by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 13 July 2007)
It is more than just a little amusing that the letter pages of Thursday’s Daily Chronicle was heavily laden with remarks about the ads fight (between Stabroek News and the government) and comments demanding Freddie show the nation his academic competence by producing any papers he has written during his time at the University of Guyana [UG].
The PPP has gone off the deep end this time. Seriously now, to call into question Freddie Kissoon’s capacity to teach at UG is simply ludicrous. Does the government really believe it has so many people left in the country (who have yet migrated) who are more qualified than Freddie to teach at UG?
Even if we put the brain drain issue aside, just a weeks worth of Freddie’s more rigorous columns could easily be assembled for a paper that would be over the heads of many in the Jagdeo administration. There is not one person in Guyana who reads Freddie’s column that could not admit that a good portion of his work borders on pure genius.
What is the president hoping to accomplish through this witch-hunt? Is he looking to relieve Freddie of his duties at UG? Surely even the president realises this would not be in the best interest of the nation. That is assuming the president is still looking out for the best interest of the nation.
Perhaps this whole fiasco is the government’s way of trying to undermine Freddie’s credibility. If this is the case, they are fighting a lost cause as Freddie’s brilliance is in black in white every single day for the world to see. Not even the PPP propaganda machine can unseat Freddie from his position as the foremost political analyst in Guyanese history.
It is my opinion that this is more about shutting down any true opposition to the government. The PPP is not accustomed to being put on the spot by any real opposition because the PNC just crawls in its hole after each election and hides from the world.
Robert Corbin’s attempt this week to look strong by protesting the actions concerning the government’s judicial appointments is laughable. It is like watching a skinny fellow flex his nonexistent muscles as he tries to impress a lady. Everyone knows Corbin is just blowing hot air and no one really takes him seriously when he pulls stunts like this.
This long-time opposition party of Guyana has become as so irrelevant on the political landscape that even the PPP knows they have removed all the teeth from their opposition. The PNC is now all bark and no bite. Moreover, the AFC is often MIA, which leaves the PPP with no real opposition save us “sleaze balls” in the media.
The biggest “sleaze ball” of all is Freddie. He makes life difficult for those in the PPP who otherwise enjoys a charmed existence of passivity from the people – even if the sky is falling. How great would it be to make Freddie irrelevant too? Then the government could really have some fun.
However, I do not think the government should underestimate Freddie’s drive to see Guyana succeed. When the nation’s politicians have thrown in their towels, when the people have settled for incompetence, even when most of the media runs from the truth instead of giving it to the people on a silver platter – Freddie continues to fight for Guyana.
This is what Jagdeo and his cronies should understand, they will be but a glitch in Guyana’s history in thirty years time, but Freddie will be a hero. He is the embodiment of hope for this country. He is the last vestige of faith when all faith has been lost.
The PPP is making the biggest mistake of its existence (and they have made a lot) by trying to marginalise Freddie because he carries inside him the conviction that everyone in the nation clings to during these dark days. When everyone else gives up, Freddie still stands.
I do not know what the PPP hopes to accomplish from their smear campaign against Freddie, but I can see it blowing up in their face already – and as usual, they are clueless. Good. I cannot wait to see how this ends.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Friday, July 13, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Stella Says…Mr. Prime Minister, here is a column for the good of Guyana
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 11 July 2007)
I thought I would take the good advice so benevolently bestowed on me last week by the Prime Minister and do some hefty lifting in the research department. I dug in deep and came up with some very interesting information that I feel might be helpful for the Prime Minister’s PPP pals.
The good Prime Minister requested in a letter to the editor on July 5, “If facts are to be spun, misunderstood, ignored, let it be for creating greater harmony.” I am fully convinced that upon reading this column, Mr. Hinds will agree that the information contained herein will lead to the greatest national harmony necessary for the good of stabilising various vital sectors in the nation.
My research focused on government, judicial and law enforcement officials accepting bribes and what I discovered was absolutely astonishing. For example, did you know that in the “Republic” by Plato the punishment for bribery was the death penalty?
Further, according to Stovall-law.com, “Greece also applied such punishment [the death penalty] in all instances of bribery. Roman law also addressed the crime, in the Twelve Tables, imposing the death penalty on any judge accepting a bribe.”
I suppose it would be wise to clearly define bribery before this discussion continues any further. The word "bribery" is a term used to refer to corruption. In legislation, the word refers to the act of anyone who exploits the power of her/his position or job. A bribed official is anyone who sells his authority for material reward.
The death penalty for acts of bribery may seem a bit harsh at first glance, but when one understands that such an act undermines democracy at its core each time an official relinquishes her/his authority for a material reward, it is far easier to understand the reasoning behind such strict judgement – to protect the people.
The Koran says, “God curses the briber, the bribed and the intermediary between the two of them.” Islamic law provides several means by which to deal with this criminal act, the least of which include reprimand, fines, jail and whipping, depending upon the enormity of the act attributed to the person convicted of the crime.
My research showed that even in modern society there are still nations that impose the death penalty on corrupt public servants. Last November, according to china.org.cn, “The former chief judge of China's Hunan Higher People's Court was sentenced to death at a trial in Beijing yesterday for accepting millions of yuan worth of bribes.”
I am quite sure the Prime Minister will be proud that I have done so much research to this point, but I’m not done yet. I should get a cookie for being such a good girl. I know the Prime Minister’s buddies in the Jagdeo administration will find this information simply invaluable.
