This pointedly brief piece published on this day is my own way of expressing unqualified solidarity with the Stabroek News and Sunday Stabroek in their issue with the Government regarding the latter’s withdrawal of State advertising from the two ‘papers.
Even as I search for the real reasons for the Administration’s actions against the newspapers, I allow myself a mental glance back into recent political history as well as contemporary contentions.
In the early sixties of political turmoil here, when external forces aided and abetted opposition groups to destabilize his 1961 government, Cheddi Jagan was justified in accusing the local press of collaborating with those forces and groups. And even though the Chronicle, Argosy and Graphic and other smaller publications were either owned or operated by non-African/Indian groups, Cheddi railed against the anti-Communist class interest, rather than race.
Later, much later in our political life Desmond Hoyte, during an intemperate fit, was much more pointed. He railed against a “Putagee Mafia” – a Guyanese-Portuguese “cabal” allegedly out to fatigue his efforts. (That was always funny to me, since Hoyte’s early personal development was buttressed by certain local Portuguese. By his own admission.)
Then, still wondering why the Jagdeo-led establishment has moved against the Stabroek, I examine some of the seemingly political positions taken by the Stabroek’s editorial writers and its letter-writing columns which sometimes allow excess access to certain views. To me, the editorials, when severely critical of the government, are, most times, well-structured, researched and tough to disagree with. Based on evidence of government’s ineptitude regarding specific rational policies and issues. Granted, the Stabroek News does come off as seeming to promote some new political grouping or personalities from time to time. But is that reason enough to stop giving it the People’s Revenues? And does not even the PPP’s Minuscule Mirror newspaper, openly political, receive some government advertising from time to time?
Staying as open-minded as I can, even though associated with the Stabroek for fourteen of its twenty years (this same month), I compare standards of excellence and ethical positions. My conclusion? Dispassionately I say, it’s hard for those others to top the Stabroek. Witness the gross photographic displays children are exposed to; the compromising of investigations and the published-and-be-damned attitude during the post 2002 Crime Spree, demonstrated by one ‘paper. (I know of one leaked story – bribe or no bribe – that could have caused the death of one kidnap victim I know so well.)
Oh well, I acknowledge that even the arrogant, the conceited and the journalistic masochists elsewhere are entitled to their views and approaches. But the real issue here is the alleged position of the government (withholding the people’s revenues from a leading newspaper.) Even as I submerge moral and ethical issues, knowing that, for example, both Mr. Buddy’s and Mr. Splashmin will get their day in court to prove that Mr. O’Lall was wrong or silly to accuse them.
Enemies within?
I was on vacation overseas late last year, when our President, I’m told, became intemperate and petulant over the fact that the Stabroek deigned to raise the issue of Government advances to the Buddy’s Hotel Project. My oh my. Can’t a newspaper seek clarification or answers? About how the nation’s money is being managed. Or is that newspaper seen to be casting aspersions?
I support the Presidential initiatives to ensure the success of our leg of Cricket World Cup (CWC). I also do my responsible best to respect the office of the presidency whomsoever the incumbent is. But soon-to-be Birthday-boy Bharrat is testing my respect with some frequency now. Burnham’s one-time powerful political adviser, Elvin McDavid had dubbed
Burnham’s critics “Enemies of the State”. Ludicrous!
But let us assume, for one paragraph, that the Stabroek newspapers are actually anti-government. Does that make them enemies? Or opponents? I have to agree with Stabroek’s David de Caires, the government’s anti-Stabroek action has “tarnished the democratic credentials of the government.” Please President: Know when a criticism is personal and when it is not! When an administration can brook no criticism of how its leader dresses or of its policies with respect to crime, taxation or education, it does not merit any longer the trust the voters reposed in it.
Incidentally, which readers are more likely to buy bonds, invest in oil, or tender for contracts? Those who read Stabroek’s Business Weekly? Or those who crave the sensational accounts of the behaviour of a Drug Baron’s wife?
Dr Gopaul
Finally on this issue from me, I contemplate the alleged role of Dr. Nanda Kishore Gopaul. Like Minister Leslie Ramsammy, N. K. Gopaul presented me with much interest. I’ve read some of his “Resistance and Change.” I enjoyed his fleeting but spirited ‘busing of Dr. Cheddi Jagan when he (Gopaul) led a small self-created party. I appreciated his trade union joustings with Yarde, Kirton, Lewis, et al.
From NAACIE activist/unionist he metamorphosed into government public-service manager. Still I had no problem with Dr. G. Why even two afternoons ago I defended him against my journalist friend. Now this accusation by the Stabroek.
You know what? I’ll call Dr. Gopaul.
Mashramani
1) Jump and Wave? OK. Walk and “Wine”, Glamour and glitter? Alright. But let’s have intellectual, academic, even information content too. Catch the Guyana Cook-Up Show for its contribution.
2a) When certain leaders lead a shut-down of the country their enterprise, security, earning power and savings are never shut down completely.
2b) Don’t laugh or sneer, other public media. Today it is the Stabroek, tomorrow