Dear Editor,
An editorial in the Guyana Chronicle, dated July 3, 2012, elicited a fierce public reaction. Many individuals and organizations voiced their outrage at this insensitive race-baiting, trashy piece of journalism. Within a matter of days, and to his credit, the Chairman of the Board offered his apology. The gentleman even offered to resign if necessary. His response is commendable.
While Mr Burrowes recognized the implications of the editorial, however, Mr Juan Edghill continues to live in the clouds. According to one newspaper, he said that he saw nothing wrong with that editorial. In fact, he claims that the writer was stating facts. In a society like Guyana’s where racial insensitivity can cause friction, Mr Edghill’s statement, in our opinion, was callous and clumsy. Mr Edghill is the former chairman of the ERC. Throughout his tenure in office, nothing of significance was ever accomplished. He still seems to have no vision and no independence of thought.
Mr Edghill now sits in a house that is crumbling from the weight of corruption, about which he is oblivious. As ethical stalwarts of the former PPP abandon it, Mr Edghill and others continue to see no evil and speak no evil of a government whose policies continue to be corrupt, anti-working-class and anti-poor, without regard to the race of the victims.
While the Chronicle editorial is clearly and manipulatively racist, the new PPP government’s policies and behaviours are just as clearly and consistently broader; they discriminate against all citizens who are poor, regardless of race.
Messrs Ramjattan, Nagamootoo, and now Ramkarran, all former senior members of the PPP, reacted to the stench of corruption coming from the new PPP, and departed. Mr Edghill, however, can find no fault with something as blatantly divisive as the editorial in the Chronicle. While none of these men claim to be from the clergy, their commonsense and consciences drove them to take action, regardless of the personal cost.
Many believe that apart from changing its corrupt ways, the new PPP would do anything to have these gentlemen return. They realize that each of these men has the courage of their personal convictions. They have stood for moral principles. Mr Edghill seems to stand for nothing but personal convenience.
Yours faithfully,
Mark Archer
Aubrey Retemeyer