In the United States, punishment for this act is addressed in the Constitution. According to aw.jrank.org, “Bribery, along with treason, is one of two crimes for which the United States Constitution (art. ii, sec. 4) specifically prescribes impeachment for the President, Vice-President, and ‘all civil officers of the United States.’ Two federal judges have been impeached and convicted of corruption; more than a dozen others have resigned in the face of threatened impeachment. Indication of investigation has produced other resignations, most notably of a Justice of the Supreme Court.”
In my whole-hearted attempt to be one of those “professional news people,” I want to make sure the people of Guyana have all the facts to make their own decision when it comes to corrupt officials.
The European Parliament also has measures to prevent corruption in EU Member States. During my research, I stumbled upon a 1998 working paper that highlights the joint efforts being taken to combat corruption through bribery in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
So where does Guyana stand on bribery? Well, there are no death penalties being handed out. In fact, unless I have not done my homework as well as the Prime Minister would like, it seems there were no arrests or prosecutions for this form of corruption in 2006 at all. Now that is a newsworthy piece of information, wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Prime Minister?
Actually, Guyana does have laws against bribery. According to the Government Information Agency [GINA], “the Money Laundering Prevention Act of 2000 criminalizes money laundering related to narcotics trafficking, illicit trafficking of firearms, extortion, corruption, bribery, fraud, counterfeiting and forgery.”
I will just assume this law, or another like it, applies to both private individuals as well as the public sector. Otherwise, if such laws on bribery do not in fact apply to those in public service, what good is it for the nation?
From the information we now have, we can easily deduce that bribery has been considered a crime throughout much of human history. Likewise, if a public official in Guyana – be it a judge, a prosecutor, a police officer or a politician – accepts a bribe, we can and should assume this person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent and removed from the position of authority for betraying the trust of the people.
This is fantastic news and perhaps this would be the best time for everyone who has ever known a member of the government, the judiciary and/or law enforcement to take a bribe to step forward and let the nation know about it. Surely this would be for the greatest good of the nation.
And now back to my friend Samuel Hinds. In my opinion, this is a well-researched column that is chocked full of valuable information for the people of Guyana. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Prime Minister?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 11 July 2007)
I thought I would take the good advice so benevolently bestowed on me last week by the Prime Minister and do some hefty lifting in the research department. I dug in deep and came up with some very interesting information that I feel might be helpful for the Prime Minister’s PPP pals.
The good Prime Minister requested in a letter to the editor on July 5, “If facts are to be spun, misunderstood, ignored, let it be for creating greater harmony.” I am fully convinced that upon reading this column, Mr. Hinds will agree that the information contained herein will lead to the greatest national harmony necessary for the good of stabilising various vital sectors in the nation.
My research focused on government, judicial and law enforcement officials accepting bribes and what I discovered was absolutely astonishing. For example, did you know that in the “Republic” by Plato the punishment for bribery was the death penalty?
Further, according to Stovall-law.com, “Greece also applied such punishment [the death penalty] in all instances of bribery. Roman law also addressed the crime, in the Twelve Tables, imposing the death penalty on any judge accepting a bribe.”
I suppose it would be wise to clearly define bribery before this discussion continues any further. The word "bribery" is a term used to refer to corruption. In legislation, the word refers to the act of anyone who exploits the power of her/his position or job. A bribed official is anyone who sells his authority for material reward.
The death penalty for acts of bribery may seem a bit harsh at first glance, but when one understands that such an act undermines democracy at its core each time an official relinquishes her/his authority for a material reward, it is far easier to understand the reasoning behind such strict judgement – to protect the people.
The Koran says, “God curses the briber, the bribed and the intermediary between the two of them.” Islamic law provides several means by which to deal with this criminal act, the least of which include reprimand, fines, jail and whipping, depending upon the enormity of the act attributed to the person convicted of the crime.
My research showed that even in modern society there are still nations that impose the death penalty on corrupt public servants. Last November, according to china.org.cn, “The former chief judge of China's Hunan Higher People's Court was sentenced to death at a trial in Beijing yesterday for accepting millions of yuan worth of bribes.”
I am quite sure the Prime Minister will be proud that I have done so much research to this point, but I’m not done yet. I should get a cookie for being such a good girl. I know the Prime Minister’s buddies in the Jagdeo administration will find this information simply invaluable.
In the United States, punishment for this act is addressed in the Constitution. According to aw.jrank.org, “Bribery, along with treason, is one of two crimes for which the United States Constitution (art. ii, sec. 4) specifically prescribes impeachment for the President, Vice-President, and ‘all civil officers of the United States.’ Two federal judges have been impeached and convicted of corruption; more than a dozen others have resigned in the face of threatened impeachment. Indication of investigation has produced other resignations, most notably of a Justice of the Supreme Court.”
In my whole-hearted attempt to be one of those “professional news people,” I want to make sure the people of Guyana have all the facts to make their own decision when it comes to corrupt officials.
The European Parliament also has measures to prevent corruption in EU Member States. During my research, I stumbled upon a 1998 working paper that highlights the joint efforts being taken to combat corruption through bribery in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
So where does Guyana stand on bribery? Well, there are no death penalties being handed out. In fact, unless I have not done my homework as well as the Prime Minister would like, it seems there were no arrests or prosecutions for this form of corruption in 2006 at all. Now that is a newsworthy piece of information, wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Prime Minister?
Actually, Guyana does have laws against bribery. According to the Government Information Agency [GINA], “the Money Laundering Prevention Act of 2000 criminalizes money laundering related to narcotics trafficking, illicit trafficking of firearms, extortion, corruption, bribery, fraud, counterfeiting and forgery.”
I will just assume this law, or another like it, applies to both private individuals as well as the public sector. Otherwise, if such laws on bribery do not in fact apply to those in public service, what good is it for the nation?
