Avoid the Ramoutarian dialectic, StellaMy Response
I knew that Stella, among others, would have been uncomplimentary to me after the AFC's press conference concerning the Region Ten Geographic seat.
What emanates from her piece last Sunday, though, — and this is unfortunate — is that she never did understand my arguments for holding on to my seat during the life of the last Parliament.
And worse, still, is her inability to distinguish what happened then as against what is the position now concerning the Region Ten seat; and, hence, her equating one with the other.
I wish not to repeat my arguments as to my retention then of my Region Six seat in the last Parliament. They are very well known, and would remain good on constitutional, legal, conventional and moral grounds.
That is why neither the PPP/C nor its representative could have done anything to take it away from me. Hence, my recent demand that the PPP/C give up the Region Ten Geographic seat is not inconsistent with my conduct of keeping mine in the 8th Parliament.
Rather, it is wholly unconstitutional, illegal, against convention and totally immoral for a Parliamentarian and/or a party to hold on to a seat which was not validly and legally won by a sufficiency of votes at an election.
So, the two instances, which Stella is making indistinguishable, are as different as chalk is to cheese. I assure you, Stella, that if the list of candidates for the PPP/C had not procured enough votes to win that Region Six seat last Parliament, I would have resigned.
That would have been the decent thing to do; because the electorate did not will it.
Similarly, if the electorate in Region Ten did not so will that seat to one of the members of the PPP/C list of candidates — in this case Mr. Hinds – then, is it not the decent thing for the Parliamentarian and the PPP/C to give it up?
Should not the AFC demand that it be given back this seat which on proper arithmetic it duly won? By your argumentation, it does appear that you want the AFC to remain silent on the issue.
It is argued in your column that “if the AFC never acquires that seat, it will only have itself to blame for not setting a higher standard when it had a chance”. I fail to see the logic here, Stella.
What right does the PPP/C have to keep a seat which GECOM's own Statements of Poll, and so too the PPP/C's, are revealing that the AFC won? It surely could not be because Ramjattan did not give up his, when he was requested so to do last year?
In any event, I want to repeat that Ramjattan's was duly won! Not so with Mr. Hinds.
I want you to appreciate, Stella, that I did set a higher standard by remaining in Parliament after being so outrageously expelled by the PPP/C.
To stay and fight right from the inside, rather than run away and do so from a distance, is always an act of bravery. Don't be taken by what Ramoutar spouts.
The earlier you start to appreciate and discover these distinctions, the better prepared will you be to avoid the Ramoutarian dialectic, which clouds out sense, disseminates nonsense, and is the reason for so much unreason.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Avoid the Ramoutarian dialectic, Stella - Khemraj Ramjattan
Here is Khemraj Ramjattan's response to my column Stella Says…The AFC is in another seat controversy published in today's Kaieteur News :