Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr Frederick Kissoon’s letter titled ‘Contamination and deterioration?’ (SN, March 30). This was in response to my own writing captioned ‘Exercise in poor judgment’ in SN on March 26.
It is pleasing to note that Mr Kissoon has been reading. In the same instance, I regret to observe that his thinking and discernment are lacking. In no particular order I seek to address some of the assertions raised in his letter.
First, “I never back down from a fight.” From my perspective this is nowhere near to a “fight.” Rather, it is that seekers and exposers of truth cannot be concealers of the same themselves. One cannot declare to be a finder of fact, while drawing a near impenetrable iron curtain-like screen when questioned about possible self-dealing.
I submit that even if the latter is not what may be happening today, Mr Kissoon’s actions have made it appear to be so.
Second, Mr Kissoon characteristically adheres to that old sports adage that ‘the best defence is an aggressive offence.’ He, however, is not in a position to question; he ought to be furnishing answers. Clear, clean, straightforward responses. Nothing complicated. I do not have to provide anything, as it is not my activity that is under scrutiny, whether I was here or not.
The same applies for any sources.
Third, and rather commendably, he has been in the thick, if not the forefront, of unfrocking and excoriating public persons, and taking no prisoners where disingenuousness and secrecy prevail. I recommend he follow his own standard; he cannot have a higher one for others, and a lower, hazy one for himself.
Bare hand; it is all or nothing on the table. Bluffing and blustering (or huffing and puffing) does not add credibility. It harms further.
Fourth, matters are not automatically deep-sixed and extended an indefinite moratorium, because he said so. It is why Mr Kissoon ought to embrace full disclosure standards, and do so now.
Fifth, he should refrain from the delaying and diversionary buying of time, through identifying benefactors when he retires, or post-PPP governance, or when it suits him.
It smacks of evasion and worse yet, of the ruling party’s machinations. I am almost certain that Mr Kissoon would not want to be lumped in such a grouping. No, later will not be greater. As an aside, the commander-in-chief himself is reported to have said that “secrecy breeds suspicion” and then stood by during the construction of a mountain of the latter. Is this how Mr Kissoon wants to be perceived?
Fifth, I refuse to question the integrity of his friends and helpers. Mr Kissoon knows well enough that, while his grantors may not be part of corporate Guyana, as he indicated before, they could be part of commercial Guyana, or official Guyana.
And therein resides trouble, since there might be great difficulty in locating the truly principled within any of those arenas.
The American in me cries out that there is no free lunch. In other words, quid precedes quo; one follows the other as sure as the sun rises somewhere out there. Now if this is not clear enough, here is the bottom line: It smells. It may or may not stink. He should hasten to clear the air, and not engage in meanderings. It is most unbecoming.
In sum, this is how I see this issue: I don’t have to prove, parse, or submit anything. He stands where he stands. It is incumbent upon him to reflect, and do the right thing. And further I say not.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
