Government for all Guyanese
I challenge the likes of Robert Corbin, ACDA, Eric Phillips, Rickford Burke, Debra Carter, Karen Jack and Kean Gibson and all those who are peddling their lies of African Guyanese Marginalisation to tell me and the world that this EX-Soldier, a supporter of PNC is wrong, and that he is a racist.
Eric Phillips, you said you didn't get what you asked this Government for because you submitted names and they asked for photos to substantiate the names you submitted.
Therefore you were marginalised.
What a shame.
Phillips, travel to another country without your photo on your passport. Just tell the airport authorities you are Eric Phillips from ACDA. And see what happens.
I am willing to bet my last dollar you will be marginalised at the airport too because you won’t be getting on any flight without your photo on your passport.
Phillips you said that was your last letter---evidence of marginalisation...in Kaieteur news dated April 28,08.
You bet it had been your last attempt to talk about something that you have no knowledge about.
Come again with better facts of African Guyanese Marginalisation in Guyana by this Government.
This letter of the ex-soldier was in the Chronicle dated Monday April 28,08.
I dare any of the above mentioned names to dispute the facts stated by the ex-soldier.
So the case is closed because there is no proof from any of you of African Guyanese Marginalisation by this PPP/C Government.
It is called inclusive Government for all Guyanese.
T. KING
We must ignore Kissoon’s childish tantrum
I am not in favour of long drawn out attacks in the media on persons in our society. When there is a problem, we should study it carefully and objectively and then determine the root cause. In the analysis for the root cause, we will, more than likely, discover that it is either a flawed policy or a flawed interpretation that resulted in the initial problem, real or imaginary.
I am beginning to get tired of the constant undeserved attention being paid to Mr. Kissoon.
Why are we so bent out of shape over this individual? I guess I found a partial answer today while reading his letter in another of our newspapers. Here’s a quote, “Funny how they saw bad government when a different group ruled Guyana in the seventies and eighties. Now their type is in control, and they are silent about identical forms of bad government. Mr. Benschop was put in prison for five years. Mr. Waddell was assassinated. Mr. Hinckson is now in remand. If Burnham had done all of that, they would have roamed the earth denouncing him.
There is no flawed policy working here. This is a flawed soul. While I am no expert at psychoanalysis, it is very apparent to me that this, Mr. Kissoon is longing for recognition and power. He, I am convinced, knows that reporting progress is boring and will not get him the attention he craves. Therefore, he concludes, he must put some spice in the pot – whether this is irresponsible or dishonest is not relevant.
In his bid to be recognised he pulls out the race card and – what a laugh - defends Forbes Burnham in the same breadth. My good Lord! Who allows such a crocodile to shed his tears in a newspaper?
He said he was fighting the Burnham government. I wonder what was his disagreement with that government.
Now he finds a problem with the police for arresting and charging people, suspected of committing crimes under the law. In the same letter, he even implies that the government is responsible for the death of Mr. Waddle.
Mr. Kissoon, it’s not a question of “If Burnham had done all of that…”. If you are a disciplined and objective observer and if you were one that fought the PNC government you would not have made such a silly statement. You would have known about the destruction in Georgetown and the ethnic cleansing in Mackenzie / Wismar that was perpetrated by the PNC. You want to talk race, let’s talk about the real racists.
My fellow Guyanese and readers of our newspapers, I suggest that we politely ignore the childish tantrum that Mr. Kissoon displays in his articles and letters. He is like George Bush. He will say the craziest things because he has little or no respect for his audience. That, my friends, is the doings of a sick mind. In turn, we should sympathise with him and try to help him – but please, we cannot help him by paying more attention to his sick rantings.
RN
Freddie must tell the people about the big coat in Summer
Frederick Kissoon replied (27 April) to my letter which asked him to desist from making references to me in his writings. As an aside, I also asked him to take a good look in the mirror and try to recognise and come to terms with his abominable activities in Canada which contributed to his failure.
Apparently, this prolific writer does not understand plain English. Instead, what I see is that the cuss bud has returned injured and enraged, this time cussing me together with the whole neighborhood even louder! His “immense resentment” is intensified.
And for what? Because we live and work in “postmodern environments with better toilet facilities” rather than return to Guyana. Well sir, the truth is that Kissoon wanted to continue living in these postmodern environments and use these toilet facilities but failed to make it. Apparently, he could not meet the moral and intellectual standards of maturity and integrity that are required to succeed in these environments. He failed because of his academic incompetence and other uncivilised activities. All of these are deep rooted.
Big-coat Kissoon was a well known student book seller in Toronto . He said he looked in the mirror. Did he see Big-coat Kissoon? Even in summer, this infamous book dealer wore his big coat when he went “shopping”. Have another look in the mirror Frederick, and then devise another way to explain to your family, your students at UG, the whole Guyana, and the diplomatic corps reading KN what the reason was for your big coat.
Or, would you rather try to hide by cussing down the whole neighbourhood again for being “bad people, flawed people, unfair people, powerful people, selfish people, unjust people, exploitative people”? Man, I’ve got to be honest. Dr. Thakur was spot on about your serious Freudian problems. This is a model case of displacement.
The last time it was infantile sexual anxieties relating to Kissoon’s “immense resentment” for the Father figure with better toilet facilities. Freud traced this complex of anxieties to penis envy. Look it up in your Psych. Dic. Freddie and you will see yourself and know yourself.
And seriously Mr. Editor, Frederick Kissoon needs a holiday, a long one, for he has outlived his purpose at KN. Like so many times before, he has again failed. After more than a decade of writing, he has nothing to show for it. He has failed to bring about the violent destabilisation of the elected government of Guyana or to make a good case to cover his tracks.
To Kissoon, I say, frankly, you mash the wrong man corn! Stop hounding people everywhere for freeness. Get a job you think you can be good at and ease up on cussing the neighborhood. It doesn’t work! Dedicate yourself instead to learning the refined arts of living a balanced life.
But, most of all, please don’t wear the Big coat in Guyana. Guyanese, as you said, are poor enough.
Dr. WALTER H. PERSAUD
KMUT, Thailand
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Rickford Burke’s Dangerous Path of Perception; Where is Marginalization?
PERSPECTIVES
Where is Marginalization?
Part 4 – A Rejoinder
By Prem Misir
LET me say for the umpteenth time that our findings on marginalization focused on only one type of marginalization, social marginalization; and social marginalization has to do with examining the levels of ethnic participation in the occupational structure.
And in multiethnic societies, knowing the ethnic demographics is a prerequisite for appropriate policy formulation and good governance. Policies have to touch the lives of all of a country's citizens, and no citizen should be left behind. And so knowing the status of various ethnic groups, especially in the occupational structure, would facilitate better planning and execution of effective programs for the good of all Guyanese.
Over the past few weeks, I have been presenting findings addressing the ethnic distribution of participation in the public service. These findings have generated a huge response; but there was one personal attack from Rickford Burke of the Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy in New York City. But I take whatever comes in good stead, as all this goes with the terrain whether you are in academia or in some other public sphere.
And how about if our findings on ethnic distribution had shown that Africans are not marginalized, would the critics then say that this ethnic distribution is meaningless? Then if by chance, these findings do show that Africans are marginalized, then these findings would have received great accolades. And so this is the nature of the beast that permeates the critics' responses to our findings on marginalization.
I, however, would advise the Burkes of this world that personal attacks merely bring very superfluous, phony short-term gains, but have no sustainable capacity. Our findings are very significant for policy-making measures where we must continue to push for a better quality of life for all Guyanese.
And how about if our findings on ethnic distribution had shown that Africans are not marginalized; would the critics then say that this ethnic distribution is meaningless? Then if by chance, these findings do show that Africans are marginalized, then these findings would have received great accolades. And so this is the nature of the beast that permeates the critics' responses to our findings on marginalization.
The crime I seemingly may have committed, in the critics' eyes, is to release findings on the ethnic distribution of participation in the public service, and which is part of a larger study since 2002; and these findings show that many Africans are well-placed occupationally. These findings also are true of Indians, Amerindians, Mixed, and Others. However, all the responses have focused only on Africans.
However, I did not measure whether or not these well-placed Africans are tokens, are micromanaged, or are controlled by other people; and so I cannot say that they are micromanaged, or controlled. But what I can say is that they occupy senior positions. At any rate, telling a senior African manager who is not a token that he/she is a token, may very well be an insult to that person's intelligence.
But the critics all seem to conclude that well-placed Africans are marginalized, in that they are micromanaged, are tokens, or controlled by other people. Well, these critics would have to provide evidence that Africans in senior positions really are tokens, or controlled by others; this they have not done; capricious examples will not do. What yardsticks or what measures the critics apply to determine their conclusion that Africans are marginalized, or that Africans are in office and not in power. At least, I have presented evidence on the ethnic distribution of participation in the public service.
