Dear Editor,
Having made my paltry contribution towards the restoration of good, efficient and effective governance in Guyana prior to, and during, the elections of March 2020 – happily and incontrovertibly won by People’s Progressive Party/Civic partnership, – I have been generally staying in my little corner and keeping, as they say, a low profile.
I feel compelled, however, to respond to your highly strange editorial of December 4, 2021, entitled, `Failure to launch’.
The writer of this editorial claims, for example, that a “major contributor” to perceived investor hesitancy is uncertainty over impending local content legislation and recommends that it be brought to Parliament as soon as possible, after which “investors can decide whether to stay or go” and we will see whether “this approach spurs development or strangles it”. What approach would that be? Requirements for local businesses and ordinary citizens to benefit from foreign investment? Seriously?
Secondly, how did the government become the architects of “a city full of garbage” when the entity legally mandated, and paid by citizens, to ensure the cleanliness and order of the city has been controlled for decades by an opposition deeply committed to making this country look bad in the eyes of the world?
Thirdly, public servants agitating for increases, rising crime, accusations of arson, etc are listed as deterrent elements of the political landscape. Is it really possible that the writer could be unaware of the blatant instigation of all these things, and much worse, by persons who live outside of Guyana and who have developed a devoted cult following that is eerily, and frighteningly, reminiscent of that of an infamous American immigrant to 1970’s Guyana?
Fourthly, what was the writer’s point in referring to a reputed Phantom Gang of the early 2000’s with no mention of the horrendous spree of robbery and wanton murder which followed the prison break of 2002 and which gave rise to what amounted to vigilante justice and, sometimes, injustice.
Fifthly, exactly how has President Ali “overseen and contributed to this (perceived) regression” by his refusal to hold consultations with someone who proclaims to the world their refusal to accept his legitimacy?
In what capacity would President Ali be participating in these consultations which would, by this writer’s logic, sweep away all the country’s ills, banish the cult leaders to the depths of Siberia, produce cooperative workers who are committed to building their homeland, restore the razed government buildings and, most of all, produce an opposition committed to constructive criticism that is aimed at our common cause of nation-building?
Lastly, whenever did a dirty city or a perceived unstable political environment deter serious investors?
I find it hard to accept that Stabroek News would advance the latter as a credible argument and am therefore left to wonder whether the central point of this editorial is a subtle protest against the impending local content legislation and, if this is so, why?
Yours faithfully
Elizabeth Alleyne
Editor-in-Chief’s note: Stabroek News stands by
the editorial.
