THE anonymous columnist writing in the Kaieteur News for the past 25 years under the pen name, “Peeping Tom” has replied to my column of Wednesday, June 7 of my criticism of his character (yes, he is a male). I read his reply three times to fathom the rationality, logic and commonsense in his approach. I couldn’t. But “reasoning” has hardened my perspective on the Guyanese nationality.

There is no other country where the inherent nastiness in hypocrisy is more pronounced than in Guyana and as you live from day to day in this land, when you read and listen to what is said, you know there cannot be another hypocritical nationality like the Guyanese one.

Citizens, journalists, editor, civil society groups, social media influencers, political activists would rush to the rooftop to condemn Mr. Pupu for hitting a woman. They do not like the politics of Mr. Pupu so he is pulverized in the public eyes. The next day, Mr. Susu does the exact thing and the hypocrisy is displayed in the sound of silence. Mr. Susu is a friend of the people who went after Mr. Pupu.

A diplomat insults a woman by hurling scatological remarks at her. The wolves came out immediately. One anti-government newspaper referred twice in its editorial to the resigned diplomat as a disgraced figure. The same newspaper interviewed a trade unionist at length, with a large image of him and asked his opinion on the government’s attitude to its critics. Yet this very trade unionist has been charged and placed before the courts for brutalising a woman half his size. You have to shake your head and mutter; “only in Guyana, maan.”

We have in our midst today people who laid like a corpse in a coffin when for five months in 2020, Guyana was facing, literally facing, social and economic death. After August 2020, when a president, a political party and an ethnic community they are uncomfortable with assume their rightful place in society, these hypocrites have found their voices and their voices echo ugly condemnations of a democratically elected government.

So we come now to the anonymous columnist Peeping Tom and the moral tragedy that canopies large groups of people in Guyana. In response to my June 7 column, “Tom” denies attacking living, known public figures in Guyana. Anyone can pick up the Kaieteur News and see the nasty attacks this writer has made the past 25 years on public figures. He has penned the most vicious descriptions of Guyana’s politicians. All of this done, while hiding under his mother’s dress. I have not been spared the poison of this “jumbie” commentator when he first started. I was his favourite football.

Now read on for the nature of some people in this land. I quote: “There was also a predilection for persons to accept or dismiss views based on the ethnicity of the author. This fact was another consideration in the decision to use a non-de plume for the Peeping Tom column. By putting on a mask of anonymity, the reader is not influenced by ethnicity.”

If in Guyana, people primarily react to situations and citizens based on ethnic instincts, then one is to assume that lawyers, doctors and contactors would only get patronage from people who share their ethnic heritage. That of course has never, is not, will never be the reality in Guyana.

“Tom” went on to state that in Guyana, “there is a predisposition in Guyana for some persons to avoid addressing issues and instead attack the messengers.” But there is no explanation as to why the messenger cannot reply or fight back. And if the messenger cannot fight back then why is the messenger writing in the first place? The world has thousands of known newspaper and television commentators some of whom are globally popular and they are from different countries.

In the Guyana media landscape and can you pick up any printed newspaper and the online ones and you will see actual people with their image shown. They contribute to intellectual debate. One may not agree with their interpretations and analyses. In fact, one may hate their viewpoints. But others welcome what is inside their heads and a climate of debate is preserved.

It is morally outrageous to be attacking public figures and doing so for 25 years hiding under the dress of one’s mother. I hate to think that modern civilisation can muster an argument in support of that moral degeneracy. Of late, “Tom” has been pushing the potential of his boss, Glenn Lall as a presidential candidate. Maybe in 2025 he will finally come out from under the dress and be Mr. Lall’s campaign manager.