The critics need to understand, too, that we are presenting findings on only one type of marginalization, social marginalization; and social marginalization has to do with examining the levels of participation in the occupational structure.
Some critics seem confused about the distinction between marginalization and discrimination; they are not the same. And it is common knowledge that in a multiethnic society wherever marginalization prevails, it tends to touch all ethnic groups.
Again the critics seem confused about risk factors for marginalization and marginalization itself. Significant risk factors for marginalization include poverty, unemployment, sickness, physical disability. But risk factors are not forms of marginalization and their presence should not be equated with marginalization. In fact, experiencing social or/economic disadvantage is not necessarily marginalization.
Marginalization is a process, not a condition; and so the individual can experience marginalization in some parts of the life cycle and not in other parts.
This means that it may be hard to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary marginalization; cases may exist where an individual makes a voluntary choice that may involuntarily produce marginalization; or where an individual makes progressive adaptations to his marginalized status and sees the experience as acceptable.
Marginalization involves exclusion from participation in some areas of society. It is important to note that marginalization in one area of social life does not necessarily produce marginalization in others. Simmel, a German Sociologist, explains that marginalization is incomplete participation.
Rickford Burke's Dangerous Path of Perception
Real Data Fail to Support Marginalization
By Dr Tara Singh
IN politics in particular, "perception" is even more powerful than reality. Some critics like Rickford Burke who readily embrace perception and racism have also shown a penchant to unleash them with reckless abandon. Neither caring for authenticity nor the rigors of sound scholarship, and ready to trample on morality, people like Burke operate in a world of illusion, but not without moving aggressively to sway others into their concocted realm of distortions and innuendos. While established science and religion have "truth" as their core principle, that is anathema to them. Accepting the truth will not only mean a massive transformation, but also, lead to the crumbling of their beloved fate of racism.
It's the pursuit of truth that will eventually set us free; no matter how great may be our temporary advantage. Radical perceptionists aim to keep us in darkness, a situation where the blind leads the blind. They continue to bombard us with distortions. And if we are weak, we buckle under their relentless pressure. If we are strong enough, their mission collapses. And how do we become strong? By seeking the truth! The IT (information technology) revolution has endowed us with an infrastructure capable of enhancing our knowledge and wisdom that can eventually tear down the walls of darkness, and erect instead, a fortress of enlightenment. In this way, we can bring their misguided journey to a halt.
The truth must never become a casualty of expediency. We recognize that it carries a high price in the short run, but such sacrifice will pay enormous dividends later. Let's be guided in our deliberations and actions by the scientific method, as well as, by the moral compass of our spiritualism. While there are instances when some type of perception may turn into the truth, more often than not, it remains just perception, and loaded with undesirable connotations. Our challenge, therefore, is never to allow perception to be a substitute for truth.
What's the practical application of this approach, for example, to the social situation in Guyana? Some say that President Bharrat Jagdeo and his PPP/C government represent an "ethnocracy." What's the meaning of this, in layman terms? It's a government of one ethnic group that is also a dictatorship. This is a classic case of perception or falsehood. President Jagdeo and his government were duly elected at fair and free elections. They did not rig the elections, as previous PNCR governments had done. In addition, the Jagdeo government contains 50% non-Indians, compared with the Patrick Manning PNM government of Trinbago that has less than 20% of Indians. If there is a dictator in a CARICOM country, then look to Trinbago, and not to Guyana. Yet, our critics including Rickford Burke conveniently ignore this situation and embrace Manning and his government, especially when Burke recently dispatched a letter to Manning describing the evils of the Jagdeo government and siding with the Manning administration; clearly, the logic here points to Rickford Burke as a racist.
President Jagdeo has shown a remarkable capacity to cross ethnic boundaries. It is known that the PNCR government presided over the economic collapse of the bauxite mining town at Linden, and that it is the Jagdeo administration that has infused it with new life. It's no wonder that the PPP/C won a Parliamentary seat for the first time at Linden (a former stronghold of the PNCR), something which the critics had failed to perceive. The PPP/C won a sizeable number of Afro-Guyanese votes at Linden and elsewhere in the country.
By the pursuit of sound policies and "inclusionary" measures, the Bharrat Jagdeo government has even made greater inroads into interior communities, the once traditional strongholds of the TUF and the PNCR. But the process of "enlightenment" that sweeps across the country has not left the Amerindian communities untouched. In gratitude, they delivered, for the first time, a number of Parliamentary seats to the PPP/C. And how can we forget about President Jagdeo's recent appointment of Ms Carolyn Rodriguez, an Amerindian, to the high-profile position of Minister of Foreign Affairs! What ethnocracy are they talking about? Are they using marginalization as a surrogate for exclusion from Cabinet-level power? "Rickford Burke, snap out of your dream, Burnham and Hoyte are no longer there."
Rickford Burke, a PNCR activist, desperately fighting for Robert Corbin's position, now a so-called democratic guru of the worst kind, and a bitter critic of the Jagdeo administration, has launched a scathing attack on Dr Prem Misir. Again, the basis of his argument is grounded in perception and innuendos. "Prem Misir, the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Guyana, continually demonstrates his proclivities for blatant partisan politics, which manifest Guyana's ruling People's Progressive Party's (PPP) philosophy of racism. His prejudices are openly and recklessly promulgated by pen in the daily media, as he enmeshes himself into his party's ethnocratic politics and promotes their nefarious propaganda as the State apparatus' misinformation czar."
This type of incendiary outburst by Rickford Burke is not scholarship, but a sordid attempt to demonize an outstanding Guyanese, one who rose from the sugar plantations to become the Pro-Chancellor of UG. The "racist" epithet better fits Rickford Burke and not Dr Misir, who has shown a capacity in his writings with seven (7) books to his credit and several research studies and articles, as well as, in his life to rise above racism.
And Burke claims, too, that Misir is exploiting the gowns of academia to dispense partisan politics. The University of Guyana (UG) has several senior academics and administrators who are clearly aligned with various political parties, and blatantly dole out partisanship. And let it be known that there is no such thing as a class of literati at this UG, who has the capability and integrity to recognize anyone for scholarship. No one in academia at the present UG could merit recognition as a scholar; and their political leanings are astounding.
Don't confuse Dr Misir's disdain for PNCR politics with racism. To some people, to criticize the PNCR is tantamount to become a racist. Don't "pull down" Dr Misir because he is bold enough to show via research that Afro-Guyanese have not been marginalized by the PPP/C, as claimed frequently by critics. Upon what evil and racist road is Rickford Burke's one-man Guyana Caribbean Institute for Democracy sliding?
Let's examine the notion of marginalization. At the level of the Permanent Secretary, both Indo and Afro are fairly well represented. However, Afro-Guyanese hold an advantage in all other senior administrative and executive positions, such as, Deputy Permanent Secretaries, Principal Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Accountant Heads, and Senior Personnel Officers. "There is an evolving ethnic mix in the hierarchy of control throughout the Public Service," says Dr Misir.
Most Heads of Nursery, Primary, and Secondary Schools, are Afro-Guyanese. Only at the Primary level do Indo-Guyanese show competitiveness with Afro-Guyanese for Headships. Under the PNC/R regime, 70% of Afro-Guyanese were Regional Education Officers (REDOs). In 2006, Afro-Guyanese constituted 55% and Indo-Guyanese 45% of REDOs. There is a disproportionate number of Afro-Guyanese over Indo-Guyanese academic staff at the University of Guyana. "The ethnic imbalance among academics is astounding -- 22% of Indo-Guyanese, as opposed to, 67% of Afro-Guyanese that occupy faculty positions." Only in the Natural Sciences, is there any competitiveness in staff allocation.
Again, there are data in other areas of public life to refute the thesis of Afro-Guyanese marginalization. Between 1992 and 2002, for example, over 70,000 house lots were distributed to Guyanese, of which 29,287 were allotted to Indo-Guyanese and 25,810 to Afro-Guyanese in the 10 regions. This equitable distribution holds good also for Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese in the Education State Boards, as well as, other State Boards (Source: Where is Marginalization, Part 2 by Dr Prem Misir).
Having reviewed these data, we are puzzled to understand why these critics still speak about ethnic "marginalization." Was marginalization a concept ever developed during the Burnham era? If so, why wasn't it applied then to the social conditions of Guyana? Critics seemed to be more concerned about preserving the "rights" of a few, who had stolen power, rather than with the pursuit of the truth. Perhaps, if they dared, they would have been liquidated! For other critics, their time had come, and accountability was less important than enjoying the trappings of office.
