Making an issue where there is none

Dear Editor,
Google Alert made me aware that one Pushpa Jagnandan wrote a letter to your newspaper. She was very kind to say that I was “one of the best Education Ministers Guyana has had in recent times and that many citizens across the country were, to a great extent, satisfied with the work she did to strengthen our education system.” I thank her for this kind acknowledgement.
There were, however, several inaccuracies in the missive, and I have learnt not to leave those on the record. Firstly, my commentary to which the letter writer refers on the social media platform had nothing to do with any video of children dancing. The comment/post was scheduled on the platform (something FaceBook allows and a feature I frequently use) long before any video was available to the public and is the kind of advice I have repeatedly given and commentary I have repeatedly made both while in Government and while in opposition. A cursory glance at my page would show such evidence.
Secondly, I kindly ask Ms Jagnandan to show me where I condoned any words of Baby Skello. Condemning the denial of bail to someone for a bailable offence and condoning the words of Skello are two entirely different issues. Given that this ought not to be too hard to understand, anyone who suggests otherwise may fairly be said to be out to make mischief.
To be clear, and to help Ms Jagnandan understand her carelessly made inaccurate statement, on May 9, 2025, I was one of the first to publicly state, “I stand with the Hindu community unreservedly in condemning the idiotic mumblings by some Baby Skello. The ‘singer’s’ apparent explanation (which he offered, it appears, with a view to absolving him of any wrongdoing) worries me more.
He says he was speaking of someone’s mother and not Mother Latchmi. And I’m here wondering when and who allowed him to think ‘singing’ anything so crass and crude and abusive would be acceptable. Are we listening to crap? And then complaining when it goes too far? How is that music? We have the power to censor artists ourselves. Not by law. (And I don’t believe in state censorship.) But by consciously deciding not to listen, buy and/or in any other way support their brand and products.”
On the issues of limits and boundaries on art forms, I think we can all fairly agree on what children should and should not do, should and should not be exposed to, and should and should not engage in. And I have made my positions on those clear too many times for anyone paying attention to my page to claim to be unaware. I have learnt, however, that merely laying down the law is hardly going to bring about compliance; hence my appeal to children, parents and teachers to have conscious talks, set rules and consider consequences. I invite Ms Jagnadan to find issue with those pleas.
However, for her to boldly state generally that there are limits on art forms is a slippery slope. Whose limits? What is tolerated and embraced by Ms Jagnandan may well offend many, and what offends Ms Jagnandan may well be seen as necessary to bring about change. Which spoken word must we eschew? And who decides that? Which dance will we shut down and ban, and who decides that? Which morals, when breached, should we shun women for, and to which should we turn a blind eye? And who decides that?
It is clear that Ms Jagnandan was grasping to make an issue where there was none when she tried to make a moral issue of my public plea for parents to speak to their children about what is appropriate behaviour at school parties, for teachers to set pre-party rules and for children to be conscious of their actions. To make that “reach”, she was forced to inject untruths. And that is unbecoming.
I wish Ms Jagnandan and her neighbour the very best for the Christmas holidays.

Yours sincerely,
Priya Manickchand