PPP Executive Ralph Ramkarran in a letter today restated that the Central Committee of the PPP had taken a position against the cut-off of state advertisements to Stabroek News in 2006.
In the letter which will appear in tomorrow’s edition, Ramkarran was reacting to a statement made by PPP executive Dr Roger Luncheon in a news item in today’s Sunday Stabroek that no decision against the ads cut-off was taken. To the contrary, Dr Luncheon said that the party supported the decision to stops the state ads to SN.
Ramkarran’s letter today however said that Luncheon was mistaken. Ramkarran said he had chaired most of the meetings of the central and executive committees between 2002 to 2008 and it was at one of these in 2006 that the late President, Mrs Janet Jagan had raised the issue.
“…the late Mrs. Janet Jagan raised the issue of the withdrawal of the ads, after it had been suggested that silence is more appropriate to her then status as a ‘private citizen,’ and suggested that the Central Committee take a decision to call on the Government to restore them.
“Several persons spoke, all of whom supported Mrs. Jagan’s proposal. A suggestion was made that a decision be postponed until President (Bharrat) Jagdeo, who was not at the meeting, could be present. The suggestion was not accepted and a decision was taken”, Ramkarran related.
He said that nothing changed in relation to the ads cut-off and this was noted at a subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee of the PPP. Several months after, Ramkarran said another Executive Committee meeting was held at which time he proposed that he should publish an article calling on the PPP to make its position on the ads cut-off known. Ramkarran said there was disagreement on this proposal and it was this meeting that Luncheon was referring to.
“Discussion on the issue concluded with a thorough, comprehensive and vulgar denunciation of me and my imaginary motives.
“The above Executive Committee meeting is clearly the one to which Dr Luncheon chooses to recall and refers to in his statement to SN. Indeed opinion was divided, as Dr. Luncheon said, and as I mentioned above, but it was divided on my publication of the article. The issue of the restoration of the ads was not discussed. It had already been discussed some months previously at the Central Committee meeting and a decision taken. ‘Democratic Centralism,’ Dr. Luncheon style, did prevail and I did not publish the article”, Ramkarran stated.
The article Ramkarran was proposing to publish was carried in the April 30, 2012 edition of SN along with a news item on the statement that the PPP had opposed the ads cut-off.
The full text of Ramkarran’s letter follows:
Dear Editor,
I recently sought to correct the statement in an editorial of SN that the PPP considered the withdrawal of ads by the Government in 2006 to be ‘a trifling matter.’ I pointed out that the PPP’s Central Committee had made a decision to call on the Government to restore the ads but that the decision was ignored.
My intention in correcting the assertion in the SN editorial was to defend the integrity of the PPP, the Party of Cheddi Jagan, on an important constitutional and fundamental right which was so close to Cheddi’s heart and the history of the PPP – freedom of expression.
It was also to defend the integrity of the General Secretary, now President Ramotar, who was criticized for his silence, implying that he supported the decision to withdraw the ads. He never spoke in support of it, did not do so at the meeting of the Central Committee at which the decision was taken, and did not in any way contest the decision. It was no doubt felt that a public statement by the General Secretary or by the Party would embarrass the Government, make it more difficult to influence a change in policy, and that the better position to have taken was unpublicized persuasion.
It is a matter of great regret and distress that one of the Party’s leading members, Dr. Roger Luncheon, now seeks to deny that integrity, both of the Party and indirectly of its General Secretary. His reference to only an Executive Committee meeting at which my article was discussed, omitting the earlier meeting of the Central Committee at which the crucial decision was taken, obfuscates the issue when taken together with his incomprehensible and incoherent references to ‘democratic centralism’ in his remarks under the caption “Luncheon says PPP did not oppose SN ads boycott” in your Sunday May 5 edition.
The following are the facts:
1. At a Central Committee meeting in 2006, which I chaired, (I chaired most, if not all, Central Committee and Executive Committee meetings between the 2002 and 2008 Congresses) the late Mrs. Janet Jagan raised the issue of the withdrawal of the ads, after it had been suggested that silence is more appropriate to her then status as a ‘private citizen,’ and suggested that the Central Committee take a decision to call on the Government to restore them.
2. Several persons spoke, all of whom supported Mrs. Jagan’s proposal. A suggestion was made that a decision be postponed until President Jagdeo, who was not at the meeting, could be present. The suggestion was not accepted and a decision was taken.
3. At a subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee the matter was raised and the failure of the Government to restore the ads was noted.
4. Some months later, after continuing national and international criticisms of the PPP, quite apart from those of the Government, I presented to the Executive Committee the article which was published by SN (Eds note: Article was published on April 30, 2012 along with a news item on Mr Ramkarran’s letter), seeking permission to publish it. Opinion was divided with a preponderance against publication. Discussion on the issue concluded with a thorough, comprehensive and vulgar denunciation of me and my imaginary motives.
5. The above Executive Committee meeting is clearly the one which Dr Luncheon chooses to recall and refers to in his statement to SN. Indeed opinion was divided, as Dr. Luncheon said, and as I mentioned above, but it was divided on my publication of the article. The issue of the restoration of the ads was not discussed. It had already been discussed some months previously at the Central Committee meeting and a decision taken. ‘Democratic Centralism,’ Dr. Luncheon style, did prevail and I did not publish the article.
6. Dr. Luncheon makes no reference to the Central Committee meeting at which the crucial decision was taken. He makes reference only to the Executive Meeting at which the publication of my article was discussed and rejected.
7. If Dr. Luncheon re-reads my article, which he must remember because in his contribution to the discussion he praised its quality, he would note that I was arguing that the PPP should make known its position. What position could I have possibly been talking about? Would it not have been a position already taken? Dr. Luncheon, at his circumlocutory best, did not support the publication of my article but did not question that a ‘position’ had then existed. No one did.
8. For clarity I quote what I said in the article: “The question arises as to whether on an issue of this importance the PPP should continue to remain silent. I believe it is incumbent on the leadership of the PPP to make its position known.” What position, if not one already taken in opposition to the withdrawal of the ads?
9. A copy of the article was circulated to every member of the Executive Committee of the Party at the time in 2007. Whoever else would choose to contest that the PPP Central Committee made such a decision must explain what ‘position’ I could have been referring to in the article and why, in the discussion on its publication, no one challenged the existence of a ‘position’ of the Party leadership to which the article referred.
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran
