British, American diplomats have been very silent on Cyber Crimes Bill

Dear Editor,
Please allow me to share my thoughts while I am still free to do so! There is no reason for me to outline objections to the monstrous Cyber Crimes Bill of 2106 as presented for passage by the current Administration of Guyana; I think any intelligent person knows that it is intended to suppress any criticism of the Government and its actions as statements in any form that cause “disaffection” will not be allowed. This presumes an ‘affection’ existed which in itself must be legally problematic.
We, the people, must be thankful to the vigilant actions of those who exposed the regressive clause in the Bill and we must also be wary of the disinformation campaign waged immediately after this expose. Ruel Johnson’s missive suggested that the offending clauses had no place in a “modern liberal democracy” when in fact it has no place in civilised society, was the tip of the stick to stir waters and cloud this very clear issue. This is a Government bill brought by the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Administration and is not a “bipartisan” effort – it saddens me how easily many are misled, no doubt many also believe that Mr Johnson is no longer a member of the Chronicle Board, given his announcement of an April 1 resignation.
Make no mistake, this is the work of a paid propagandist masquerading as a concerned citizen; Mr Johnson should simply follow the example of others in Government employ and have an opinion piece in the Guyana Chronicle, that taxpayer’s burden that keeps on giving.
Editor, the truth of the matter is that it is not statements of others that cause my disaffection with the APNU/AFC Government. It is the maladministration of every aspect of our national life that causes my disaffection. It is the refusal to accept advice from a competent International Monetary Fund (IMF) paid adviser on oil that led to them being hoodwinked. It is the unchecked spending spree that continues to drain the Treasury. It is unilateral appointments contrary to the spirit of agreements between the Administration and Opposition. It is suggesting that the Chief Justice is entitled to her opinion and the President to his, as if she were a private citizen. This dictatorship is not creeping; it is in full flow. Clause 18.1 is simply a revelation of the real intent and purpose of His Excellency David Granger; no Minister would dare insert such a heinous provision without approval at the highest level. I have held my peace for a number of days, hoping that our newly self-appointed overlords at the British High Commission and United States Embassy would put in their “two cents”, but the silence is deafening! Editor, even if the Administration was demonstrating good governance and prudent financial management, I would be disaffected in the extreme by a Government that wanted to muzzle my mouth, one that demands my affection regardless of its actions. Not for me the goosestep or Sieg Heils. I was born in an independent and non-tyrannical Guyana. I will not cooperate in any way with that which legitimises the current Administration, for there is much truth in these words from Mahatma Gandhi : “The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted.”
Sincerely,
Robin Singh