From the information we now have, we can easily deduce that bribery has been considered a crime throughout much of human history. Likewise, if a public official in Guyana – be it a judge, a prosecutor, a police officer or a politician – accepts a bribe, we can and should assume this person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent and removed from the position of authority for betraying the trust of the people.
This is fantastic news and perhaps this would be the best time for everyone who has ever known a member of the government, the judiciary and/or law enforcement to take a bribe to step forward and let the nation know about it. Surely this would be for the greatest good of the nation.
And now back to my friend Samuel Hinds. In my opinion, this is a well-researched column that is chocked full of valuable information for the people of Guyana. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Prime Minister?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Stella Says…I predict the future of the PNC if Corbin returns as party leader
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 08 July 2007)
After reading the party leader nomination results for the PNC’s upcoming congress, I could not help but ask myself once again why it is that people remain loyal to an ineffective leader.
While studying political science in college, one of my professors always seemed to be intrigued with the fact that my classmates and I would always choose to side with the philosopher who believed in the people’s ability to make successful decisions in regards to their leaders.
Naïve and without much life experience, our class wanted to believe that given the opportunity and the necessary information to make an informed decision, the people would always choose to elect the most promising leader and they would never choose to retain an ineffectual or corrupt leader.
Our professor found this quite amusing and would play the devil’s advocate and take us to task by reminding us that everyone in that class were either Political Science majors or minors. He would ask how many of us read the newspaper that morning, which was almost every single student.
He would ask if we knew the names of our national leaders and without fail almost every one of us could run down the list of names attached to the governmental position he indicated. Then he would ask if we knew our local government leaders and once again most of the class even knew these.
The professor then pointed out that we were the geeks who cared about political goings on, but that as a whole the rest of society simply did not care – nor did they take the time to be informed about the actions of their leaders or whether an incumbent had accomplished anything of consequence during her/his time in office.
This information was not easily accepted by most of us because we all believed in the power of the people so much that we just could not accept that the people would not rise to the responsibility attached to the democratic process. I must admit that I carried this political naivety with me for many years.
The political climate in Guyana is far more complicated than anything I studied in my poly sci classes. The racial factor and the nation’s spotted history play more of a role in determining future leaders than the highly important issues of competency, effectiveness, trust and potential.
Moreover, Guyana is a nation steeped in rich and beautiful traditions. These traditions have a familiar soothing effect on the people who do not appear very open to radical change. It seems the general consensus is that it is easier to live in a perpetual state of discontent and fear than to take the necessary dramatic actions that would usher in better leaders.
The result is a nation led by a Machiavellian style that assumes a fundamentally flawed human nature in the people and maintains that the end justifies the means in governing such people. Machiavelli believed evil acts and brut force were acceptable in governing so long as the necessary end is achieved. This style also uses a reward system to maintain status quo in the citizenry because the philosopher believed the people no smarter than to see through such ploys.
However, even Machiavelli maintained that the only acceptable end to such actions was the stabilisation and health of the state. Moreover, he held that individual power for its own sake is not an acceptable end and does not justify evil actions. Therefore, a Machiavellian leadership style that does not produce the stabilisation and health of the state is unjustified.
I once met a Christian minister who told me that people are like sheep. They want someone to tell them where to go, what to do and what to think. He maintained that not only do the people want such a leader, but they also need such a leader. This mindset completely removes all power from the people and puts it solely in the hands of the leaders.
The most glaring dilemma with this concept is that all leaders – even the good-hearted ones – a prone to corruption. A democratic system is supposed to provide various checks and balances to ensure that the needs of the people are the primary focus. When these checks and balances fail because of bribes and/or cronyism, the entire democratic state fails and it is the people who suffer most.
Although I am still a very optimistic person in general, I no longer believe the people will always choose effective leadership (and remove ineffective leadership) when they have the opportunity and the necessary information to make an informed decision.
For example, although Robert Corbin is one of the most ineffective leaders I have come across in my lifetime, I know his chances of being re-elected as the party leader for the PNC are very high. This says more about the people who are going to vote for his leadership than it does about him – although it says plenty about him as well.
I lived in Missouri for many years, which is a state that despises change so much that the state motto is “The Show-Me state.” In other words, we refuse to believe anything unless we can see it with our own eyes. The result is a group of people who refuses to change unless it can be proven that a better alternative exists.
Guyanese people are much like the Missourians. They want change, but they want proof that a better alternative exists before they decide that change is actually a good thing. The problem is that we do not have the power of foresight that would enable us to see if an alternative method is better or worse than the current.
Whether a new leader for the PNC party would be any better than Corbin is not for us to know at this point since we do not know the future. On the other hand, we can pretty much surmise what the future will look like with Corbin at the helm again.
What do I predict for the party if Corbin returns as its leader? Nothing. I predict the PNC will get what it has always received from his leadership all along, nothing at all.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 08 July 2007)
After reading the party leader nomination results for the PNC’s upcoming congress, I could not help but ask myself once again why it is that people remain loyal to an ineffective leader.
While studying political science in college, one of my professors always seemed to be intrigued with the fact that my classmates and I would always choose to side with the philosopher who believed in the people’s ability to make successful decisions in regards to their leaders.
Naïve and without much life experience, our class wanted to believe that given the opportunity and the necessary information to make an informed decision, the people would always choose to elect the most promising leader and they would never choose to retain an ineffectual or corrupt leader.
Our professor found this quite amusing and would play the devil’s advocate and take us to task by reminding us that everyone in that class were either Political Science majors or minors. He would ask how many of us read the newspaper that morning, which was almost every single student.
