Dear Editor,
Anand Persaud’s letter captioned “Mr Kissoon must ensure that he checks his facts” (08.04.22) is very disturbing for several reasons. He implied that Mr Freddie Kissoon’s writings are only based on hearsay. I personally do not like Kissoon’s writing style and my perception is that he is an acrimonious fellow.
However, I do believe that many things he has written are valid, and I do salute him for his courageous stance in a potentially politically hostile environment. Yes, indeed, Mr Kissoon would be taken more seriously had he been more prudent in his criticisms of other important figures (in particular Mr Ravi Dev) and the PPP.
While the PPP since 1992 has made many blunders, one cannot conclude that they have not done any good. The perception emanating from Mr Kissoon’s writing is that: the PPP has done no good; commentaries that disagree with his analysis are wrong; Guyanese intellectuals living overseas do not understand Guyana and should not comment on the existing political dynamics; and somehow only the WPA colleagues are legitimate in their struggle for a better Guyana.
From the premise of both their writings, I think that Anand Persaud and Freddie Kissoon made the mistake of equating newspaper writings as indication of academic scholarship. For example, Anand asked whether Freddie, the university lecturer would grade his students based on hearsay, and later in attacking Mr Bisram’s science of polls, invoked his own credential in Applied Science. I am all for academic excellence, but the proof of scholarly contribution lies in peer-reviewed journals, not in newspapers.
Anand Persaud was also very harsh on Mr Vishnu Bisram, implying that his own training in applied science and sampling methodologies were superior to Bisram’s training, and therefore, we should believe him that there is nothing scientific about Bisram’s polls. But, what are the fundamentals of the scientific process? When we talk about scientific research (polling is one form), the implication is that whatever we test (our experiment), others should be able to reproduce. I believe that the polling initiative of Mr Bisram is timely and needed, and should inspire others interested in this line of work. However, for legitimacy, Mr Bisram should make his tools available for others to validate his work.
Anand Persaud also wrote that Ravi Dev and Moses Nagamootoo have resorted to derogatory name calling in their writings. I have not followed the writings of Nagamootoo, but I do follow the writings of Ravi Dev and have not noticed any such derogatory name-calling. In my opinion, to this day, Ravi Dev still comes across as the most morally upright political activist/commentator in Guyana. He has a very concise writing style and is not in the habit of invoking extraneous things into his debates.
But back to the politics of Guyana! The biggest problem is crime. The PPP have acknowledged this since the 1950s, and they are still talking about crime in 2008 as people continue to be slaughtered. This is a great shame! In my opinion, the second most troubling problem in Guyana is our ethnic army and police force. This is a great shame! The third most important problem is political control (by PPP and PNC) of labour unions and other organizational bodies. This is a great shame! The other is the government’s use of taxpayers dollars to play politics with the so-called state media. This is a great shame! People should not face punitive measures for their views. These things are the aetiologic factors in the ethnic insecurity dilemmas faced by Indians, Africans and other races in Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Somdat Mahabir
