Philip Lee and Charrandass

Sep 08, 2019 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon, News

---

A very good friend returned to Guyana and we had lunch. He asked, “Freddie, you really think Charran didn’t take a bribe?”
There have been many such curiosities put to me by friends, colleagues, well-wishers and acquaintances since I supported Charran’s yes in the no-confidence motion (NCM) and revealed he has been a close family friend. Below I offer my reason why they harbour this curiosity
Marlon Williams, while he was General-Secretary of the AFC, nearly caused me to break my friendship with Charran. He told me there is proof that Charran was bribed and everything would soon be revealed. When he said so, my heart sunk. I assumed he, as third in charge of a major party in government, knew what he was talking about. Marlon told me that about four months ago.
Khemraj Ramjattan, who initiated the police probe after he was informed of Charran’s interest in buying gold, is yet to tell us what he knows about the bribery scandal. The Police Commissioner is not partially but completely silent, since he told the nation earlier this year that Charran is being investigated and there are angles of national security involved.
When Clifford Krauss, the New York Times journalist, came to Guyana in July last year and wrote a terribly unflattering portrait of Guyana, this columnist knew he exaggerated and was dishonest and bigoted (see my two articles on Krauss – July 25 and 29, 2018). I stand by those views. But what if Krauss was to hear what Ramjattan and the Police Commissioner said, yet since December 2018 when Charran voted and ran out of the country, neither Ramjattan, the Minister of Public Security and the Police Commissioner have explained at what stage the inquiry is at? The Commissioner said national security is involved, then, he needs to assure the nation.
So why do friends of mine ask about the accusation of bribery? Because Guyanese allowed that narrative to take over their imagination after APNU, the AFC, WPA, Facebook monsters, social media monsters, the Chronicle, and those in support of the government, invented the narrative and saturated us with it.
What happened then was that Guyanese came to accept that Guyanese do not have character, integrity and patriotism, and so Charran had to be a villain to do what he did, because money was involved (for a philosophical defence of Charran see the following two columns – Sunday, April 21, 2019, “Charrandass and the Mueller Report: Is Guyana a shit-hole country?” and Tuesday, August 13, 2019, “Dead meat, Charrandass and deconstructing “betrayal” .
Without exception, all of those who condemn Charrandass as a vile, dishonest person are people who have made serious pronouncements in psychology using methodologies that the world’s most learned psychiatrists would not dare say even one word about, because the perspectives are asinine and nonsensical.
All the condemners of Charran have used a certain approach. It goes like this. Charran is essentially a dishonest and depraved man who took a bribe because his pre-December 2018 politics does not gel with his action on the night that he voted yes in the NCM. They go on to argue that before December, Charran never uttered one word of dissent that made government parliamentarians and leaders of his party, the AFC, feel he was a dissatisfied person.
They point to a plethora of facts. He always spoke strongly for the government’s policies. He made a strong delivery of the budget just days before the NCM. They contend that if he had a legitimate grievance, he should have made his position known. He could have at least voted against the budget. But he waited for the NCM.
These foolish people go on to argue that the man was so deceitful that he knew what he was up to, he knew he was paid-off, but he deceived everyone with his prior, positive support for the government.
What is asinine about such an approach? Last week in the British Parliament, while the Prime Minister, whose party had a one-seat majority, was addressing the House, a Parliamentarian from the PM’s party, walked over to the section where the Opposition Lib-Dem MPs sit, and took his seat. The Parliament was in an uproar.
Philip Lee crossed the floor without telling his party leadership about his intention, thus causing his party to become a minority in the House. Did he take money? Yes he did. Karl Marx rose from his grave and bribed Lee, so Boris Johnson could fall in a no-confidence vote and communism can take over the UK.
Nuff people in Guyana are not only dangerous but comical. Their clownish acrobatics keep the circus alive.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---