Officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have said they have received no official complaints from two Guyanese who reported unfair treatment at the hands of Barbadian Immigration authorities.
Speaking with this newspaper last Monday, an official of the Foreign Affairs Ministry said that the Ministry noticed an article in this newspaper about the men’s plights.
“They have to lodge an official complaint before we can take up the matter officially,” a source at the Protocol office at the Ministry told this newspaper.
The two men, 36-year-old Deonarine Persaud, a Canadian citizen, and Bartica businessman Nizam Kassim, 49, were detained at the Grantley Adams International Airport in Barbados two weeks ago, after they were accused of travelling with false documents.
The men were on their way to Canada to attend a funeral when they were intercepted by the Bajan authorities.
Jaipersaud was travelling on his Canadian passport while Kassim, who was on his third visit to Canada, was in possession of a valid 10-year Canadian visa.
Nazim kassim (left) and Deonarine Jaipersaud shortly after they returned to Guyana.
The men told this newspaper that, upon arrival in Barbados, they checked in and their passports were examined and found to be okay.
They were given a boarding pass and told to check back later with a view to boarding an Air Canada flight to their destination.
“We showed up at the gate to board the flight and the airline representative called us out of the line and took our passports and told us that we cannot go on the flight,” Jaipersaud told this newspaper.
The two men were then handed over to the Barbados Immigration officials at the Grantley Adams International Airport, who accused them of travelling on falsified travel documents.
“I told them that I am a Canadian citizen, and even produced my health card, social security card, and my driver’s licence, but they paid no mind,” the Canadian citizen said.
According to Jaipersaud, the Immigration officer enquired from him where he had bought his Canadian passport, since they believed that it was forged.
“They said that the jail term is 20 years, and if I tell them where I bought the passport from, they will only give me 10 years. I challenged them to jail me for 20 years, since I knew my passport was legal,” Jaipersaud declared.
He was, nevertheless, ordered to sit on a bench, while the Barbadian Immigration officials interviewed his colleague, Kassim.
He, too, was asked where he had bought his passport, and when he replied that it was a legitimate document, the Immigration officer told him, “Talk to me properly”.
After that, the two men claimed, additional harassment was meted out to them, after they were placed in a cell at the airport.
They were denied telephone calls, and the Barbadian officials even refused to secure meals and water for them, although they were willing to purchase things themselves.
“They didn’t even want us to bathe or brush or teeth. We told them about the kidnappings in Guyana and about the need to inform our families of our whereabouts and they refused to pay any attention to us,” Kassim told Kaieteur News.
When the men demanded to know what they were being held for, the Immigration officials did not bother to explain, despite the intervention of a Barbadian attorney.
“They treated us like real pigs. They really hate us (Guyanese),” Kassim said.
The men related that, to make matters worse, the Barbadian Immigration Authorities adopted a different approach to their nationals who were also in custody at the same location.
“One man who is a Barbadian told us that he had sold his passport in Guyana for $250,000 and he was afforded all the courtesies that a detained person should have. But they kept telling us that they did not want to hear anything. We were little dogs,” Kassim lamented.
Jaipersaud, who is scheduled to return to Canada soon, said he will lodge a formal complaint with the Canadian High Commission in Guyana.
They claimed that, apart from Guyanese, several other Caribbean nationals were harassed during the time they were in custody.
Kassim showed this newspaper signs of a rash on his abdomen, which he claimed came as a result of the deplorable conditions in which they were held.
The fact that the men were not charged indicates that their documents were eventually found to be legitimate.
An initial call was made by this newspaper to the Barbados Immigration Office, but no one could provide any information on the incident.
The person who answered the phone advised that this newspaper call back later in the day at a time when the office would have been closed.
A second call was made to the Chief Immigration Officer, Gilbert Greaves, but after waiting for close to 15 minutes, a person purporting to be his secretary related that he was busy and advised another effort be made today.
Barbadian Immigration has, over the years, been very harsh on especially Guyanese, most of whom travel to the island to escape economic hardship in their homeland.
And despite meetings between the Governments of the two CARICOM countries, the situation has reportedly worsened.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
We must not forget the sufferings under the PNC
We must not forget the sufferings under the PNC
I am a strong believer in putting the past behind us and move ahead as we say life goes on. But we must not forget the sufferings we endured in this country under successive PNC governments.
Today many letter writers including myself make our own assumptions and opinions regarding issues that need addressing or maybe just a commentary.
Many letter writers seem extremely angry at the current administration and are fanning hatred amongst the populace.
When will this all end? When will people move this country ahead and stop the undemocratic bashing?
Yes, I may sound like a broken record but it needs repeating until the message gets across loud and clear.
Why are there so much hatred and disagreement with the PPP/Civic government that was democratically elected by a landslide? Many will either disagree or agree with this comment but if every election were held free and fair in Guyana during the twenty-six odd years of PNC dictatorship, the PPP would have won every one.
Why, when there were international observers in 1992, the PPP/C won those elections and all others that followed?
The PPP never rigged an election as their predecessors did during their time in power.
The PNC brought this country down to the poorest nation in the western hemisphere, unemployment was at a record high, they opened up the KSI shopping complex where party faithfuls and their friends were fully supplied with food items, while other Guyanese were forced to line up for hours just to obtain a few basic food items.
Banning of basic necessities was the order of the day in those times when the “Kabaka” was ruling supreme.
Potable water shortages, extended periods of black outs, broken roadways, no public transportation, were only some of the woes the Guyanese people faced in those days.
I am certain the Guyanese people would not like to see a return of those days.
How many demonstrations were allowed during the PNC regime? Freedom of expression was nonexistent during the days of the PNC and no one was allowed to vent his or her frustration.
These are important points the people need to know before making foolish statements.
AYUBE KHAN
Toronto Canada
I am a strong believer in putting the past behind us and move ahead as we say life goes on. But we must not forget the sufferings we endured in this country under successive PNC governments.
Today many letter writers including myself make our own assumptions and opinions regarding issues that need addressing or maybe just a commentary.
Many letter writers seem extremely angry at the current administration and are fanning hatred amongst the populace.
When will this all end? When will people move this country ahead and stop the undemocratic bashing?
Yes, I may sound like a broken record but it needs repeating until the message gets across loud and clear.
Why are there so much hatred and disagreement with the PPP/Civic government that was democratically elected by a landslide? Many will either disagree or agree with this comment but if every election were held free and fair in Guyana during the twenty-six odd years of PNC dictatorship, the PPP would have won every one.
Why, when there were international observers in 1992, the PPP/C won those elections and all others that followed?
The PPP never rigged an election as their predecessors did during their time in power.
The PNC brought this country down to the poorest nation in the western hemisphere, unemployment was at a record high, they opened up the KSI shopping complex where party faithfuls and their friends were fully supplied with food items, while other Guyanese were forced to line up for hours just to obtain a few basic food items.
