Pandora's Box
Kaieteur News takes loan from Chronicle
KAIETEUR News published in the letters column of Saturday 29th August a couple of letters signed by two mythical and mystical genies, because the contents of those letters are the intellectual properties of the Chronicle’s feature writer, Pandora, and they were first published in Chronicle’s Pandora’s Box before Kaieteur News published them, but signed by persons unknown to Pandora.

This is either an indication that persons in the nation are taking cognizance of the accuracy of Chronicle’s contents, as opposed to the myths, and outright fabrication of the contents of the Kaieteur News, or it is that the Kaieteur News is borrowing our material in an effort to publish some item that has a basis of factual and credible analysis, bearing in mind that its credibility ratings has been shot to pieces.

Now why would an entity that boasts that it has the best of everything want to borrow from someone else, especially someone that it treats and talks about like a poor cousin?

We at Chronicle have been branded by our competitors with every sort of uncomplimentary names, yet our competitors have no qualms about borrowing from us. Readers, don’t you think that is ironical?

But it goes to show that the quality of what we at the Chronicle have is better than what they at Kaieteur news have, hence the loan – unapproved and unacknowledged, that they took from us.

But we are very generous and are always willing to share, because we have in abundance what some of our competitors lack, which are the most vital qualities of journalism – credibility, brainpower, and analytic ability.

However, slyly skimming our features and taking credit, albeit under a different guise in the letters column, for our brilliant analyses, as opposed to the credibility-challenged output that sells suspense instead of news to a gullible public, is a no-no, prohibited by moral codes defining journalism.

Oops! Did I say moral code? I forgot that I was talking about Kaieteur News.

Now that is such a misnomer for the codes of conduct of this newspaper – a media house that would photoshop an old bridge built over a decade ago by an IFA then juxtapose it against a background to deliberately give an erroneous impression to its readers that this is a new bridge currently under construction, which is costing taxpayers $26.3 million, which is only one of a series of such falsity of information dissemination to the public in which it engages to sell its papers.

And where is Gorgon Morose-ly of Crap-ital news, who is said to be restructuring the Press-ure under ASS-ociation? I think he has completed the process, because it has gone from bad to worse.

And the Guyana Criminal Rights ASS-ociation? How come they did not applaud this blatant theft of intellectual property by one media house from another media house, since liars and thieves are the only humans whom they consider have rights?

Rumour-mongering posturing as news reporting cannot fool the connoisseur of factual information dissemination because, while a rose under any other name smells just as sweet, skunks going by another name still excretes unimaginable stench, and Chronicle is coming up smelling very sweetly, untainted by the bile regurgitated every day as news and analytic features by our competitors, and that is why Kaieteur News is currently “borrowing” our material and consequently the brainpower of our political and social analysts.

QUESTIONS MUST BE ASKED
The army and police are called ‘disciplined’ forces. They are rigorously trained, physically and academically. They learn the basics of criminal law. They are taught that at all times they are required to defend the country and protect their fellow citizens. They are required to obey the orders of their superiors upon pain of sanction. How then can such violent and serious crimes be committed, as alleged, by members of the disciplined forces with such apparent mindlessness? Questions must be asked.
By Ralph Ramkarran
MANY people, including me, go out of the way to defend the army and police. We do so because they have made demonstrable efforts to improve the quality of their work, to protect the citizens of Guyana and they lay their own lives on the line to do so. I did so recently in an article on the security sector.

Only a few short years ago during the height of the crime wave after the February 2002 jailbreak, police were targeted by criminals.

Many were killed leaving young families. The force did not falter. In the hunt for the serious criminals roaming our streets and killing at will, it was the joint services, army and police, who were in the forefront.

The February 2002 band of killers were brought down, ending a nightmare of terror such as Guyana had never witnessed up to that time.

When the Fineman gang surfaced, their heinous and mindless massacres surpassed the worst that the February 2002 killers perpetrated. It was the same joint services, army and police again, which diligently and urgently sought them out and finally killed or captured most of them, thereby ending the most savage crime wave by the most brutal criminals ever to have surfaced in Guyana. These are not minor achievements.