The PPP/C government inherited a grave problem that they never created. Economic collapse, a huge foreign debt, double digit inflation, high interest rates, negative foreign reserves, and a battered population who managed to survive, but were left hopeless by years of PNCR tyranny. For 28 years, the PNC/R had been unable to lift the Guyanese people (Afro-Guyanese, Indo-Guyanese, Amer-Guyanese, and Others) out of poverty and despair, and brought them instead to economic ruins. Yet the same critics had failed to chastise the PNCR government for their ineptitude.
Over the succeeding 15 years (1992-2008), was it reasonable to have expected the PPP/C to pull Guyanese out of that abyss of despair into which they were hurled? While most of the available evidence is positive, we must indicate here that most Guyanese are not yet happy with the fight against crime and corruption. The failure to capture the notorious Buxton Rawlins' gang, despite massive injection of assets into the army and police, and other law enforcement agencies, still leaves Guyanese baffled. Will this gang be ever apprehended? Will the infusion of additional capital assets into the Police Force in particular necessarily lead to attitudinal transformation? Will this help to change the "culture" of the police?
On the positive side, inflation is in single digits; the national debt is less than
US$700 M; there is a healthy foreign reserve; growth is positive; and never before in the history of the country had there been a more inclusive governing structure than presently. In the absence of shared governance, inclusive governance is a step ahead of the Westminster Parliamentary model.
The government can do much better if only it gets the support of the PNCR and other opposition elements. Distortions and the spreading of fear hurt everyone. Poverty and unemployment exist, but these cannot be equated with marginalization, which is a conscious policy to leave defined groups behind in the process of development based on colour or ethnicity. No one believes that the PPP/C government is engaged in this deprecatory practice.
Let's continue to bring alleged cases of racial discrimination to the Ethnic Relations Commission for adjudication. And yes, let's stop peddling false information, and work together to build our country. More than ever, Guyana needs builders and not destroyers.
http://guyanaforever.blogspot.com
http://guyana2.blogspot.com
Where is Marginalization?
Part 4 – A Rejoinder
By Prem Misir
LET me say for the umpteenth time that our findings on marginalization focused on only one type of marginalization, social marginalization; and social marginalization has to do with examining the levels of ethnic participation in the occupational structure.
And in multiethnic societies, knowing the ethnic demographics is a prerequisite for appropriate policy formulation and good governance. Policies have to touch the lives of all of a country's citizens, and no citizen should be left behind. And so knowing the status of various ethnic groups, especially in the occupational structure, would facilitate better planning and execution of effective programs for the good of all Guyanese.
Over the past few weeks, I have been presenting findings addressing the ethnic distribution of participation in the public service. These findings have generated a huge response; but there was one personal attack from Rickford Burke of the Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy in New York City. But I take whatever comes in good stead, as all this goes with the terrain whether you are in academia or in some other public sphere.
And how about if our findings on ethnic distribution had shown that Africans are not marginalized, would the critics then say that this ethnic distribution is meaningless? Then if by chance, these findings do show that Africans are marginalized, then these findings would have received great accolades. And so this is the nature of the beast that permeates the critics' responses to our findings on marginalization.
I, however, would advise the Burkes of this world that personal attacks merely bring very superfluous, phony short-term gains, but have no sustainable capacity. Our findings are very significant for policy-making measures where we must continue to push for a better quality of life for all Guyanese.
And how about if our findings on ethnic distribution had shown that Africans are not marginalized; would the critics then say that this ethnic distribution is meaningless? Then if by chance, these findings do show that Africans are marginalized, then these findings would have received great accolades. And so this is the nature of the beast that permeates the critics' responses to our findings on marginalization.
The crime I seemingly may have committed, in the critics' eyes, is to release findings on the ethnic distribution of participation in the public service, and which is part of a larger study since 2002; and these findings show that many Africans are well-placed occupationally. These findings also are true of Indians, Amerindians, Mixed, and Others. However, all the responses have focused only on Africans.
However, I did not measure whether or not these well-placed Africans are tokens, are micromanaged, or are controlled by other people; and so I cannot say that they are micromanaged, or controlled. But what I can say is that they occupy senior positions. At any rate, telling a senior African manager who is not a token that he/she is a token, may very well be an insult to that person's intelligence.
But the critics all seem to conclude that well-placed Africans are marginalized, in that they are micromanaged, are tokens, or controlled by other people. Well, these critics would have to provide evidence that Africans in senior positions really are tokens, or controlled by others; this they have not done; capricious examples will not do. What yardsticks or what measures the critics apply to determine their conclusion that Africans are marginalized, or that Africans are in office and not in power. At least, I have presented evidence on the ethnic distribution of participation in the public service.
The critics need to understand, too, that we are presenting findings on only one type of marginalization, social marginalization; and social marginalization has to do with examining the levels of participation in the occupational structure.
Some critics seem confused about the distinction between marginalization and discrimination; they are not the same. And it is common knowledge that in a multiethnic society wherever marginalization prevails, it tends to touch all ethnic groups.
Again the critics seem confused about risk factors for marginalization and marginalization itself. Significant risk factors for marginalization include poverty, unemployment, sickness, physical disability. But risk factors are not forms of marginalization and their presence should not be equated with marginalization. In fact, experiencing social or/economic disadvantage is not necessarily marginalization.
Marginalization is a process, not a condition; and so the individual can experience marginalization in some parts of the life cycle and not in other parts.
This means that it may be hard to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary marginalization; cases may exist where an individual makes a voluntary choice that may involuntarily produce marginalization; or where an individual makes progressive adaptations to his marginalized status and sees the experience as acceptable.
Marginalization involves exclusion from participation in some areas of society. It is important to note that marginalization in one area of social life does not necessarily produce marginalization in others. Simmel, a German Sociologist, explains that marginalization is incomplete participation.
Rickford Burke's Dangerous Path of Perception
Real Data Fail to Support Marginalization
By Dr Tara Singh
IN politics in particular, "perception" is even more powerful than reality. Some critics like Rickford Burke who readily embrace perception and racism have also shown a penchant to unleash them with reckless abandon. Neither caring for authenticity nor the rigors of sound scholarship, and ready to trample on morality, people like Burke operate in a world of illusion, but not without moving aggressively to sway others into their concocted realm of distortions and innuendos. While established science and religion have "truth" as their core principle, that is anathema to them. Accepting the truth will not only mean a massive transformation, but also, lead to the crumbling of their beloved fate of racism.
It's the pursuit of truth that will eventually set us free; no matter how great may be our temporary advantage. Radical perceptionists aim to keep us in darkness, a situation where the blind leads the blind. They continue to bombard us with distortions. And if we are weak, we buckle under their relentless pressure. If we are strong enough, their mission collapses. And how do we become strong? By seeking the truth! The IT (information technology) revolution has endowed us with an infrastructure capable of enhancing our knowledge and wisdom that can eventually tear down the walls of darkness, and erect instead, a fortress of enlightenment. In this way, we can bring their misguided journey to a halt.
The truth must never become a casualty of expediency. We recognize that it carries a high price in the short run, but such sacrifice will pay enormous dividends later. Let's be guided in our deliberations and actions by the scientific method, as well as, by the moral compass of our spiritualism. While there are instances when some type of perception may turn into the truth, more often than not, it remains just perception, and loaded with undesirable connotations. Our challenge, therefore, is never to allow perception to be a substitute for truth.
What's the practical application of this approach, for example, to the social situation in Guyana? Some say that President Bharrat Jagdeo and his PPP/C government represent an "ethnocracy." What's the meaning of this, in layman terms? It's a government of one ethnic group that is also a dictatorship. This is a classic case of perception or falsehood. President Jagdeo and his government were duly elected at fair and free elections. They did not rig the elections, as previous PNCR governments had done. In addition, the Jagdeo government contains 50% non-Indians, compared with the Patrick Manning PNM government of Trinbago that has less than 20% of Indians. If there is a dictator in a CARICOM country, then look to Trinbago, and not to Guyana. Yet, our critics including Rickford Burke conveniently ignore this situation and embrace Manning and his government, especially when Burke recently dispatched a letter to Manning describing the evils of the Jagdeo government and siding with the Manning administration; clearly, the logic here points to Rickford Burke as a racist.
President Jagdeo has shown a remarkable capacity to cross ethnic boundaries. It is known that the PNCR government presided over the economic collapse of the bauxite mining town at Linden, and that it is the Jagdeo administration that has infused it with new life. It's no wonder that the PPP/C won a Parliamentary seat for the first time at Linden (a former stronghold of the PNCR), something which the critics had failed to perceive. The PPP/C won a sizeable number of Afro-Guyanese votes at Linden and elsewhere in the country.
By the pursuit of sound policies and "inclusionary" measures, the Bharrat Jagdeo government has even made greater inroads into interior communities, the once traditional strongholds of the TUF and the PNCR. But the process of "enlightenment" that sweeps across the country has not left the Amerindian communities untouched. In gratitude, they delivered, for the first time, a number of Parliamentary seats to the PPP/C. And how can we forget about President Jagdeo's recent appointment of Ms Carolyn Rodriguez, an Amerindian, to the high-profile position of Minister of Foreign Affairs! What ethnocracy are they talking about? Are they using marginalization as a surrogate for exclusion from Cabinet-level power? "Rickford Burke, snap out of your dream, Burnham and Hoyte are no longer there."
Rickford Burke, a PNCR activist, desperately fighting for Robert Corbin's position, now a so-called democratic guru of the worst kind, and a bitter critic of the Jagdeo administration, has launched a scathing attack on Dr Prem Misir. Again, the basis of his argument is grounded in perception and innuendos. "Prem Misir, the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Guyana, continually demonstrates his proclivities for blatant partisan politics, which manifest Guyana's ruling People's Progressive Party's (PPP) philosophy of racism. His prejudices are openly and recklessly promulgated by pen in the daily media, as he enmeshes himself into his party's ethnocratic politics and promotes their nefarious propaganda as the State apparatus' misinformation czar."
This type of incendiary outburst by Rickford Burke is not scholarship, but a sordid attempt to demonize an outstanding Guyanese, one who rose from the sugar plantations to become the Pro-Chancellor of UG. The "racist" epithet better fits Rickford Burke and not Dr Misir, who has shown a capacity in his writings with seven (7) books to his credit and several research studies and articles, as well as, in his life to rise above racism.
And Burke claims, too, that Misir is exploiting the gowns of academia to dispense partisan politics. The University of Guyana (UG) has several senior academics and administrators who are clearly aligned with various political parties, and blatantly dole out partisanship. And let it be known that there is no such thing as a class of literati at this UG, who has the capability and integrity to recognize anyone for scholarship. No one in academia at the present UG could merit recognition as a scholar; and their political leanings are astounding.
Don't confuse Dr Misir's disdain for PNCR politics with racism. To some people, to criticize the PNCR is tantamount to become a racist. Don't "pull down" Dr Misir because he is bold enough to show via research that Afro-Guyanese have not been marginalized by the PPP/C, as claimed frequently by critics. Upon what evil and racist road is Rickford Burke's one-man Guyana Caribbean Institute for Democracy sliding?
Let's examine the notion of marginalization. At the level of the Permanent Secretary, both Indo and Afro are fairly well represented. However, Afro-Guyanese hold an advantage in all other senior administrative and executive positions, such as, Deputy Permanent Secretaries, Principal Assistant Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Accountant Heads, and Senior Personnel Officers. "There is an evolving ethnic mix in the hierarchy of control throughout the Public Service," says Dr Misir.
Most Heads of Nursery, Primary, and Secondary Schools, are Afro-Guyanese. Only at the Primary level do Indo-Guyanese show competitiveness with Afro-Guyanese for Headships. Under the PNC/R regime, 70% of Afro-Guyanese were Regional Education Officers (REDOs). In 2006, Afro-Guyanese constituted 55% and Indo-Guyanese 45% of REDOs. There is a disproportionate number of Afro-Guyanese over Indo-Guyanese academic staff at the University of Guyana. "The ethnic imbalance among academics is astounding -- 22% of Indo-Guyanese, as opposed to, 67% of Afro-Guyanese that occupy faculty positions." Only in the Natural Sciences, is there any competitiveness in staff allocation.
Again, there are data in other areas of public life to refute the thesis of Afro-Guyanese marginalization. Between 1992 and 2002, for example, over 70,000 house lots were distributed to Guyanese, of which 29,287 were allotted to Indo-Guyanese and 25,810 to Afro-Guyanese in the 10 regions. This equitable distribution holds good also for Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese in the Education State Boards, as well as, other State Boards (Source: Where is Marginalization, Part 2 by Dr Prem Misir).
Having reviewed these data, we are puzzled to understand why these critics still speak about ethnic "marginalization." Was marginalization a concept ever developed during the Burnham era? If so, why wasn't it applied then to the social conditions of Guyana? Critics seemed to be more concerned about preserving the "rights" of a few, who had stolen power, rather than with the pursuit of the truth. Perhaps, if they dared, they would have been liquidated! For other critics, their time had come, and accountability was less important than enjoying the trappings of office.
The PPP/C government inherited a grave problem that they never created. Economic collapse, a huge foreign debt, double digit inflation, high interest rates, negative foreign reserves, and a battered population who managed to survive, but were left hopeless by years of PNCR tyranny. For 28 years, the PNC/R had been unable to lift the Guyanese people (Afro-Guyanese, Indo-Guyanese, Amer-Guyanese, and Others) out of poverty and despair, and brought them instead to economic ruins. Yet the same critics had failed to chastise the PNCR government for their ineptitude.
Over the succeeding 15 years (1992-2008), was it reasonable to have expected the PPP/C to pull Guyanese out of that abyss of despair into which they were hurled? While most of the available evidence is positive, we must indicate here that most Guyanese are not yet happy with the fight against crime and corruption. The failure to capture the notorious Buxton Rawlins' gang, despite massive injection of assets into the army and police, and other law enforcement agencies, still leaves Guyanese baffled. Will this gang be ever apprehended? Will the infusion of additional capital assets into the Police Force in particular necessarily lead to attitudinal transformation? Will this help to change the "culture" of the police?
On the positive side, inflation is in single digits; the national debt is less than
US$700 M; there is a healthy foreign reserve; growth is positive; and never before in the history of the country had there been a more inclusive governing structure than presently. In the absence of shared governance, inclusive governance is a step ahead of the Westminster Parliamentary model.
The government can do much better if only it gets the support of the PNCR and other opposition elements. Distortions and the spreading of fear hurt everyone. Poverty and unemployment exist, but these cannot be equated with marginalization, which is a conscious policy to leave defined groups behind in the process of development based on colour or ethnicity. No one believes that the PPP/C government is engaged in this deprecatory practice.
Let's continue to bring alleged cases of racial discrimination to the Ethnic Relations Commission for adjudication. And yes, let's stop peddling false information, and work together to build our country. More than ever, Guyana needs builders and not destroyers.
http://guyanaforever.blogspot.com
http://guyana2.blogspot.com
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Marginalisation requires detailed analysis, it can’t just be asserted
Marginalisation requires detailed analysis, it can’t just be asserted
April 26, 2008
Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to Kean Gibson’s letter captioned “case can be made for marginalisation without the use of statistics” (08.04.24)
This flimsy assertion is an attempt by Ms Gibson, to make a claim and not see the need to prove it. She cannot make wild accusations and then say you don’t need any proof. That suggests her claims are not grounded in reality but are based on hearsay and rumours because any sensible person will ask questions such as, how, when, where, show me. Like I have said before to others who make similar claims of marginalisation of African-Guyanese, where are the statistics to back up the claim you are making?
Ms Gibson goes on to say that African Guyanese are referred to as “criminals, murderers, rapists, lawless, two-faced, untrustworthy, violent, only interested in sex and drugs etc”, in the Guyana Chronicle. I don’t recall ever seeing these terms used to describe African Guyanese in the Chronicle. I challenge Ms Gibson to give a specific example.
What I do see in the papers is the reference to people involved in crime and murders as killers and rapists and thieves. What would you like us to call them, Ms Gibson?
The writer goes on to make all kinds of assertions about the police and army killing black men. Ms Gibson, the men who have been killed in shootouts with police in the large majority of cases, were armed, wanted, or suspects in crimes.
I challenge you to compare the number of arrests made, as opposed to those incidents when someone was killed in a confrontation with the police, and you will see that the latter is a tiny part of the whole.
But, Ms Gibson, I think you have touched on a very contentious issue in your claim about African Guyanese being described as criminals, etc. The problem here is that the media refuses to describe suspects according to race. When a crime is committed, and the victims have seen the perpetrators, as in Enmore and Bartica, their description should be made public in the media. This way there will be no dispute of who is being labelled a criminal, and who is not.
