Dear Editor,
Mr Sase Singh completely misrepresented my position on national governance in Guyana (SN May 3) in a letter captioned ‘Bisram misrepresented my letter on rural Guyana’. Contrary to what Mr Singh stated, I do not support ethnic domination by any group (neither Indians nor Africans) in Guyana or in any multi-ethnic nation. I experienced racism in Guyana and the US and as such would not like anyone to experience racial victimization or persecution. It is for this reason that when I enrolled at City College of New York in the Fall of 1977, I joined the multi-ethnic student struggle against White domination of Blacks and other minorities; I served in student government for several years at the undergrad and grad levels that fought racism. I also became a founding member of a NY based group struggling against racism, human rights abuses and rigged elections in Guyana and remained a soldier for that cause even after democracy was restored in 1992.
My 40+ years record as an activist would show that I consistently opposed racial or one party domination in Guyana and called for power-sharing among the ethnic groups and parties. I cannot support the replacement of PNC (African) domination with PPP (Indian) domination or vice versa. It is for this reason, I support some form of power-sharing in which the country will have a national multi-ethnic, multi-party government comprising representation based on the percentage of votes obtained in free and fair elections. One cannot have a clearer position on how multi-ethnic Guyana should be governed or the ending of racial dominance in that nation as well as addressing other ethnic conflict-ridden states.
Similar to my position on shared governance among the six ethnic groups, I also would like to see a Guyana government in which power is equitably distributed among urban, rural and hinterland folks. The majority of the population is rural or hinterland-based, but the latter two communities have been short changed (in terms of resources and development) by both the PNC and PPP and now by the APNU+AFC. On this note, I compliment Sase Singh for focusing attention (though his focus is very narrow and restricted) on the neglect of rural communities to which I add the hinterland.
Mr Singh states that the objective of his letter on rural Guyana v urban Guyana was restricted only to the formation of the new ERC, saying rural folks are being marginalized. Discrimination against rural Guyana is not confined to one government or in one area or on one board. It is widespread and both the PNC and the PPP (the former more than the latter) were guilty of that sin. I applaud Mr Singh for his attempt to expose discrimination against the rural folks. But one cannot advocate an end to discrimination in one area and ignore discrimination in the others; that makes one a hypocrite. I urge Mr Singh to advocate fairness in rural representation across the board on all government boards, commissions, and other entities, including the cabinet.
Contrary to what Mr Singh penned, my response to him did not contain falsehoods. He admits he was on the AFC list in the 2011 election. There is no public record that he resigned from the party. It follows logically, therefore, that I would identify him as AFC, especially given that several letters he wrote were pro-AFC. In addition, he stated that he campaigned on social media for the AFC+APNU in 2015 election. During the 2015 election campaign, I was approached by friends to join them in Guyana to campaign for the coalition with several prominent names (including those of Sase Singh, Asquith Rose, etc) mentioned as among those making the trip. It was logical that I would conclude that Sase Singh travelled to Guyana and campaigned for the coalition. I could not see myself taking sides in elections in Guyana, especially since I conducted opinion polls to determine popular support for the parties. Mr Singh stated he did not travel to Guyana in 2015 to campaign for the APNU+AFC; I have no evidence suggesting otherwise and express regret for that unsupported comment.
After the election, there was an APNU+AFC victory celebration in Brooklyn and Richmond Hill. Mike Persaud met me at a cricket match and informed me that Sase Singh had inquired about me and would like to meet me; he invited me to the victory celebration saying Singh would be there in an official capacity. I did not attend as I did not want to be part of a partisan event. I came to the conclusion, perhaps wrongly, that Mr Singh was an organizer of the celebration; Mr Persaud did not say Mr Singh was an organizer (the conclusion was mine). After the coalition took power, Mr Singh became (and he admitted that he was) a columnist in the Chronicle as critics were fired. Based on the above facts, it is logical for anyone to conclude that Singh was AFC+APNU, and that he had significant influence on the government since he campaigned for it. It is not unfair to conclude that Mr Singh could pressure the coalition to give fair representation to rural folks across the board, not just on the ERC.
Based on the above, I concluded that Mr Singh was serving in government positions. He said he was not. I have no evidence to dispute him, and as such express regret for that conclusion. I also accept his position that it is his democratic right to serve Team Granger and/or the coalition government. I opt to be independent and neutral and not support any party. So clearly, we have different values.
Singh said his essay on discrimination against rural folks on the ERC was not a complaint but an observation. Mine is a protest against discrimination and I want rural and racial equity across the board in all entities.
One note of disagreement: Mr Singh claims that President Granger appointed Veerasammy Rammayah as REO of Region 6; the AFC leadership claimed it was a Prime Minister Nagamootoo appointment.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
