridge that is being assembled across the Berbice River. Which floating bridge is going to have aesthetics? What yuh want them fuh do, put some flower plants on the pontoons?Was the same thing with the stadium. Yuh jump up and criticize the stadium, even though dem boys seh yuh never ever been inside one. Give Bharrat some praise, nuh. The man build one of the best stadiums in the Caribbean. It is a showpiece and allows Guyana to host international cricket. Don’t bad mouth Bharrat all the time!Give, also, the Government some credit for standing up for principle. How is it you could have supported the Opposition walk out of Parliament? How is it that you blamed the Government for not supporting amendments that were clearly not agreed to by the larger stakeholder grouping? That grouping agreed to the establishment of long overdue constitutional commissions within three months; they also agreed to establish a standing committee on national security, along with other agreements which have to be done by Parliament. How then can you side with the Opposition when it was the Opposition that tried to have inserted into the motion a clause dealing with equitable access to the State-owned media? How could you be so wrong, Uncle Freddie?I want you to find one stakeholder outside of the Opposition Parliamentary party who will come forward and admit that, during the stakeholder forum, there was an agreement on access to the State-owned media. Let the other stakeholders come forward and indicate whether there was any such agreement. How, if there was consensus on that, did it not find its way into the Bourda Consensus? Tell me, Uncle Freddie! Admit you are wrong!Now, to crown off your wrongness, yuh complaining about street lights in Ithaca. How come yuh blaming the Government fuh that one? Street lights in villages are the responsibility of the NDCs, not the Government. But, then again, you would not know that, because you never grow up in a village.
The Parrot Speaks
AFC picking up PNCR’s “fire-rage”
The Parrot has noted the many similarities in behaviour between the AFC and the PNCR. One is tempted to believe that the similarities are not coincidental, since the last, and incidentally the first, Presidential candidate of the AFC, the Trot-man, was a former “big boy” in the PNCR. He represented Palm Tree jungle in Parliament for many years, challenged Uncle Bob in a leadership race, and refused to vacate his seat after deserting the Palm Tree prior to the 2006 elections. One can safely assume that, for any man who wants to “Trot” to the highest seat of a political organisation, he must possess certain qualities which would facilitate his success and occupation of the said seat. These qualities generally include, amongst others, ambition, experience vis-à-vis institutional memory, astuteness and the ability to denigrate and out-manoeuvre opponents. Given these requirements, it is again safe to conclude that the Trot-man possesses these qualities, but “quantitatively” less than Uncle Bob. This would explain his unsuccessful challenge to the Palm Tree throne. His knowledge of the PNCR’s modus operandi facilitates him not only securing (these traits help him to keep the RumJHATTan at second) his Antagonistically Furious Crown (AFC) in his current political palace in the “liming” street, but to steer his Affluently Few Comrades (AFC) in a direction he determines; a direction that is now evidently similar to Uncle Bob’s.This similar directional “steering” and the latest position of the Trot-man’s party can be construed as direct competition between himself and Uncle Bob on who can do best what both have in common; street protest. No, it wasn’t Uncle Bob who made the recent threat of street protest; it was the Trot-man’s party. The Parrot being so accustomed to the PNC calling for protest that, in reading, the letters AF were mistaken for PN in the articles which alluded to the AFC’s indication that street protests are not ruled out in relation to alleged lack of Parliamentary democracy. Basically, every person is known for certain qualities he/she possesses. In cases where an executive is hired or reassigned to manage an entity, one’s expectations of the entity’s subsequent performance are generally related to the skills of the person at the helm. Given the opportunity, persons are ecstatic to practice the skills they possess. The Trot-man’s street experience can be regarded as a skill he acquired during his time when he was a servant in the Palm Tree palace; and now, being the crown wearer of the AFC, he is eager to display it. Every Guyanese weary of the post-election protest in 1997 would recall the peace and tranquility that prevailed before and after the 2006 election. This exemplified the political maturity and the now democratic culture of the Guyanese people. Even Uncle Bob was commended for resisting the urge of post-election protest in 2006. The drought in protest action since is now being threatened by the contemplation of the Trot-man’s party to emulating Uncle Bob and his party’s engrained trait. The Parrot recalls that old people used to talk stories of when two female neighbours used to “buse” up each other during the day, and when the husbands come home, some used to “pick up” their wife’s “fire-rage” and “buse” up in the evening. It seems that the Trot-man’s party, AFC, is about to “pick up” Uncle Bob’s party “fire-rage” that was left dormant almost a year and a half ago. Squawk! Squawk!
UNCLE FREDDIE WRONG AGAIN!