I know that the large majority of African Guyanese are not criminals or thieves or murderers or rapists. I know that many are decent, hard-working people. However, it is clear that there is a segment of the African Guyanese population that is bent on crime and is congregated in certain areas - Buxton, Agricola, Albouystown, etc. They have been used and are being encouraged by the black right-wing to cause mayhem, make Guyana “unmanageable and “ungovernable”. When people see African Guyanese committing these crimes and being used to instill fear and cause chaos in the society, do you not understand that they would associate them with criminal activity? You cannot blame the government or Indians for that.
If you care to respond to this letter, please don’t go blaming the present government for the high crime rate among African Guyanese. This was the case under Burnham and Hoyte as well, and Indians were the victims then also. Take the time to look at structural, cultural, and political influences within the black community, as explanations for this phenomenon.
It is the same whether you look at Indians and Africans in Trinidad or Fiji or Uganda or South Africa. We must have the wherewithal to do an honest analysis instead of looking to blame others for our problems. Only then can we begin to solve them.
Yours faithfully,
Mohan Singh
April 26, 2008
Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to Kean Gibson’s letter captioned “case can be made for marginalisation without the use of statistics” (08.04.24)
This flimsy assertion is an attempt by Ms Gibson, to make a claim and not see the need to prove it. She cannot make wild accusations and then say you don’t need any proof. That suggests her claims are not grounded in reality but are based on hearsay and rumours because any sensible person will ask questions such as, how, when, where, show me. Like I have said before to others who make similar claims of marginalisation of African-Guyanese, where are the statistics to back up the claim you are making?
Ms Gibson goes on to say that African Guyanese are referred to as “criminals, murderers, rapists, lawless, two-faced, untrustworthy, violent, only interested in sex and drugs etc”, in the Guyana Chronicle. I don’t recall ever seeing these terms used to describe African Guyanese in the Chronicle. I challenge Ms Gibson to give a specific example.
What I do see in the papers is the reference to people involved in crime and murders as killers and rapists and thieves. What would you like us to call them, Ms Gibson?
The writer goes on to make all kinds of assertions about the police and army killing black men. Ms Gibson, the men who have been killed in shootouts with police in the large majority of cases, were armed, wanted, or suspects in crimes.
I challenge you to compare the number of arrests made, as opposed to those incidents when someone was killed in a confrontation with the police, and you will see that the latter is a tiny part of the whole.
But, Ms Gibson, I think you have touched on a very contentious issue in your claim about African Guyanese being described as criminals, etc. The problem here is that the media refuses to describe suspects according to race. When a crime is committed, and the victims have seen the perpetrators, as in Enmore and Bartica, their description should be made public in the media. This way there will be no dispute of who is being labelled a criminal, and who is not.
I know that the large majority of African Guyanese are not criminals or thieves or murderers or rapists. I know that many are decent, hard-working people. However, it is clear that there is a segment of the African Guyanese population that is bent on crime and is congregated in certain areas - Buxton, Agricola, Albouystown, etc. They have been used and are being encouraged by the black right-wing to cause mayhem, make Guyana “unmanageable and “ungovernable”. When people see African Guyanese committing these crimes and being used to instill fear and cause chaos in the society, do you not understand that they would associate them with criminal activity? You cannot blame the government or Indians for that.
If you care to respond to this letter, please don’t go blaming the present government for the high crime rate among African Guyanese. This was the case under Burnham and Hoyte as well, and Indians were the victims then also. Take the time to look at structural, cultural, and political influences within the black community, as explanations for this phenomenon.
It is the same whether you look at Indians and Africans in Trinidad or Fiji or Uganda or South Africa. We must have the wherewithal to do an honest analysis instead of looking to blame others for our problems. Only then can we begin to solve them.
Yours faithfully,
Mohan Singh
The President had to take firm action to end provocative broadcasting
The President had to take firm action to end provocative broadcasting
April 26, 2008
Dear Editor,
The temporary suspension of Channel 6 for four months is a necessity. And it needed to be done with the full force of the presidential executive order to get other media houses to act responsibly in the discharge of their duties.
While I am no great fan of presidential executive orders as they can lead to a situation in which a President, feeling he/she is under siege, can use these excessively. The requir-ement to act was necessary.
The importance of the President’s act is to ensure that Guyanese media houses do not disintegrate to the level of Rwanda that led to the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of people. Had a certain radio station not broadcast the need for ethnic cleansing in Rwanda I would have agreed that the decision to temporarily close CNS 6 was excessive.
Against the reality of the misuse of the media in Rwanda it was a wise decision to put the full power of the President behind the decision. Else, you would wake up one day and find more people in media houses calling for the killing of other politicians and for civil(?) society calling for the killing of people under the guise of “armed struggle”.
In Guyana already there are calls for killings of people under the guise of “armed struggle” that has possibly been responsible for the Lusignan and Bartica killings.
This is the reality of Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Cliff Persaud
April 26, 2008
Dear Editor,
The temporary suspension of Channel 6 for four months is a necessity. And it needed to be done with the full force of the presidential executive order to get other media houses to act responsibly in the discharge of their duties.
While I am no great fan of presidential executive orders as they can lead to a situation in which a President, feeling he/she is under siege, can use these excessively. The requir-ement to act was necessary.
The importance of the President’s act is to ensure that Guyanese media houses do not disintegrate to the level of Rwanda that led to the mass killings of hundreds of thousands of people. Had a certain radio station not broadcast the need for ethnic cleansing in Rwanda I would have agreed that the decision to temporarily close CNS 6 was excessive.
Against the reality of the misuse of the media in Rwanda it was a wise decision to put the full power of the President behind the decision. Else, you would wake up one day and find more people in media houses calling for the killing of other politicians and for civil(?) society calling for the killing of people under the guise of “armed struggle”.
In Guyana already there are calls for killings of people under the guise of “armed struggle” that has possibly been responsible for the Lusignan and Bartica killings.
This is the reality of Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Cliff Persaud
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The show must go on
The show must go on
It is often said that when events of a national flavour take place, all are involved, regardless of which political party is in power. Lo and behold, in the wake of CARIFESTA X coming to Guyana soon, PNCR leader, Robert Corbin, had during a recent protest march declared that if the CNS channel 6 suspension was not lifted, there would be protests to make the tenth Caribbean Festival of Arts (CARIFESTA) which is to be held here later this year “unmanageable”.
Guyanese are dismayed and disgusted with such a statement coming from the lips of the leader of the PNCR, Robert Corbin, which, according to Culture, Youth and Sport Minister, Dr. Frank Anthony, is “irresponsible and potentially disrupting to national life”. This is nothing short of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is nothing short of child’s play.
Guyanese are flabbergasted at the infantile behaviour by Mr. Corbin in making such a declaration. They say this type of behaviour strikes at the very root of the PNCR which has over the years mastered the art of creating disturbances, disruptions and mayhem. Indeed they say that the PNCR has a proud and rich history of this kind of activity, known only to uncivilized societies.
The Guyanese people remember that CARIFESTA was the brainchild of the late founder leader of the PNC, LFS Burnham, and the first ever CARIFESTA was held in Guyana in 1972. Now some 35 years later, this very colourful Caribbean Festival of Arts is coming back to Guyana. The Guyanese people see Corbin’s disclosure as an insult to the founder leader of the PNC.
The people believe that if Mr. Corbin goes ahead with his plans, it will throw a damper, not only on Artistes coming from sister CARICOM countries, but also on Guyanese artistes and the entire Guyanese nation as a whole.
Culture, Youth and Sport Minister, Dr. Frank Anthony, in a reaction to Corbin’s outpourings said that the opposition leader’s statement was “unreasonable”, adding: “ it is surely foolhardy for any responsible national leader to threaten to sabotage an international event in Guyana to which the world is coming, based on certain local issues with both legal in the case of CNS TV 6 suspension, and global implications, the latter having to do with food prices and the cost of living challenges”.
Guyanese are fed up with this type of behaviour from the major opposition party and are questioning the attitude of some of its leaders. The people agree with Minister Anthony when he said “to threaten an international event full of socio-economic and cultural benefits for the nation is a virtual abuse of the freedoms guaranteed by the government”.
The people are saying that the PNCR and Corbin should not be allowed to carry out their plans to cause any disruptions to the smooth running of CARIFESTA X. The Guyanese nation points to the theme under which CARIFESTA X will be held:
“One Caribbean; One Purpose; Our Culture; Our Life”, and call on the leaders of the PNCR to pay special attention to it.
CARIFESTA X will boast an impressive line-up of activities, including the opening and closing ceremonies, culinary, visual, literary and performing arts, community festivals, grand cultural market, child/youth fora, symposia, workshops as well as signal events and super concerts.
The Guyanese people are looking forward for the hosting of this great and majestic event.
