I refer to Randy Persaud’s ‘There is reason for government writers publishing responses in the independent dailies if these have been the vehicles for criticisms’ (SN, 1.1.10). I am at odds as to whether to be disturbed or angry; I think I will limit myself to concerns over the writer’s overwrought sense of self importance and creeping paranoia.
Over the years, and on several occasions, I have made reference in very broad terms to those Guyanese who have helped themselves at taxpayers’ expense. As an indication of my consideration, I have labelled them “opportunists” or “carpetbaggers” or “milk drinkers” among other terms of endearment. I see them as individuals who line up at the public trough to avail themselves of government largesse; it is their right. These descriptions can and do encompass those who form part of the vast network of insiders, and who advocate and defend the government, regardless of channel utilized. Each and every reference in every instance, is to a group. Repeat, to a group. I did not depart from this standard in the ‘Image makers’ writing (SN, 27.12.09).
It is regrettable that Dr Persaud somehow convinced himself of an attack. For whatever it is worth, I do not know him, or of him, or care enough, to engage in what he has alleged. I remind him that I had used words such as “disingenuous” and “despicable” and “levels to which distortion and spin have descended” (SN, 26.12. 09)) in response to a comment from him about middle-class comparisons. I do not resort to diplomacy when circumstances warrant. Having recorded my stand, and completely disengaged later (SN, 5.12), I have no interest (absolutely none) on the life and times of this compatriot to include him in my horizons of contemplation.
Nevertheless, I think that this reaction might just be reflective of a misplaced sensitivity and self importance, as was done before, when he accused myself and others “ganging up” on him; or when the criticisms of others are baseless; or when they do not understand government (ignorant, perhaps?). Quite frankly, I take objection to his postures, and resent them in the strongest possible terms.
Editor, I remind this spokesperson – and his brethren – of his constitutional right to broadcast his beliefs and to do so at will. Also, I remind everyone of my own right to take a stand for that which I love and want to see do good and right – as in Guyana. It should not be dismissed as “baseless” or otherwise. Moreover, I could interpret “poetic frenzies” to be a personal attack, or the willingness of SN to permit me to articulate unwelcome realities as being of a veiled inferential aimed at an abrogation of my constitutional prerogatives. Being a big boy – and fully cognizant of the conflicts presumed in public discourse – I will do no such thing; it is part of the territory. As to “no one in or out of Guyana knows who GHK Lall is,” that is for the better, as it helps to focus on the message, instead of the messenger. I might be the biggest ghost of them all.
In closing, I apologize to SN (and readers) for wasting precious space in dealing with this overbearing pomposity and unequalled nonsense. This will not happen again.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
