‘Ban on writing on Ramotar’

Oct 28, 2011 Letters

---

 

 

Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter in Monday’s edition (Oct 24) of SN signed by four persons (all of whom are good friends). Titled, ‘Why is Kissoon not writing on Ramotar?’ the missive requests an explanation. I suspect that these four friends were not content with a private answer and wanted a public response from me and Glen Lall. Well here is mine. The answer lies in the fact that the Kaieteur News has refused to print the letter itself.
The answer lies in the fact that a UGWU press release stating that Mr Ramotar has declined a presidential debate at UG was carried in SN but not by KN. I am at a loss about this type of thinking by KN management. Such news cannot hide.
For example, when I was in Justice Ramlal’s court on Monday morning to answer contempt of court charges brought against me by Juan Edghill, lawyers and other people were asking me if and when I will reply.
They put the same question to me at my workplace, UG. Since then I have had to respond to the identical query wherever I go. Citizens read the letter in SN. The same with the press release. All Guyana knows that Mr Ramotar refused to debate his presidential contenders at UG. They read it in the SN. I simply cannot understand why KN’s management did not print the letter.
Shall I go on to answer the question when the answer is there? I do not think that Glenn Lall is the first or will be the last owner of a media house to have a protective shield over certain persons in society, business and politics. This happens in the media business the world over. This doesn’t mean it is right. It is not, and society should not accept it. This of course does not exonerate me from a public statement on the restriction placed upon me not to write critically of Donald Ramotar. I believe my four friends want such an open attitude on the issue from me. Here it is.
I concede that my acceptance by the KN management of the restriction against criticism of Mr Ramotar can be cited as a fault in my character. I will not try to defend that weakness of mine. I admit that. I apologize to those who think it has damaged my long-standing independence of mind. But there are redemptive dimensions which at the end of this correspondence, I hope the readers and by extension the Guyanese people understand.
I cherish my independence of thought. I took it from my dad. But my dad was a semi-literate groundsman who had no alternatives when he talked back to people and employers who insulted him. His life ended up tragically because he didn’t have options. I vowed that I would plug that loophole in my life. I was the only one of seven siblings that went beyond primary school. I pledged to myself that if I followed in my dad’s footsteps, I would need an education.
I went right up to the doctoral programme at the University of Toronto. When I came home, I chose an academic job that gave me scope to pursue my independent thought. I refused the second position at the local UNDP office that Mr Yesu Persaud had negotiated with the then head, Juan Larraburre. I didn’t want restrictions on my right to be a human rights activist. The UN job would have done just that. So yes, I admit the Ramotar ban has upset me given what I have just written about my evolution.
Against this background, I can understand how my four friends feel about me being unable to criticize Mr Ramotar as a columnist in the newspaper I write for Jason Benjamin, one of the signatories, must be particularly peeved at me. When he was a young student leader at UG I instilled in him the need to be critically independent.
Here now are the redemptive aspects that I alluded to above. It is not my choice not to analyse the politics of Donald Ramotar. That is a restriction placed on me by KN so that context must be understood. I would gladly assess Ramotar. He is certainly not the right choice for Guyana and if elected would be expected to continue on the destructive path of Mr Jagdeo. I find Mr Ramotar an irredeemable politician.
Secondly, why should I feel guilty about the ban and therefore stop my columns? I know there is a valid criticism of me, but what about the higher purpose of my commentary? I have talked with close friends, relatives and people that I admire immensely about this Donald Ramotar edict of Mr Lall after the public spat between me and Glenn Lall in April this year. I swear on my parents’ grave there wasn’t a dissenter.
All the advice was that I should continue to do what I do because there is a need for my columns in Guyana. All those that I consulted told me it would be foolish to walk away from the columns because of the Ramotar restriction. I honestly cannot see how people can ask me to stop writing when I know in my heart that there is a vast need for my analyses out there.
Though my acceptance of the imposition placed on me can be used to criticize me (and I think that is what my four friends are doing in a principled way), I believe and sincerely do feel that the other  purpose of my continuation with the Kaieteur News should be taken into consideration. This then is my response to the four persons that I have a lot of respect for. It is left to Mr Lall to respond to them.
Frederick Kissoon  

Publisher’s note: It has not escaped notice that Freddie Kissoon has been hounding the PPP with a vengeance and his writings clearly show this.
Obviously, his motive, both expressed and inferred is to seek the defeat of the Jagdeo administration.
It is not the policy of this newspaper to seek the defeat of any administration. It is also not the policy of this paper to have a columnist carp daily to remove a government.
In Kaieteur News, Kissoon was given a lot of leverage, perhaps too much. At the end of the day the buck stops at the desk of the owner and publisher of Kaieteur News.
This newspaper cannot care less about Kissoon’s four friends and what they want.
The owner and publisher must protect and maintain this newspaper that he and the staff built to become the leading newspaper in Guyana today. This meant that their judgement and decisions all these years could not be wrong.
The query by Kissoon’s four friends begs further queries. Why only Donald Ramotar?
Why have they not asked Freddie to write about Granger or Ramjattan or Trotman?  Surely, they have axes to grind.
They themselves can write about any subject they choose. They are all academics and the letter pages are always available. Instead, they want Kissoon to wield their axes.
And there is one cold, hard fact. The final decision rests with the publisher and not with Freddie Kissoon or anyone else.

---

---