Dear Editor,
Here is my reply to the letter by AFC Parliamentarian, Sheila Holder in the July 8 edition of your paper in which she responds to my criticism of her not adding her voice to the demand by me, Everall Franklin of GAP-ROAR and Coretta Mc Donald of the TUC that the media should not have been asked to leave the conference by Juan Edghill to discuss the stakeholders’ validation report of the ERC’s work. All three of us took the position that there was nothing confidential in the report by the consultant, Lawrence Lachmansingh therefore transparency was the right value to begin with.
Mrs. Holder’s letter is extremely disappointing to say the least. It is clear that Mrs. Holder has not learnt the valuable lesson of life – “if you have nothing useful to say, don’t say anything.” Why that is a wise saying is that because you offend no one and no one can accuse you of lying or distorting or saying something foolish.
I resent the use of the word “ruckus” and “fracas” by Mrs. Holder to describe what the three of us sought to do. I hope Mr. Everall Franklin would be kind enough to respond to this interpretation. Only Mrs. Holder knows why she brought up the question of the media being asked to leave hours after the media had already left. There are several obnoxious statements in her missive that if the AFC does not do damage control with, is bound to cost them at election time. Here are some examples. The quotes are from Mrs. Holder; “According to Bishop Edghill, that was not the first time Mr. Kissoon had attempted to get the ERC to change this policy,” (end of quote). If I was the suing kind, I would have taken Mrs. Holder to court for repeating a lie. I have never done what she quotes Edghill as accusing me of doing
Here is Mrs. Holder again; “Had I allowed Mr. Kissoon to draw me out to participate in the ruckus he had created I would have lost the opportunity to change over some hearts and minds….,” (end of quote). Mrs. Holder is flattering herself. That is her right. I didn’t glance at Mrs. Holder when I was speaking. I did not speak a word to her after I finished my address on the issue. I did not seek to draw Mrs. Holder into anything. Mrs. Holder has a large imagination. She spoke on the issue when three-quarters of the event had passed. Then she left. I had to run behind her to urge that she correct the propaganda of Ms. Gail Teixeira that the ERC’s mandate was being held up by the opposition in Parliament. One thing was certain about that meeting – Mrs. Holder was not visible or vocal to win any hearts and minds
Here again is Mrs. Holder: “This approach (her approach) I believe allowed for a mature solution as distinct from the confrontational one presented by Mr. Kissoon,” (end of quote). This is bordering on politician’s accustomed deception. Mrs. Holder could not have achieved any solution whatsoever. She raised the question on the media being asked to leave when the conference had passed three-quarters of its life as I mentioned above. What solution is she referring to? Throughout her letter Mrs. Holder seeks to praise herself for her non–achievements
The final quote; “My style, though not that of Mr. Kissoon, would be respected in some quarters of the society that had grown wary of venting one’s spleen with no commensurate result or benefit,” (end of quote). It would be nice if Mrs. Holder can tell us what her style as a WPA Parliamentarian, then an AFC Parliamentarian has done for the people of Guyana who still yearn for democracy, respect for the rule of law, ethnic security, good governance and the end to poverty
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
