Dear Editor,
Reference is made to the issue of the SN advertisements withdrawal raised by Mr Ralph Ramkarran (letters of Apr 30, May 8) and news items (Apr 30 and May 6). As best as I recollect as was revealed to me by members of the PPP leadership (some no longer with the party), the government withdrawal of ads from SN did not go down well with most members of the Central Committee and Executive Committee of the PPP. Although I am not a member or supporter of the PPP, I was familiar with some of the views of the PPP leadership (ExCo and CC members) on the issue. These were related to me in private and in confidence at discussions I had in Guyana and in New York with party officials. I even raised the matter at press conferences with then President Jagdeo as well as with him at sidebars at public social gatherings. I also raised the ad withdrawal issue with then General Secretary Donald Ramotar urging him to intervene in the matter, and was subsequently informed the GS did come out on the side of ad restoration to SN.
As a media person I was one of the earliest, if not the first, to come out openly against the withdrawal of ads. Surprisingly, I was criticized by my friend Mr Freddie Kissoon for backing SN with Mr Kissoon commenting that when KN did not get ads, SN did not show any solidarity with the paper. My position was the exact opposite to Mr Kissoon’s – it was wrong to withdraw the ads and that was also the position of most of the leadership in the PPP.
I spoke with several ExCo and CC members and they assured me they did not support the ad withdrawal. Some of the members did inform me of the position adopted by Mr Ramkarran which essentially corresponds to what he penned in his letters. And contrary to what Mr Kissoon penned in his column (KN, May 2), Mr Ramkarran’s position on the ad withdrawal was verified. On the ad withdrawal, I communicated with the eminent Caribbean journalist Mr Rickey Singh, and my recollection is he issued a strongly worded condemnation of the withdrawal. Mr Singh also promised to raise the matter with Caribbean media organizations and with President Jagdeo (at a Caricom summit) and the PPP leadership. I was reliably informed Mr Singh fulfilled his promises on the matter.
Also, Mr Mike Persaud and I were in constant engagement with the late Mr David de Caires on what we could do to restore the ads. We did some canvassing for support for SN among US Congressmen to take up the issue and even considered approaching Latin American media organizations. We discussed the matter among prominent North American based Guyanese to place a full page ad with our names in the Guyana papers condemning the withdrawal and urging the government to immediately restore the ads. Discussions were held with ACG (NY PPP Support Group) officials in NY as well as with PPP leaders to reconsider the ad withdrawal. A survey I conducted in Guyana was not favourable towards the PPP on ad withdrawal from SN. Also, the business community did not like the idea that the PPP administration withdrew ads from the paper. Mrs Jagan also voiced her opposition to the ad withdrawal.
Those who were in favour of ad withdrawal felt SN needed to be punished not so much for its perceived anti-PPP stance and or for its “inaccurate reporting” which PPP leaders repeatedly complained about to me. Instead it was felt by some PPP leaders that SN needed to be punished for its perceived anti-Indian stance and for what some felt was the paper’s disrespect of Indians.
There were those who felt (and some who still feel) that the owners and publishers of SN looked down upon Indian people and Indian culture and showed no respect for the leadership of Indians or the PPP. But the opponents of SN and those who supported the ad withdrawal did not take the ethnically extremist position adopted by the late Desmond Hoyte who described the editor-in-chief of the SN as part of “the Putagee Mafia.”
Instead the PPP opponents of SN felt the paper needed to be punished so it could mend its ways and be fair, balanced and respectful in its reporting on Indians and the PPP. While a small number of the top echelons of the party, from among those I spoke with, were in favour of the policy to withdraw ads, that policy did not go down well with most PPP leaders. Mrs Jagan was adamantly opposed to it. It was also opposed by several members of the leadership (Ex Co and CC) and ministers of government as well as most PPP supporters as obtained from findings of a NACTA poll. Most of the party supporters and the CC felt the PPP had a long tradition of fighting for freedom of the press and therefore should not be seen as pursuing a policy that gave the impression that it was punishing SN or any of the media for being critical of PPP’s governance or for exercising free speech. Even those in the PPP who felt that the owners or publishers of SN were bigoted did not think the paper should not be punished. They felt that even bigoted views should be published. One of the party leaders told me: “What SN is doing to our party and government and our supporters is not right, but withdrawal of ads as a punishment
is wrong and does not make the party look good. It is not part of our proud tradition of fighting for a free press. We are the party of Jagan who harboured no ill will towards anyone and supported freedom of expression.”
I was informed a couple of weeks before the ad resumption that the PPP/C held a discussion and there was agreement on the issue. The party was about to issue a public statement dissociating from the ad withdrawal when the government reversed course and resumed ads to SN. The ad withdrawal sullied the great record of the PPP in fighting against injustice.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