Ow, Uncle Freddie, you aren’t tired of being wrong? Yuh wrong, but is a good thing that yuh not strong, because there is nothing more wrong than a man who is both wrong and strong.You ain’t shame that the educational psychologist listed nearly twenty grounds on which you are wrong? Ow, Uncle Freddie, yuh mean is bluff yuh did bluffing about the Oedipus Complex?Then, only yesterday Bisram wrote to correct you on a number of issues. He, too, says that you are wrong. His poll projections have, time and time again, been proven right; so tell me, Uncle Freddie, how come this man is so accurate yet you accuse him of being a pretender?Then there is the man who you say you will reply to his every letter. The man said that you were wrong about him and his geography. Is everybody saying that yuh wrong, Uncle Freddie. Parrot seh yuh wrong. Blame it on the Government seh you wrong; now Peeper gat to tell you yuh wrong again.Ow, Uncle Freddie, why yuh wrong so often? Is it because you are running out of criticisms of the Government? I know you don’t like the Government, but please try to be a little more accurate at times, so that you could enjoy some credibility. Give Jack he jacket. Give the Government some credit when credit is due. Stop being so one-sided! You becoming like a stuck record. From the time somebody open the newspaper and they see you write about the PPP, they can close the newspaper. They know that is sheer criticism yuh penning about the Government.Open yuh eyes and tek the blinkers off! How could you say that the PPP worse than Burnham? If they so bad, how come you doing so well? You forget the days when you used to have to fetch water fuh bathe? When you used to have to ketch bus to go to work? Now the economy improve and yuh living in skyscraper, driving fancy SUV, and even thinking about going on extended weekend trips to Berbice when the bridge complete.Ow, Uncle Freddie, how come you wrong again about the bridge? Dat is a beautiful bridge that is being assembled across the Berbice River. Which floating bridge is going to have aesthetics? What yuh want them fuh do, put some flower plants on the pontoons?Was the same thing with the stadium. Yuh jump up and criticize the stadium, even though dem boys seh yuh never ever been inside one. Give Bharrat some praise, nuh. The man build one of the best stadiums in the Caribbean. It is a showpiece and allows Guyana to host international cricket. Don’t bad mouth Bharrat all the time!Give, also, the Government some credit for standing up for principle. How is it you could have supported the Opposition walk out of Parliament? How is it that you blamed the Government for not supporting amendments that were clearly not agreed to by the larger stakeholder grouping? That grouping agreed to the establishment of long overdue constitutional commissions within three months; they also agreed to establish a standing committee on national security, along with other agreements which have to be done by Parliament. How then can you side with the Opposition when it was the Opposition that tried to have inserted into the motion a clause dealing with equitable access to the State-owned media? How could you be so wrong, Uncle Freddie?I want you to find one stakeholder outside of the Opposition Parliamentary party who will come forward and admit that, during the stakeholder forum, there was an agreement on access to the State-owned media. Let the other stakeholders come forward and indicate whether there was any such agreement. How, if there was consensus on that, did it not find its way into the Bourda Consensus? Tell me, Uncle Freddie! Admit you are wrong!Now, to crown off your wrongness, yuh complaining about street lights in Ithaca. How come yuh blaming the Government fuh that one? Street lights in villages are the responsibility of the NDCs, not the Government. But, then again, you would not know that, because you never grow up in a village.
The Parrot Speaks
AFC picking up PNCR’s “fire-rage”
The Parrot has noted the many similarities in behaviour between the AFC and the PNCR. One is tempted to believe that the similarities are not coincidental, since the last, and incidentally the first, Presidential candidate of the AFC, the Trot-man, was a former “big boy” in the PNCR. He represented Palm Tree jungle in Parliament for many years, challenged Uncle Bob in a leadership race, and refused to vacate his seat after deserting the Palm Tree prior to the 2006 elections. One can safely assume that, for any man who wants to “Trot” to the highest seat of a political organisation, he must possess certain qualities which would facilitate his success and occupation of the said seat. These qualities generally include, amongst others, ambition, experience vis-à-vis institutional memory, astuteness and the ability to denigrate and out-manoeuvre opponents. Given these requirements, it is again safe to conclude that the Trot-man possesses these qualities, but “quantitatively” less than Uncle Bob. This would explain his unsuccessful challenge to the Palm Tree throne. His knowledge of the PNCR’s modus operandi facilitates him not only securing (these traits help him to keep the RumJHATTan at second) his Antagonistically Furious Crown (AFC) in his current political palace in the “liming” street, but to steer his Affluently Few Comrades (AFC) in a direction he determines; a direction that is now evidently similar to Uncle Bob’s.This similar directional “steering” and the latest position of the Trot-man’s party can be construed as direct competition between himself and Uncle Bob on who can do best what both have in common; street protest. No, it wasn’t Uncle Bob who made the recent threat of street protest; it was the Trot-man’s party. The Parrot being so accustomed to the PNC calling for protest that, in reading, the letters AF were mistaken for PN in the articles which alluded to the AFC’s indication that street protests are not ruled out in relation to alleged lack of Parliamentary democracy. Basically, every person is known for certain qualities he/she possesses. In cases where an executive is hired or reassigned to manage an entity, one’s expectations of the entity’s subsequent performance are generally related to the skills of the person at the helm. Given the opportunity, persons are ecstatic to practice the skills they possess. The Trot-man’s street experience can be regarded as a skill he acquired during his time when he was a servant in the Palm Tree palace; and now, being the crown wearer of the AFC, he is eager to display it. Every Guyanese weary of the post-election protest in 1997 would recall the peace and tranquility that prevailed before and after the 2006 election. This exemplified the political maturity and the now democratic culture of the Guyanese people. Even Uncle Bob was commended for resisting the urge of post-election protest in 2006. The drought in protest action since is now being threatened by the contemplation of the Trot-man’s party to emulating Uncle Bob and his party’s engrained trait. The Parrot recalls that old people used to talk stories of when two female neighbours used to “buse” up each other during the day, and when the husbands come home, some used to “pick up” their wife’s “fire-rage” and “buse” up in the evening. It seems that the Trot-man’s party, AFC, is about to “pick up” Uncle Bob’s party “fire-rage” that was left dormant almost a year and a half ago. Squawk! Squawk!