Is the Police Force, like the Army, so populated with dishonest policemen that any group brought together will have criminals among them? The Police and Army must explain. The allegations of shake down by policemen of a particular section of the Force, but not limited to that section, are so notorious that it is quite believable that a serious problem exists as well in the Police Force.

The army and police are called ‘disciplined’ forces. They are rigorously trained, physically and academically. They learn the basics of criminal law. They are taught that at all times they are required to defend the country and protect their fellow citizens. They are required to obey the orders of their superiors upon pain of sanction. How then can such violent and serious crimes be committed, as alleged, by members of the disciplined forces with such apparent mindlessness? Questions must be asked.

When a criminal act is perpetrated against us, our first thought is to call the police. This sign of confidence in the security forces is being enhanced with every passing day.

It is happening because of committed and forward looking leadership of the heads of the Guyana Defence Force and the Police Force and the integrity displayed by a vast majority of the joint services.

The Government’s support to the disciplined forces has been unstinting. Because of these factors there has been sustained improvement in the work of the disciplined forces.

While dangerous and violent criminals still roam the streets and the police take the brunt of the criticism for the still high levels of crime, though far lower in comparison proportionally with sister CARICOM countries, their success has been substantial.

In my recent article I said: “Two things can be said straightaway about this subject. Firstly, spectacular success has been achieved since 1992. Secondly, a great deal remains to be done.”

Groups of soldiers and police on specific duties do not select themselves. The soldiers and policemen allegedly involved in the robbing and killing of Dweive Kant Ramdass and later stealing of the booty, could not have sought out comrades with like mind to carry out the official duties in which they were engaged.

They had to have been selected by their superiors who presumably had no knowledge of their predilections. The fact that all have been charged suggests that the allegation is that each one played a role.

Is it just a matter of chance that all the members of the two groups, brought together by their superiors, were accused of being involved in the two offences? Or is it that both services are so rife with criminality so that any group coming together under orders will have all or most of them of a similar persuasion, ready to do harm to the citizens they are sworn to protect?

It has been said that due to poor salary and conditions, a poor quality of recruits have to be accepted in the disciplined forces. This is a flawed approach.

It is no argument for the admission into the services of persons whose credentials are not acceptable. Both the GDF and the Police Force are aware that during the crime wave starting in 2002, there were members of their services giving out information to the criminals to enable them to murder with greater facility or to escape detection and capture.

It would have been better not to have those members in the disciplined services rather than to have facilitators of that or any other type of criminality. It is better to have fewer honest members than to have a full capacity but infested with criminals. I have no idea of the safeguards which are taken during recruitment to ensure that integrity prevails.

On the basis of what I have said, should a policy review on the recruitment of quality rather than quantity take place? Or should more specific emphasis be placed on the quality of the recruit with less emphasis placed on achieving the targeted numbers?

Commander Best has said that the men charged do not represent the military. I am sure they do not. And most people know that Commander Best is showing exemplary leadership in motivating the military.

But while the men charged may not represent the military, the fact that they were alleged to be of one mind, even though selected by superiors, begs the question, how many such men are in the military?

And is Commander Best going to make a thorough going investigation to weed out the undesirable elements of whom there have to be many as the facts of this incident and the now widespread allegations of shaking down by the Coast Guards demonstrate?

But questions arise for the Police Force as well. Again, Commissioner Greene has been working hard to transform the image and competence of the Force with much success. He has also been firmly dealing with corrupt elements by charging or dismissing them. This is clearly not enough.

The policemen had to have known that they were tracking loot. Only the evidence in court will determine whether they are guilty and, if so, if they formulated their plan upon being posted or if, having seen the money, they decided to steal a substantial portion of it.

Is the Police Force, like the Army, so populated with dishonest policemen that any group brought together will have criminals among them? The Police and Army must explain.

The allegations of shake down by policemen of a particular section of the Force, but not limited to that section, are so notorious that it is quite believable that a serious problem exists as well in the Police Force.

The humble suggestions made in relation to the Army apply equally to the Police Force.

Despite the fact that I have been on the receiving end of police authority for all of my professional life both pre and post 1992, representing clients, friends, relatives and neighbours has never been an easy task.

Thrown in the Brickdam lockups for little reason, thrown in lockups on Friday afternoons for trivial offences and the disappearance of the investigating officer resulting in being held for the entire weekend and released on Monday, ‘inviting’ drivers to police stations for minor traffic investigations or offenses, refusal to allow lawyers to see their clients, joke hearings by police investigators upon complaints of police misconduct, and many more and worse in the pre 1992 period, have existed for as long as I have engaged with the police and exist today.

It is at this level that a vast majority of persons, without publicity or redress, engage with the police.

And it is these unfortunate experiences that many people remember. It colours their perception of the police.

Commissioner Greene will do well to address what might appear to be small problems but which conspire together to create damaging perceptions, although he is no doubt overwhelmed with other burdensome responsibilities.

When these ‘small’ problems remain unaddressed, the large ones fester and grow. And forget calling on the public to report. I have encouraged people who have done so and it’s a waste of time. The enquiries are peremptory and dismissive. (www.conversationtree.com)

The Observer
PNCR/AFC’s hypocrisy and pontifications
Today Guyana has surpassed the expectations of many in terms of development; both physical and social. The country is free. These are things the PNC with Corbin in its hierarchy could not deliver despite billions, if not trillions, of dollars being at their disposal. As a matter of fact, the country went bankrupt under the suppressive regime.

What happened to the tax payers’ money paid for the barge? Why was the Security Forces used to help rig the elections during those twenty-eight years? Why are leading members of the PNCR accusing the Leadership of the Party of skulduggery in internal elections? These are just a few examples of what the media should be asking Corbin. The hypocrisy will be mind-boggling.
IN a previous article I alluded to the support the Alliance for Change (AFC) is giving to the PNCR.

This support has led to a unison of the two Parties which is evident in their joint protests and frequent joint media conferences.

The AFC, by its public actions and pronouncements, has become an integral part of the PNCR’s current political operations; operations which are aimed at bringing the administration into disrepute.

Much has been said about this and its blatant selectiveness and hypocrisy. I want to continue with the hypocrisy theme.

Recently, the Private Sector Commission (PSC) held its annual dinner at which President Jagdeo delivered the feature address.

Leader of the PNCR, Robert Corbin and his charming wife, were also invited. This was confirmed by Mr. Corbin during an interview with a media operative. Corbin was being asked why he boycotted the dinner.

His reply provided some interesting revelations. According to him, he acknowledged the important role the PSC has played in Guyana’s development and noted that his Party has utilised other opportunities to update the Commission on issues of importance.

He, Corbin, revealed that he would not accept the invitation to the dinner because as he pointed out, “…I find it rather insensitive for you to invite my wife and I to sit at your dinner to be pontificated upon by President Jagdeo”.
Not a subtle excuse by any standard. This was a brash rejection of an invitation by an organisation which Corbin lauded in the said interview!

His excuse should further be examined on various fronts. The PNCR just concluded its Congress which saw the re-election of Corbin as Leader of the Party. Allegations of fraud abounded prior and subsequent to the elections.

Many Party stalwarts have not been subtle in their castigation of the electoral process that led to Corbin’s re-election. This kind of allegation is not new and has dominated successive Congresses following the death of Former President, Desmond Hoyte. Given these allegations by prominent members of the Party and by extension society, Corbin’s legitimacy as Party Leader is shrouded in controversy.

The cries of those who claim to have witnessed such irregularities have seemingly fallen on deaf ears; deaf ears in the Leadership of the PNCR and the AFC.

Corbin’s snubbing of the PSC dinner was, as he so pontificated in the interview mentioned, was not to give the impression that all is well in Guyana.

In other words, his presence, as he strongly implied, would have given credence to what the Head of State would have delivered in his address.

Having launched numerous poorly attended protests following the trial of Robert Simels in New York, Corbin felt that he should not be in the same company of the country’s Leader in an effort to avoid being accused of hypocrisy. Herein lies my confusion.

To address this, a few decisions taken by the PNC when they (mis)ruled during their term in Office, must be re-examined. I am aware that any mention of the state of affairs prior to 1992 evokes disdain from some. Well, sad to say, tough luck. That is part of our history and some loyal to the Opposition would wish that those dark days are not revisited.

The reason they would so vociferously pontificate is that they know that any such examination of that period would reveal the horrific mismanagement of this country. When compared to the Opposition’s demands today, not only would their hypocrisy be blatant, but their attempts to tarnish the administration will be confirmed as mere nit-picking.

Corbin, as Deputy Prime Minister under the PNC, bought a power barge with millions of tax payers’ dollars in an effort to ease the electricity woes that plagued the country. The barge never worked! The millions were wasted!

Here is the same Corbin, despite being cognisant of the numerous developments that have permeated this country over the last seventeen years including the electricity sector, accusing this administration of mismanagement.

Here is the same Corbin, who was a prominent member of the regime when the Armed Forces hijacked ballot boxes and intimidated the populace, today accusing the administration of giving political direction to the Police. Commissioner Henry Greene promptly debunked Corbin’s statement in this regard.

The PNC administration sold many of this country’s assets including large companies. Many, if not all, of these transactions were found to be unfavourable to the nation. Much needed financial resources did not materialise as a result of these sales despite the Party’s rhetoric.

Here is Corbin and his Party’s predecessor in Opposition accusing this government of mismanagement. These are only a few of the numerous cases of hypocrisy.

Today Guyana has surpassed the expectations of many in terms of development; both physical and social. The country is free. These are things the PNC with Corbin in its hierarchy could not deliver despite billions, if not trillions, of dollars being at their disposal.

As a matter of fact, the country went bankrupt under the suppressive regime.

What happened to the tax payers’ money paid for the barge? Why was the Security Forces used to help rig the elections during those twenty-eight years? Why are leading members of the PNCR accusing the Leadership of the Party of skulduggery in internal elections?

These are just a few examples of what the media should be asking Corbin. The hypocrisy will be mind-boggling. This brings me to what I touched on previously with regards to hypocrisy in the AFC.

As Corbin pontificated in the interview pertaining to the PSC dinner, his presence would have given credence to what the Head of State would have delivered in his address. Simply put, association gives legitimacy.

If what Corbin is saying is true with regards to association and legitimacy, then by his own admission, his partners, the AFC, are hypocrites.

The AFC has become an associate of the PNCR over time. The AFC has not questioned the PNCR about the accusations of electoral fraud levelled against it.

The AFC has defended its partnership with the PNCR. Therefore, it would not be wrong to conclude that the AFC, by being associated with the PNCR, has given legitimacy to the leadership of the Party despite the accusations.

It would not be wrong to conclude that the AFC has condoned the electoral malpractices the PNCR leadership is being accused of. This is by Corbin’s logic; by his own pontification.

Why is the AFC not questioning and condemning the PNCR with regards to these accusations? Why is the AFC supporting a Party that is accused of electoral fraud? These are some of the questions the media must ask the AFC. This is what Corbin and his protégé, the AFC must pontificate on, lest the hypocrisy reaches Frankenstein proportions if it hasn’t already.

The Culture of Prosperity: The Individual and Education
By Dr. Randy Persaud
ON Sunday I tackled the question of attitudes in development-resistant and development-friendly societies. In that article, I tried to develop a broad analytical framework through which we can develop a sharper sense of the cultural values that both enable and hinder prosperity. Some of the more important elements of the framework are:

1. Development is not merely a function of economics, narrowly defined. Rather, it involves a broad configuration of institutions and practices. The role of culture is one of the most important of these, though one of the most ignored.

2. There is a difference between intrinsic and instrumental values. While all economic values are instrumental in nature, a purely utilitarian approach to culture would stultify development.

3. The classification of attitudes offered (in the article) should be taken as a guide to discussion, rather than a final ‘product’.

With that in mind, it would be helpful to elaborate on some of the attitudes noted. Today, we will examine attitudes to the individual and education.

Trust the Individual: Marino Grondona suggests that “[t]he principal engine of economic development is the work and creativity of individuals. What induces them to strive and invent is a climate of liberty that leaves them in control of their own destiny” (Grondona, 2000: 47-48). On the other hand, Grondona argues that “[i]f individuals feel others are responsible for them, the effort of individuals will ebb” (48).

The question of the individual as posed here is also a question of the type of social system that is desirable. Marx, for instance, (correctly) states that bourgeois philosophy advances the individual as a de-historicised abstract category where each person begins life tabula rasa.

The individual as an abstract juridical subject is at one level, a myth, and at another level an ideological trope. Political conservatives have thus used the concept of the individual to defend inequality as a matter of personal responsibility.

At the same time, social systems that ‘do away with the individual’ usually replace the latter with all sorts of collective and messianic figures.

Two dangers arise here. Firstly, the principle of sovereignty is shifted completely to the state, since the abstract individual is no longer there to enable a system of private rights.

Keep in mind that the concept of sovereignty, say as advanced by Hobbes, did in fact refer to both the sovereignty of the state, as well as the individual.

Secondly, the benefit of ‘reasonable egoism’ is lost. Instead of countless individuals making rational decisions with multiple sources of information, decisions are pushed to a small elite at the top.

Gyorgy Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi once described this as intellectuals on the road to class power.

In development-resistant societies there is a penchant to squander the innovative capacity of individuals by converting them into a broad undifferentiated mass. In development-resistant cultures, success can bring shame.

All too often, success can also make the successful person apologetic for the success he/she has achieved.

In part, this happens because development-resistant intellectuals see success as proof of exploitation, rather than as the reward for effort. Please keep in mind that intellectuals are not only those folks in universities and think tanks, etc.

Education: There are different forms of development-resistant education. Let us examine two forms that warrant urgent consideration.

Firstly, there is view that unless you understand the past, you will not be able to move forward. No one should object to this perspective, and I certainly reject any education that is unhistorical. At the same time, if the fulcrum of education is the past, then the student gets bogged down in a debate about what happened, and what is said to have happened.

This is especially apposite in divided societies where contestations about the past weigh so heavily on the society that it not able to move forward. Look, for instance, at the ways in which many are consumed by what really, truly, definitively, happened in the 1960s in Guyana?

Keep in mind that most of the ‘intellectuals’ who engage in this kind of public education are not professional researches. Columnists and T.V. hosts, for instance, are public intellectuals.

More often than not, the ‘education’ students receive is nothing other than dogma. The problem with dogma is that a small group of people claim to have an inside track with the General Truth, much the same way in which kings and queens once claimed to be the representatives of God.

In development-resistant societies there is a heavy preponderance of dogmatic education. This dogmatic education is a form of cultural hegemony, if for no other reason than the fact that dogma does not allow for questions. The good student is the one who has mastery of the ‘correct line’. His/her career will be assured, and then he/she will continue to dish out the same morbid cocktail to another generation.

In development-friendly societies the focus is on probing, asking questions, and constructing hypotheses, rather than ingesting doses of truth from the appointed truth-teller.

The sprit of innovation is perhaps the single most important element of moving a society forward. Why? Because innovation facilitates doing away with what does not work, and developing new ways – new systems, new procedures, new products, new services etc. The gist of a development-friendly education is to challenge the ‘student’ to think critically. Critical thinking, of course, does not mean to ‘go against’. Rather, it means to recognise that good answers almost always come from posing good questions.

Finally, it should be recognised that while it is good to have education for its own sake, development-friendly societies are especially good at encouraging education that translate into jobs and that will strengthen productivity.

This brings up the question on what kind of education is relevant. In the context of Guyana, President Jagdeo has underlined this point by noting that the old curricula need to be re-examined. While Guyana must make use of its agricultural resources, it must also open up new kinds of economic activity, leading to a new economy. It is for the same reason that the president stated that it makes sense to give 100,000 computers to Guyanese households. I regret that the AFC does not see the wisdom in this move.

A forward moving society should allow individuals to pursue their own economic interests and their own ‘truths’. Some might see this as neoliberal economics and cultural relativism. I am not so sure. Most of us who spent time in various causes of liberty probably discovered down the road that freedom means having the right to pursue prosperity in a secure environment and to be able to freely express our ideas. Of course, we all want the right to exercise our franchise as well. Take these things away and then tell me what the freedom is worth.