Dear Editor,
I have, so far, read three responses to my letter captioned “The PPP’s fight for freedom of expression” (07.12-08). One reply was received by way of private correspondence from a leading member of the PPP, and one was written by Mr Rajendra Rampersaud, and published in your newspaper.
The third, from Mr.James Goodluck, appeared in the Daily Chronicle, the very paper which did not publish my letter, but found it convenient to allow him, not to address the issues which were raised in my letter, but rather to give a version of what he considers to be my political activism. Also to make slanderous and unfounded remarks about persons and a village, totally unrelated to the contents of my letter. To them, I apologize.
Just to set the record straight, as far as I remember, I was not employed as a Deputy Returning Officer in the Mahaica area for the 1968 Local Government elections. Rather, I worked at one of the polling stations and had absolutely nothing to do with the counting of the votes, and the declaration of the polls.
Now to the two other responses. Neither of the gentlemen refuted what I wrote about Dr Jagan’s treatment of Mr Percy Armstrong, but gave glowing accounts of the former’s political career. I would be the last person to deny how much Dr Jagan did for the people of Guyana. But does that justify his treatment of the journalist? And what does this say about his respect for the rights of persons with whom he disagreed? Mr Rampersaud cites proof of the perceived harassment of Dr and Mrs Jagan. Dr Jagan himself writes in that vein. However, many of their problems were in no small measure due to their own actions and attitudes. Take, for example, the civil service strike of 1962. Dr Jagan argues that it was politically motivated, inspired by his enemies.
What is seldom ever stated is that the morale of the civil service was seriously undermined because of Dr Jagan’s actions. In those days, there existed a seniority list on which everyone in the administrative and clerical service, permanent secretary down, was listed in order of seniority. So that when Dr Jagan appointed a history teacher from Queen’s College, as his permanent secretary,above a host of persons far senior to him, questions were asked of him by journalists, including Mr Armstrong. His response was that ministers should have as their permanent secretaries persons whom they trusted. After that incident, it was very easy for the senior civil servants, who were most affected, to influence us youngsters. There exists a very instructive picture of Mr Burnham and Mr David DeGroot, then his parliamentary secretary, informing the gentleman of his relocation to the archives soon after the 1964 elections.
Concerning the vote at 18, I note that both gentlemen mentioned that the PPP were willing to support the vote at 18, when they felt that they would have been in control of the electoral system, but opposed the measure when they were not. Some people would consider that opportunism; guess they saw it as being pragmatic.
Let me conclude by pointing out that the private communication ended with the comment that we should leave ‘history to the historians’. My problem is that the history is being told in a very biased and prejudicial manner.
The PPP seems to feel that it holds the monopoly of political morality in this country, and presents history in this manner, even when there is blatantly obvious evidence to the contrary.
Just look at the manner in which my correspondence has been treated by its newspapers, not too differently from Dr Jagan’s attitude to Mr Armstrong.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Parris