He would ask if we knew the names of our national leaders and without fail almost every one of us could run down the list of names attached to the governmental position he indicated. Then he would ask if we knew our local government leaders and once again most of the class even knew these.
The professor then pointed out that we were the geeks who cared about political goings on, but that as a whole the rest of society simply did not care – nor did they take the time to be informed about the actions of their leaders or whether an incumbent had accomplished anything of consequence during her/his time in office.
This information was not easily accepted by most of us because we all believed in the power of the people so much that we just could not accept that the people would not rise to the responsibility attached to the democratic process. I must admit that I carried this political naivety with me for many years.
The political climate in Guyana is far more complicated than anything I studied in my poly sci classes. The racial factor and the nation’s spotted history play more of a role in determining future leaders than the highly important issues of competency, effectiveness, trust and potential.
Moreover, Guyana is a nation steeped in rich and beautiful traditions. These traditions have a familiar soothing effect on the people who do not appear very open to radical change. It seems the general consensus is that it is easier to live in a perpetual state of discontent and fear than to take the necessary dramatic actions that would usher in better leaders.
The result is a nation led by a Machiavellian style that assumes a fundamentally flawed human nature in the people and maintains that the end justifies the means in governing such people. Machiavelli believed evil acts and brut force were acceptable in governing so long as the necessary end is achieved. This style also uses a reward system to maintain status quo in the citizenry because the philosopher believed the people no smarter than to see through such ploys.
However, even Machiavelli maintained that the only acceptable end to such actions was the stabilisation and health of the state. Moreover, he held that individual power for its own sake is not an acceptable end and does not justify evil actions. Therefore, a Machiavellian leadership style that does not produce the stabilisation and health of the state is unjustified.
I once met a Christian minister who told me that people are like sheep. They want someone to tell them where to go, what to do and what to think. He maintained that not only do the people want such a leader, but they also need such a leader. This mindset completely removes all power from the people and puts it solely in the hands of the leaders.
The most glaring dilemma with this concept is that all leaders – even the good-hearted ones – a prone to corruption. A democratic system is supposed to provide various checks and balances to ensure that the needs of the people are the primary focus. When these checks and balances fail because of bribes and/or cronyism, the entire democratic state fails and it is the people who suffer most.
Although I am still a very optimistic person in general, I no longer believe the people will always choose effective leadership (and remove ineffective leadership) when they have the opportunity and the necessary information to make an informed decision.
For example, although Robert Corbin is one of the most ineffective leaders I have come across in my lifetime, I know his chances of being re-elected as the party leader for the PNC are very high. This says more about the people who are going to vote for his leadership than it does about him – although it says plenty about him as well.
I lived in Missouri for many years, which is a state that despises change so much that the state motto is “The Show-Me state.” In other words, we refuse to believe anything unless we can see it with our own eyes. The result is a group of people who refuses to change unless it can be proven that a better alternative exists.
Guyanese people are much like the Missourians. They want change, but they want proof that a better alternative exists before they decide that change is actually a good thing. The problem is that we do not have the power of foresight that would enable us to see if an alternative method is better or worse than the current.
Whether a new leader for the PNC party would be any better than Corbin is not for us to know at this point since we do not know the future. On the other hand, we can pretty much surmise what the future will look like with Corbin at the helm again.
What do I predict for the party if Corbin returns as its leader? Nothing. I predict the PNC will get what it has always received from his leadership all along, nothing at all.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Friday, July 06, 2007
Stella Says…Guidance is needed as men redefine their role in society
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 06 July 2007)
An editorial from this newspaper last Sunday pondered the ever-expanding situation in the West Indian society of the disappearing male. Indeed, there can be no doubt that something significant is changing in the traditional structure of the male’s position in the family and society as a whole.
Concerning this alarming phenomenon, the editorial lamented, “We have noticed that men are not seeking jobs as teachers, and even in traditional male enterprise they seem to have surrendered their pride of place to the woman. So we have the bulk of the public service being women; most of the teachers being women; most of the security guards being women; and even the bulk of the prison service being women.”
I have addressed this changing of social roles a time or two before, but as I read the editorial I could not help but ponder the reasons again. Of course, the most likely suspect would be the women’s movement toward equality. Time and again I have heard that women are destroying the traditional family unit by insisting on getting an education and going into the workplace en mass.
One certainly cannot ignore the possibility that the women’s movement has indeed reorganised the entire social structure in the last century, but is the opportunity for female equality the culprit that is causing men to retreat from their traditional roles in society? And if this is the case, then why?
Could it be that the entire male gender as a whole has carried the sole leadership role in society for such a very long time that exhaustion has pushed them to move aside and allow the now willing woman to step in so he can take a long-needed vacation.
On some levels, this would certainly seem to be the case. As the aforementioned editorial pointed out, “Some argue that the male has found it very unprofitable to work for the sums of money being paid as wages and salaries. Others contend that the male has once more become a free spirit bent on a life that is unencumbered.”
On this point of males being exhausted leaders who want to gladly hand over their leadership roles and go on permanent vacation, I can from personal experience say that this does seem highly possible.
Even recently I have seen men running away from their responsibilities for a life as “a free spirit bent on a life that is unencumbered,” – as the editorial put it. However, on the other hand, I have also seen a number of men around me realise the importance of their role in society and gladly assume their familial, academic or societal responsibilities.
So it does not seem that all males want to run away on permanent vacation from their functions in the survival of the human race. Therefore, there must be another reason for this phenomenon of the disappearing male in the West Indian society, which is also very evident in many other societies as well.
I do have another speculation on this matter. In fact, it seems to me that this theory is the most probable. Allow me to first point out that the new opportunities afforded to females in the past few decades are extraordinary. Women are finally in roles of leadership within the government, the judicial system and the business sector.