Banning of basic necessities was the order of the day in those times when the “Kabaka” was ruling supreme.
Potable water shortages, extended periods of black outs, broken roadways, no public transportation, were only some of the woes the Guyanese people faced in those days.
I am certain the Guyanese people would not like to see a return of those days.
How many demonstrations were allowed during the PNC regime? Freedom of expression was nonexistent during the days of the PNC and no one was allowed to vent his or her frustration.
These are important points the people need to know before making foolish statements.
AYUBE KHAN
Toronto Canada
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Where were they when dictator BURNHAM was brutalizing Guyanese?
Where were all these voices when the PNC was
committing excesses?
Dear Editor,
In 1968, the PNC ‘won’ 55 per cent of the votes cast through extensive fraud by a padded voters’ list. In the 1973 elections, the PNC told the world that it made a “breakthrough” for over two-thirds of the Guyanese electorate.
In 1973, fraud was expanded and a new dimension was added: army intervention, the seizure and tampering with ballot boxes.
Similarly, in those days, the PNC regime resorted not only to attacking those who criticise it, but also putting pressure on those who were courageous enough to expose and demonstrate the electoral fraud.
It had re-enacted the fascist National Security Act, which permits detention without trial and violations of the rule of law.
Without rigging, the PNC could not have won an election. By placing restrictions on the importation of newsprint and printing equipment, the PNC regime had severely curtailed the freedom of the press.
During the period May 1972 to May 1973, the Mirror newspaper was forced to close down three times for a total of two months because of the Government’s refusal and delay in granting licences for the importation of newsprint. Where were these voices then?
Even worse took place after the announcement of the date of elections. In early June, 1973, the Customs Department seized a consignment of newsprint for the Mirror.
It was not until strong pressure and condemnation from many quarters both inside and outside Guyana took place that the Government finally released the newsprint.
The PNC Government was trying to close down the Mirror newspaper, a paper closely associated with the People’s Progressive Party, which has for years been a severe critic of the PNC Government, yet no one protested outside the Office of the President in solidarity with the PPP.
Criticism of the Government for this move came from the Commonwealth Press Association which condemned the control of newsprint as a form of press control.
Seventeen-year-old Jagan Ramessar and 43-year-old Jack Bhola Nauth (Parmanand), the father of five, were shot dead at No.64 Village, Corentyne on election day by the Police. Where were CN Sharma and his friends then?
The rebroadcast three times of someone calling for the killing of the President cannot be condoned in any civilised country, and Mr. CN Sharma is responsible for any programme aired on his channel; the bottom line, he is the owner.
Mr. Robert Corbin is trying to exploit the situation because he is unpopular among his party comrades, and he should let good sense and judgment prevail and do the honourable thing.
Mohamed Khan
Discipline must be enforced on the airwaves
Dear Editor
The verdict is out and CNS-Channel Six is off the air.
I must say that discipline is lacking on the airwaves in Guyana and thus I fully agree with the decision of the Government. No media house must be allowed to publish or broadcast irresponsible statements that cannot be validated and are of a threatening nature.
Guyana has enough violence to now be faced with verbal TV violence.
I would like to empathise with Mr. Sharma, since he has done a service to Guyana by offering the “Man In The Street” an outlet in expressing themselves on the programme “The Voice of the People”. However, freedom of the press comes with a cost – the cost of ensuring that the published or broadcasted material is free of slander, free of libel and free of threats. I would like to encourage Mr. Sharma to invest urgently in a delaying mechanism to edit out the audio of irresponsible statements so that he can continue to serve the Guyanese people in a lawful manner.
Sasenarine Singh
President Jagdeo should not reconsider the action
taken against CNS Channel 6
Dear Editor,
I agree with Ramjattan that freedom of the press/expression is the lifeblood of any liberal constitutional democracy; but that notwithstanding, I am not aware that such freedom gives one the right to libel, slander, threaten, denigrate, malign, or ridicule people.
Similarly, freedom of movement does not give one the right to trespass, riot or loot.
Sharma is noted for his cynicism against public officials, for whom he has shown an abundance of disrespect, and this is reflected in his continuous re-broadcast of distasteful comments against members of the public, especially Government ministers.
Maybe people do not take him seriously in professional journalism, but continuously and knowingly re-broadcasting a threat to kill the President shows the contempt this man has for authority.
Of course, it is expected that the usual cabal of dissenters will support him, since this same cabal would even accuse the Government of farting if there is a bad smell in Georgetown.
With respect to the employees, they should be paid a severance pay, since the period of four months will create some hardship, and they should not be made to suffer because of Sharma’s ignorance.
The President should not reconsider his decision.
D. Sookdeo
committing excesses?
Dear Editor,
In 1968, the PNC ‘won’ 55 per cent of the votes cast through extensive fraud by a padded voters’ list. In the 1973 elections, the PNC told the world that it made a “breakthrough” for over two-thirds of the Guyanese electorate.
In 1973, fraud was expanded and a new dimension was added: army intervention, the seizure and tampering with ballot boxes.
Similarly, in those days, the PNC regime resorted not only to attacking those who criticise it, but also putting pressure on those who were courageous enough to expose and demonstrate the electoral fraud.
It had re-enacted the fascist National Security Act, which permits detention without trial and violations of the rule of law.
Without rigging, the PNC could not have won an election. By placing restrictions on the importation of newsprint and printing equipment, the PNC regime had severely curtailed the freedom of the press.
During the period May 1972 to May 1973, the Mirror newspaper was forced to close down three times for a total of two months because of the Government’s refusal and delay in granting licences for the importation of newsprint. Where were these voices then?
Even worse took place after the announcement of the date of elections. In early June, 1973, the Customs Department seized a consignment of newsprint for the Mirror.
It was not until strong pressure and condemnation from many quarters both inside and outside Guyana took place that the Government finally released the newsprint.
The PNC Government was trying to close down the Mirror newspaper, a paper closely associated with the People’s Progressive Party, which has for years been a severe critic of the PNC Government, yet no one protested outside the Office of the President in solidarity with the PPP.
Criticism of the Government for this move came from the Commonwealth Press Association which condemned the control of newsprint as a form of press control.
Seventeen-year-old Jagan Ramessar and 43-year-old Jack Bhola Nauth (Parmanand), the father of five, were shot dead at No.64 Village, Corentyne on election day by the Police. Where were CN Sharma and his friends then?
The rebroadcast three times of someone calling for the killing of the President cannot be condoned in any civilised country, and Mr. CN Sharma is responsible for any programme aired on his channel; the bottom line, he is the owner.
Mr. Robert Corbin is trying to exploit the situation because he is unpopular among his party comrades, and he should let good sense and judgment prevail and do the honourable thing.
