WHEN I started writing for the Kaieteur News about 30 years ago, I took objection to an anonymous columnist named Peeping Tom. In several columns, I argued that it is moral ugliness to have a commentator openly attacking people personally yet hiding under their mother’s dress.

In several columns, I opined that such conduct could never be defended by any philosophical school of thought. It is completely unacceptable for a commentator to hide behind a mask and fictionalise the lives of real people.

I also postulated that a newspaper should only accept pen names when the analyst writes on issues. There is nothing wrong with a financial expert, without identifying him/herself, assessing financial and economic issues in a country.

I am still confused as to how the forensic experts in the Guyana Police Force cannot trace the origin of a social media operator that goes under the guise of “mudwata”.
No one using a pseudonym on any social media platform can threaten a head of government anywhere in the world without being traced. Why Guyana continues to tolerate a social media platform named “mudwata”, in which people’s character are sadistically lambasted is beyond comprehension.

For decades now, Peeping Tom has described public figures in unflattering terms. But it is a mutual relation between “Tom” and the owner of the Kaieteur News. “Tom” acts as a surrogate for the owner, who finds in “Tom” someone who can massage his ego. This was a role asked of me when I was at that paper, which I rejected over the past 30 years with vehement arrogance. “Tom” enjoys doing what he does, maybe courtesy of a paycheck. But 30 years is a long time to dwell in such depravity. Recently, “Tom” has been promoting the wannabee politician, Mr. Glen Lall.
I am enraged at a majority of the emanations of Peeping Tom, but felt compelled to compose this piece here by Tom’s derogation of Bharrat Jagdeo’s frequent rebuttal of Aubrey Norton’s positions.

It is commonsensical for government leaders to reply and criticise fiction and propaganda uttered against them. Politics demands that you confront narratives that are false. Electoral politics requires you to debase false claims, because your constituencies expect that of you.

Your constituencies want to know if the Opposition Leader is correct when he said you spent $100 million in one village, and right in the next village, you spent just $1 million. It is incumbent upon you to deny that, if it is not factual. You must address that mischief by the Opposition Leader, if the figures are complete fiction.

In the United States, President Biden founded the Disinformation Board; it is designed to reply to disinformation spread by people who are out to attack the government. When politicians become government leaders, they still have to explain things to their constituencies, because at the next election campaign, they have to go into the fields and beg for votes.
Three times I read where the Stabroek News, in the paper’s editorials, castigated the President, Vice-President and the Attorney-General for confronting the prejudice, disinformation and viciousness of biased civil society organisations.

Two examples should suffice. The Vice-President described the Guyana Human Rights Association as a one-man band without credibility. It is incumbent on a Prime Minister or President to defend his /her government record against actors in society that have no credibility.

In that way, the society and the constituencies of the PM or President become aware that there are critics of the government that are in no moral position to judge ruling politicians. The second example is that on many occasions, the Vice-President would cite the hypocrisy of governmental critics, because these actors call for transparency and accountability from State actors, values that they themselves shun.

No one in Guyana knows who the major shareholders in Stabroek News are. That is information citizens are entitled to. The name of one major shareholder would shock you, and though he wants the government to be transparent, he is not prepared to be so himself.

It would shock you to know who the main financier of Demerara Waves is; he is insanely anti-government, but Demerara Waves would not name him. Yet this financier wants government to be transparent.

Why would any newspaper castigate government leaders for not being transparent, and when these government leaders call on sections of society to be open and accountable, the private media accuse them of being abusive to civil society organisations?

The story of Peeping Tom will go on, because the Kaieteur News that encourages him has no moral compass. It is for decent citizens to understand how hypocritical those that criticise the government are. Surely, there must be moral rules which all humans must adhere to.