Dear Editor,
Reading the editorial of the July 22 in the Sunday Stabroek one cannot help but wonder whether this newspaper contracted out the writing of its editorial to an irrational anti-government force.
I am shocked and appalled by the utter disrespect for President Donald Ramotar, when the editorial accused him of “talking nonsense.” Did the editor of the Sunday Stabroek read this piece before publication? Is this the level of journalism that the Stabroek News is advocating?
The editorial declared with certainty how peacefully the protesters were behaving. Culpability for everything that went wrong was directed totally at the Guyana Police Force and the government. Yet the very editorial urged that the government should not ‘dilly-dally’ on having an enquiry conducted. If the Stabroek News is so sure of what transpired then why are they still urging an enquiry?
Further the writer accused the government and police of being unprepared for a possible riot situation. Are they saying that it is the right of protesters to be riotous and government should be condemned if they are not prepared to facilitate this right to be unruly?
And more importantly, the fundamental issue at hand: the Sunday Stabroek editorial is written on the notion that it is the right of Lindeners not to pay an increased tariff for electricity consumption. Some have argued that the government is trying to impose a steep increase in electricity rates without consultation with the people of Linden. This is terribly misleading.
The integration of Linden into the national electricity grid was in the making since the days of the Forbes Burnham administration. Only recently comments made by then Prime Minister Burnham in 1976 were reported in the press where Mr Burnham urged “Socialism is not freeness. What we hope to do when you are integrated into the general scheme is to bring you straight under the umbrella of the Guyana Electricity Corporation.” He further went on to caution, “I do not promise you that you will necessarily get it cheaper than other people, because [I am] Prime Minister of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, not of the Republic of Linden, get that straight once and for all comrades.”
Just to understand the magnitude in the cost differential between Linden and the rest of Guyana, in 2011 the subsidy to each residential customer worked out to about $17,000 per month. The government is simply seeking to gradually phase in the Linden customer into the national grid.
I remember when the Opposition Leader and President were initially discussing the subject and the APNU had endorsed an increased tariff, there were heated debates in the social media, including Facebook, where APNU member James Bond went to lengths to convince his Linden colleagues in APNU that the increase was intended to discourage wastage and be fair to the rest of Guyana. Of course when the APNU reneged these comments were swiftly removed. But we saw them and we continue to see the dishonesty of the people who are leading Lindeners down a destructive path.
One AFC executive member was quoted as saying that the AFC intends to seek the support of sugar workers for Linden. How more blatantly ridiculous can the AFC be? They are going to seek to have sugar workers come out and support the refusal of Lindeners to pay their fair share for electricity consumption while these very sugar worker are paying a higher rate? Would this not be a horrible insult to the sugar workers and generally people all across Guyana who are paying a higher tariff than the increased Linden rates?
As a young person in this nation I wish to humbly call on our leaders to let good sense and peace prevail. Quit misleading and using the people of Linden for political mileage. Going down the destructive path of hindering economic activities can never lead to development.
Yours faithfully,
Navin Chand
Editor’s note
1. The editorial was written by the Sunday editor.
2. The editorial at no point stated or suggested that protestors had a right to be riotous.
3. Arguments in relation to the rights/wrongs of increasing the Linden electricity tariff were not considered at all in the editorial; it was government’s approach and the practical consequences of this which were under discussion.