AFC a middle-class party unable to attract any credible following
AFC should apologise to the stakeholders gathering
I have heard some quite amazing April 1, pranks in my lifetime but none that I heard in the past matched two stories that I heard this year. And of course they both occurred in Guyana.The first story was about a man who went into a police station to report that he had just been robbed of over two million dollars which he had withdrawn from the bank. Apparently, as the report went, the man, who is separated from his wife, was hoping that upon learning of his dilemma his wife would feel sorry for him and reunite. That man must be a risk-taker because I know of some women who would feel the very opposite if their paramours were to lose a large sum of money. They would not even think twice about dumping any man who has lost a large sum of money. So if that guy has a wife who feels sorry for him because he was robbed, he had better try to win back her love because she is indeed a kind-hearted woman.If the Peeper thought that this guy faking a robbery to win sympathy was the best April 1 day prank of this year, the Peeper was mistaken. It would seem as if the Alliance For Change was trying to outdo that fellow when it hosted a press conference and announced that there was no longer any parliamentary democracy in Guyana. The basis for this mind-boggling statement is because of the failure of the PPP to allow opposition amendments to a motion dealing with the Stakeholders Forum. The AFC is contending that the refusal of the government to support the amendments proposed to the motion constituted naked contempt for the parliamentary process and the stakeholders.I do not know how the AFC arrived at that position since the government was within its rights not to accommodate the amendments proposed. While there certainly could have been no harm in including the AFC's demand for mention of Article 13 in the resolved section of the motion, there were other things that the AFC sought to include that were not part of the consensus reached between the government and the stakeholders. Therefore, it was unethical and unprincipled for the AFC to have supported the inclusion of items on which there was no consensus.In fact, the AFC should be ashamed to have sought to have included in the motion reference to equitable access to the State media. There was no consensus reached on this point during the forum and therefore its inclusion in the parliamentary motion would have constituted a betrayal of the larger gathering.In fact, it is my view that those who sought to have the issue of equitable access to the State media inserted in the amendment when it was clear that this was not a specific agreement on which consensus was arrived at between all the stakeholders, should be censured by being suspended from any future meeting of the stakeholders.The AFC should therefore, against this background, be lecturing anyone about the lack of parliamentary democracy which in any event has a much different connotation than simply being inclusive.When we speak of parliamentary democracy, we refer to the right of the citizens of a country to freely elect parliamentary representatives of their choice. It is misuse of the concept to refer to the lack of inclusive politics within the Parliament as constituting a lack of parliamentary democracy. In fact, the very foundation of democracy within the Westminster model rests on the idea that the people freely elect their Parliament. If, however, the Alliance For Change feels that there is a lack of such democracy and feels that it has no other choice but to take to the streets, then so be it. I do not know who the AFC is going to get to support any public march that it has.The Alliance For Change is a middle class party that will be unable to attract any credible following for any march against parliamentary democracy, more especially as it exposed the unprincipled nature of the amendment that sought to have inserted a commitment to equitable access to the State media. The AFC should seriously consider apologising to the ruling party and to all stakeholders for its support of amendments that were not agreed to by the overall stakeholder grouping. And the stakeholders should break their silence and denounce this attempt to use the name of the grouping to push an item, no matter how laudable it is, over which no consensus was reached.
