Dear Editor,
In a letter by Mr Mohamed Sattaur in the SN dated July 16, captioned ‘The appropriate forum for the discussion on the PPP’s education programme is the Congress,’ he says, “the writer raises some interesting questions which can be ventilated at the party congress.”
I am very glad that Mr Sattaur recognises the importance of these questions. It’s quite reasonable to suggest the possibility that the writer may not be at congress or that the writer may not even be a member of the party, although Mr Sattaur with some sort of clairvoyance seems to conclude that the writer is and that the writer is a male. I would hope that Mr Sattaur who is so concerned with the legacy of the late Dr Jagan would raise these questions at congress.
Mr Sattaur is aware that there is not much going on with regard to education within the party. With regard to the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre, in his previous letter he stated by implication that one had to be in the forefront of the organisation to know, and I already pointed out that this was indicative of a failure to get the message out to the public. Mr Sattaur emphasised in the penultimate paragraph, “I have no problem with the discussion, but is he aware that the place for this is by way of motion or resolution in his name from the floor of the highest forum of the party instead of the letter columns of the Stabroek News with ‘name and address provided?’” By the way, I know what he intended but this sentence is structured to indicate that the name and address has been provided.
So Mr Sattaur does not believe that the absence or presence of the legacy of the founder of the party that is in power should be subject to public debate. Maybe he believes that what this government does or does not should only be discussed in the cabinet and not be subject to public scrutiny. The fact is that this government – although some anti-communist fossils say that the problem is the practice of communism – is in terms of its policies way right of centre. The policies are definitely not pro-working class, although granted some improvement has been made with regard to workers’ conditions of living. The reality is that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer.
Can a non-member of the PPP go to the party congress to discuss this or any other issue? So where are they supposed to discuss it? Also, do we have to wait for three years to discuss important matters? Further, at these forums if you get a chance to speak at all it’s for about a few minutes, as the three-day congress has been reduced to two. Secondly, after a number of persons have spoken someone in the leadership would respond, and that’s the end of it. There is no interactive discussion, no opportunity for one to say, ‘But Mr Leader, you have not considered the issue carefully and you have ignored some vital points.’ The leader responds and that is final.
Is this the kind of discussion Mr Sattaur is referring to? I am afraid that it is not very enlightening.
By the way, did a previous congress not oppose a resolution to remove Marxism-Leninism from the party constitution? So tell me, which leader writes to educate or defend Marxism in the media?
It seems that Ian McDonald is more progressive sounding than any of the present leadership of the party and government. His column ‘The filthy rich’ in the Sunday Stabroek (July 6) is an excellent example of what they are not doing.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