Mohamed Khan
Discipline must be enforced on the airwaves
Dear Editor
The verdict is out and CNS-Channel Six is off the air.
I must say that discipline is lacking on the airwaves in Guyana and thus I fully agree with the decision of the Government. No media house must be allowed to publish or broadcast irresponsible statements that cannot be validated and are of a threatening nature.
Guyana has enough violence to now be faced with verbal TV violence.
I would like to empathise with Mr. Sharma, since he has done a service to Guyana by offering the “Man In The Street” an outlet in expressing themselves on the programme “The Voice of the People”. However, freedom of the press comes with a cost – the cost of ensuring that the published or broadcasted material is free of slander, free of libel and free of threats. I would like to encourage Mr. Sharma to invest urgently in a delaying mechanism to edit out the audio of irresponsible statements so that he can continue to serve the Guyanese people in a lawful manner.
Sasenarine Singh
President Jagdeo should not reconsider the action
taken against CNS Channel 6
Dear Editor,
I agree with Ramjattan that freedom of the press/expression is the lifeblood of any liberal constitutional democracy; but that notwithstanding, I am not aware that such freedom gives one the right to libel, slander, threaten, denigrate, malign, or ridicule people.
Similarly, freedom of movement does not give one the right to trespass, riot or loot.
Sharma is noted for his cynicism against public officials, for whom he has shown an abundance of disrespect, and this is reflected in his continuous re-broadcast of distasteful comments against members of the public, especially Government ministers.
Maybe people do not take him seriously in professional journalism, but continuously and knowingly re-broadcasting a threat to kill the President shows the contempt this man has for authority.
Of course, it is expected that the usual cabal of dissenters will support him, since this same cabal would even accuse the Government of farting if there is a bad smell in Georgetown.
With respect to the employees, they should be paid a severance pay, since the period of four months will create some hardship, and they should not be made to suffer because of Sharma’s ignorance.
The President should not reconsider his decision.
D. Sookdeo
Where is marginalization?
WHERE IS MARGINALIZATION?
PART 3 - Housing
BY PREM MISIR
In 1992 when the PPP/C formed the Government, there was no national policy on housing. The 1976 PNC Administration’s slogan ‘Feed, Clothe and House the Nation’ had minimum impact on national housing needs. And the PNC regime in 1983 pulled out the housing portfolio of the Ministry of Works and Housing and placed it in the overloaded Ministry of Health and Public Welfare.
A National Housing Plan was drafted in 1986, but it was not operationalized. And the Ministry of Housing was disbanded in 1990, and its functions transferred over to the Central Housing & Planning Authority (CH&PA). In short, no national policy on housing existed in 1992, suggesting minimum political commitment to the housing sector.
The PPP/C Administration formulated a national housing policy in 1998, and created the Ministry of Housing and Water. This Ministry’s mandate is to “formulate policies in the Human Settlements and Water Sectors and to monitor the Implementation of Plans, Programmes and Projects designed to satisfy the Housing and Water needs of the population.”
Land distribution for shelter and settlement and house lot allocation are the responsibility of CH&PA which is statutorily mandated “to make provision with respect to the housing of persons of the Working Class and purposes connected therewith” (Housing Act Ch 30:20). The CH&PA has representatives from the six municipalities, the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Central Board of Health, the Private Sector, and the main Opposition Party.
The PPP/C Government implemented several land reforms that produced significant benefits. One, the GLSC, with a diversified governing Board of Directors, is an autonomous Commission and is no longer a department of the Ministry of Agriculture. It has responsibility for public land distribution, an important component of nation building. Two, tenure of state land leases rises from 25 to 50 years, enabling lessees to access bank loans and to convert to freeholds of up to 15 acres of land that had a land use for 25 years. Three, there is a national tenure regularization programme for providing titles for occupants of state lands. Four, a public lands register is now in place.
Equity and transparency in the land distribution process, enabling all Guyanese to become beneficiaries, are important principles of good governance. We now examine the data on house lot allocations to determine the implementation status of these principles.
Indians and Others received 53% and Africans 47% of house lots in the ten (10) Regions between 1993 and 2002. Indians and Others were the beneficiaries of the largest proportion of house lots in Regions 2, 5 and 6 while Africans found their largest allocations in Regions 3, 4, and 10. In fact in Region 10, Africans received almost all the house lots allocated. The Amerindian areas have benefitted from a small but growing number of house lots.
Over 70,000 house lots were distributed between 1992 and 2002. The major ethnic groups are recipients of fair proportions on the basis of their respective demographics, as evidenced by the Housing statistics. 91 housing schemes and 65 of the 120 squatter settlements received regularization status at the end of 2001. Also, there is a strategic plan to issue about 7,000 land titles per year. In March 2002, the Minister presented a White Paper in Parliament, addressing national land distribution policy for all Guyanese.
Again, the budgetary allocations in all these years from 1992 for housing embrace all ethnic groups, as attested through the neighbourhoods mentioned.
PART 3 - Housing
BY PREM MISIR
In 1992 when the PPP/C formed the Government, there was no national policy on housing. The 1976 PNC Administration’s slogan ‘Feed, Clothe and House the Nation’ had minimum impact on national housing needs. And the PNC regime in 1983 pulled out the housing portfolio of the Ministry of Works and Housing and placed it in the overloaded Ministry of Health and Public Welfare.
A National Housing Plan was drafted in 1986, but it was not operationalized. And the Ministry of Housing was disbanded in 1990, and its functions transferred over to the Central Housing & Planning Authority (CH&PA). In short, no national policy on housing existed in 1992, suggesting minimum political commitment to the housing sector.
The PPP/C Administration formulated a national housing policy in 1998, and created the Ministry of Housing and Water. This Ministry’s mandate is to “formulate policies in the Human Settlements and Water Sectors and to monitor the Implementation of Plans, Programmes and Projects designed to satisfy the Housing and Water needs of the population.”
Land distribution for shelter and settlement and house lot allocation are the responsibility of CH&PA which is statutorily mandated “to make provision with respect to the housing of persons of the Working Class and purposes connected therewith” (Housing Act Ch 30:20). The CH&PA has representatives from the six municipalities, the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Central Board of Health, the Private Sector, and the main Opposition Party.
The PPP/C Government implemented several land reforms that produced significant benefits. One, the GLSC, with a diversified governing Board of Directors, is an autonomous Commission and is no longer a department of the Ministry of Agriculture. It has responsibility for public land distribution, an important component of nation building. Two, tenure of state land leases rises from 25 to 50 years, enabling lessees to access bank loans and to convert to freeholds of up to 15 acres of land that had a land use for 25 years. Three, there is a national tenure regularization programme for providing titles for occupants of state lands. Four, a public lands register is now in place.
Equity and transparency in the land distribution process, enabling all Guyanese to become beneficiaries, are important principles of good governance. We now examine the data on house lot allocations to determine the implementation status of these principles.