PPP remains a strong and vibrant force
Dear Editor,From the beginning there was profound hatred and jealousy for the PPP and it proliferated and dominated every realm of their psyche. The dedicated consistency to the most perverted and brazen form of propaganda against the PPP emanates from the depth of hatred and jealousy for the progressive strive the party continues to make in the absolute interests of all Guyanese.In the history of local politics, the PPP has proven to be the most qualified and competent organised force to deliver the goods and services to Guyanese across the ethnic, social, religious and political divide. As a third world developing country, Guyana’s performance record is commendable even in the face of the harsh realities and challenges, a lot of which are created by the dominance and influences of the developed world.Guyana’s management of its economy by successive PPP/C administrations, the reduction of the debt burden and provision of basic goods and services to its people could be referred to as miraculous undertakings given the inheritance of a bankrupt economy left by the PNC. The U.S. Government validates Guyana’s investment in its people through its Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon, who visited Guyana last week. Shannon at a Joint Press Conference with President Bharrat Jagdeo is quoted as saying, “What we have learnt over time is that for democracies to be successful, they must deliver the goods and benefits and services to the poor, the most vulnerable members of society and to do that they have to invest in their own people and we are seeing that here in Guyana.” He went on to state that Guyana’s accomplishment is indicative of the kind of advances it is making in the very important area of people investment. Those anti-PPP band-wagoners, critics of all sorts, in their absence of rationalised positions opt to fabricate untenable claims about the persistence of marginalisation and discrimination in our society. These claims are orchestrated falsehoods aimed at undermining the potential for increased support, especially among Afro-Guyanese. The PPP has maintained a steady majority in general elections because of the increasing support of Amerindians and Afro-Guyanese. If Region Four is any example to go by, bearing in mind it was the traditional stronghold of the PNC, then the one seat PNC gained over the PPP/C at 2006 Regional elections requires serious notation. Shaken by the reality of growing Afro-Guyanese population within the PPP, these critics utilising their celebrated art of deceit sought to relegate the Afro-Guyanese support in the PPP nomination day parade to a bought and paid for arrangement, an outright absurdity resemblance of an entrapped mind. I am sure it is similarly amusing to every other sane Guyanese that these PPP critics, in attempting to rationalise power sharing as a solution to the withdrawal of their propagandistic masquerading, in one breadth challenges the veracity, competence and intellect of the PPP/C administration. These critics hold an entrenched hatred for the PPP because its philosophy, principles and beliefs remain relevant to the Guyanese people, especially the poor and working class categories. The tenacity of the PPP is of unmatched character. The critics, many of whom have failed to undo the onslaught of injustices against Guyanese in the many years of the PNC dictatorial and oppressive regime, are in no moral authority to criticise the PPP for a superiorly far better job of governance. Many of the governance issues that affect efficient progression in Guyana today were inherited by the PNC. The rebuilding process was never intended to be an overnight task, certainly not in the state Guyana was left. As the only working class movement in Guyana, the PPP will continue amidst all the difficulties of inadequate financial and human resources, to earnestly strive to shape an environment in which every Guyanese can lead productive lives through the development of their full potential. What’s next critics?Kwame McCoy
I have heard some quite amazing April 1, pranks in my lifetime but none that I heard in the past matched two stories that I heard this year. And of course they both occurred in Guyana.The first story was about a man who went into a police station to report that he had just been robbed of over two million dollars which he had withdrawn from the bank. Apparently, as the report went, the man, who is separated from his wife, was hoping that upon learning of his dilemma his wife would feel sorry for him and reunite. That man must be a risk-taker because I know of some women who would feel the very opposite if their paramours were to lose a large sum of money. They would not even think twice about dumping any man who has lost a large sum of money. So if that guy has a wife who feels sorry for him because he was robbed, he had better try to win back her love because she is indeed a kind-hearted woman.If the Peeper thought that this guy faking a robbery to win sympathy was the best April 1 day prank of this year, the Peeper was mistaken. It would seem as if the Alliance For Change was trying to outdo that fellow when it hosted a press conference and announced that there was no longer any parliamentary democracy in Guyana. The basis for this mind-boggling statement is because of the failure of the PPP to allow opposition amendments to a motion dealing with the Stakeholders Forum. The AFC is contending that the refusal of the government to support the amendments proposed to the motion constituted naked contempt for the parliamentary process and the stakeholders.I do not know how the AFC arrived at that position since the government was within its rights not to accommodate the amendments proposed. While there certainly could have been no harm in including the AFC's demand for mention of Article 13 in the resolved section of the motion, there were other things that the AFC sought to include that were not part of the consensus reached between the government and the stakeholders. Therefore, it was unethical and unprincipled for the AFC to have supported the inclusion of items on which there was no consensus.In fact, the AFC should be ashamed to have sought to have included in the motion reference to equitable access to the State media. There was no consensus reached on this point during the forum and therefore its inclusion in the parliamentary motion would have constituted a betrayal of the