GHK Lall’s “EPA Director, Parsram” piece is purposeless

Dear Editor,
I am writing to offer a candid analytical evaluation of GHK Lall’s recent column in Kaieteur News, titled “EPA Director, Parsram.” When evaluating any opinion piece, it is critical to distinguish between essential arguments and mere rhetorical style. An analysis of this 650-word column reveals that approximately 75% of the text consists of stylistic filler, sarcasm, and theatrical commentary rather than core factual information—making it a definitive waste of time, space, and effort. Put simply, it is all ‘talk and no evidence.’
It is fair to say that Mr. Lall’s writing leans heavily into the lexiphanic, resulting in a highly logomaniacal output. From both a logical and journalistic perspective, the article is completely void of empirical or verifiable evidence to support its severe accusations. Rather than offering investigative reporting, the piece firmly belongs to the genre of speculative political commentary.
The tommyrot, as expected, is quite high-sounding, but intellectually empty, as it fundamentally lacks evidence for several key reasons:
First, Lall is relying on his ‘Unverified Assertions and Speculation.’ He wistfully alleges corrupt “arrangements with political gatekeepers” and claims that the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) function merely as a “rubber stamp.” Mind you, the gravity of these claims poses great danger. Yet he cites no specific documents, transactions, dates, recorded instances, or witnesses to prove such backroom deals exist.
Secondly, he boringly makes use of cliched Rhetorical Questions Instead of dealing in Facts.’ I note that rather than proving the EAB is compromised, Lall relies on loaded questions, asking, “When has the EAB gone against Guyana’s Environmental Protection Agency?” In basic logic, a loaded question cannot substitute for empirical evidence. One must ask: wherein lies his academia?
Finally, GHK insinuates ‘Guilt by Association’ as he references a past event involving a judge as a “warning” to other officials. He uses this past situation to insinuate how current officials will behave, rather than offering actual proof of contemporary wrongdoing regarding the uranium project.
Ultimately, instead of an evidence-based report, the column is a rhetorical argument built entirely on a systemic assumption. Because the author assumes the state apparatus is inherently captured by foreign and political interests, every action taken by the EPA Director is viewed through a single lens of sarcasm, cynicism, and hyperbole (such as “invading hordes”). This is an infantile at work.
Consequently, the article fails to provide a factual foundation to legally or logically substantiate its claims. Rather than reflecting genuine public cynicism or constructive political dissent, it serves as little more than a self-indulgent exercise for the author.

Sincerely,
Hargesh B. Singh