ASQUITH Rose has become the latest in the line of perennial critics of the progressive PPP/C government, senior functionaries of the government, with the latest vitriol embodied in a missive ‘Facts are facts, propaganda and lies would not change that’.

Rose has taken issue with Dr. Prem Misir on a number of issues, beginning with his capacity as pro-chancellor of the University of Guyana(UG).

The latter academic is assailed by the letter writer as never having made a public statement relevant to conditions at this institution.
I am sure that Dr. Misir, though very busy, will be making a response to the several points raised surrounding the current status quo at the nation’s only tertiary level institution.

But again, I must exercise my right as a citizen in a democratic state to respond to Rose’s views on the University of Guyana.

It is well known that conditions at the University of Guyana are not what they should be, with even President Jagdeo voicing similar sentiments; and over the recent years, there have been a number of studies, and  discussions with various sectors as to how UG can best respond to the needs of the nation, among other aspects. 

Of course, Rose would have followed the recent government response on the reported financial situation of Guyana’s premier academic institution. But just in case he has not, he must be aware that the administration has indicated 19 areas of concern in respect of UG’s request for an increased subvention. As last reported, there has not been a response from the institution.

For Asquith Rose to describe Dr. Misir as a “paid propagandist”, is laughable and without merit. By virtue of his position at the tertiary institution, I am not surprised that he would analyze political situations.  For that matter, every government will have such a department to make statements on matters of State.

Finally, on the issue of Dr. Misir’s declared view that “Guyana is democratic and free”, Rose is accusing the functionary of a shift to “Guyana is on the move towards consolidating democracy”.

Those who would have followed Dr Misir’s well presented thesis on this subject would have clearly understood his explanation that there is democracy in Guyana, but that it is fragile in the sense of still being developed and consolidated, particularly since in a state that had been captive to a prolonged night of dictatorial rule that had resulted in the destruction of the institutions responsible for supporting such an ideology, such pillars would take time to be rebuilt.