Faculty of Social Sciences not planning a debate
By STABROEK STAFF | LETTERS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
Dear Editor,
I write in relation to a news item, ‘Ramotar shuns UG Workers’ Union organized debate‘ (SN, Sep 14) The union apologizes for a mistake that took place during the typing of the press release. Mr Robert Persaud’s response was printed on the PPP’s letterhead but the letter was contained in an envelope that carried the ministry’s letterhead. It was delivered in a vehicle marked, ‘Ministry of Agriculture‘ and handed in person by a Ministry of Agriculture employee who stated that he was from that ministry.
As for the Minister declining the invitation, I speak now in my capacity as a member of the Faculty of Social Sciences. The union would know what is being done in that faculty since its Vice-Chairman (me) works in that faculty. I am not aware that the Faculty of Social Sciences is planning a presidential debate. I am typing this letter on Wednesday after making the relevant inquiries and the Faculty of Social Sciences is not in the planning stage of any presidential debate. I speak for the union when I say that Mr Ramotar is deliberately confusing a discussion he had with a single lecturer to talk to his students with a presidential exchange being planned by the union. The lecturer’s format is a million miles away from what a debate is. The lecturer has told the union’s Vice-Chairman that his format is not one of a debate.
I believe Mr Ramotar knows this. I speak in my personal capacity when I say that Mr Ramotar is avoiding the traditional engagement that takes place at UG on every occasion of a national election. The last one was held without the participation of Mr Jagdeo.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
Source
By STABROEK STAFF | LETTERS | THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
Dear Editor,
I write in relation to a news item, ‘Ramotar shuns UG Workers’ Union organized debate‘ (SN, Sep 14) The union apologizes for a mistake that took place during the typing of the press release. Mr Robert Persaud’s response was printed on the PPP’s letterhead but the letter was contained in an envelope that carried the ministry’s letterhead. It was delivered in a vehicle marked, ‘Ministry of Agriculture‘ and handed in person by a Ministry of Agriculture employee who stated that he was from that ministry.
As for the Minister declining the invitation, I speak now in my capacity as a member of the Faculty of Social Sciences. The union would know what is being done in that faculty since its Vice-Chairman (me) works in that faculty. I am not aware that the Faculty of Social Sciences is planning a presidential debate. I am typing this letter on Wednesday after making the relevant inquiries and the Faculty of Social Sciences is not in the planning stage of any presidential debate. I speak for the union when I say that Mr Ramotar is deliberately confusing a discussion he had with a single lecturer to talk to his students with a presidential exchange being planned by the union. The lecturer’s format is a million miles away from what a debate is. The lecturer has told the union’s Vice-Chairman that his format is not one of a debate.
I believe Mr Ramotar knows this. I speak in my personal capacity when I say that Mr Ramotar is avoiding the traditional engagement that takes place at UG on every occasion of a national election. The last one was held without the participation of Mr Jagdeo.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
Source