Indians and Others received 53% and Africans 47% of house lots in the ten (10) Regions between 1993 and 2002. Indians and Others were the beneficiaries of the largest proportion of house lots in Regions 2, 5 and 6 while Africans found their largest allocations in Regions 3, 4, and 10. In fact in Region 10, Africans received almost all the house lots allocated. The Amerindian areas have benefitted from a small but growing number of house lots.
Over 70,000 house lots were distributed between 1992 and 2002. The major ethnic groups are recipients of fair proportions on the basis of their respective demographics, as evidenced by the Housing statistics. 91 housing schemes and 65 of the 120 squatter settlements received regularization status at the end of 2001. Also, there is a strategic plan to issue about 7,000 land titles per year. In March 2002, the Minister presented a White Paper in Parliament, addressing national land distribution policy for all Guyanese.
Again, the budgetary allocations in all these years from 1992 for housing embrace all ethnic groups, as attested through the neighbourhoods mentioned.
MEDIA--FREEDOM WITH RESPONSIBILITY
MEDIA--FREEDOM WITH RESPONSIBILITY
Violations focus on Jamaica and Guyana
By Rickey Singh
THE RIGHT TO press freedom and the wider freedom of expression is best protected by an obligation on the part of journalists and media enterprises to appreciate how indivisible are freedom and responsibility.
Over the long years of my involvement in Caribbean journalism and working relations with regional media enterprises, I have been increasingly sensitised to the twin pillars of freedom and responsibility and how well the concept serves the interest of the media profession, media enterprises and the public we seek to serve. I am grateful for the education.
I have also been exposed to the irresponsible behaviour of some media practitioners and media houses that often betray a penchant for irresponsible journalism that shows contempt for the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. :|
They are among those quick to passionately shout "denial of press freedom", or "danger to freedom of expression", when their individual/collective abuses are challenged and threats of sanctions are raised, or enforced.
Why am I engaging in such observations at this time? It relates, primarily, to two separate media developments of current interest and debates--one in Jamaica, the other in Guyana.
Both are examples of what can happen when owners/operators violate the letter and spirit of a broadcast licence to the serious hurt of private/public individuals in facilitating reckless abuse of freedom of expression by failure to ensure application of relevant regulatory mechanisms.
Jamaica examples
The first case involved the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica (BCJ) and Universal Media Company (UMC), operator of "NewsTalk 93FM" jointly owned by the University of the West Indies (Mona Campus) as majority shareholder, and Breakfast Club Limited. Managing Director of the radio station is Anthony Abrahams.
As broadcast licensee, UMC was accused by the BCJ of having committed "an extremely grave breach" of Jamaica's 'Television and Sound Broadcasting Regulations as well as the "Children's Code for Programming" in the transmission of its "NewsTalk" broadcast on January 2 last.
The highly reputable BCJ, currently headed by Dr Hopetun Dunn, a media and communication specialist, conducted an investigation into the offensive "NewsTalk" programme. The probe revealed that the programme hosted by Dr Kingsley Stewart, had indulged in an "uninterrupted monologue" lasting in excess of half an hour, laced with "highly derogatory, shameful, shocking and improper language" against a female administration staff member of the UWI.
While in the process of considering recommended sanction, the UMC's "NewsTalk" call-in programme, again with Stewart as host, further complicated the problem of violations of its broadcast license, by permitting the transmission of "racial slurs and derogatory remarks about persons of Indian descent (in Jamaica)..."
The regulations prohibit transmission of "any statement or comment upon race, colour, creed, religion or sex of any person which is abusive or derogatory. It also violated the 'Children's Code for Programming' with the use of prohibited language..."
Significantly, as noted by Chairman Dunn, it was only after the Commission had made recommendations for suspension of the UMC's licence, unless appropriate disciplinary action and remedial measures, including internal relevant internal controls, were pursued, that some efforts were made for compliance. There are provisions for suspension of a licence for up to three months, if necessary.
However, following the intervention by Minister of Information, Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, the path to recommended suspension of licence was avoided, based on an understanding that disciplinary action, remedial measures and effective management oversight will be undertaken. For a start, Dr Stewart was not hosting the "NewsTalk" call-in programme-- at the time of writing.
Guyana scenario
While Jamaicans were focused on the BCJ's case against UMC's violations of its broadcast licence, controversies were spreading over the decision last week by Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo (who holds responsibility for information and communication), to suspend for four months the operational licence of the privately-owned television station, "CNS Channel 6".
The core of the dispute was that the station, owned and operated by Chandra Narine Sharma, a businessman, opposition politician and host of a regular "Voice of the People" call-in programme, had transmitted a broadcast on February 21 that contained criminal incitement, specifically against President Jagdeo. Worse, it was thrice repeated without any editing of the offensive remarks, in particular a threat to "kill Jagdeo".
The offensive broadcast by CNS Channel 6---one of some dozen television stations operating in an unregulated, wild-west atmosphere in Guyana--in direct contrast to what obtains in Jamaica--had touched a very raw nerve with one female caller making the threat: "I am going to kill (President) Jagdeo if anything is going to happen to my family..."
That programme was first broadcast at a time of widespread tension and fear against the backdrop of the massacres at Lusignan and Bartica that sent President Jagdeo engaging in public meetings with appeals for peace and assurances of firm actions against armed criminals.
Having offered an apology for the offensive threat to "kill", following an intervention by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB)--which has neither the stature nor power of a regulated body like the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica--Sharma's station was to repeat, unedited, the controversial programme--THRICE, only to offer some clumsy excuses, including blaming staffers for errors made.
In the circumstances, and given the gravity of the threat to "kill" the President, Sharma was invited, first by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, to show cause why his broadcast licence should not be suspended.
When he failed to show up for the meeting with Luncheon, another was arranged with President Jagdeo. By then Sharma had moved with his lawyers to the court to prevent the contemplated suspension sanction.
As Head of Government and holding responsibility for information and communication, Jagdeo felt there was really no remorse by CNS 6 for the transgression that had taken place with the threat to commit a criminal act. Therefore, he suspended the station's licence for four months.
There is no doubt about the recklessness on the part of CNS 6 and the politics being played out in a country that stands in great need for appreciation of the concept of media freedom with responsibility.
Yet, the four-month suspension seems very harsh--even for a licensee like Sharma, noted for unpredictable behaviour. It deserves to be revisited. The suspension case has reached the High Court and the Attorney General, Doodnauth Singh, is scheduled to make a written submission to the presiding judge by Wednesday.
Whatever the outcome of the CNS 6 suspension issue, it is evident that, as in the case involving "NewsTalk 93FM" in Jamaica, there are lessons to be learnt by the broadcast media and all advocates of freedom of expression to have a regulated environment that respects the necessity to blend freedom with responsibility.
