Is there stupendous hypocrisy dominating the atmosphere on security issues?

Aug 31, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

 

I refer to the letter by Seopaul Singh captioned “Security must take precedence over everything” (SN 8/28/09), and would appreciate the opportunity to rebut.

In the aftermath of an astonishing act of greed and homicide now rightfully engaging the court’s attention, and involving ranks of the disciplined forces, there has been a predictable, if not knee-jerk and hypocritical reaction that brings to mind previous (unsupported by Singh) submissions by Lincoln Lewis, Kean Gibson and, not least, the Auditor General in his latest (2006) Report (See “Greed, Genocide … and now “Green”: Corruption and Underdevelopment in Guyana”)

That this emerging pathos is further symptomatic of a gargantuan crisis of leadership and credibility at the highest political office in Guyana seems clear, and just recently fuelled the following damning comment by the Co-President of the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) in the SN of August 11, 2009:

“… Mike McCormack said that there appear to be two categories of crime in the country, one prosecuted in the normal way and a second, which is beyond the scope of law and order officials. McCormack’s comments were made in the context of the allegations being raised in the US courts about murders in the country that have gone unsolved…..

“There appears to be no interest in how certain people die, or instance of massive fraud or serious drugs offences. It is almost as if there are two kinds of citizens, those who the law applies to and those who are above it”, McCormack stated.

Further, he said that it is this glimpse of parallel societies which is the most frightening revelation of the New York trial involving Khan’s former attorney (Robert) Simels …”

So, questions arising for Seopaul Singh … if his letter is to be taken seriously:

1. Re para 1: First, if security is to take precedence over everything, then where was Seopaul Singh’s voice when 200 … or more … young Guyanese were being killed these past few years by a Phantom Squad?

2. Re para 2: What makes Mr. Seopaul Singh think that the government wants to “…summon the will to orchestrate the necessary changes…” that will effectively remove centralized control from its grasp? Robert Knights reminds us that societal chaos ushers in tyrants who promise to restore order by any means possible. Is “any means possible” feasible under decentralization?

3. Re para 3: The precise point made in point 2 above is now articulated by Singh (“… Thirdly, since security is a major issue in any investment climate, government has no excuse for neglecting action in this area. As such programmes, legislation and all means and methods must be utilised to achieve the desired goals and objectives along these lines….” Mr. Singh’s own words condemn him!

4. Re para 4: Is Mr. Singh seriously saying that a government that emasculated the Guyana National Service must now articulate Community Policing as such? What are the implications of this? Does this mean that the government must now place weapons in the hands of those it considers its “enemies”? Who, exactly, were issued with 30,012 gun licences between 1992 and 1999?

5. Re para 8: What, exactly does Seopaul Singh mean by “… More drastic action is required with regard to the inciters of race hate and violence. In addition, serving officers are often found guilty of heinous crimes and aiding or training criminals. Such public mischief must be dealt with severely….” Who are the people who are inciting race hate today in Guyana? The answers might surprise Singh! And who are the “serving officers who are often found guilty of heinous crimes? Do they include the group that torture (sorry, “rough up”) innocents with impunity?

6. Re para 9: What, exactly, does Seopaul Singh mean by “…We had enough of ‘Blackie’, ‘Fineman’ and the cohorts of marauders slaughtering the unarmed and innocent. What are we waiting for? We must not wait until more chaos engulfs the nation for internal action to be taken….” While the jury may still be out, given the testimony in the US courts (which Singh has obviously not read) why was not Shaheed Khan included in this illustrious company? Or isn’t 200 dead Guyanese enough of a qualification? What were we waiting for? We did not have to wait until Khan’s chaos engulfed the nation for internal action to be taken!

After years of raping the national resources and using up every conceivable excuse to justify the death, destruction and abuse of the rule-of-law that accompanied same, our elected leaders may well have created like-monsters among those they govern.

The Commissioner of Police, armed with the Auditor-General’s evidence of years of misappropriation of taxpayers’ dollars by the Bharrat Jagdeo administration, and now the stupendous revelations of government’s involvement in a national campaign of murder and victimization courtesy of a New York Court, cannot summon the will to do the right thing. He awaits an instruction to “investigate”! And in the pits of our stomachs, we know what he will soon declare to have “found” … it will be “no credible evidence”.

We can easily conclude from Singh’s letter that there is either a stupendous hypocrisy, or else a delusional effrontery, dominating the atmosphere today on security issues. Our time would be better spent considering issues of justice, good citizenship, the role of the judiciary, the meaning of “One People, One Nation, One Destiny”, the dismantling of structures that promote the current national “cultures” of racism and greed and violence, and other things as simple as returning Religious Education to the school curriculum.

 

---

---