THE Kaieteur News (KN) editorial (Shifting standards downward – July 21, 2011), is a poor attempt at sophistry. It is most clear that the article seeks to cast disparaging remarks at the PPP/C.

So what it does is feebly and foolishly couch its innuendoes, in a thin and transparent cloak of fallacious reasoning.

First, the hypocrisy is noticed by the statement which says that, “The reopening of the period of claims and objections is at best, a case of the government bending over backwards to allow eligible voters to become registered and having their names included on the National Register of Registrants or, at worst, a case of pandering to the lazy and to the apathetic largely because of narrow political interests.”

Now this I find to be most asinine. A government must be amenable to whatever it takes to endure its people be absolutely enfranchised.

Just to ‘up’ and say that the government is ‘bending backwards’ and to assume that it is ‘pandering to laziness’ is a most puerile assessment. It simply couches the editor’s feeling of malcontent and desire for mischief. Life must take into account the vagaries and vicissitudes that are inevitable.

Extending deadlines is not unprecedented. The University of Guyana recently reopened its application process for a week. Will the reason of ‘bending backward’ and ‘pandering to laziness’ suffice here too?

Secondly, it seems that there is a kind of mental sclerosis stalking some people. So I might as well spell it out: GECOM is not the mouthpiece of the PPP/C. In fact, the sway was already for a reopening, irrespective of Mr. Surujbally’s pronouncement (which came after the fact really).

The votes were in favour of the 13-day reopening period. So to hurl invectives, cast aspersions or plant suspicions is simply admitting not being ‘on the ball.’ Also one must bear cognisance of the fact that these now disenfranchised voters, can still choose not to register. I ask: Will this harm anyone? Is it an infringement on transparency? Is it non-democratic?  So you ask if it is worth it, that is, the reopening of the period of claims and objections.

I say, and emphatically too, ‘Yes’. Apart from ensuring no one is disenfranchised, it is also granting ‘fairness’ to all parties involved.

Finally, since the article suggests that the PPP/C is in the habit of lowering its standards (there is a big confusion with morality and legality – so much for good writing and appropriate use of analogy), I wonder, what is the rating of the KN in terms of accuracy, candour and quality reporting and writing? There is the misconception that the PPP/C is filled with dunces. One of your ‘star’ writers is soon to find out.