Dear Editor,
The recent missive by Patricia Persaud regarding the Leader of the Opposition’s (LOO) maiden parliamentary address on February 06, 2026, is a masterclass in the very “deception and misdirection” she claims to despise. By leaning on tired tropes and personal vitriol, she attempts to bury a simple truth: you cannot discredit a message simply by assassinating the character of the messenger.
Persaud dismisses the LOO as “out of depth,” yet she ignores the democratic weight behind his podium. The 109,000 voters who placed their trust in We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) did not do so because of “sound bites.” They did so because the governing party’s narrative of a “booming Guyana” feels increasingly like a fairy tale to those living on the ground. When the LOO critiques the budget, he isn’t speaking in a vacuum; he is the conduit for a massive portion of the population that feels the “trickle-down” has dried up before reaching their pockets.
The crux of Persaud’s argument is a convenient smoke screen—that a 9% pay rise for public servants exists on paper—-is technically true but intellectually dishonest.
- The Cost of Living Crisis: In an economy with Guyana’s current velocity, a 9% increase is not an “upliftment”; it is a desperate attempt to keep pace with soaring inflation.
- The Comparison: While previous Leaders of the Opposition may have focused on partisan bickering, this address was a surgical strike on the inequity of distribution. To claim the ordinary man is “uplifted” by future promises of gas-to-energy while they struggle with current food prices is the height of political gaslighting.
Engaging in selective outrage and historical revisionism ; Persaud’s defense of Minister Gail Teixeira as a “holy cow” of Guyanese politics conveniently forgets that in a healthy democracy, seniority does not grant immunity from scrutiny. To label the LOO’s challenges as “degenerate” is a tactical move to avoid discussing the substance of his critique regarding governance and accountability.
Furthermore, invoking the “defunct AFC” is a reach. This LOO represents a new, pragmatic political entity that refuses to play by the old rules of the “Big Two” status quo. Comparing his inaugural address to those of the past reveals a leader who is less interested in parliamentary pageantry and more focused on the auditable outcomes of oil wealth.
If they think that the LOO is really a “paper tiger” or “out at sea,” then why would it be necessary for the government’s defenders to spend so much ink and effort attacking his DNA or his legal hurdles in the United States—matters that have zero bearing on whether a Guyanese mother can afford milk today.
The duplicity is clear: when you cannot argue with the math, you argue with the man. When you cannot defend the budget’s gaps, you attack the speaker’s credentials.
Patricia Persaud urges us to be “readers and leaders.” We suggest she takes her own advice. Read the room, Patricia. The “ordinary people” you speak for are the ones nodding along to the LOO’s address, not because they like the man, but because they recognize the truth in his message and are simply tired of the empty rhetoric.
Attacking the mirror won’t change the reflection. It’s time the government stopped looking for “misfits” and started looking at the mounting dissatisfaction of the people they claim to serve
Respectfully,
Hemdutt Kumar
