Dear Editor
We write in response to a letter penned by Dr. Randolph Persaud, presumably in his capacity of government propogandist, in Stabroek News’ Friday July 14 edition (Be bold enough to take some credit generations have fought for). The government spokesperson ostensibly wrote in response to an earlier letter penned by Brother Eusi Kwayana in which he, Kwayana, sought to correct a glaring misconception about who are the investors in Guyana’s Oil Industry. Brother Kwayana argues that Guyana, the place from which the oil originates, must be the primary investor—it’s Guyana’s oil. Since Dr. Persaud weighs in on the matter, one expects him to either agree with or refute Kwayana’s contention. Alas, in his letter, Dr. Persaud never addressed Brother Kwayana’s contention. He instead used the letter to repeat the government’s propaganda on the growth of Guyana’s economy. He then chides Brother Kwayana on his use of “outdated” neo colonial language and proceeds to lecture him on what he should pay attention to.
WPA calls on Dr. Persaud to address Mr. Kwayana’s question rather than use the letter columns to do government’s “double dipping” by repeating things that the news section of the newspapers has already covered. Second, while we respect Persaud’s right to engage what Mr. Kwayana writes, we take umbrage to his attempt to lecture our Elder. Kwayana is not beyond reproach. But he did not give almost eighty years of service to our country in multiple spheres of life to be subjected to attempts at disrespect by persons who are in the business of propaganda.
Finally, WPA wishes to make two simple points regarding Dr. Persaud’s letters to the editor. First, we note that after many complaints from Dr. Persaud, Stabroek News has lifted its alleged ban on his letters. We do not know the reasons for the ban, but we welcome Stabroek News’ change of heart. The media should not accuse the government of being selective about who attends the President’s Press Conferences and how many questions a reporter is allowed to ask when they, the media, are also selective about whose letters are carried in their columns and which parties they give coverage to. Freedom of expression assumes unfettered access by all, within the ambit of the law and acceptable norms, regardless of political affiliation.
Second, we hope Dr. Persaud uses his good offices and enormous influence to urge two of our other daily newspapers to lift their bans on letters written by detractors of the PPP and the government. Those newspapers ought to abide by the same standards which Dr Persaud demands of the Stabroek News. We note in closing that while Stabroek News and other media houses were restricted to one reporter and one question at the recent press conference held by the president, Stabroek News, in its Friday July 14th edition carried two letters by two government functionaries.
Sincerely,
David Hinds
For the WPA
