Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter on Tuesday titled, `Neither festive nor a ‘lime’’ from Robin Singh (SN January 28). If this is what passes for public expression of some (any) understanding, intellectual depth, and personal contributions relative to the political developments in this country, then we are in worse shape than I thought. Here it is that an acknowledged coalition supporter (yours truly) calls out a senior minister of the government, a senior party leader, on her statement to party people to maintain a vigilant physical presence around polling stations on voting day, and the criticism and message are lost.
My disagreement and criticism of Ms. Volda Lawrence is something that does not happen in this country at elections time, or any other time or any other issue, by most other commentators and known supporters of both the PNC and PPP. In fact, on the PNC (now APNU) side, did emerge from their protective private places to question, to criticize, and to challenge. I am on record as disagreeing with the president himself, and on more than a couple of occasions. I have called on Mr. Granger to fire a couple of serving ministers, which was not well received by the objects of my disappointment. The point I am getting it is that, at no time (repeat, at no time), do the regular PPP contributors and supporters find anything that is done wrong, any misstep, or any weakness by any member of the mighty PPP: no policy, no pronouncement, no practice. Look carefully, and there are haloed as a perfect blending of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed. This is the level of deception and hypocrisy that prevails in this place, where individual mental deformities swagger on the public stage as beauty contestants in what is served up as truth and objectivity.
I would have thought that the Robin Singhs of the world would possess the barest minimum of interpretation and appreciation for what I took Ms. Lawrence to the mat; yet that is transformed into “spin.” To continue the illustration tendered, a fair delivery is sent down with the frankest of countenances, and it is greeted with rank dishonesty. I suspect there may be some limitations in reading, definitely much in lack of understanding. Surely, no one can be so blind, so biased, as to ignore (or pretend to) the thrust of what was embedded in my letter that deplored the position of Ms. Lawrence.
Look again, and it should be seen very clearly that I am concerned that the Hon. Minister’s (and PNC senior) exhortation could lead to the “law of unintended consequences.” Meaning that, as corroborated by word from marketplace conversations, it would be opportunity for some business activity, such as offering bar-b-que chicken and the usual roadside Guyanese fare. And here is the kicker and key: there is nothing prohibiting what may start out innocently, and as an opportunistic business hustle, to deteriorate into the sneaky selling of alcoholic beverages, the imbibing of such, and the resulting intensifications from such that could lead to undesired places and issues. By the latter I mean what has characterized the immediate post-elections intervals.
It is known, I do, that some of the people who sell food, also sell alcohol. Since, their plan is to respond to Ms. Lawrence’s urging for a polling place presence at that special time, then matters could get out of hand, with the usual denials and reciprocal finger pointing following. They usually solve nothing. More damage is layered on the psyche of an already troubled populace. I submit all of this notwithstanding, the CEO of Gecom, Mr. Lowenfield, reminding all Guyanese of the “200 yard” prohibition around polling places. For if the words of Ms. Lawrence were to gain traction, then that space would be observed more in the breach; and, even if it were adhered to, then there is the distinct probability of mischief in the air from whatever distance people gather. Alcohol can undermine the best of intentions.
Thus, I do not see how what I wrote calling out Ms. Lawrence as camouflage or copout or possibly condoning anything that may have occurred before or that may become so now. It is one thing to stand in defiance of commonsense and without regard for what is helpful to this country; it is another thing, a most vulgar and dirty thing, to simply say something for the sake of selling self and proving how invaluable a contribution is made to the elections developments and discourses in this land.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
