Latest update April 3rd, 2026 12:35 AM
Bisram is an impartial commentator
Nov 25, 2008 Letters
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Anthony Vieira’s letter (November 14) that appeared in Kaieteur News and SN attacking Mr. Vishnu Bisram as well as Bisram’s response in SN (November 17) and Kaieteur News (November 21).
Vieira claims that Bisram is not an impartial writer on Guyanese events. I am disappointed that Bisram did take on Vieira head on rebutting his charge.
Bisram did a good job showing how Vieira is wrong on his interpretation of the results of the US elections against Bisram’s own assessment. He also appropriately queried Vieira’s impartiality.
With regards to equating Bisram with Dr. Prem Misir and Mr. John Da Silva, it appears that Vieira has not been reading the papers in recent times.
Prem Misir and John Da Silva are rabid defenders of the PPP/C Government. Bisram does not belong to that category. I am yet to see a “rabid” defence of the PPP/C from Bisram.
Unlike Vieira, I view Bisram as a “rabid” critic of the PPP/C because he is always whacking the government or its agents on various blunders.
Didn’t Vieira see the surveys in May and July showing the PPP/C losing support and people dissatisfied with their handling of the economy and crime as well as other issues?
Vieira seems to have forgotten that Mrs. Janet Jagan rebuked Bisram for his critique of the PPP/C government on corruption earlier this year as published in SN. Also, in 2006, Mrs. Jagan slammed Bisram in the Mirror newspaper in July 2006 for failing to find in his poll that the PPP/C would win a majority in the elections.
The state media has consistently and frequently targeted Mr. Bisram over the years. Ministers of the government and the President himself had smacked Bisram over his poll findings last May and again in August.
Wasn’t it Bisram who said the government was inept in its handling of the floods three years ago? Wasn’t it Bisram who criticised the government for withholding state ads to SN.
And didn’t Bisram wrong the government for suspending Sharma’s TV for four months? I never saw Vieira taking a position on any of these issues in the written press.
As Bisram noted, the mere fact that Vieira presented an inaccurate position of Bisram’s assessment of the US elections shows he is not impartial. Yet he has the temerity to pass judgment on the country’s leading poll taker.
Vieira critiqued that Bisram’s final poll should not have been published the Sunday before election, saying the election could have influenced voters to come out for the PPP. He may have a point.
But is there any real evidence that the poll benefited PPP more than it did other parties? Was there an exit poll done or a survey querying people whether they were influenced by the poll?
Now, I contrast Bisram’s record with Vieira’s on impartiality. When the PPP introduced legislation last year to expel MPs who adopted an independent position (or took a vote of conscience) from their party, Vieira voted for it. Mr. Bisram condemned that legislation. Vieira also voted in favour of several other pieces of legislation introduced or supported by the PPP.
So, in looking at their records, one can make a firm conclusion that if Vieira is not pro-PPP, he is certainly more partial to the PPP than Bisram is and Vieira should not link the man with paid defenders of the PPP like Misir and DaSilva.
Balliram Suchit
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.