Dear Editor,
I am forced to respond to a letter from Pastor Ronald McGarrell, who is co-chairman of the Inter Religious Organisation (IRO) in your issue of Monday, February 21 captioned ‘The proposed TV station will provide a service for all the religions’ in view of your excellent editorial on this matter on Sunday, March 20, showing why it is not advisable to compromise the religious organisations with this channel. It now appears that some of our religious leaders may also have fallen victim to worldly temptations.
And we must deal with that at the appropriate time. However, in view of your excellent editorial I need not respond to Mr McGarrell’s diatribe; the massive and complex conflicts in the issuing of an IRO broadcast licence were very clearly outlined by you. I would however like to say that we, the private broadcasters who have been told for 10 years that no new licence will be issued to anyone until an impartial Broadcast Authority is formed, will get an injunction and stop this IRO licence from being issued, especially since we are convinced that it is part of a bigger diabolical plan to influence the 2011 elections.
Imagine in an election year promising to buy laptops for the entire nation with tax money earned by the draconian VAT in this country, and giving religious bodies a TV channel. These and similar acts in their own way can influence voters in national elections. Mr Jagdeo must think that we are all complete idiots in this country not to see through this farce. But we are watching closely, and we hope that the international community is also watching.
As a side effect the laptop matter has been turned into a national disaster and disgrace by a lack ot transparency.
In the 2006 election Mr Jagdeo organised a massive cabinet outreach exercise so close to the elections that it was tantamount to using state funds to campaign. As such it was a violation of the Representation of the People Act, and there were also numerous other acts which were prejudicial to free and fair elections, including making the day of the ballot a public holiday.
This effectively disenfranchised many, since there was no public transportation on polling day and many people were left stranded when their names did not appear where they were supposed to appear. As subtle as these acts are, they can be construed by any reasonable observer as compromising a free and fair poll.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira
