Dear Editor,
I refer to the article headlined, “Granger says media houses should get state ads based on ‘fairness’ of reportage” (SN: 02/11/19). I must respectfully depart from His Excellency on this one. For, as the accompanying subsidiary to the caption asked, “Who decides fairness?” Or to echo Pontius Pilate: “What is truth?” And then, where does it end?
I am certain that, in this matter of state ads, the government’s definition of “fairness” is different from mine; most likely, many Guyanese – including supporters – who must be appalled at this now longstanding development. This is too much like before. I will be bold enough to speak publicly for myself first, and them, too. For to attach the subjectivity of “fairness” to the allocation (now the undeserved blessing from on high) of state ads paves the way for much more national, state-sponsored mischief. Mischief in holding on to that weak and insupportable line; mischief in numerous other arenas of government activity; mischief in punishing the independent, possibly honest. And mischief in perpetrating the vulgar and vindictive legacy of its PPP predecessor. This I did not vote for then; this is what troubles as we go forward into the first quarter of 2020.
Though I am refreshed and comforted (to a limited extent) by Mr Granger’s words that he does not “support withholding of advertisements,” I humbly urge that he does more; that he proceed beyond the words of a throwaway line, and order that there be a reversal of what prevails now. It is too communistic; it reeks too much of the heavy hand of disagreeable governance, a willingness to engage in undisguised coercion to compel toeing the line. The president is well aware that he has enough people around him, who tell him what they think he wants to hear. Surely, he is wiser than that, to know when he is being sold a pig in a bag? A whole herd of them? Clearly, the government spent much precious energy to detect who is against it; I suggest presenting what it is for, in the things that matter.
I am concerned that this government is so insecure, so thin-skinned as to introduce the unacceptable into what is an already disreputable situation. I think it can be mature and more responsible than this. It is better to get a gauge of what are the real sentiments and positions outside of the practiced and favourable. And the president should need no reminding that there are hard sentiments and still more scorching passions abounding in Guyana.
I interpret “fairness” to mean speaking with one voice; ignoring palpable shortcomings; overlooking grave excesses. Last time I checked this is neither Cuba nor mainland China. What could be next? All singing the same hymns from the same hymn books? All wearing the same colour clothing? Those are superficial allegiances; better that the thinking and what disturbs, but what should alert, be allowed the freest of ventilations. The issue of “fairness” is both improper and moot outside of the egregious, the malicious, and the scurrilous.
In the United States, no less a formidable presence than the Wall Street Journal has found it necessary to question, to bemoan, and to criticise the Republican presence in the White House. The Wall Street Journal is neither of the Democrats nor liberal in its composition or culture. It has to be difficult for the editorial board; but it is the principled thing to do. There is no choice. I, too, have no choice; thus, I stand and speak.
Not too long ago, one man stood all alone in the street and carried a picket. For his candour and courage, he was condemned to death. Rationales for responsibility rest at the feet of the predecessor PPP government. I believe that, too. What was one more killing? Surely, this government – or Mr Granger – is not pursuing that kind of arbitrary “fairness” through crucifying the critical? Things have deteriorated so much that a competitor paper that continually peddles a divisive, even borderline racist, line is favoured with more funds than a Stabroek News. This says so much of the unsavory relationships in this country.
It goes without saying that President David Granger has the power and authority to remove that state ad embargo. He does not have to resort to an order since he is not prone to such productions; a soft word would do. Even the stroke of a pen across paper is not necessary. Just let the thing go. Leave the people alone; all of them. Show the people that we are different. This is how he demonstrates to this country that he is different and genuine, and not of the same rancid, mildewed mold of old.
Because when “fairness” rises to the fore, and is placed in the scheme of considerations, then there are no limits. I revisit: any two positions on what constitutes “fairness” can be so far apart, that there is only sleaziness, rancorousness, and madness in between. We should not go down that road. I abhor it.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