larger gathering.In fact, it is my view that those who sought to have the issue of equitable access to the State media inserted in the amendment when it was clear that this was not a specific agreement on which consensus was arrived at between all the stakeholders, should be censured by being suspended from any future meeting of the stakeholders.The AFC should therefore, against this background, be lecturing anyone about the lack of parliamentary democracy which in any event has a much different connotation than simply being inclusive.When we speak of parliamentary democracy, we refer to the right of the citizens of a country to freely elect parliamentary representatives of their choice. It is misuse of the concept to refer to the lack of inclusive politics within the Parliament as constituting a lack of parliamentary democracy. In fact, the very foundation of democracy within the Westminster model rests on the idea that the people freely elect their Parliament. If, however, the Alliance For Change feels that there is a lack of such democracy and feels that it has no other choice but to take to the streets, then so be it. I do not know who the AFC is going to get to support any public march that it has.The Alliance For Change is a middle class party that will be unable to attract any credible following for any march against parliamentary democracy, more especially as it exposed the unprincipled nature of the amendment that sought to have inserted a commitment to equitable access to the State media. The AFC should seriously consider apologising to the ruling party and to all stakeholders for its support of amendments that were not agreed to by the overall stakeholder grouping. And the stakeholders should break their silence and denounce this attempt to use the name of the grouping to push an item, no matter how laudable it is, over which no consensus was reached.
PPP remains a strong and vibrant force
Dear Editor,From the beginning there was profound hatred and jealousy for the PPP and it proliferated and dominated every realm of their psyche. The dedicated consistency to the most perverted and brazen form of propaganda against the PPP emanates from the depth of hatred and jealousy for the progressive strive the party continues to make in the absolute interests of all Guyanese.In the history of local politics, the PPP has proven to be the most qualified and competent organised force to deliver the goods and services to Guyanese across the ethnic, social, religious and political divide. As a third world developing country, Guyana’s performance record is commendable even in the face of the harsh realities and challenges, a lot of which are created by the dominance and influences of the developed world.Guyana’s management of its economy by successive PPP/C administrations, the reduction of the debt burden and provision of basic goods and services to its people could be referred to as miraculous undertakings given the inheritance of a bankrupt economy left by the PNC. The U.S. Government validates Guyana’s investment in its people through its Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon, who visited Guyana last week. Shannon at a Joint Press Conference with President Bharrat Jagdeo is quoted as saying, “What we have learnt over time is that for democracies to be successful, they must deliver the goods and benefits and services to the poor, the most vulnerable members of society and to do that they have to invest in their own people and we are seeing that here in Guyana.” He went on to state that Guyana’s accomplishment is indicative of the kind of advances it is making in the very important area of people investment. Those anti-PPP band-wagoners, critics of all sorts, in their absence of rationalised positions opt to fabricate untenable claims about the persistence of marginalisation and discrimination in our society. These claims are orchestrated falsehoods aimed at undermining the potential for increased support, especially among Afro-Guyanese. The PPP has maintained a steady majority in general elections because of the increasing support of Amerindians and Afro-Guyanese. If Region Four is any example to go by, bearing in mind it was the traditional stronghold of the PNC, then the one seat PNC gained over the PPP/C at 2006 Regional elections requires serious notation. Shaken by the reality of growing Afro-Guyanese population within the PPP, these critics utilising their celebrated art of deceit sought to relegate the Afro-Guyanese support in the PPP nomination day parade to a bought and paid for arrangement, an outright absurdity resemblance of an entrapped mind. I am sure it is similarly amusing to every other sane Guyanese that these PPP critics, in attempting to rationalise power sharing as a solution to the withdrawal of their propagandistic masquerading, in one breadth challenges the veracity, competence and intellect of the PPP/C administration. These critics hold an entrenched hatred for the PPP because its philosophy, principles and beliefs remain relevant to the Guyanese people, especially the poor and working class categories. The tenacity of the PPP is of unmatched character. The critics, many of whom have failed to undo the onslaught of injustices against Guyanese in the many years of the PNC dictatorial and oppressive regime, are in no moral authority to criticise the PPP for a superiorly far better job of governance. Many of the governance issues that affect efficient progression in Guyana today were inherited by the PNC. The rebuilding process was never intended to be an overnight task, certainly not in the state Guyana was left. As the only working class movement in Guyana, the PPP will continue amidst all the difficulties of inadequate financial and human resources, to earnestly strive to shape an environment in which every Guyanese can lead productive lives through the development of their full potential. What’s next critics?Kwame McCoy
Guyana helps CARICOM with food
CARICOM team holds discussion with President-as plans for agriculture, food security forum forge ahead
