Dear Editor,
I have disagreed with Dr Randy Persaud’s attack on Dr Arif Bulkan’s criticism of the President’s real estate involvement and the manner of that defence. Dr Randy Persaud has responded to my comments. Readers now have seen various opinions on the issues and have their own.
I was one of the persons who described in writing how Pradoville number one was grabbed from GuySuCo. The government’s explanation was the same as the President gave for Pradoville number two. But since they belong to the Model Party (the PPP) they cannot be called elite. They have only deserving comrades reaping (or taking) their reward for service to the workers; no elites.
Dr Persaud credited me with always supporting “the elite.” In my situation, I miss a lot of issues. But I have no qualms about supporting a member of any of the several elites in Guyana or elsewhere against bullying, abuse or misrepresentation. I lived the first 78 years of my life in the Lusignan ‘nigger yard’ and then at Buxton backdam side, “in the midst of the poor.” But I have no grudge against those who have by honest means joined higher social rankings. I thank Mr Persaud for his observations. He stands by what he has written. Good for him!
Then there is Mr Sultan Mohamed who took me to task, very much like Mr Dev, for cultivating whatever negative things happened in Buxton.
He chides me for daring to commend Mr Tacuma Ogunseye for raising the issue of power-sharing. He chides me too for failing to list in my record of proposals for change in Guyana, Mr Dev’s proposals for a federal solution for Guyana. I thank him for his advice in how to evaluate Mr Ogunseye. Despite my serious disagreements with Mr Ogunseye I know that his positive contributions to Guyana’s health have been major. I have written in a book that the positions he took that I disagree with were due to the behaviour of the PPP.
I do not ignore Mr Mohamed’s other comments but they are familiar.
I apologise to Mr Ravi Dev and the federalists for leaving that proposal off the list. I am aware that he put much thought and effort into it, with the advantage of seeing the flaws in all the previous proposals.
In my March 3 letter I gave one sentence to federation: “The trouble with the federations as proposed is that even in a province we can have ethnic recognition side by side with exclusion.”
Only today, in making sure what Mr Dev had written I came across his March 6 column with Q & A on federal details and welcomed it. On the point I had made on March 3, this is what I found:
“Q6: What rights will persons who do not belong to the dominant ethnic group in any proposed component unit have there? How will their rights be protected and be made enforceable?
A: All citizens of Guyana will have equal rights under federal and state laws. These rights will be secured through constitutionally justifiable clauses effectuated through a Federal Race Relations Boards and Equal Opportunity Act etc (Mr Dev, March 6, 2011).
Since I was dealing with power-sharing I leave readers to judge. For me, the federal solution shows creativity. What it seems to promise however is one province or state dominated by one majority and the other dominated by another. The minority, as at present will have redress – not too quickly – by resorting to the various ERCs with their pastor presidents and the courts which grind more slowly than the Mills of the Gods.
Mr Mohamed also invites me to ‘fund’ a national conversation. What a rare intelligence! It is the first time in my life to be invited by anyone to finance anything.
Who will imagine that a fair-minded person, even a Mr Ramracha could write the two following passages referring to me in the same letter as Mr Sultan Mohamed writes?
“In the letter titled: ‘We can use the sharing of governmental authority to create a society in which people of any race, gender, age group or location do not feel left out’ completely ignores federalism. Doesn’t federalism guarantee a permanent, equitable solution to Guyana’s race problems in which he has had the most disturbing role?”
And Mr Mohamed again:
“Since he argues from the basis of race, he fails to acknowledge that the minority Chinese, Portuguese and Amerindian populations also possess a similar entitlement for equality.”
His malice is not hidden but it may be intended for the education of one like me who argues “from the basis of race.” He gives new non-meaning to “people of any race, gender, age group or location” just to show that Kwayana “has had a most disturbing role” in race problems. He quotes from my letter “people of any race, gender, age group or location” and then seems to claim that those words exclude “the minority Chinese, Portuguese and Amerindian populations.”
If I write badly, Mr Mohamed does no better in his reading,
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
