Dear Editor
Please allow me to respond to Dr. David Hind’s request as presented in his letter “WPA calls on Dr. Persaud to address Kwayana’s question” (SN, 15/7/2023). I am more than happy to accept the WPA’s request. My response is presented in three points.
Firstly, in his letter the WPA Elder (Mr. Kwayana) asked – “Were it not for the deposits of oil, which have been exclusively Guyana’s patrimony and possession, placed at the disposal of these self-styled investors, why would they be here?” (SN 13/7/2023). Here is my answer. How did Mr. Kwayana, the WPA, and Guyanese come to know that there is oil where the oil was found, in what commercial quantities, of what quality, and in what recoverable form? Here is some advice in advance. Any answer such as “we always knew there was oil there” is not acceptable.

Apart from Dr. Clive Thomas, the WPA is not known for having any economists, or a deep bench of business people. Most of what comes out of the WPA is old-fashioned ideology from the 1970s and I respectfully say that Mr. Kwayana’s question is a standardised expression of that ‘mentality’. Worse yet, it is a form of dogmatic Marxism combined with strands of Chavez-style populism. As used here, populism means making promises to the masses that are not feasible, and that always fail. I venture to say that the WPA are economic populists.

Hinds also states the following – “[s]ince Dr. Persaud weighs in on the matter, one expects him to either agree with or refute Kwayana’s contention.” Let me very respectfully say that from a strictly scholarly point of view, Mr. Kwayana’s question is not “falsifiable” in the Popperian sense (after Karl Popper). Falsification requires a hypothesis, and Mr. Kwayana did not present one. His statement is that we have oil, and that Sir, is not a hypothesis.

Secondly, David Hinds attempts to chide me for disrespecting Mr. Kwayana while denying the same. Here he is – “…while we respect Persaud’s right to engage what Mr. Kwayana writes, we take umbrage to his attempt to lecture our Elder. Kwayana is not beyond reproach. But he did not give almost eighty years of service to our country in multiple spheres of life to be subjected to attempts at disrespect by persons who are in the business of propaganda” (SN 7/15/2023).

I do not know why my disagreement with Mr. Kwayana amounts to disrespecting him. Mr. Kwayana’s service is well known, but his statement that foreign investors are like Otto Von Bismarck is just an unreconstructed ideological fixation, and I have no apologies for saying so.

Thirdly, the WPA wants me to ask two other newspapers to publish letters from “decorators” of the PPPC administration. I do so now, and without any reservations. Incidentally, the WPA may be interested to know that neither the Guyana Chronicle nor Guyana Times published my response to Mr. Kwayana! Only Stabroek News did.

The exchange we are having now is productive, and this even if Dr. David Hinds still insists calling me a “propagandist” while he knows fully and well that I am a full professor at an R2 university (now emeritus) with an international scholarly reputation. Who is disrespecting whom bro?
Sincerely,
Dr. Randolph Persaud