Dear Editor,
The Stabroek News has once again exposed how biased it is on a political matter of national importance.
In its editorial of May 13, headlined ‘The President’s rejection of the two Bills’ the editorial admits that the President acted within the meaning of the constitution, yet it goes on to state that by acting constitutionally, his action will “further deepen the political divide in the country and make it more difficult for mature compromise between the two sides.”
So what should the President have done? Was he expected to whimsically sign signalling his assent to the two Bills? The President is fully aware of the intense and robust political debate that took place on the two Bills between the three and not two sides in the National Assembly.
Policy issues on the matters contained in the two Bills are determined at cabinet level. The President chairs cabinet. After listening to the advice of ministers he gives general direction on the line to be taken on the matter by his ministers who are members of Parliament and sit in the National Assembly.
Therefore, there is some illogical and irrational thinking by some in the media and those in the political opposition who think otherwise. Why would the President, having given general direction on the line to be taken in the debate and his ministers, having articulated the line in the parliamentary debates and in the face of unconvincing arguments from the opposition benches, retreat from his position when the Bill is presented to him to assent or not to assent?
Further, on the question of “mature compromise” it is to be recalled that President Ramotar in his inaugural speech to the National Assembly, on February 10, 2012 had this to say: “I am satisfied that we are capable of demonstrating to the Guyanese nation that while political competition and diversity are essential in a democracy, they should not foreclose on the possibilities for compromise and consensus in the way we do business.
“Indeed, the make-up of this new parliament dictates that we seek consensus and compromise and should resist the temptation to believe that any party can ride roughshod over another. Any such attempt may see us missing the historical opportunities that this new composition offers. I urge that we put the interest of our people first. I urge that we work assiduously to find common ground within and outside of this hallowed chamber.”
It is obvious that the opposition paid no attention.
So let’s return to the debate on the two Bills.
Did the Stabroek News not listen and report on the debates? If they did, did they not notice the sharp divide in the debate between the three sides? Did the Stabroek News not weigh the merits and demerits of the arguments, do the analysis and draw a
logical and foreseeable outcome? Or was it for Stabroek News simply a matter of form without content?
But there is yet another journalistic travesty on the part of the Stabroek News which exposes its political bias favourable to the opposition. I am referring to the position adopted by that newspaper soon after the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker by members of the National Assembly. This was the time when the joint opposition ‘hogged’ both positions for themselves contrary to long established convention and practice.
This situation was again repeated at the time when the parliamentary Standing Committees and Select Committees were being established, when the joint opposition again imposed their majoritarian dominance in all the committees.
Did it not occur to the Stabroek News at the time that those actions on the part of the joint opposition would have served to “further deepen the political divide in the country and make it more difficult for mature compromise between the [sides]?”
What was the position of the Stabroek News at the time? Did it alert the joint opposition about the folly of their actions and that their actions did not augur well for “mature compromise” in the future?
This is where it all started and this is how it continues to this day – when will they ever learn?
Yours faithfully,
Clement J Rohee
Minister