Violations focus on Jamaica and Guyana
By Rickey Singh
THE RIGHT TO press freedom and the wider freedom of expression is best protected by an obligation on the part of journalists and media enterprises to appreciate how indivisible are freedom and responsibility.
Over the long years of my involvement in Caribbean journalism and working relations with regional media enterprises, I have been increasingly sensitised to the twin pillars of freedom and responsibility and how well the concept serves the interest of the media profession, media enterprises and the public we seek to serve. I am grateful for the education.
I have also been exposed to the irresponsible behaviour of some media practitioners and media houses that often betray a penchant for irresponsible journalism that shows contempt for the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. :|
They are among those quick to passionately shout "denial of press freedom", or "danger to freedom of expression", when their individual/collective abuses are challenged and threats of sanctions are raised, or enforced.
Why am I engaging in such observations at this time? It relates, primarily, to two separate media developments of current interest and debates--one in Jamaica, the other in Guyana.
Both are examples of what can happen when owners/operators violate the letter and spirit of a broadcast licence to the serious hurt of private/public individuals in facilitating reckless abuse of freedom of expression by failure to ensure application of relevant regulatory mechanisms.
Jamaica examples
The first case involved the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica (BCJ) and Universal Media Company (UMC), operator of "NewsTalk 93FM" jointly owned by the University of the West Indies (Mona Campus) as majority shareholder, and Breakfast Club Limited. Managing Director of the radio station is Anthony Abrahams.
As broadcast licensee, UMC was accused by the BCJ of having committed "an extremely grave breach" of Jamaica's 'Television and Sound Broadcasting Regulations as well as the "Children's Code for Programming" in the transmission of its "NewsTalk" broadcast on January 2 last.
The highly reputable BCJ, currently headed by Dr Hopetun Dunn, a media and communication specialist, conducted an investigation into the offensive "NewsTalk" programme. The probe revealed that the programme hosted by Dr Kingsley Stewart, had indulged in an "uninterrupted monologue" lasting in excess of half an hour, laced with "highly derogatory, shameful, shocking and improper language" against a female administration staff member of the UWI.
While in the process of considering recommended sanction, the UMC's "NewsTalk" call-in programme, again with Stewart as host, further complicated the problem of violations of its broadcast license, by permitting the transmission of "racial slurs and derogatory remarks about persons of Indian descent (in Jamaica)..."
The regulations prohibit transmission of "any statement or comment upon race, colour, creed, religion or sex of any person which is abusive or derogatory. It also violated the 'Children's Code for Programming' with the use of prohibited language..."
Significantly, as noted by Chairman Dunn, it was only after the Commission had made recommendations for suspension of the UMC's licence, unless appropriate disciplinary action and remedial measures, including internal relevant internal controls, were pursued, that some efforts were made for compliance. There are provisions for suspension of a licence for up to three months, if necessary.
However, following the intervention by Minister of Information, Olivia 'Babsy' Grange, the path to recommended suspension of licence was avoided, based on an understanding that disciplinary action, remedial measures and effective management oversight will be undertaken. For a start, Dr Stewart was not hosting the "NewsTalk" call-in programme-- at the time of writing.
Guyana scenario
While Jamaicans were focused on the BCJ's case against UMC's violations of its broadcast licence, controversies were spreading over the decision last week by Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo (who holds responsibility for information and communication), to suspend for four months the operational licence of the privately-owned television station, "CNS Channel 6".
The core of the dispute was that the station, owned and operated by Chandra Narine Sharma, a businessman, opposition politician and host of a regular "Voice of the People" call-in programme, had transmitted a broadcast on February 21 that contained criminal incitement, specifically against President Jagdeo. Worse, it was thrice repeated without any editing of the offensive remarks, in particular a threat to "kill Jagdeo".
The offensive broadcast by CNS Channel 6---one of some dozen television stations operating in an unregulated, wild-west atmosphere in Guyana--in direct contrast to what obtains in Jamaica--had touched a very raw nerve with one female caller making the threat: "I am going to kill (President) Jagdeo if anything is going to happen to my family..."
That programme was first broadcast at a time of widespread tension and fear against the backdrop of the massacres at Lusignan and Bartica that sent President Jagdeo engaging in public meetings with appeals for peace and assurances of firm actions against armed criminals.
Having offered an apology for the offensive threat to "kill", following an intervention by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB)--which has neither the stature nor power of a regulated body like the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica--Sharma's station was to repeat, unedited, the controversial programme--THRICE, only to offer some clumsy excuses, including blaming staffers for errors made.
In the circumstances, and given the gravity of the threat to "kill" the President, Sharma was invited, first by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, to show cause why his broadcast licence should not be suspended.
When he failed to show up for the meeting with Luncheon, another was arranged with President Jagdeo. By then Sharma had moved with his lawyers to the court to prevent the contemplated suspension sanction.
As Head of Government and holding responsibility for information and communication, Jagdeo felt there was really no remorse by CNS 6 for the transgression that had taken place with the threat to commit a criminal act. Therefore, he suspended the station's licence for four months.
There is no doubt about the recklessness on the part of CNS 6 and the politics being played out in a country that stands in great need for appreciation of the concept of media freedom with responsibility.
Yet, the four-month suspension seems very harsh--even for a licensee like Sharma, noted for unpredictable behaviour. It deserves to be revisited. The suspension case has reached the High Court and the Attorney General, Doodnauth Singh, is scheduled to make a written submission to the presiding judge by Wednesday.
Whatever the outcome of the CNS 6 suspension issue, it is evident that, as in the case involving "NewsTalk 93FM" in Jamaica, there are lessons to be learnt by the broadcast media and all advocates of freedom of expression to have a regulated environment that respects the necessity to blend freedom with responsibility.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
GUYANA AGRICULTURAL FORUM - June 6, 7 2008
Agriculture key to regional food crisis
- Agri Forum set for early June
By Wendella Davidson
Against the backdrop of a looming food crisis and a general threat to food security facing the region and the world at large, along with a bludgeoning food import bill, agriculture is being seen as the key in the CARICOM region.
President Bharrat Jagdeo along with, from left, CARICOM Secretary General, Edwin Carrington and Chairman of the RAIF Task Force, Mr. James Moss-Solomon, next to him, admires the poster promoting the June 6-7 Regional Agriculture Investment Forum, which they unveiled at the CARICOM Secretariat yesterday.
To this end, the CARICOM Region is signalling its intention that it is ready to do business with its renewed focus on the agriculture sector, as is emphasised in the Jagdeo Initiative which has been embraced by political leaders of the Caribbean Community.
A further heightening of this focus will be on June 6 and 7 next, when Guyana hosts a Regional Agriculture Investment Forum (RAIF), which aims at promoting agriculture business as an area for good investment and facilitating match-making between potential investors and agriculture entrepreneurs and promoters.
And, at a press conference and launching ceremony yesterday at the CARICOM Secretariat, Liliendaal, President Jagdeo, who has lead responsibility for Agriculture in CARICOM; Mr. Edwin Carrington, Secretary General, CARICOM; and Mr. James Moss-Solomon, Chairman of the Task Force on RAIF, unfurled a banner to officially launch and promote the forum.
President Jagdeo speaking at the press conference yesterday, with CARICOM Secretary General next to him
The forum seeks to attract private investors in the region and beyond who are seeking new and profitable ventures; fund managers and venture capitalists seeking to diversify their portfolios; bankers who have clients operating in the sector; and companies that are seeking strategic alliances with other businesses.
And, in remarks to a gathering of representatives of diplomatic missions in Guyana, CARICOM Secretariat staffers and media operatives, prior to the unveiling ceremony, President Jagdeo underscored the importance of agriculture in the Region, and hailed the input of the CARICOM Secretariat, the Private Sector and other organisations in helping to realise yesterday’s activity.
And speaking directly to the representatives of diplomatic missions present, he urged that they not only be involved in the up-coming forum, but also spread the message of great involvement, opportunities in the region, and the need for private sector investment in agriculture in the region.
In addition, with the early recognition that agriculture is important for the region, the question being asked is what is responsible for the soaring import bill of the region and the growing food insecurity, and why hasn’t the agriculture sector become a more competitive export industry.
The President suggested that maybe too much emphasis has been placed on other sectors such as petroleum, tourism and other services, resulting in neglect for agriculture.
It was pointed out though, that even though the sector’s contribution to the GDP region’s has shrunk, the employment ratings for agriculture remain quite high.
Reiterating the need for greater involvement from the private sector with Governments playing the role of facilitator, President Jagdeo said the time has come for the region to take advantage of existing framework to develop the sector.
And while Guyana has major possibilities for agriculture, President Jagdeo said the focus will not be on Guyana but on the entire region.
To this end, he urged that the media and missions play their part in spreading the word that the region is “ready to do business”.
Chairman of the RAIF forum, in lauding the Jagdeo Initiative, identified predictability, pre-preparation and being proactive as three key areas in the blueprint for which he publicly commended President Jagdeo for being forthright in selling the concept.
Noting that the elements which now plague the region, for example World War 1 and 2, as well as recurring cycles of man-made disasters and food shortages, all of which had happened before, Mr. Moss- Solomon said the region has nevertheless spent very little time dealing with these issues in the past.
Additionally, the region has not sought to find out how to cope, what strategies need to be developed to be forewarned.
Reminding his audience that throughout the week the regional media has been focusing on food shortages, the RAIF Task Force Chairman said President Jagdeo had been addressing the issue well over two years ago, adding that the ‘Jagdeo Initiative’ addresses the art of communication and a strategic plan.
He warned though that the region must be pro-active in implementing a plan about its own survival highlight.
Noting that the issue of food crisis is a serious matter, Secretary General Carrington urged that the region “Stand Up, Face Up and Consume.”
And alluding to the huge food import bill of the region, he said there needs to be a change in consumption habits.
He said, too, the time had come when everyone must get on board.
Government to expand lands for cultivation of feedstock crops
By Tajeram Mohabir
GOVERNMENT will allocate lands in the Mahaica /Mahaicony /Abary (MMA) scheme, and the Intermediate and Rupununi savannahs to cultivate feedstock products, particularly rice, soybean and corn, Minister of Agriculture, Robert Persaud disclosed yesterday.
The venture is part of the Ministry of Agriculture’s newly launched “Grow More” campaign which is aimed at satisfying local food demands and to cushion the impact of the steep hike in global food prices.
The campaign is also geared to reposition Guyana as the bread basket of the Caribbean, helping to alleviate their current food crises.
Persaud made the announcement at a livestock feed seminar called to assess the current state of the industry and factors affecting availability. The seminar was convened at the Guyana School of Agriculture (GSA), Mon Repos, East Coast Demerara.
The seminar sought to focus on the importance and the role of livestock feed production locally to meet present and future needs.
Against this backdrop, the awareness of the challenges facing the industry, the promotion of livestock feed alternatives and the way forward for the sector was discussed.
It was attended by farmers, top ministry officials as well as representatives from the private sector including Bounty Farms Limited, Guyana Stock Feeds Limited, the National Milling Company (NAMILCO), Maharaja Oil Mill and the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB).
According to Persaud government is awaiting proposals from investors willing to cultivate the available lands strictly for feed stock purposes.
He said a group of farmers plan to extend the cultivation of corn which they started on a small scale along the Berbice River. The minister disclosed that these farmers will be linked with manufacturers and the same will be done with for those who will undertake the soybean project.
Meanwhile, the administration is still awaiting the seed materials promised by Brazil to kick start a soybeans project here and according minister Persaud, he intends to “touch base” with that country to ascertain the status of the undertake.
FOOD:Guyana better than most; Kisson is an in tellectual pygmy
We seem to be better off than many
AS I read the newspapers of April 17, I saw two headlines that attracted my attention and encouraged me to read further – Rough Seas ahead and Rough Times ahead – Mia. Now this surely cannot augur well for the country involved which is Barbados and by extension its Caribbean counterparts.
Opposition Leader Mia Motley’s warning must be seen in a broader context of what effects the fuel hike will have on the country’s production and transportation sectors. She has indicated that the rise in prices in that tourism-based economy will lead to job losses and some suffering. Her colleague Dr Omar Davies also warned that this could threaten social stability of the island which has seen increases in chicken, rice and flour over recent weeks.
Motley has rightly projected that spending power of Barbadians will contract as they will have to spend more on the same items they are accustomed to buying.
Motley even went further to state that if there is a reduction in spending and investment these will have a negative effect on the economy.
The fact that diesel is the affected commodity says a lot which brings me to our own situation, and while I don’t praise this administration I must say that in comparison Guyanese are doing far better.
The fact that Guyana recently zero-rated diesel so as to cushion the effect of the rising prices on the consuming public tells a lot that the administration is perhaps looking into the nation’s welfare. The government has said that this move will cost the treasury some three billion dollars. It’s in times like these that Guyanese need to be appreciative because the administration could have gone the route of Barbados as oil is now trading at close to 115 United States dollars per barrel.
Now is a good time to push conservation of energy, and for people to turn to the soil to assist in self-sufficiency.
A. THOMPSON
======================
Govt. has a good record
VERY recently they were some sectors of the Guyanese society that were venting frustration just about every and anything in Guyana.
While people have rights to their opinion, to get the facts we must weigh and create a balance.
The democratically elected governments of Guyana were elected by the majority of the population and this was done very freely and openly.
First of all I am not affiliated to any party or government organizations, but Guyanese need to take a good look at their country and see where they are today compared to that of twenty six years of PNC rule.
We were at the very bottom of the list in terms of stability, economics and growth. Since the PPP/Civic took office Guyana has moved up the bracket and things are better off. Guyanese must be proud of their government for the achievements made over the years.
Take a look at Guyana today we have modern roadways, better sea defences among other things.
We were living in fear during those days. We remember the long lines for basic food items, shortages of potable water, limited electricity, non existent telephone systems and the list goes on and on.
Look around Guyana today. We see a different picture, one that tells you of a better future for all Guyanese.
How many still remember the words:” Guyana the poorest in the western hemisphere”. We are happy that those days are behind us and we can now look ahead towards working together to continue to build this beautiful country.
AYUBE KHAN
======================
Some are born great
“SOME are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” I don’t want to get carried away here, but I firmly believe that “Tiger’s” heroics in that match against Sri Lanka qualifies him to fit neatly into any or all of those categories so well articulated by Shakespeare. Here is a guy, facing the prospect of losing the match, carted the final two balls of the game for ten runs in the most authoritative fashion possible. Only legendary players can summon the will and courage, not to mention skill, to pull off a victory in the face of almost certain defeat. By achieving this phenomenal victory for his team, Shiv strode into the annals of cricketing’s greatest accomplishments like a colossus. All Guyanese and West Indians should be very proud of him.
Now that I have doled out the kudos, it’s time to hand out the “brickbats.” I was astounded by reports that Shiv left in the middle of a game to attend an awards function in Trinidad. Important as that function was, it was rude, crude, and disgusting for a player of his calibre, or any player for that matter, to display such arrogance and disrespect not only to his team mates, but more importantly to the FANS who pay to watch him play. If the circumstances are as reported, such rank indiscipline and contempt should have been met with some form of disciplinary action by the Boards. Such behaviour requires “tough love” and should have been sanctioned with heavy fines and or suspension. Respect for the game and its fans should always be paramount and are mandatory concomitants of greatness; they are not mutually exclusive! My preference would have been NOT to enjoy his heroics in that game, rather than have him perform miracles in the context of a situation where this cloud was hanging over his head.
If I missed anything in this matter, or my information is in anyway inaccurate, then it would be appreciated if the solid facts can be publicized. I would be the first to withdraw these comments and apologize for nailing my favorite player for what came across as unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of one of the greatest players of his time.
CHARLES A RAMDAS
=========================
Dangerous food situation
WE are saying that the food situation here is very critical without even looking at what is happening in other countries which are very hard hit by the same problem. I saw in the Chronicle of yesterday April, 18, that the situation is much worse in Trinidad and Tobago.
It looks as if the people in that CARICOM country are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, although they work for a lot of money. To my mind the situation there is going to explode soon if the government of that country does not implement measures to bring about some ease to the rising cost of living.
People are threatening Supermarket and shop owners because of shortages and high prices. While the people vent their anger on these business people, the restaurant owners are calling on the government to issue them with firearms.
The situation there is frightening. I know not only Trinidad, but also other CARICOM countries are facing severe food shortages and high prices. Some people are also resorting to looting food trucks in order to get food supplies.
We in Guyana are not so bad off after all. The government here is making moves to make sure that we get enough of the basic commodities at reasonable prices.
Government ministers are going all over the country, holding meetings with the various communities to discuss the food situation and food prices.
The government is also asking the people to share their advice in an attempt to help in the situation, and it seems as if the exercise is not doing too badly. The government has already taken certain steps to make sure that there is enough rice in Guyana for the people at reasonable prices.
Apart from that we have a lot of vegetables and ground provisions and fish. This puts us in a better situation that our brothers and sisters in other countries in the region.
I hope the situation in the region concerning food will improve soon.
ROHIT SINGH
======================
Kissoon lacks decorum
IN any society, particularly in the media, some level of decorum should be kept.
The “Kaieteur News” so called columnist, Mr. Fredrick Kissoon lacks this completely. I often wonder if he can appreciate what it means to be decent. It appears that he lacks morality. He is totally amoral.
His columns are mainly personal abuse on those that criticize him, or disagree with his positions.
Let me say from an intellectual point of view, Kissoon is a pygmy to most, if not all the persons he attacks. When persons like Walter Persaud or Randy Persaud etc. write one gets the impression that they are people with depth. Their letters and articles make far greater contributions to the people’s understanding of issues than Kissoon’s.
Mr. Kissoon uses the K N to spew insults on persons he cannot argue with on subjects or a particular issue.
While he attacks persons who dare to write anything favourable about Guyana particularly those who reside abroad or have resided abroad, Mr. Kissoon is either mum or praises person of similar status but who attacks the government.
Kissoon often writes about his contribution to the struggle in Guyana to restore democracy. Indeed most of what he writes about that period is distorted and really turning events on their heads. As for his contribution at most he was a spectator and that’s the truth. His contribution pales in the light of persons like Ricky Singh, not to mention Rohee.
ROBERT CONSTANCE
AS I read the newspapers of April 17, I saw two headlines that attracted my attention and encouraged me to read further – Rough Seas ahead and Rough Times ahead – Mia. Now this surely cannot augur well for the country involved which is Barbados and by extension its Caribbean counterparts.
Opposition Leader Mia Motley’s warning must be seen in a broader context of what effects the fuel hike will have on the country’s production and transportation sectors. She has indicated that the rise in prices in that tourism-based economy will lead to job losses and some suffering. Her colleague Dr Omar Davies also warned that this could threaten social stability of the island which has seen increases in chicken, rice and flour over recent weeks.
Motley has rightly projected that spending power of Barbadians will contract as they will have to spend more on the same items they are accustomed to buying.
Motley even went further to state that if there is a reduction in spending and investment these will have a negative effect on the economy.
The fact that diesel is the affected commodity says a lot which brings me to our own situation, and while I don’t praise this administration I must say that in comparison Guyanese are doing far better.
The fact that Guyana recently zero-rated diesel so as to cushion the effect of the rising prices on the consuming public tells a lot that the administration is perhaps looking into the nation’s welfare. The government has said that this move will cost the treasury some three billion dollars. It’s in times like these that Guyanese need to be appreciative because the administration could have gone the route of Barbados as oil is now trading at close to 115 United States dollars per barrel.
Now is a good time to push conservation of energy, and for people to turn to the soil to assist in self-sufficiency.
A. THOMPSON
======================
Govt. has a good record
VERY recently they were some sectors of the Guyanese society that were venting frustration just about every and anything in Guyana.
While people have rights to their opinion, to get the facts we must weigh and create a balance.
The democratically elected governments of Guyana were elected by the majority of the population and this was done very freely and openly.