As such, it could be that these new opportunities for women are also opening new opportunities for men. For example, much like women very seldom had any other choice other than to stay at home and raise the children, clean the house and cook the meals; likewise, men have long been expected to be the leaders in society and in the family.
Could it be that when the door of opportunity opened for women, it also opened for men as well? Perhaps men have decided that if women want to assume the roles previously reserved for males, then it was finally time to find something else to do.
Still, when the door did open, women knew exactly what it was they wanted to do. They wanted a place in government. They wanted to start businesses. They wanted to be doctors, lawyers, judges and teachers. They wanted to have a say in all of these aspects in the framework of society.
However, as women realised their long-time dream of equality and began to fill the positions that were previously reserved for men, the males – glad to finally share the burden of societal leadership with their feminine counterparts – had no plan on what to do with themselves. There are an infinite number of paths for men to choose now and they are being required to form a new social identity.
Men have the opportunity to redefine their roles in society and some are doing this by choosing to be the ones to care for the family at home while the woman builds a career. However, the machismo mentality that is so strong in some cultures will not allow many men to assume what has been traditionally viewed as feminine roles.
Fear of how others will view him if he chooses to raise the children and clean the house; many young males are choosing to form their new identity on the social fringe with drugs, theft and other such “masculine” activities as they abandon their social and family responsibilities all together.
It seems some apt guidance is in order for those who lose their way as men attempt to redefine their role in society. This situation could become a global crisis, but if handled correctly, it could usher in a new day for humankind where both males and females are capable of choosing rewarding and satisfying careers without detriment to the other gender.
It seems to me that just like the global environment is changing in very distinguishable ways (like trees popping up in the Sahara Desert), humanity is also changing in marked measures. All that is needed is a shifting in the way we view ourselves as a species so that we can adjust to the new social structure that is being formed.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 06 July 2007)
An editorial from this newspaper last Sunday pondered the ever-expanding situation in the West Indian society of the disappearing male. Indeed, there can be no doubt that something significant is changing in the traditional structure of the male’s position in the family and society as a whole.
Concerning this alarming phenomenon, the editorial lamented, “We have noticed that men are not seeking jobs as teachers, and even in traditional male enterprise they seem to have surrendered their pride of place to the woman. So we have the bulk of the public service being women; most of the teachers being women; most of the security guards being women; and even the bulk of the prison service being women.”
I have addressed this changing of social roles a time or two before, but as I read the editorial I could not help but ponder the reasons again. Of course, the most likely suspect would be the women’s movement toward equality. Time and again I have heard that women are destroying the traditional family unit by insisting on getting an education and going into the workplace en mass.
One certainly cannot ignore the possibility that the women’s movement has indeed reorganised the entire social structure in the last century, but is the opportunity for female equality the culprit that is causing men to retreat from their traditional roles in society? And if this is the case, then why?
Could it be that the entire male gender as a whole has carried the sole leadership role in society for such a very long time that exhaustion has pushed them to move aside and allow the now willing woman to step in so he can take a long-needed vacation.
On some levels, this would certainly seem to be the case. As the aforementioned editorial pointed out, “Some argue that the male has found it very unprofitable to work for the sums of money being paid as wages and salaries. Others contend that the male has once more become a free spirit bent on a life that is unencumbered.”
On this point of males being exhausted leaders who want to gladly hand over their leadership roles and go on permanent vacation, I can from personal experience say that this does seem highly possible.
Even recently I have seen men running away from their responsibilities for a life as “a free spirit bent on a life that is unencumbered,” – as the editorial put it. However, on the other hand, I have also seen a number of men around me realise the importance of their role in society and gladly assume their familial, academic or societal responsibilities.
So it does not seem that all males want to run away on permanent vacation from their functions in the survival of the human race. Therefore, there must be another reason for this phenomenon of the disappearing male in the West Indian society, which is also very evident in many other societies as well.
I do have another speculation on this matter. In fact, it seems to me that this theory is the most probable. Allow me to first point out that the new opportunities afforded to females in the past few decades are extraordinary. Women are finally in roles of leadership within the government, the judicial system and the business sector.
As such, it could be that these new opportunities for women are also opening new opportunities for men. For example, much like women very seldom had any other choice other than to stay at home and raise the children, clean the house and cook the meals; likewise, men have long been expected to be the leaders in society and in the family.
Could it be that when the door of opportunity opened for women, it also opened for men as well? Perhaps men have decided that if women want to assume the roles previously reserved for males, then it was finally time to find something else to do.
Still, when the door did open, women knew exactly what it was they wanted to do. They wanted a place in government. They wanted to start businesses. They wanted to be doctors, lawyers, judges and teachers. They wanted to have a say in all of these aspects in the framework of society.
However, as women realised their long-time dream of equality and began to fill the positions that were previously reserved for men, the males – glad to finally share the burden of societal leadership with their feminine counterparts – had no plan on what to do with themselves. There are an infinite number of paths for men to choose now and they are being required to form a new social identity.
Men have the opportunity to redefine their roles in society and some are doing this by choosing to be the ones to care for the family at home while the woman builds a career. However, the machismo mentality that is so strong in some cultures will not allow many men to assume what has been traditionally viewed as feminine roles.
Fear of how others will view him if he chooses to raise the children and clean the house; many young males are choosing to form their new identity on the social fringe with drugs, theft and other such “masculine” activities as they abandon their social and family responsibilities all together.
It seems some apt guidance is in order for those who lose their way as men attempt to redefine their role in society. This situation could become a global crisis, but if handled correctly, it could usher in a new day for humankind where both males and females are capable of choosing rewarding and satisfying careers without detriment to the other gender.