It is often said that when events of a national flavour take place, all are involved, regardless of which political party is in power. Lo and behold, in the wake of CARIFESTA X coming to Guyana soon, PNCR leader, Robert Corbin, had during a recent protest march declared that if the CNS channel 6 suspension was not lifted, there would be protests to make the tenth Caribbean Festival of Arts (CARIFESTA) which is to be held here later this year “unmanageable”.
Guyanese are dismayed and disgusted with such a statement coming from the lips of the leader of the PNCR, Robert Corbin, which, according to Culture, Youth and Sport Minister, Dr. Frank Anthony, is “irresponsible and potentially disrupting to national life”. This is nothing short of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is nothing short of child’s play.
Guyanese are flabbergasted at the infantile behaviour by Mr. Corbin in making such a declaration. They say this type of behaviour strikes at the very root of the PNCR which has over the years mastered the art of creating disturbances, disruptions and mayhem. Indeed they say that the PNCR has a proud and rich history of this kind of activity, known only to uncivilized societies.
The Guyanese people remember that CARIFESTA was the brainchild of the late founder leader of the PNC, LFS Burnham, and the first ever CARIFESTA was held in Guyana in 1972. Now some 35 years later, this very colourful Caribbean Festival of Arts is coming back to Guyana. The Guyanese people see Corbin’s disclosure as an insult to the founder leader of the PNC.
The people believe that if Mr. Corbin goes ahead with his plans, it will throw a damper, not only on Artistes coming from sister CARICOM countries, but also on Guyanese artistes and the entire Guyanese nation as a whole.
Culture, Youth and Sport Minister, Dr. Frank Anthony, in a reaction to Corbin’s outpourings said that the opposition leader’s statement was “unreasonable”, adding: “ it is surely foolhardy for any responsible national leader to threaten to sabotage an international event in Guyana to which the world is coming, based on certain local issues with both legal in the case of CNS TV 6 suspension, and global implications, the latter having to do with food prices and the cost of living challenges”.
Guyanese are fed up with this type of behaviour from the major opposition party and are questioning the attitude of some of its leaders. The people agree with Minister Anthony when he said “to threaten an international event full of socio-economic and cultural benefits for the nation is a virtual abuse of the freedoms guaranteed by the government”.
The people are saying that the PNCR and Corbin should not be allowed to carry out their plans to cause any disruptions to the smooth running of CARIFESTA X. The Guyanese nation points to the theme under which CARIFESTA X will be held:
“One Caribbean; One Purpose; Our Culture; Our Life”, and call on the leaders of the PNCR to pay special attention to it.
CARIFESTA X will boast an impressive line-up of activities, including the opening and closing ceremonies, culinary, visual, literary and performing arts, community festivals, grand cultural market, child/youth fora, symposia, workshops as well as signal events and super concerts.
The Guyanese people are looking forward for the hosting of this great and majestic event.
MEDIA--FREEDOM WITH RESPONSIBILITY
MEDIA--FREEDOM WITH RESPONSIBILITY
Violations focus on Jamaica and Guyana
By Rickey Singh
THE RIGHT TO press freedom and the wider freedom of expression is best protected by an obligation on the part of journalists and media enterprises to appreciate how indivisible are freedom and responsibility.
Over the long years of my involvement in Caribbean journalism and working relations with regional media enterprises, I have been increasingly sensitised to the twin pillars of freedom and responsibility and how well the concept serves the interest of the media profession, media enterprises and the public we seek to serve. I am grateful for the education.
I have also been exposed to the irresponsible behaviour of some media practitioners and media houses that often betray a penchant for irresponsible journalism that shows contempt for the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. :|
They are among those quick to passionately shout "denial of press freedom", or "danger to freedom of expression", when their individual/collective abuses are challenged and threats of sanctions are raised, or enforced.
Why am I engaging in such observations at this time? It relates, primarily, to two separate media developments of current interest and debates--one in Jamaica, the other in Guyana.
Both are examples of what can happen when owners/operators violate the letter and spirit of a broadcast licence to the serious hurt of private/public individuals in facilitating reckless abuse of freedom of expression by failure to ensure application of relevant regulatory mechanisms.
Jamaica examples
The first case involved the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica (BCJ) and Universal Media Company (UMC), operator of "NewsTalk 93FM" jointly owned by the University of the West Indies (Mona Campus) as majority shareholder, and Breakfast Club Limited. Managing Director of the radio station is Anthony Abrahams.
As broadcast licensee, UMC was accused by the BCJ of having committed "an extremely grave breach" of Jamaica's 'Television and Sound Broadcasting Regulations as well as the "Children's Code for Programming" in the transmission of its "NewsTalk" broadcast on January 2 last.
The highly reputable BCJ, currently headed by Dr Hopetun Dunn, a media and communication specialist, conducted an investigation into the offensive "NewsTalk" programme. The probe revealed that the programme hosted by Dr Kingsley Stewart, had indulged in an "uninterrupted monologue" lasting in excess of half an hour, laced with "highly derogatory, shameful, shocking and improper language" against a female administration staff member of the UWI.
While in the process of considering recommended sanction, the UMC's "NewsTalk" call-in programme, again with Stewart as host, further complicated the problem of violations of its broadcast license, by permitting the transmission of "racial slurs and derogatory remarks about persons of Indian descent (in Jamaica)..."
The regulations prohibit transmission of "any statement or comment upon race, colour, creed, religion or sex of any person which is abusive or derogatory. It also violated the 'Children's Code for Programming' with the use of prohibited language..."
Significantly, as noted by Chairman Dunn, it was only after the Commission had made recommendations for suspension of the UMC's licence, unless appropriate disciplinary action and remedial measures, including internal relevant internal controls, were pursued, that some efforts were made for compliance. There are provisions for suspension of a licence for up to three months, if necessary.
However, following the intervention by Minister of Information, Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, the path to recommended suspension of licence was avoided, based on an understanding that disciplinary action, remedial measures and effective management oversight will be undertaken. For a start, Dr Stewart was not hosting the "NewsTalk" call-in programme-- at the time of writing.
Guyana scenario
While Jamaicans were focused on the BCJ's case against UMC's violations of its broadcast licence, controversies were spreading over the decision last week by Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo (who holds responsibility for information and communication), to suspend for four months the operational licence of the privately-owned television station, "CNS Channel 6".
The core of the dispute was that the station, owned and operated by Chandra Narine Sharma, a businessman, opposition politician and host of a regular "Voice of the People" call-in programme, had transmitted a broadcast on February 21 that contained criminal incitement, specifically against President Jagdeo. Worse, it was thrice repeated without any editing of the offensive remarks, in particular a threat to "kill Jagdeo".
The offensive broadcast by CNS Channel 6---one of some dozen television stations operating in an unregulated, wild-west atmosphere in Guyana--in direct contrast to what obtains in Jamaica--had touched a very raw nerve with one female caller making the threat: "I am going to kill (President) Jagdeo if anything is going to happen to my family..."
That programme was first broadcast at a time of widespread tension and fear against the backdrop of the massacres at Lusignan and Bartica that sent President Jagdeo engaging in public meetings with appeals for peace and assurances of firm actions against armed criminals.
Having offered an apology for the offensive threat to "kill", following an intervention by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB)--which has neither the stature nor power of a regulated body like the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica--Sharma's station was to repeat, unedited, the controversial programme--THRICE, only to offer some clumsy excuses, including blaming staffers for errors made.
In the circumstances, and given the gravity of the threat to "kill" the President, Sharma was invited, first by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, to show cause why his broadcast licence should not be suspended.
When he failed to show up for the meeting with Luncheon, another was arranged with President Jagdeo. By then Sharma had moved with his lawyers to the court to prevent the contemplated suspension sanction.
As Head of Government and holding responsibility for information and communication, Jagdeo felt there was really no remorse by CNS 6 for the transgression that had taken place with the threat to commit a criminal act. Therefore, he suspended the station's licence for four months.
There is no doubt about the recklessness on the part of CNS 6 and the politics being played out in a country that stands in great need for appreciation of the concept of media freedom with responsibility.
Yet, the four-month suspension seems very harsh--even for a licensee like Sharma, noted for unpredictable behaviour. It deserves to be revisited. The suspension case has reached the High Court and the Attorney General, Doodnauth Singh, is scheduled to make a written submission to the presiding judge by Wednesday.
Whatever the outcome of the CNS 6 suspension issue, it is evident that, as in the case involving "NewsTalk 93FM" in Jamaica, there are lessons to be learnt by the broadcast media and all advocates of freedom of expression to have a regulated environment that respects the necessity to blend freedom with responsibility.
