Dear Editor,
From my own perspective, you have been rather indulgent with Mr Kit Nascimento in according so much space to his repetitious discourse on the subject of “Broadcasters (being) held to a high standard of responsibility”. Does this go for the unfortunate Mr Sharma alone, and for that matter, only for selected apparent opponents of the extant regime?
I had not intended to get into this discussion, since so many others appear to have taken up a position, one way or other on it. However, this letter by Mr Nascimento makes me wonder whether he (and some others) really take seriously the mandate to examine the facts and the surrounding circumstances as they have been exposed to the nation. Has he, for example taken the trouble to read what at least one letter writer has pointed out on the need to take into account the impact of widespread Guyanese idiomatic expression?
Here is a Guyanese woman admittedly upset and apprehensive at issues of the moment. She calls in to the single forum that she perceives as being available and ready to ventilate those concerns, resorting to widely-employed Guyanese idiom, i.e. “if (as a consequence of his negligence or ineptitude) anything happens to my family Ah goin’ (do so-and-so)” and the thing is, that Mr Sharma, as a Guyanese, must have concluded that the “so and so” of that utterance was figurative, even though he is reported to have chided her on the choice of that form of expression.
Surely Mr Nascimento, as a communications authority of some acclaim, must be conversant with the figurative import of that purported threat. In short, this is a case, not only for broadcasters being held to high standards, but as well for all who are qualified or hold themselves up as being thus qualified to stand in judgment on the subject, to equally observe similar high standards, while so judging.
Those who plead for some measure of executive forbearance on behalf of Mr Sharma, have almost generally admitted that, on second thought at least, there was some error of judgment involved in those rebroadcasts. On the other hand, most agree that it is like asking a friend to post a letter and saying to that friend, if you forget my letter, ah going to hang you (or don’t come back this way)”.
The question, then, that Mr Nascimento and some others appear to miss (or be avoiding) is, “What should have been done about Mr Sharma’s error of judgment?” The answer needs of course, to take into account the apparent free-for-all enjoyed in the expression of opinion, very often baseless and mischievous, on television, on radio, and at public places which are said to include Babu John, in moments when the audience is likely to be incited into literal violence, arising from those incendiary speeches.
An idiomatic question that now arises, is, as when a parent over-reacts to an off-spring’s behaviour: “wha” happen man? You guh kill am now?” In short, Mr Nascimento and others should be joining the nation in seeking the highest standards of implementation of executive power, rather than saying, in essence, “Yes Bass, you’ right!”
Who knows, but that executive hand must be poised even now, to “review” that extremely over-emphasized directive, given the kind of urgings coming from perceived non-opposing sources of influence, if such were to be the kind of interventions.
Yours faithfully,
Walter A Jordan
