Gill’s letter is rife with shoddy analysis and misguided references

Sep 11, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I have been paying keen attention to the ongoing conversations between Gill and Rayman and feel obliged to add my opinions since Gill’s most recent letter has caused me to wonder who or what has caused Harry Gill’s head to become so swollen that he believes he is an authority to pronounce on the PNCR 2009 congressional elections?
In his article “An open letter to ‘B. Beniprashad Rayman’ (September 6, 2010) Gill suddenly moves from claims of “serious concerns about the integrity of the process” (September 2, 2010) to “outright fraudulent” references to justify his call for the elected leader of the PNCR to step aside or be pushed aside by laws that he must either advance or accept to overturn the will of the people.
Gill claims are ludicrous, since the defeated candidate, Winston Murray, not only accepted the results, but declared that “…because the margin is so wide, that even if there were – as I believe there were – flaws in the process and irregularities in the procedures, it is clear that Mr. Corbin would have won,” (SN, August 27, 2010).
Notably also, Joseph Harmon, Retd, Lt. Col., Attorney-at-Law and Returning Officer of the PNCR 2009 Biennial Congress elections also reported that “No objections or complaints were lodged by any of the candidates after the Election.”
Gill’s euphemism about “fraudulent elections” is therefore propaganda since obviously Murray, the challenger, did not believe that the outcome could have been any different even with irregularities, a point that validates the process as sufficient for the end results to be acceptable to Murray.
So who really is Harry Gill to be touting his misrepresentations about the PNCR when he is obviously not a credible source and is willing to ignore available evidence on the high standards of democracy and accommodation granted by Mr. Corbin to make the electoral process a fair and transparent one?
According to newspaper reports, not withstanding Murray’s acceptance and Harmon’s ruling, the PNC set up a Committee, thus demonstrating a commitment to accommodate concerns and forge unity among the factions. Have these men taken advantage of this or are they just bent on public scandal and embarrassment of the party and its leader?
Arguments disputing Gill’s claims are supported by statements made by Joseph Harmon. In SN September 3, 2009 under the heading “To say PNCR election fraudulent is total misrepresentation”, Harmon said “… the claim of fraud is inaccurate at least from my standpoint.”
Harmon even goes on to say that “persons were looking at each other like hawks,” conveying the impression that there was a high level of scrutiny existing. Note Mr. Harmon is an authority, Gill is not.
Harmon’s submitted report accessed from the web also shows that the PNCR elections were monitored by a number of scrutineers and independent observers, and manned by his own personal staff, none of whom according to him “were known to be active members of the PNCR.”
From Newspaper reports it is understood that Mr. Murray had seven scrutineers to Mr. Corbin’s four. Harmon’s report also states that accredited scrutineers from the Van West Charles camp were also involved in the process even though Van West Charles had withdrawn his candidacy. No doubt these would have been acting in the best interest of Winston Murray. Should Gill take a careful and unbiased review of the SN and KN ‘archives’ he will appreciate that indeed the electoral process within the PNC was adjusted to accommodate a number of “elaborate demands of those who wanted a new system and processes not used in the history of the party.” (Corbin, SN September 3, 2009) Readers must recognise these truths which Gill’s bilious coloured eyes choose not to acknowledge.
Gill’s logic is questionable and this is perhaps the reason why his letter is rife with shoddy analysis, and misguided references on an issue that he is clearly out in the sea about or would rather do like the proverbial ostrich and bury his head in the sand.
He dismisses others right to dissent from his jaundiced and ill informed views and efforts to show him reasoning, as intolerance, even as he protects his right to dissent and projects a knowledge of democracy by “seeing it at work every day.” Sadly, this knowledge and democratic exposure does not seem to have impacted Harry Gill. Or is it that when it comes to matters pertaining to the leader of the PNCR Gill’s thought processes become warped and shrouded in ugliness?
His stated concerns for this nation are noted, but these do not mask his agenda of support for those currently creating confusion in the PNCR and his lawless adventurism to suggest legal changes to overturn the democratic will of the people who voted for a leader of their choice is disingenuous?
Gill supports his call “to legally amend” party rules “in keeping with the deplorably state of affairs in Guyana, and political conditions that clearly justify those amendments.” Is Harry Gill for real or is he just a blundering analyst or “political neophyte?” Of all the things needed in the PNC, Gill advocates using legal means to undermine the democratic practices in the party just so that he can lend support to the lawlessness and greed of those who cannot accept that they were not the choice of the PNCR membership base.
A check of the Joe Harmon report which can be accessed from (http://www.guyanapnc.org/MediaCentre/PressRelease/STATEMENT%20BY%20RETURNING%20OFFICER%20ON%20PNCR%202009%20BIENNIAL%20CONGRESS%20ELECTIONS%20By%20MR.%20JOSEPH%20HARMON.html) features no Harry Gill as a candidate or an authority figure in the PNCR Congressional elections of 2009. Gill’s lack of objectivity in his arguments, leadership attack and support of lawlessness in the Party suggests that he has more than a causal interest in the party’s internal affairs and 2009 elections. Gill is an agent provocateur supporting party bullies.
The name B. Beni Prashad Rayman and Lurlene Nestor do exist for apart from being visible as writers these names feature prominently as elected members of the PNCR central executive body in 2009. Does the writer Harry Gill really exist as Harry Gill; is he a reject who cannot get over his current status; or someone still reeling from being subjected to party disciplinary measures since in his estimation he is bigger than the rules governing the party? Mr. Gill should prove himself for though his views are prominently displayed in the newspapers he may be a phantom hiding behind a pseudonym as he accuses others of doing. He may be a case of “pot calling the kettle black” since his views are not reflective of the will of the party members who determine their leader.
If Gill and others have difficulty accepting the results of the PNCR Congressional elections they should challenge the veracity of the report put out by the returning Office Joseph Harmon and stop shooting themselves in the feet by trying to destroy the party on baseless claims or matters that can be resolved internally. They also need to accept that they were defeated and stop the hating
Winston Robinson

---

---