Cricket test

Cricketing Dolt

To say that Kissoon, the hatchetman from the Muckraker, goes over the top is like saying the Titanic was a boat. Well, he’s at it again and this time the subject of his odium was cricket. But we know him well enough to know his subject is always personalised – in this instance it’s Dr Frank Anthony who faced his resentment. Anthony, the hatchetman claims, is not qualified to pronounce on cricket. One supposes that being the son of a groundsman makes him Sir Don Bradman.

Frank is also not ‘well known’. How does the Slavering One know that? He did a ‘mini-poll’. Now what the heck is a mini-poll? Gaffing with a few friends? What is the margin of error of such a poll? 100 per cent? Anyhow Kissoon, the doyen of cricket knowledge, deems Anthony’s formation of the IMC to straighten out the mess in Guyana’s cricket administration as “pathetic, illegal and downright tyrannical”. But he doesn’t stop there: the move is “vigilante justice… dangerous and threatens civilisation”. Gasp!

Bringing in Clive Lloyd and Edward Luckhoo, et al to work for six months to make recommendations to clean up cricket is the same as bringing in “Roger Khan”. With a twisted logic peculiar to his fulminations, the cricketing Einstein praised Burnham’s appointment of Roy Fredericks as minister of sports. This is opposed to his fulminations against Anthony’s appointment of Lloyd. What’s the point? Fredericks had a better cricketing brain than Lloyd?

But the star muckraker was not satisfied with assuming omniscience in cricketing matters – he took on Chief Justice Ian Chang (which his paper had just praised to the skies) – and questioned his legitimisation of Anthony’s intervention. The dolt doesn’t understand when Chang pronounced that GCB was not a “legal entity” the state through its executive is duty bound not to prolong this. The term ‘judicial opinion’, Mr Muckraker, is not a rumshop ‘opinion’ – it is a term of art. Go look it up.

Mr Genocide

We wonder why the press gives so much prominence to the extremist outpourings of Lincoln Lewis as representing the TUC – with the implication that he is the ‘voice of labour’. The ‘voice of labour’, if one is to be identified democratically, is the Federation of Independent Trade Union of Guyana (FITUG). The TUC under Lewis used the paper unions created by Burnham to ostracise real mass unions such as GAWU from the decision-making process – the same procedure he had protested earlier.

Lewis is hell bent on creating racial strife in this country. He looks at every event through racist lens. Imaging calling the past government’s labour policies ‘genocidal’ for African Guyanese. Whatever problems there might be, how can we use words like ‘genocidal’? This is incitement and tantamount to hate speech. One of Lewis’ latest incendiary claims is to equate the protest marches of the YCT/APNU combine for GECOM to deliver unto them the SoPs, with Dr Jagan’s protests against colonialism and thereafter. He claimed that YCT/APNU is not given the same latitude as Dr Jagan.

Well, since Lewis has become an apologist for YCT/APNU protestors, can he tell us exactly what or why they were protesting? We heard that it was for SoPs, but they received these going on to a month now and we have heard nothing since. Or is protesting just to intimidate people okay, by the tenets of trade unionism?

Credentials

There have been some calls for nominated parliamentarians such as Dr Roopnaraine and Dr Ramsammy to declare whether they are citizens of other countries – problems of divided loyalties and all that. We believe that that is a storm in a teacup – but then there is the case of Ramaya from the AFC. In addition to him also being a U.S. citizen, there is the more pertinent question of him claiming to be a “doctor”. Will the parliament credentials committee demand proof of his ‘doctorhood’? PhD or medical.