With the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) moving ahead with its plans to address food security in the Region as a result of rising food prices and other issues affecting CARICOM states, a regional team led by CARICOM’s Secretary-General Edwin Carrington yesterday met with President Bharrat Jagdeo to finalise schedules for various fora on the critical issues.Following up on a meeting held in December, 2007 when CARICOM Heads met to discuss the problem of rising food prices and its effects on the region, the Secretary General pointed out that since President Jagdeo is the Head of Government responsible for agriculture and thus, the initiative in the region, today’s discussion was mainly to outline specific dates for a number of meetings which will be convenient to the Guyanese Leader. These will lead up to the major agriculture investment forum involving CARICOM Heads in June. By mid-month, it is expected that the Heads will host a press conference on the issue while a forum to be held in Guyana is being planned for next week. “One of the ways in dealing with the issue of food prices is enhancing the supply, increasing the supply. In fact, there are two aspects, not only food prices, but even food availability. We have to produce it, and Guyana is not only fortunate to have the President leading but you (Guyanese) have a country with one of the inputs necessary for food production – land - something which is not much in abundance in a number of the CARICOM countries”, the Secretary-General posited.He noted that Suriname and Belize also have an advantage in this area. “These are countries in CARICOM that have a large capacity in terms of land and I expect that a significant amount of any increase of the Region’s agriculture will take place right here in Guyana,” he said. As food prices continue to soar in CARICOM and other countries as a result of the rising cost of fuel due to increased demand and a switch in crops among other occurrences, Governments have been putting interim measures in place to cushion the effects. Guyana recently announced a zero-percent excise tax on diesel, in response to the March increase in fuel prices. Oil is now priced at US$110 per barrel. Government also, earlier this year, zero-rated additional food items which once attracted Value Added Tax (VAT). Meanwhile, a number of commodities on the international market have been continuing to increase including milk, cheese and wheat-flour. Last week, The Ministry of Agriculture, in its efforts to promote food security in Guyana, launched a ‘grow more’ campaign to encourage citizens to produce more food locally.
With the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) moving ahead with its plans to address food security in the Region as a result of rising food prices and other issues affecting CARICOM states, a regional team led by CARICOM’s Secretary-General Edwin Carrington yesterday met with President Bharrat Jagdeo to finalise schedules for various fora on the critical issues.Following up on a meeting held in December, 2007 when CARICOM Heads met to discuss the problem of rising food prices and its effects on the region, the Secretary General pointed out that since President Jagdeo is the Head of Government responsible for agriculture and thus, the initiative in the region, today’s discussion was mainly to outline specific dates for a number of meetings which will be convenient to the Guyanese Leader. These will lead up to the major agriculture investment forum involving CARICOM Heads in June. By mid-month, it is expected that the Heads will host a press conference on the issue while a forum to be held in Guyana is being planned for next week. “One of the ways in dealing with the issue of food prices is enhancing the supply, increasing the supply. In fact, there are two aspects, not only food prices, but even food availability. We have to produce it, and Guyana is not only fortunate to have the President leading but you (Guyanese) have a country with one of the inputs necessary for food production – land - something which is not much in abundance in a number of the CARICOM countries”, the Secretary-General posited.He noted that Suriname and Belize also have an advantage in this area. “These are countries in CARICOM that have a large capacity in terms of land and I expect that a significant amount of any increase of the Region’s agriculture will take place right here in Guyana,” he said. As food prices continue to soar in CARICOM and other countries as a result of the rising cost of fuel due to increased demand and a switch in crops among other occurrences, Governments have been putting interim measures in place to cushion the effects. Guyana recently announced a zero-percent excise tax on diesel, in response to the March increase in fuel prices. Oil is now priced at US$110 per barrel. Government also, earlier this year, zero-rated additional food items which once attracted Value Added Tax (VAT). Meanwhile, a number of commodities on the international market have been continuing to increase including milk, cheese and wheat-flour. Last week, The Ministry of Agriculture, in its efforts to promote food security in Guyana, launched a ‘grow more’ campaign to encourage citizens to produce more food locally.
Army Helicopters for Guyana army
Army helicopter arrives
The Government of Guyana has delivered on its promise to enhance the work of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) with the arrival of one of the two Bell 206 helicopters that it had committed to purchasing to aid in crime fight. The helicopter which is outfitted with spotlights arrived yesterday from Costa Rica and is stationed at the GDF Air Corps, Timehri.Chief of Staff of the GDF Commodore Gary Best said the helicopter will begin air surveillance from tomorrow.Subsequent to the Lusignan massacre, President Bharrat Jagdeo had announced that government will be purchasing two helicopters to improve the army’s air patrols which will aid in the fight against transnational crimes and serve as a deterrent to the establishment of illegal airstrips. The other helicopter is expected to arrive from the United States.In this year’s budget, $900M of the $13.7B for the security sector was allocated for the purchase of the helicopters and other equipment and gear for the Joint Services. Following the Lusignan and Bartica massacres which left 23 persons dead, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) loaned Guyana a helicopter to render assistance in the pursuit of criminal gangs which have been carrying out ruthless killings and robberies.The administration has made several interventions to improve the work of the GDF including in the area of training. Government has made available in this year’s budget $63M for training of GDF ranks and officers. Last year $46.19M was spent in this area.
The Government of Guyana has delivered on its promise to enhance the work of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) with the arrival of one of the two Bell 206 helicopters that it had committed to purchasing to aid in crime fight. The helicopter which is outfitted with spotlights arrived yesterday from Costa Rica and is stationed at the GDF Air Corps, Timehri.Chief of Staff of the GDF Commodore Gary Best said the helicopter will begin air surveillance from tomorrow.Subsequent to the Lusignan massacre, President Bharrat Jagdeo had announced that government will be purchasing two helicopters to improve the army’s air patrols which will aid in the fight against transnational crimes and serve as a deterrent to the establishment of illegal airstrips. The other helicopter is expected to arrive from the United States.In this year’s budget, $900M of the $13.7B for the security sector was allocated for the purchase of the helicopters and other equipment and gear for the Joint Services. Following the Lusignan and Bartica massacres which left 23 persons dead, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) loaned Guyana a helicopter to render assistance in the pursuit of criminal gangs which have been carrying out ruthless killings and robberies.The administration has made several interventions to improve the work of the GDF including in the area of training. Government has made available in this year’s budget $63M for training of GDF ranks and officers. Last year $46.19M was spent in this area.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
PPP remains a strong and vibrant force
PPP remains a strong and vibrant force
FROM the beginning there was profound hatred and jealousy for the PPP and it proliferated and dominated every realm of their psyche. The dedicated consistency to the most perverted and brazen form of propaganda against the PPP emanates from the depth of hatred and jealousy for the progressive strive the party continues to make in the absolute interests of all Guyanese.
In the history of local politics, the PPP has proven to be the most qualified and competent organized force to deliver the goods and services to Guyanese across, the ethnic, social, religious and political divide. As a Third World developing country Guyana’s performance record is commendable even in the face of the harsh realities and challenges a lot of which are created by the dominance and influences of the developed world.
Guyana’s management of its economy by successive PPPC administrations, the reduction of the debt burden and provision of basic goods and services to its people could be referred to as miraculous undertakings given the inheritance of a bankrupt economy left by the PNC.
The U.S. Government validates Guyana’s investment in its people through its Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon who visited Guyana last week. Shannon at a Joint Press Conference with President Bharrat Jagdeo is quoted as saying, “What we have learnt over time is that for democracies to be successful, they must deliver the goods and benefits and services to the poor, the most vulnerable members of society and to do that they have to invest in their own people and we are seeing that here in Guyana.’’ He went on to state that Guyana’s accomplishment is indicative of the kind of advances it is making in the very important area of people investment.
Those anti-PPP bandwagoners, critics of all sorts in their absence of rationalized positions opt to fabricate untenable claims about the persistence of marginalization and discrimination in our society. These claims are orchestrated falsehoods aimed at undermining the potential for increased support, especially among Afro-Guyanese. The PPP has maintained a steady majority in general elections because of the increasing support of Amerindians and Afro-Guyanese. If Region 4 is any example to go by, bearing in mind it was the traditional stronghold of the PNC, then the one seat PNC gained over the PPPC at 2006 Regional elections requires serious notation.
Shaken by the reality of growing Afro-Guyanese population within the PPP, these critics utilizing their celebrated art of deceit sought to relegate the Afro-Guyanese support in the PPP nomination day parade to a bought and paid for arrangement, an outright absurdity resemblance of an entrapped mind.
I am sure it is similarly amusing to every other sane Guyanese that these PPP critics in attempting to rationalize power sharing as a solution to the withdrawal of their propagandistic masquerading, in one breadth challenges the veracity, competence and intellect of the PPP/C administration.
These critics hold an entrenched hatred for the PPP because its philosophy, principles and beliefs remain relevant to the Guyanese people, especially the poor and working class categories.
The tenacity of the PPP is of unmatched character. The critics many of whom have failed to undo the onslaught of injustices against Guyanese in the many years of the PNC dictatorial and oppressive regime are in no moral authority to criticize the PPP for a superiorly far better job of governance. Many of the governance issues that affect efficient progression in Guyana today were inherited by the PNC. The rebuilding process was never intended to be an overnight task, certainly not in the state Guyana was left.
