Dear Editor,
I would like to read the views of your writer, Mr GHK Lall on the performance of Mr Ralph Ramkarran in the interview with Mr Christopher Ram (Ram’s television programme, Plain Talk) against the background of Mr Lall’s view that Mr Ramkarran might be the PPP’s choice of presidential candidate for the general elections deadlined for 2011. Mr Lall’s analyses are always interesting and I believe many would be delighted to read his thinking on this particular episode.

If Mr Lall has not seen the programme, I would ask that he accept my guide here. I can assure him that I have stuck as closely as possible to what Mr Ramkarran pronounced on in his answers. First, he did not accept that the President was out of the ambit of the law in not including the Lotto monies in the Consolidated Fund. Mr Ramkarran is a lawyer. The law is clear on that. When I saw his reaction to that issue I thought of someone saying that they do not know if it is illegal to run a red light.

Secondly, after telling Mr Ram that his opinion is that Guyana does not have an Ombudsman because a suitable person cannot be found, the interviewee stuck to his belief even though Mr Ram pointed out that the possibility of a selection does exist in a country of over 700,000 persons. Automatically, the name of Father Malcom Rodrigues  comes up. There is no reason why the Ombudsman must be a person qualified in law. In New Zealand, there was an Ombudsman who wasn’t a retired judge. In any case, the Office of the Ombudsman normally has a legal advisor.

Thirdly, Mr Ramkarran refused to comment on the style of Mr Jagdeo in which arrogance, pomposity and ‘cussing down’ are characteristics. Mr Ram gave examples. He cited Mr Jagdeo telling the press that he doesn’t have to set up a spy agency to gather intelligence on the opposition. To get such data all he has to do is send someone to a rum shop. Is it possible that a country can elect someone who is blatant enough to deny that such a presidential style is unacceptable? Finally, two more. Mr Ramkarran accepted that the poor are too heavily taxed, but he couldn’t answer why as a policy-maker within the ruling party he accepts that. And to conclude: this gentleman, the third longest serving member in the PPP’s 15-member executive committee which makes policy for the party, could not explain what decisions such a body made on Navin Chandarpal’s dismissal from his Office of the President  job, because when those exchanges occurred within the executive committee, he was out of the country. Are we to take it to mean that, minutes of meetings are not circulated; no one informs the seniors of the decisions taken in their absence; and Mr Ramkarran doesn’t enquire about edicts, policies and statements that occur in his absence?  I hope to hear from Mr Lall.

Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon