I find it very snide and deliberate to use the caption “I deny that concrete action started only after the protest by the students”, for my letter, particularly in view of the Editor’s note appended to the letter (mine) published in your issue of Wednesday, November 7, 2007.
I am compelled to repeat, not only for emphasis but to put the record straight, what I said when I made the specific reply to your malicious accusation: Your editorial stated: “In the style that has now become typical of officialdom, corrective action started only after the protest,” to which I stated “I wish with all the vehemence at my disposal to debunk this falsity and because of the obvious gravity, I believe that the statement should be officially withdrawn by the newspaper. The record of the commencement of repair activity cannot support this irresponsible and damaging reportage.”
Instead of gracefully withdrawing the vicious falsity, you have chosen to become snide in a lame attempt to expose my statement to ridicule. Your ill-advised Editor’s note confirms that you started reporting on the water crisis on September 20. Herein lays the weakness of your wild reporting.
The question is what were the activities prior to September 20 at the college? The official records will disclose that the fault and malfunctioning of the well was identified since early August during school holidays and it must be emphasized that immediate steps were put in place to have the fault rectified. Independent contactors were consulted and actual work started promptly.
Obviously it was a major breakdown and all efforts have so far failed to restore the functioning. In fact, it has now emerged that a new well may have to be established at an estimated cost of at least $40M.
At the moment, the Guyana Water Authority (GWI) is working to incorporate the needs of the school through their facility.
President’s College Board of Directors