It seems to me that just like the global environment is changing in very distinguishable ways (like trees popping up in the Sahara Desert), humanity is also changing in marked measures. All that is needed is a shifting in the way we view ourselves as a species so that we can adjust to the new social structure that is being formed.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Stella Says…Humans can be moral outside of a religion
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 04 July 2007)
Can I be a good person without religion? Hamilton Green does not seem to think so. In a letter to the editor of this newspaper, which was published last Sunday, Mr. Green left us with a sense that apart from a religious revival, there is no cure for the moral ills in society.
Like Mr. Green, I once connected morality with religion, believing that apart from religion there was no way to define morality. However, the longer I live the more I realise there are bad people who claim to be religious and there good people who do not believe in the existence of a god.
To go one step further, some of the meanest and most depraved of mind that I have known in my life were religious. Moreover, I know a man who is one of the most honourable humans I have ever met – and he is an agnostic. This fact alone breaks down the argument that humans need religion to be moral.
Mr. Green presented the reader with these questions in his letter, “Are our leaders wedded to religious beliefs which will allow them to help secure a morally strong society? Or, is it to fool as many people as long as it is possible?”
If I had a preference, I would rather choose leaders without any religious affiliation. Just look at what George Bush has done to the world with his brand of Christianity. Look at what Osama bin Laden has done with his version of Islam.
Mr. Green seems to believe that a revival of religion could help rid Guyana of its moral ills. However, I cannot help but wonder if religion is not what helped to usher in these moral ills in the first place.
I grew up in a very conservative Christian home in Middle America. The church I attended was so strict that women were not allowed to wear pants, makeup or jewellery. Those in my church were not allowed to go to the movies, drink any type of alcohol or dance to music. As I said, it was a very strict church.
The fear of hell was preached from the pulpit should I stray from living “right.” Of course, anyone who rejected this very narrow way of thinking would never make it to paradise. This is quite a guilt trip to put on a young woman growing up in a big city.
As the years passed, I moved further and further away from that conservative stance and that framework of morality, which was near to impossible to maintain. I do not know that I ever truly believed this staunch dogma in the first place, but it was imposed on me from infancy so it was all I knew for decades.
Even as I came to the end of my religious journey, I feared whether my moral compass would fail because I was always taught that my religion defined my morality. I was so wrong. After stepping outside of religion, I took on far more responsibility for my actions.
Outside of the context of religion, I could not lie, cheat or steal and think that some god would forgive the deed, which would make my sin not really count. I could no longer wait for some unseen hand to supernaturally feed the poor or to help the weak.
Moreover, I could not sit idle when I see others do evil because I no longer believed they would get their due in the next life or burn in hell. If anything, my religious upbringing held me back from being a truly moral person.
I am a far more moral human today than at any point in my life when I practiced religion. As such, I do not see a decline in religious practice as the cause of a moral decline in society. Guyana is probably one of the most religious nations I have ever encountered, so I do not think it is short on dutiful teachings about morals.
However, as I have said before, even religious people do bad things. I have spent so much time around very religious people that I have seen them use their theology as a way to justify their evil deeds – much like how George Bush justifies his war on Iraq.
If not justification, then humans can use their religion to dismiss their immoral actions by simply asking for forgiveness or paying penance. Moreover, even apathy concerning universal issues like global warming, AIDS in Africa and genocide in Darfur can be excused by a religious person if she/he believes that an all-powerful god will one day intervene.
Although fear of hell or desire of paradise might turn an immoral person around for a short period of time, fear and desire are fleeting emotions and not proven to be a long-term remedy for morality. Therefore, I do not believe the religious state of the Guyanese people has anything whatsoever to do with the nation’s dilemmas.
Guyana’s dilemmas are human problems that can and should be handled through human intervention. I believe with everything inside me that if humans were not so distracted by things such as mythologies, racism, sexism, petty rivalries and power struggles that we would be capable of accomplishing miracles.
We could feed every mouth, cure every disease and rid the world of war. I believe we could end racism. I believe we could end sexism. I believe every child could receive an adequate education. I also believe we are capable of instituting a moral system outside of the framework of religion.
I still believe and I still have faith, but my trust is not in any religion – it is in humans. Mr. Green sees a revival of religion as the answer to Guyana’s woes. I see it as a distraction from the miracles Guyana could achieve if it were to ever to pool all of its human assets.
I believe that if the Guyanese people were capable of ridding themselves of its many distractions, they could do more good than any religion humans have ever created.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 04 July 2007)
Can I be a good person without religion? Hamilton Green does not seem to think so. In a letter to the editor of this newspaper, which was published last Sunday, Mr. Green left us with a sense that apart from a religious revival, there is no cure for the moral ills in society.
Like Mr. Green, I once connected morality with religion, believing that apart from religion there was no way to define morality. However, the longer I live the more I realise there are bad people who claim to be religious and there good people who do not believe in the existence of a god.
To go one step further, some of the meanest and most depraved of mind that I have known in my life were religious. Moreover, I know a man who is one of the most honourable humans I have ever met – and he is an agnostic. This fact alone breaks down the argument that humans need religion to be moral.
Mr. Green presented the reader with these questions in his letter, “Are our leaders wedded to religious beliefs which will allow them to help secure a morally strong society? Or, is it to fool as many people as long as it is possible?”
If I had a preference, I would rather choose leaders without any religious affiliation. Just look at what George Bush has done to the world with his brand of Christianity. Look at what Osama bin Laden has done with his version of Islam.
Mr. Green seems to believe that a revival of religion could help rid Guyana of its moral ills. However, I cannot help but wonder if religion is not what helped to usher in these moral ills in the first place.