Violations focus on Jamaica and Guyana
By Rickey Singh
THE RIGHT TO press freedom and the wider freedom of expression is best protected by an obligation on the part of journalists and media enterprises to appreciate how indivisible are freedom and responsibility.
Over the long years of my involvement in Caribbean journalism and working relations with regional media enterprises, I have been increasingly sensitised to the twin pillars of freedom and responsibility and how well the concept serves the interest of the media profession, media enterprises and the public we seek to serve. I am grateful for the education.
I have also been exposed to the irresponsible behaviour of some media practitioners and media houses that often betray a penchant for irresponsible journalism that shows contempt for the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. :|
They are among those quick to passionately shout "denial of press freedom", or "danger to freedom of expression", when their individual/collective abuses are challenged and threats of sanctions are raised, or enforced.
Why am I engaging in such observations at this time? It relates, primarily, to two separate media developments of current interest and debates--one in Jamaica, the other in Guyana.
Both are examples of what can happen when owners/operators violate the letter and spirit of a broadcast licence to the serious hurt of private/public individuals in facilitating reckless abuse of freedom of expression by failure to ensure application of relevant regulatory mechanisms.
Jamaica examples
The first case involved the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica (BCJ) and Universal Media Company (UMC), operator of "NewsTalk 93FM" jointly owned by the University of the West Indies (Mona Campus) as majority shareholder, and Breakfast Club Limited. Managing Director of the radio station is Anthony Abrahams.
As broadcast licensee, UMC was accused by the BCJ of having committed "an extremely grave breach" of Jamaica's 'Television and Sound Broadcasting Regulations as well as the "Children's Code for Programming" in the transmission of its "NewsTalk" broadcast on January 2 last.
The highly reputable BCJ, currently headed by Dr Hopetun Dunn, a media and communication specialist, conducted an investigation into the offensive "NewsTalk" programme. The probe revealed that the programme hosted by Dr Kingsley Stewart, had indulged in an "uninterrupted monologue" lasting in excess of half an hour, laced with "highly derogatory, shameful, shocking and improper language" against a female administration staff member of the UWI.
While in the process of considering recommended sanction, the UMC's "NewsTalk" call-in programme, again with Stewart as host, further complicated the problem of violations of its broadcast license, by permitting the transmission of "racial slurs and derogatory remarks about persons of Indian descent (in Jamaica)..."
The regulations prohibit transmission of "any statement or comment upon race, colour, creed, religion or sex of any person which is abusive or derogatory. It also violated the 'Children's Code for Programming' with the use of prohibited language..."
Significantly, as noted by Chairman Dunn, it was only after the Commission had made recommendations for suspension of the UMC's licence, unless appropriate disciplinary action and remedial measures, including internal relevant internal controls, were pursued, that some efforts were made for compliance. There are provisions for suspension of a licence for up to three months, if necessary.
However, following the intervention by Minister of Information, Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, the path to recommended suspension of licence was avoided, based on an understanding that disciplinary action, remedial measures and effective management oversight will be undertaken. For a start, Dr Stewart was not hosting the "NewsTalk" call-in programme-- at the time of writing.
Guyana scenario
While Jamaicans were focused on the BCJ's case against UMC's violations of its broadcast licence, controversies were spreading over the decision last week by Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo (who holds responsibility for information and communication), to suspend for four months the operational licence of the privately-owned television station, "CNS Channel 6".
The core of the dispute was that the station, owned and operated by Chandra Narine Sharma, a businessman, opposition politician and host of a regular "Voice of the People" call-in programme, had transmitted a broadcast on February 21 that contained criminal incitement, specifically against President Jagdeo. Worse, it was thrice repeated without any editing of the offensive remarks, in particular a threat to "kill Jagdeo".
The offensive broadcast by CNS Channel 6---one of some dozen television stations operating in an unregulated, wild-west atmosphere in Guyana--in direct contrast to what obtains in Jamaica--had touched a very raw nerve with one female caller making the threat: "I am going to kill (President) Jagdeo if anything is going to happen to my family..."
That programme was first broadcast at a time of widespread tension and fear against the backdrop of the massacres at Lusignan and Bartica that sent President Jagdeo engaging in public meetings with appeals for peace and assurances of firm actions against armed criminals.
Having offered an apology for the offensive threat to "kill", following an intervention by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB)--which has neither the stature nor power of a regulated body like the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica--Sharma's station was to repeat, unedited, the controversial programme--THRICE, only to offer some clumsy excuses, including blaming staffers for errors made.
In the circumstances, and given the gravity of the threat to "kill" the President, Sharma was invited, first by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, to show cause why his broadcast licence should not be suspended.
When he failed to show up for the meeting with Luncheon, another was arranged with President Jagdeo. By then Sharma had moved with his lawyers to the court to prevent the contemplated suspension sanction.
As Head of Government and holding responsibility for information and communication, Jagdeo felt there was really no remorse by CNS 6 for the transgression that had taken place with the threat to commit a criminal act. Therefore, he suspended the station's licence for four months.
There is no doubt about the recklessness on the part of CNS 6 and the politics being played out in a country that stands in great need for appreciation of the concept of media freedom with responsibility.
Yet, the four-month suspension seems very harsh--even for a licensee like Sharma, noted for unpredictable behaviour. It deserves to be revisited. The suspension case has reached the High Court and the Attorney General, Doodnauth Singh, is scheduled to make a written submission to the presiding judge by Wednesday.
Whatever the outcome of the CNS 6 suspension issue, it is evident that, as in the case involving "NewsTalk 93FM" in Jamaica, there are lessons to be learnt by the broadcast media and all advocates of freedom of expression to have a regulated environment that respects the necessity to blend freedom with responsibility.
Oppositional elements are tearing this country apart for no good reason
Oppositional elements are tearing this country apart for no good reason
The CNS TV suspension has triggered some kind of revival within the PNCR and a few other opposition elements. It’s always good to have an effective opposition; but it is always problematic when the opposition presents a distorted framework in their move to address issues of the day. Their presentation on rising cost of living seems to suggest that the Government of Guyana is totally culpable for the increased food prices.
I am not sure whether the opposition elements are aware of a global food crisis that had its origins in 2002; and where in 2007 alone, global grain prices increased by 42%.
We now know that food costs as a percentage of disposable income have skyrocketed. Nowhere is this clearer than in developing economies where nearly 75% of a person’s disposable income is expended on food.
The World Bank in a recent report concluded that wheat prices increased by 181% within the previous three years, with global food prices escalating by 83%.
And while crude oil price is US$117 per barrel, we need to note that Guyana purchases refined oil, meaning that that Guyana’s cost of oil per barrel is more than US$117.
Some causes for the rising food prices are well documented and now fully in the public domain. These causes include high oil prices; increased world population producing greater demand; limited supply of wheat due to drought; agricultural production, especially corn used to produce bio-fuels; and climate change.
The opposition groupings also should know that this Government has made effective responses to cushion the effects of the rising cost of living; and such cushions are greatly comparable to our CARICOM neighbors. Some cushioning includes an increased zero-rated VAT list; no excise tax on diesel, kerosene, and cooking gas; lifting of the Common External Tariff (CET), the current aggressive campaign to grow more food, and indeed, the Jagdeo Initiative on Agriculture (JIA).
The JIA had its origins from 2002 when President Bharrat Jagdeo wanted help from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), together with CARICOM to transform the status of agriculture in the Caribbean. The JIA is expected to prioritize the Caribbean agricultural sector, in order to reach the level of sustainable development.
And then we have the CNS TV 4-month suspension issue that has attracted wide publicity and titillated the imaginations of the opposition forces and others. Any threat to kill any President of any country is more than serious; and a caller on the CNS TV ‘Voice of the People’ made such a threat. The broadcaster on CNS TV acknowledged the difficulty presented by this caller; and so CNS TV, through this broadcast, violated the conditions of the Licence as well as the law. Yet CNS TV effected three unedited rebroadcasts of this programme; the television station had sufficient time to edit out the ‘threat’; but failed to take corrective action.
Then there was the other charge by some groups that the President should have recused himself from the hearing as he was the aggrieved person. Well, the CNS TV team proceeded to file a court order to prevent Dr. Roger Luncheon, the President’s delegate, from administering the hearing on the ground that Luncheon had no authority to administer such a hearing; the CNS TV team succeeded.
According to the CNS TV team, it also sought a court order earlier to prevent the President and Minister of Communications from administering the hearing; but the court did not make a ruling on that day, as the matter was scheduled for hearing the following week.
And so the President in the presence of the Attorney General heard the Licensee. The Licensee was found to have violated the conditions of his Licence by broadcasting on four occasions content that encouraged the killing of the Head of State. I think it is important to note, too, that the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) is a purely advisory body that makes recommendations.
