Dear Editor,
I refer to the statement in your editorial of April 30 in connection with the withdrawal of advertisements from the Stabroek News in 2006 in which you said that: “This was a trifling matter for all in the PPP and its government except for the late, former President, Mrs Janet Jagan who called clearly for an end to the advertising boycott to no avail.”
The PPP did not consider the withdrawal of the advertisements to be a trifling matter. It was extensively discussed both at the Executive Committee and later, the Central Committee, of the PPP which called on the Government to restore the advertisements to the Stabroek News. The Government ignored the decision and since the PPP did not practise “party paramountcy” there was no way of enforcing it. It is not known by me whether those members of the Central Committee of the PPP who were senior members of the Cabinet advocated in that forum the decision of the PPP leadership to which there was no dissentient voice, or whether they remained silent.
After some time, when it was clear that the decision was being ignored by the Government, an attempt was made to raise the refusal of the Government to restore the advertisements for discussion. In the discussions I proposed to say the following in an article which I wanted to publish:
“The question arises as to whether on an issue of this importance the PPP should continue to remain silent. I believe it is incumbent on the leadership of the PPP to make its position known. This is long overdue especially since this festering matter is tarnishing the PPP’s ‘long and honourable history.’ The public needs to know whether the PPP still supports the position it argued in the 1970s in the New Guyana Case, mentioned above, that economic considerations could not be an excuse to hinder freedom of expression, whether contrived or consequential. I supported the PPP’s position then and continue to support it today. I therefore stand firmly with those who feel that the decision to give greater value to the advertising dollar jeopardizes freedom of expression, a priceless human right.”
A conclusion to the discussion was sidetracked by extraneous matters and the article was not published. I send herewith a copy for your information.
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran
