Dear Editor,
Below is my response to Harry Hergash’s letter about me in SN (‘A teachable moment,’ April 9). Countless people write using subjective judgements and they believe their faults and wilful intentions cannot be detected by readers. By Mr Hergash’s own admission more than two years ago, he reads my daily column in KN. Strangely enough, Mr Hergash didn’t read four pieces by me, three in KN and one in SN, in which I explained that it was KN publisher, Mr Lall who was at fault in misunderstanding my article on prescriptive rights (I did not pen a column on squatters’ eviction).
Strangely Mr Hergash missed those outlines. I leave readers to make their own judgement. Mr Hergash wants to know if I told the truth about Mr Lall instructing me not to write on Donald Ramotar. For some unexplained reason, Mr Hergash didn’t ask if there existed any e-mail exchange. He takes KN’s word on the e-mails but not mine on the Ramotar thing. I can live with that; it comes with the territory. And I anticipate we will not hear from Mr Hergash on this issue again. This is the way people reason and one must reply in order to let people like Mr Hergash know that Guyanese cannot be easily duped
I will not return to my prescriptive rights pieces. It is for Mr Hergash to search the internet for them and get to understand a bit more of Guyana. I am not at liberty to discuss my recent conversation with Stella Ramsaroop in Guyana; suffice it to say it is my belief that she has come to grips with the controversy over the column and how and why it got out of hand. I apologized to Stella for the use of words that she was bitter about, not for any journalistic slip-up. I will end the commentary on that column on prescriptive rights by saying I stand by every single line I wrote except to say that when I saw water lines being removed, they belonged to only two squatters. KN has not proved that the article lacked journalistic integrity
Now to discuss my own integrity. The Stabroek News and Guyanaobservernews.org (belonging to Mark Benschop) pointedly asked me if Mr Glen Lall demanded that I not write critically negative viewpoints on Donald Ramotar (the wording here is mine). Anyone, I repeat, anyone who knows me would tell you there is no way in the world I would hide my feelings on matters important to Guyana. I have never done that and will never do it. Mr Lall does not need my protection. He has the ability to explain himself. And I am sure Mr Lall cannot be angry with me for relating to the media of which I have been part since 1988.
The answer is yes. Mr Lall’s language to me on this request was unambiguous. For that reason I didn’t mention Ramotar’s name in a piece I did when his relative and my nephew were involved in a road accident. Yet Mr Lall was angry at the publication. I was not interested in his tone. I stood my ground. Mr Lall has on more than one occasion talked about me doing “a little boosting for Donald.” He never pressed the matter, was never demanding about the favour and on all occasions I told him I wouldn’t. He showed no vexation.
I do concede that my acceptance of this edict of Mr Lall shows a fault in my character. I apologize to the Guyanese people, my readers and those who have put some faith in me. I should have remonstrated with Mr Lall when for two consecutive years he warned me not to write on Ramotar. Knowing Mr Lall as long as I did and having virtually millions of topics to write on, I let it slide. In all honesty, I still don’t know why I never pursued a confrontation with Mr Lall on this. I had reason to. I partially brought the newspaper to where it is now, served an important value to it (I believe I still do), and owed it to Guyana to write on matters of national importance
I should have walked away when we had a huge tempest over the car accident. But I didn’t want to hurt KN by withdrawing my column. I ask readers to forgive me if they think I am being chauvinistic but I felt people wanted the column. So I overlooked the quarrel with Mr Lall (at which Adam Harris was present) and I just continued. Also I felt it would not have been the right thing to do to Mr Lall.
Finally about the e-mails. Stella has told me she didn’t release the exchange. I indicated directly to her that I accepted her word. Nothing said in those exchanges I would not have said publicly, or to Stella and Mr Lall’s face. I told the SN reporter I will accept publication of the correspondence. Mr Hergash could continue with his judgements. That is his right. But he will receive my replies for sure.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
