Dear Editor,
Government representatives are employing a new tactic as part of their resolute efforts to defend the sometimes indefensible. Not surprisingly, this tactic in practice more resembles an attack than a defence.
Janette Bulkan is the most current example of this tactic at work. She does not know what she is talking about; her expertise is questionable, if not negligible; and, worse yet, she is lacking in patriotism of a particular sort. Along the same lines, Malcolm Ali did not know engineering when he commented on matters related thereto. And Lall et al are clueless about local conditions, whether corruption or political criminality. From all indications, the situation has deteriorated so acutely that any time well-intentioned Guyanese commit an expenditure of time and energy and concern to table ideas that look askance at the government, there is the high probability that they will be summarily dismissed as ignorant, unpatriotic, and defective in major areas. To put it very bluntly: dissenting Guyanese ‘kno nuthin bout nuthin.’ This is the risk of damnation run by those who dare to disagree with the government, or to ask for answers on thorny matters, or to identify material and credible issues that the government wishes to deny or spirit away from public scrutiny.
By this same standard, and if the powers have their way, there are neither blackouts nor floods nor fear nor the secret dissipation of national treasures, and so on and so forth. No, there are no such things nor the myriad of substantial surrounding and responsible factors. And should anyone resist the carefully calibrated untruths and frauds disseminated across the state-and private-media spectrum without limitation, they run not only a gauntlet of castigation, but also the peculiarity of a developing ‘martyr’s syndrome.’
It is a syndrome where the specious claim of the personal attack gains currency. It is the equivalent of throwing in the kitchen sink, along with everything else, just to be on the safe side, and cover all known loopholes. Somehow, this latest stratagem reeks of ‘pity po boy’ resplendent in top hat and laptop reaching out with a calabash (cup) in a desperate search for sympathy in the realm of public opinion. Such claims are bereft of the factual, the foundational, and the related forensics.
At this point it is timely to take a holistic view of these latest silencing endeavours. First, there are charges of ignorance (you don’t know what you are talking about). Second, to object or disagree can relegate a citizen to the ranks of the unpatriotic. Third, there is crass conduct as exemplified in personal attacks. Conversely, through the very ventilation of these postures, those in the government docks infer a monopoly on knowledge and expertise and patriotism and the communication high ground.
Personally, and without speaking for Dr Bulkan in the least, I find all of this particularly odious. I am confident that many share the sentiment. Accordingly, I call on the government – and its expert officials – to refrain from demeaning citizens who care enough to protest nakedness, not to embarrass, but to highlight the need to clothe. I believe that instead of emerging triumphant from verbal and media fisticuffs, the government comes across as snarling, unconvincing, and vindictive. I think it can do better, but only if it really wants to do so.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