I grew up in a very conservative Christian home in Middle America. The church I attended was so strict that women were not allowed to wear pants, makeup or jewellery. Those in my church were not allowed to go to the movies, drink any type of alcohol or dance to music. As I said, it was a very strict church.
The fear of hell was preached from the pulpit should I stray from living “right.” Of course, anyone who rejected this very narrow way of thinking would never make it to paradise. This is quite a guilt trip to put on a young woman growing up in a big city.
As the years passed, I moved further and further away from that conservative stance and that framework of morality, which was near to impossible to maintain. I do not know that I ever truly believed this staunch dogma in the first place, but it was imposed on me from infancy so it was all I knew for decades.
Even as I came to the end of my religious journey, I feared whether my moral compass would fail because I was always taught that my religion defined my morality. I was so wrong. After stepping outside of religion, I took on far more responsibility for my actions.
Outside of the context of religion, I could not lie, cheat or steal and think that some god would forgive the deed, which would make my sin not really count. I could no longer wait for some unseen hand to supernaturally feed the poor or to help the weak.
Moreover, I could not sit idle when I see others do evil because I no longer believed they would get their due in the next life or burn in hell. If anything, my religious upbringing held me back from being a truly moral person.
I am a far more moral human today than at any point in my life when I practiced religion. As such, I do not see a decline in religious practice as the cause of a moral decline in society. Guyana is probably one of the most religious nations I have ever encountered, so I do not think it is short on dutiful teachings about morals.
However, as I have said before, even religious people do bad things. I have spent so much time around very religious people that I have seen them use their theology as a way to justify their evil deeds – much like how George Bush justifies his war on Iraq.
If not justification, then humans can use their religion to dismiss their immoral actions by simply asking for forgiveness or paying penance. Moreover, even apathy concerning universal issues like global warming, AIDS in Africa and genocide in Darfur can be excused by a religious person if she/he believes that an all-powerful god will one day intervene.
Although fear of hell or desire of paradise might turn an immoral person around for a short period of time, fear and desire are fleeting emotions and not proven to be a long-term remedy for morality. Therefore, I do not believe the religious state of the Guyanese people has anything whatsoever to do with the nation’s dilemmas.
Guyana’s dilemmas are human problems that can and should be handled through human intervention. I believe with everything inside me that if humans were not so distracted by things such as mythologies, racism, sexism, petty rivalries and power struggles that we would be capable of accomplishing miracles.
We could feed every mouth, cure every disease and rid the world of war. I believe we could end racism. I believe we could end sexism. I believe every child could receive an adequate education. I also believe we are capable of instituting a moral system outside of the framework of religion.
I still believe and I still have faith, but my trust is not in any religion – it is in humans. Mr. Green sees a revival of religion as the answer to Guyana’s woes. I see it as a distraction from the miracles Guyana could achieve if it were to ever to pool all of its human assets.
I believe that if the Guyanese people were capable of ridding themselves of its many distractions, they could do more good than any religion humans have ever created.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Stella Says…Are you ready for this, Mr. Hinds?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 01 July 2007)
I have heard politicians say some low-down things. I have heard politicians lie and I have seen politicians dodge the truth to save their own rears. However, I have never heard a politician insult her/his own people the way that Prime Minister Samuel Hinds did to the people of Guyana this past week.
According to a Stabroek News article from June 27, the Prime Minister said, “You have a dynamic situation and it is changing and evolving so maybe we may not be ready for radio and maybe when radio gets going there may be some excesses and abuses but one would hope that it would be constrained.”
The Prime Minister of Guyana actually had the gall to tell the nation that they “may not be ready for radio.” You have got to be kidding me. What impudence!
Guyana is not ready for privatised radio stations? How so? Is Mr. Hinds saying the people of Guyana cannot handle the responsibility of freedom of expression on the radio waves? Does the government think so little of the people to make such a statement? How utterly pitiable.
Could it be that it is the PPP that may not be ready for radio? Perhaps it is the government that cannot handle the idea of putting so much responsibility into the hands of the people by allowing them to have full access to the most modern aspects of freedom of expression through the radio waves.
In the Guyana Chronicle’s version of the Prime Minister’s statements, it reported, “According to the Prime Minister, there is no monopoly in television because when this government came into office, TV was open and it allowed it to remain that way.”
The government allowed television to stay open? Oh, isn’t that just so benevolent of them? They allowed the people to have an avenue by which to express their thoughts. I suppose they probably allowed the newspapers to remain open too.
Funny, I thought the government was the one serving the people. This feels oddly like it is the people who are doing the bidding of the government.
The issue of the government monopoly of the radio waves has been going on for far too long. Hinds himself, while giving the history of broadcast legislation, talked about the beginnings of this issue in 1994. That is 13 years ago! And yet still today the monopoly continues?
Still today there is no consensus on broadcast legislation? Still today – in 2007 – the PPP has yet to relent its control on radio broadcasting and allow the Guyanese the right to use their own radio waves?
The Stabroek News article also noted, “[Hinds] later told reporters that the issue of broadcast legislation was a sensitive topic and one on which the government has been unable to gain consensus in the nation. However, he said it was a process in which every citizen could be involved.”
It is at times like this that I wished with everything inside me that I lived in Guyana. I would march straight to the street and start talking to every person I came across and ask whether they wanted more radio stations – privatised radio stations - or if they were happy with the current situation.
I would bet money right here and now that nearly every single person would demand more radio stations that are not government controlled. If Samuel Hinds wants a consensus on this issue, perhaps he should do just that. Ask the people!