As the only working class movement in Guyana, the PPP will continue amidst all the difficulties of inadequate financial and human resources, to earnestly strive to shape an environment in which every Guyanese can lead productive lives through the development of their full potential. What’s next critics? KWAME MCKOY
FROM the beginning there was profound hatred and jealousy for the PPP and it proliferated and dominated every realm of their psyche. The dedicated consistency to the most perverted and brazen form of propaganda against the PPP emanates from the depth of hatred and jealousy for the progressive strive the party continues to make in the absolute interests of all Guyanese.
In the history of local politics, the PPP has proven to be the most qualified and competent organized force to deliver the goods and services to Guyanese across, the ethnic, social, religious and political divide. As a Third World developing country Guyana’s performance record is commendable even in the face of the harsh realities and challenges a lot of which are created by the dominance and influences of the developed world.
Guyana’s management of its economy by successive PPPC administrations, the reduction of the debt burden and provision of basic goods and services to its people could be referred to as miraculous undertakings given the inheritance of a bankrupt economy left by the PNC.
The U.S. Government validates Guyana’s investment in its people through its Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon who visited Guyana last week. Shannon at a Joint Press Conference with President Bharrat Jagdeo is quoted as saying, “What we have learnt over time is that for democracies to be successful, they must deliver the goods and benefits and services to the poor, the most vulnerable members of society and to do that they have to invest in their own people and we are seeing that here in Guyana.’’ He went on to state that Guyana’s accomplishment is indicative of the kind of advances it is making in the very important area of people investment.
Those anti-PPP bandwagoners, critics of all sorts in their absence of rationalized positions opt to fabricate untenable claims about the persistence of marginalization and discrimination in our society. These claims are orchestrated falsehoods aimed at undermining the potential for increased support, especially among Afro-Guyanese. The PPP has maintained a steady majority in general elections because of the increasing support of Amerindians and Afro-Guyanese. If Region 4 is any example to go by, bearing in mind it was the traditional stronghold of the PNC, then the one seat PNC gained over the PPPC at 2006 Regional elections requires serious notation.
Shaken by the reality of growing Afro-Guyanese population within the PPP, these critics utilizing their celebrated art of deceit sought to relegate the Afro-Guyanese support in the PPP nomination day parade to a bought and paid for arrangement, an outright absurdity resemblance of an entrapped mind.
I am sure it is similarly amusing to every other sane Guyanese that these PPP critics in attempting to rationalize power sharing as a solution to the withdrawal of their propagandistic masquerading, in one breadth challenges the veracity, competence and intellect of the PPP/C administration.
These critics hold an entrenched hatred for the PPP because its philosophy, principles and beliefs remain relevant to the Guyanese people, especially the poor and working class categories.
The tenacity of the PPP is of unmatched character. The critics many of whom have failed to undo the onslaught of injustices against Guyanese in the many years of the PNC dictatorial and oppressive regime are in no moral authority to criticize the PPP for a superiorly far better job of governance. Many of the governance issues that affect efficient progression in Guyana today were inherited by the PNC. The rebuilding process was never intended to be an overnight task, certainly not in the state Guyana was left.
As the only working class movement in Guyana, the PPP will continue amidst all the difficulties of inadequate financial and human resources, to earnestly strive to shape an environment in which every Guyanese can lead productive lives through the development of their full potential. What’s next critics? KWAME MCKOY
Where was Caricom in the Burnham years?
Mitchell is a hypocrite. What redress he wants?
Just feeding the fires of racism, all the Caricom bigots.
Where was Caricom in the Burnham years?
April 2, 2008
Dear Editor,I was so disturbed reading your report of Sir James Mitchell’s lecture headlined “Racial tensions here cry out for redress “. Was he reading a PNCR lecture? Where was Caricom during 28 yrs of PNC rigging the elections, jailing people for speaking out, assassination of Dr Rodney, dominance of government jobs and so on.
The fact that he can come to Guyana and speak freely is a change! He needs to let the PNCR know that they need to work with the government to solve this problem.
Enjoy your stay Sir.
Yours faithfully,Ravindra Diadat
Just feeding the fires of racism, all the Caricom bigots.
Where was Caricom in the Burnham years?
April 2, 2008
Dear Editor,I was so disturbed reading your report of Sir James Mitchell’s lecture headlined “Racial tensions here cry out for redress “. Was he reading a PNCR lecture? Where was Caricom during 28 yrs of PNC rigging the elections, jailing people for speaking out, assassination of Dr Rodney, dominance of government jobs and so on.
The fact that he can come to Guyana and speak freely is a change! He needs to let the PNCR know that they need to work with the government to solve this problem.
Enjoy your stay Sir.
Yours faithfully,Ravindra Diadat
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)