Green’s Poppycock

Aug 28, 2026 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

(Kaieteur News) – I am glad that Hamilton Greene admits that he is ‘running the risk’ of ‘repeating’ himself, when he writes about ‘good governance.’ To this acknowledgement, I add that it is an exercise in utter otiosity. If I want to debunk evolution, I expose the limitations and lack in Darwin, the man behind it all. This is my analogy regarding ‘Hammy.’ My conclusion is forgone: He is not qualified to speak on any issue in Guyana, and this is where I take off, as I find it repugnant that he is being ignored.

First, I notice of recent, that this man is being given lots of leverage in press (certain quarters). This is the man who was ‘championing’ the former regime, A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC), to resort to ‘rigging’ to regain power. This sinister tool was his trademark for his beloved People’s National Congress (PNC).

That menacing weapon was taken away, after the prolongation of the Burnham and Hoyte eras ended in the 1992 elections. Remember back in 2024, he expressly stated that ““If, as I told one of the groups that I met this morning they say he rigged elections, I say we should keep rigging to save us from these devils, these bastards, these demons that we have.”

He tried to back track and exculpate himself, but even if he had managed that successfully, his record betrays his attempts. He cannot and must not be allowed to lecture uncontested, this PPP/C government about good governance. His last letter stinks. For example, in the 1980 Lord Avebury Report, the conclusion was emphatic. Green, as Prime Minister and headman during the era up to 1985, was helmsman of the PNC that virtually formalised and legalised ‘rigging.’ That damning report detailed that opposition observers were expelled from counting centres at gunpoint, and PNC turnout figures that were mathematically ludicrous.

Good governance for green meant that there was ‘no counting of votes at individual polling stations and ballot boxes must be transported to a few selected, military-controlled locations. This produced the bizarre-more votes than people.

Another illustration of Green’s idea of ‘good governance’ is the infamous 1973 “Ballot Box” Seizures, that led to the ‘shooting to death’ of Jagan Ramessar and Bholanauth Parmanand, on the ground by GDF soldiers and armed police units. Green is still defensive, reiterating that this said 1973 election was not rigged. He is trying to foist the idea that ‘allegations were contrived’, deriving from ‘mischief’ and ‘figment’ of the imagination.

Crap and Balderdash!!! How come votes keep outnumbering constituents’ numbers? The ‘clear-cut’ conclusion is that Green has no voice in today’s Guyana about ‘how to govern a country,’ and his sarcasm comes over as quite puerile. Editor, let me add that Forbes Burnham kept Hamilton Green close because Green was the ‘ultimate enforcer’ of his regime’s authoritarian leadership, yet ‘masterfully’ kept him close to control him, as he did not trust his evil ambitions. This was perceived by Despond Hoyte, who acceded power in 1985, and when Green became obstreperous, Desmond Hoyte simply fired him. He was a dangerous threat within his own party.

Secondly, my word for Greene is about ‘awaiting the COI and ‘retaining the two ministers, Juan Edghill and Deodat Indar (until). He has grouse regarding the ‘charging of Kevin Price-captain of the vessel; Dwayne Roberts-old chief mate; and Delon Granderson-goods superintendent, who were all directly culpable. Green needs to know that this is standard procedure globally. What is unfolding is not an anomaly or some kind of governmental immunity for favoured minsters. Far from that!

I repeat that it is common and lawful for captains and crew to face criminal charges after a water disaster, while government ministers stay in office. I ask who is in direct control? Is it not the captain, and by extension his crew? These are the ones legally responsible for the safety, navigation, and operation of the ship.

What is the natural course of action? It is that Maritime Laws hold workers directly accountable for negligence, errors, or breaking safety rules. And by the way, these all had a right to refuse. If they operated a sub-standard and non-worthy vessel, claiming duress, then ‘woe’ be to them. That is not an excuse.

The flip side is that ministers manage broad government rules and funding, and not daily ship operations. This is also standard policy. We do not expect the president and ministers to be scattered all over the country, checking on all vessels and buildings etc.  on safety measures.

Check the annals, as politicians rarely resign unless there is proof of direct corruption. I think of the MV Princess of the Stars when it sank in 2008 in the Philippines. This catastrophe resulted in 814 deaths out of more than 850 people on board. Ensuing details show that “… the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) faced heavy parliamentary heat for the state-run Marina (Maritime Industry Authority), failing to cancel the vessel’s clearance to sail during an active typhoon alert.” This minister still refused to step down. He was very particular in declaring that ‘the final authority to sail rested strictly on the ship’s captain and the company operators, and not with the government cabinet.’

In this tragedy, the captain died, but Executives of Sulpicio Lines (the shipping company) faced aggressive multi-year criminal indictments for ‘reckless imprudence’ while their commercial licence to transport passengers was permanently revoked.

Why. Like I said before, the ‘final say’ to sail resides solely and strictly on the ship’s captain and the company operators-not the government cabinet. Good governance is about ‘being willing to be tried independently’ and allow ‘the due legal process to run its course.’

It’s a waste of time for this ‘erring trio’ to cry ‘duress’ or ‘clamour for sympathy.’

Yours truly,

Hargesh B. Singh

---

• Green’s Poppycock, Hamilton Greene, Letters

---