And then we have the usual suspects presenting the usual distortions of the political history of this country. Here are some examples of their distortions: Guyana has no democracy; Guyana is a fragile state; Guyana is a failed state; Guyana has an elected dictatorship; and so on.
Transition to democracy came in 1992 after 24 years of authoritarianism; when no institution made the government accountable to its people; an age of coercion where the People's National Congress' (PNC) rulers saw no limits to their authority, and regulated all social life.
Today, the Guyanese people do experience democracy, albeit a fragile democracy. But if there is no democracy, as some claim, then there is authoritarianism.
If these ‘authoritarian’ things are really part of the woodwork in Guyana, then columnists in the print or electronic media would not be able to dispense their regular opposition and deception; but these ‘opposition’ commentators do spew out their regular diatribe within the ambit of the daily newspapers and the electronic media, without any governmental censure. I do not think a dictatorship would allow the opposition to use the spectrum and the print media in this way.
PREM MISIR
=====================
Wake up Sharma!
What is really going on in Guyana? I just read in the newspaper that the Opposition Leader in the country is saying that Carifesta is going to be affected if something is not done to remedy the Channel 6 suspension matter. I have to ask “What does that issue have to do with Carifesta?”
Is Guyana going to be remembered as a lawless country where people can just break the law and then be as the old folks would say, ‘wrong and strong’?
So, the Opposition Leader is now using Sharma’s story to cause problems for Guyana and its image to other countries. This is really ridiculous!
You know, I have to commend Stabroek News for its cartoon where it is depicting Mr. Sharma as a jackass being ridden by the Opposition Leader and others. I always thought this was the case but could never get the picture right. The cartoonist got it perfectly right. The Opposition Leader definitely does not care about Guyana or Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma’s story will now be placed in the book of other stories to be used as the excuse for the Opposition people wanting their way ‘or the highway’. This nonsense has to stop. Mr. Sharma broke the rules and is now paying for it. This is sad because that lady was out of place.
But Sharma cannot see that he is being used all around by the Opposition Leader, by the Mayor, some news media persons, the poor people who only use his programme but don’t vote for him, the callers who only call because that is the only channel where they could call and talk about any trash that comes to their mind, by the lawyers who set him up knowing full well that the President was also the Minister of Information, by Joey Jagan, by the Doctor with the fancy accent who said he would put his life on the line to defend him (we all know this is a lie), by everyone he comes into contact with…and I can go on.
As for Carifesta and whatever is being planned by Guyana’s selfish Opposition, this will only make Guyana look bad. Is this what Guyanese really want?
The Opposition leader and his Party and the others riding Mr. Sharma are simply selfish. Wake up Sharma! Politics is such a dirty game and Mr. Sharma has done a lot for the poor people. I sometimes feel sorry for this man.
MICHELLE YOUNGE
The CNS TV suspension has triggered some kind of revival within the PNCR and a few other opposition elements. It’s always good to have an effective opposition; but it is always problematic when the opposition presents a distorted framework in their move to address issues of the day. Their presentation on rising cost of living seems to suggest that the Government of Guyana is totally culpable for the increased food prices.
I am not sure whether the opposition elements are aware of a global food crisis that had its origins in 2002; and where in 2007 alone, global grain prices increased by 42%.
We now know that food costs as a percentage of disposable income have skyrocketed. Nowhere is this clearer than in developing economies where nearly 75% of a person’s disposable income is expended on food.
The World Bank in a recent report concluded that wheat prices increased by 181% within the previous three years, with global food prices escalating by 83%.
And while crude oil price is US$117 per barrel, we need to note that Guyana purchases refined oil, meaning that that Guyana’s cost of oil per barrel is more than US$117.
Some causes for the rising food prices are well documented and now fully in the public domain. These causes include high oil prices; increased world population producing greater demand; limited supply of wheat due to drought; agricultural production, especially corn used to produce bio-fuels; and climate change.
The opposition groupings also should know that this Government has made effective responses to cushion the effects of the rising cost of living; and such cushions are greatly comparable to our CARICOM neighbors. Some cushioning includes an increased zero-rated VAT list; no excise tax on diesel, kerosene, and cooking gas; lifting of the Common External Tariff (CET), the current aggressive campaign to grow more food, and indeed, the Jagdeo Initiative on Agriculture (JIA).
The JIA had its origins from 2002 when President Bharrat Jagdeo wanted help from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), together with CARICOM to transform the status of agriculture in the Caribbean. The JIA is expected to prioritize the Caribbean agricultural sector, in order to reach the level of sustainable development.
And then we have the CNS TV 4-month suspension issue that has attracted wide publicity and titillated the imaginations of the opposition forces and others. Any threat to kill any President of any country is more than serious; and a caller on the CNS TV ‘Voice of the People’ made such a threat. The broadcaster on CNS TV acknowledged the difficulty presented by this caller; and so CNS TV, through this broadcast, violated the conditions of the Licence as well as the law. Yet CNS TV effected three unedited rebroadcasts of this programme; the television station had sufficient time to edit out the ‘threat’; but failed to take corrective action.
Then there was the other charge by some groups that the President should have recused himself from the hearing as he was the aggrieved person. Well, the CNS TV team proceeded to file a court order to prevent Dr. Roger Luncheon, the President’s delegate, from administering the hearing on the ground that Luncheon had no authority to administer such a hearing; the CNS TV team succeeded.
According to the CNS TV team, it also sought a court order earlier to prevent the President and Minister of Communications from administering the hearing; but the court did not make a ruling on that day, as the matter was scheduled for hearing the following week.
And so the President in the presence of the Attorney General heard the Licensee. The Licensee was found to have violated the conditions of his Licence by broadcasting on four occasions content that encouraged the killing of the Head of State. I think it is important to note, too, that the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) is a purely advisory body that makes recommendations.
And then we have the usual suspects presenting the usual distortions of the political history of this country. Here are some examples of their distortions: Guyana has no democracy; Guyana is a fragile state; Guyana is a failed state; Guyana has an elected dictatorship; and so on.
Transition to democracy came in 1992 after 24 years of authoritarianism; when no institution made the government accountable to its people; an age of coercion where the People's National Congress' (PNC) rulers saw no limits to their authority, and regulated all social life.
Today, the Guyanese people do experience democracy, albeit a fragile democracy. But if there is no democracy, as some claim, then there is authoritarianism.
If these ‘authoritarian’ things are really part of the woodwork in Guyana, then columnists in the print or electronic media would not be able to dispense their regular opposition and deception; but these ‘opposition’ commentators do spew out their regular diatribe within the ambit of the daily newspapers and the electronic media, without any governmental censure. I do not think a dictatorship would allow the opposition to use the spectrum and the print media in this way.
PREM MISIR
=====================
Wake up Sharma!
What is really going on in Guyana? I just read in the newspaper that the Opposition Leader in the country is saying that Carifesta is going to be affected if something is not done to remedy the Channel 6 suspension matter. I have to ask “What does that issue have to do with Carifesta?”
Is Guyana going to be remembered as a lawless country where people can just break the law and then be as the old folks would say, ‘wrong and strong’?
So, the Opposition Leader is now using Sharma’s story to cause problems for Guyana and its image to other countries. This is really ridiculous!
You know, I have to commend Stabroek News for its cartoon where it is depicting Mr. Sharma as a jackass being ridden by the Opposition Leader and others. I always thought this was the case but could never get the picture right. The cartoonist got it perfectly right. The Opposition Leader definitely does not care about Guyana or Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma’s story will now be placed in the book of other stories to be used as the excuse for the Opposition people wanting their way ‘or the highway’. This nonsense has to stop. Mr. Sharma broke the rules and is now paying for it. This is sad because that lady was out of place.
But Sharma cannot see that he is being used all around by the Opposition Leader, by the Mayor, some news media persons, the poor people who only use his programme but don’t vote for him, the callers who only call because that is the only channel where they could call and talk about any trash that comes to their mind, by the lawyers who set him up knowing full well that the President was also the Minister of Information, by Joey Jagan, by the Doctor with the fancy accent who said he would put his life on the line to defend him (we all know this is a lie), by everyone he comes into contact with…and I can go on.
As for Carifesta and whatever is being planned by Guyana’s selfish Opposition, this will only make Guyana look bad. Is this what Guyanese really want?
The Opposition leader and his Party and the others riding Mr. Sharma are simply selfish. Wake up Sharma! Politics is such a dirty game and Mr. Sharma has done a lot for the poor people. I sometimes feel sorry for this man.
MICHELLE YOUNGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
