Dear Editor,
Please allow me to refer to Dr. Prem Misir’s letter in Tuesday’s SN (10/6/08) providing much enlightenment on the on the subject of Enlightenment, the heading of Sunday Stabroek’s (8/6/08) editorial and the expected editorial comments.
Dr. Misir made it very clear that “I immediately thought of the European Enlighten-ment when I stumbled on the editorial’s use of the word ‘enlightenment’.
I myself, when I saw the heading of the editorial felt that it about such, to me, esoteric things and I didn’t read it, at the time, only later.
I think that there is a vast amount of useful and necessary information provided by the government on its policies, programmes and development of the country which the SN sarcastically dismisses as ‘propaganda.’
Many Guyanese can never forget what the Stabroek News published as information during the crime spree in the early part of this decade, that George Bacchus had undergone a lie detector test at the US Embassy in Georgetown, in big bold headlines on its front page.
When this claim was immediately denied by the US Embassy, SN sheepishly published in one of its back pages, in much smaller print that it got the information (propaganda), from “a usually reliable source.”
One wonders why the SN, which seems to hold itself up as a paragon of virtue in the media sector, did not seek to confirm such information with the embassy. This is another example of the contempt which SN seems to have for the intelligence of the Guyanese people.
In point 3 of the editor’s comment, it is stated “No one is proposing that all categories of record under a Freedom of Information Act should be accessible to the public, so Dr. Misir’s reference to exemption is a red herring.” This is, as a matter of fact, a very important piece of information to the public and which I think should have been mentioned in the editorial.
In the editor’s comment point 4, states that “the editorial did not speak of a war of words between President Jagdeo and Mr. Yesu Persaud let alone imply a fictional rift between the private sector and the government. However, it was concerned about the President’s bad manners on a public occasion.”
I think most people felt that the implication of Mr. Persaud’s statement as regards the granting of tax concessions, was in fact an example of extremely bad manners, and called for a sharp and clear response.
It was also re-assuring to hear that the President had even before this, given instructions to Mr. Brassington to hold a tax seminar, as he must have felt, I feel, that it was necessary for public information and enlightenment to remind the public of the relevant provisions. You don’t do such things as holding a tax seminar, if you have anything to hide.
I feel that the possibility exists, of which Dr. Misir warned, that SN, given its record, was seeking to promote the idea of a rift between the government and the private sector, and also of a war of words.
Yours faithfully,
John Da Silva
Editor’s note: Mr Da Silva is in good company when he refers to the lie detector story. It’s one that several government apologists keep bringing up because they can find so little else to point to. Perhaps Mr Da Silva may consider, in light of new information, whether there is anything further to say on the exchange between President Jagdeo and Mr Yesu Persaud on the matter of the tax concessions for Queens Atlantic Investments Inc and whether an apology – even if sheepish – may be forthcoming to Mr Persaud.