You know, the ones who the government has vowed to serve. The ones who pay Samuel Hinds salary. Oh, and the ones Hinds thinks may not be able to handle the responsibility of freedom of expression on the radio waves.
But this situation is not about the people or what they want. This is about the government and what it wants. It is afraid of what would happen if the people were actually allowed to broadcast over the radio waves. What would they say? Whom would they support? Whom would they critique?
Even Thomas Jefferson, a US president who faced more critical press than any president in recent times, said, “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.”
For once, I wish the PPP would comprehend that this whole thing is not about them. This is not about their survival in the next term. This is not about political manoeuvring. This is not about their fat wallets or nice houses. This is about the people of Guyana.
It is not important if the PPP is around in ten years time. What is important is that Guyana is around. For once, I would like to see the PPP put the people of Guyana ahead of their own selfish agenda.
The 13-year-stalled broadcast legislation is nothing more than a manifestation of the PPP’s fears of what would happen if the people were able to open their mouths and say what they truly feel about the government on the radio waves.
I do not give a rip about the fears of the PPP. Their selfish agenda means nothing to me. In fact, it makes me sick. All that matters is that the people are the ones in control of the nation – not a handful of elitists who withhold from the people what is rightfully theirs to enjoy.
When a politician has the audacity to stand up and condescendingly tell his fellow countrymen that they “may not be ready for radio” when the rest of the world seems to be able to handle the radio waves just fine, it is an insult to the intelligence of the entire nation and a betrayal of the good will that put him in office in the first place. And it makes me sick.
Can you handle that, Mr. Hinds?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 01 July 2007)
I have heard politicians say some low-down things. I have heard politicians lie and I have seen politicians dodge the truth to save their own rears. However, I have never heard a politician insult her/his own people the way that Prime Minister Samuel Hinds did to the people of Guyana this past week.
According to a Stabroek News article from June 27, the Prime Minister said, “You have a dynamic situation and it is changing and evolving so maybe we may not be ready for radio and maybe when radio gets going there may be some excesses and abuses but one would hope that it would be constrained.”
The Prime Minister of Guyana actually had the gall to tell the nation that they “may not be ready for radio.” You have got to be kidding me. What impudence!
Guyana is not ready for privatised radio stations? How so? Is Mr. Hinds saying the people of Guyana cannot handle the responsibility of freedom of expression on the radio waves? Does the government think so little of the people to make such a statement? How utterly pitiable.
Could it be that it is the PPP that may not be ready for radio? Perhaps it is the government that cannot handle the idea of putting so much responsibility into the hands of the people by allowing them to have full access to the most modern aspects of freedom of expression through the radio waves.
In the Guyana Chronicle’s version of the Prime Minister’s statements, it reported, “According to the Prime Minister, there is no monopoly in television because when this government came into office, TV was open and it allowed it to remain that way.”
The government allowed television to stay open? Oh, isn’t that just so benevolent of them? They allowed the people to have an avenue by which to express their thoughts. I suppose they probably allowed the newspapers to remain open too.
Funny, I thought the government was the one serving the people. This feels oddly like it is the people who are doing the bidding of the government.
The issue of the government monopoly of the radio waves has been going on for far too long. Hinds himself, while giving the history of broadcast legislation, talked about the beginnings of this issue in 1994. That is 13 years ago! And yet still today the monopoly continues?
Still today there is no consensus on broadcast legislation? Still today – in 2007 – the PPP has yet to relent its control on radio broadcasting and allow the Guyanese the right to use their own radio waves?
The Stabroek News article also noted, “[Hinds] later told reporters that the issue of broadcast legislation was a sensitive topic and one on which the government has been unable to gain consensus in the nation. However, he said it was a process in which every citizen could be involved.”
It is at times like this that I wished with everything inside me that I lived in Guyana. I would march straight to the street and start talking to every person I came across and ask whether they wanted more radio stations – privatised radio stations - or if they were happy with the current situation.
I would bet money right here and now that nearly every single person would demand more radio stations that are not government controlled. If Samuel Hinds wants a consensus on this issue, perhaps he should do just that. Ask the people!
You know, the ones who the government has vowed to serve. The ones who pay Samuel Hinds salary. Oh, and the ones Hinds thinks may not be able to handle the responsibility of freedom of expression on the radio waves.
But this situation is not about the people or what they want. This is about the government and what it wants. It is afraid of what would happen if the people were actually allowed to broadcast over the radio waves. What would they say? Whom would they support? Whom would they critique?
Even Thomas Jefferson, a US president who faced more critical press than any president in recent times, said, “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter.”
For once, I wish the PPP would comprehend that this whole thing is not about them. This is not about their survival in the next term. This is not about political manoeuvring. This is not about their fat wallets or nice houses. This is about the people of Guyana.
It is not important if the PPP is around in ten years time. What is important is that Guyana is around. For once, I would like to see the PPP put the people of Guyana ahead of their own selfish agenda.
The 13-year-stalled broadcast legislation is nothing more than a manifestation of the PPP’s fears of what would happen if the people were able to open their mouths and say what they truly feel about the government on the radio waves.
I do not give a rip about the fears of the PPP. Their selfish agenda means nothing to me. In fact, it makes me sick. All that matters is that the people are the ones in control of the nation – not a handful of elitists who withhold from the people what is rightfully theirs to enjoy.
When a politician has the audacity to stand up and condescendingly tell his fellow countrymen that they “may not be ready for radio” when the rest of the world seems to be able to handle the radio waves just fine, it is an insult to the intelligence of the entire nation and a betrayal of the good will that put him in office in the first place. And it makes me sick.
Can you handle that, Mr. Hinds?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)