First of all I am not affiliated to any party or government organizations, but Guyanese need to take a good look at their country and see where they are today compared to that of twenty six years of PNC rule.
We were at the very bottom of the list in terms of stability, economics and growth. Since the PPP/Civic took office Guyana has moved up the bracket and things are better off. Guyanese must be proud of their government for the achievements made over the years.
Take a look at Guyana today we have modern roadways, better sea defences among other things.
We were living in fear during those days. We remember the long lines for basic food items, shortages of potable water, limited electricity, non existent telephone systems and the list goes on and on.
Look around Guyana today. We see a different picture, one that tells you of a better future for all Guyanese.
How many still remember the words:” Guyana the poorest in the western hemisphere”. We are happy that those days are behind us and we can now look ahead towards working together to continue to build this beautiful country.
AYUBE KHAN
======================
Some are born great
“SOME are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” I don’t want to get carried away here, but I firmly believe that “Tiger’s” heroics in that match against Sri Lanka qualifies him to fit neatly into any or all of those categories so well articulated by Shakespeare. Here is a guy, facing the prospect of losing the match, carted the final two balls of the game for ten runs in the most authoritative fashion possible. Only legendary players can summon the will and courage, not to mention skill, to pull off a victory in the face of almost certain defeat. By achieving this phenomenal victory for his team, Shiv strode into the annals of cricketing’s greatest accomplishments like a colossus. All Guyanese and West Indians should be very proud of him.
Now that I have doled out the kudos, it’s time to hand out the “brickbats.” I was astounded by reports that Shiv left in the middle of a game to attend an awards function in Trinidad. Important as that function was, it was rude, crude, and disgusting for a player of his calibre, or any player for that matter, to display such arrogance and disrespect not only to his team mates, but more importantly to the FANS who pay to watch him play. If the circumstances are as reported, such rank indiscipline and contempt should have been met with some form of disciplinary action by the Boards. Such behaviour requires “tough love” and should have been sanctioned with heavy fines and or suspension. Respect for the game and its fans should always be paramount and are mandatory concomitants of greatness; they are not mutually exclusive! My preference would have been NOT to enjoy his heroics in that game, rather than have him perform miracles in the context of a situation where this cloud was hanging over his head.
If I missed anything in this matter, or my information is in anyway inaccurate, then it would be appreciated if the solid facts can be publicized. I would be the first to withdraw these comments and apologize for nailing my favorite player for what came across as unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of one of the greatest players of his time.
CHARLES A RAMDAS
=========================
Dangerous food situation
WE are saying that the food situation here is very critical without even looking at what is happening in other countries which are very hard hit by the same problem. I saw in the Chronicle of yesterday April, 18, that the situation is much worse in Trinidad and Tobago.
It looks as if the people in that CARICOM country are finding it very difficult to make ends meet, although they work for a lot of money. To my mind the situation there is going to explode soon if the government of that country does not implement measures to bring about some ease to the rising cost of living.
People are threatening Supermarket and shop owners because of shortages and high prices. While the people vent their anger on these business people, the restaurant owners are calling on the government to issue them with firearms.
The situation there is frightening. I know not only Trinidad, but also other CARICOM countries are facing severe food shortages and high prices. Some people are also resorting to looting food trucks in order to get food supplies.
We in Guyana are not so bad off after all. The government here is making moves to make sure that we get enough of the basic commodities at reasonable prices.
Government ministers are going all over the country, holding meetings with the various communities to discuss the food situation and food prices.
The government is also asking the people to share their advice in an attempt to help in the situation, and it seems as if the exercise is not doing too badly. The government has already taken certain steps to make sure that there is enough rice in Guyana for the people at reasonable prices.
Apart from that we have a lot of vegetables and ground provisions and fish. This puts us in a better situation that our brothers and sisters in other countries in the region.
I hope the situation in the region concerning food will improve soon.
ROHIT SINGH
======================
Kissoon lacks decorum
IN any society, particularly in the media, some level of decorum should be kept.
The “Kaieteur News” so called columnist, Mr. Fredrick Kissoon lacks this completely. I often wonder if he can appreciate what it means to be decent. It appears that he lacks morality. He is totally amoral.
His columns are mainly personal abuse on those that criticize him, or disagree with his positions.
Let me say from an intellectual point of view, Kissoon is a pygmy to most, if not all the persons he attacks. When persons like Walter Persaud or Randy Persaud etc. write one gets the impression that they are people with depth. Their letters and articles make far greater contributions to the people’s understanding of issues than Kissoon’s.
Mr. Kissoon uses the K N to spew insults on persons he cannot argue with on subjects or a particular issue.
While he attacks persons who dare to write anything favourable about Guyana particularly those who reside abroad or have resided abroad, Mr. Kissoon is either mum or praises person of similar status but who attacks the government.
Kissoon often writes about his contribution to the struggle in Guyana to restore democracy. Indeed most of what he writes about that period is distorted and really turning events on their heads. As for his contribution at most he was a spectator and that’s the truth. His contribution pales in the light of persons like Ricky Singh, not to mention Rohee.
ROBERT CONSTANCE
Helicopter was a good buy
Helicopter was a good buy
WHEN President Jagdeo confirmed at a press briefing of Friday, February 15th last that the Administration would boost its security substantially by the procurement of helicopters, the aircraft that had been loaned to the Government by the Trinidad authorities was operating within specific locations and areas along the coast and elsewhere.
Similar to several Caribbean countries, Guyana has a limited indigenous capacity to maintain over a period that could be protracted (3: 6: 9: months) helicopters that are costly to acquire, to maintain and operate. In the case of the Bell 206 a number of points ought to be examined and understood.
* The heliship conforms with the manufacturers’ regulations that sets out under what kind of conditions – tropical, temperate or artic -- the helicopter would be operational.
* The features, components and technology that the Bell 206 carries also is a matter that the buyer must regard as a security principle. The buyer even after the aircraft has been paid for entirely, has an obligation to ensure that the relevant technology does not become stolen, or copied by another agency or manufacturer.
* The helicopter differs from the Type 412 in that there is a limitation on the numbers of passengers that can be transported. Additionally, the GDF 412 reproduces considerably more “blowback” or gravity/earth to “air push” when the craft is about to land or become airborne.
These are only some of the comparative advantages that the Bell 206 possesses in terms of its utility for crime-fighting, for discharging repellants as a deterrent and most important for a rapid low altitude (or below cloud) deployment as a surveillance machine.
But I would be reluctant to dispute with those who would have preferred the repair and rehabilitation of the Bell 412. What is certain is that the time factor must have impacted on the alternative/s. Further if one examines the performance of the Bell 206 (admittedly alongside of more powerful rotor driven aircaft) in instances such as search/rescue at Katrina, Hurricanes Mitch and Dean as well as during the most recent El Nina flood storms at the beginning of this year, then it would emerge that the Guyana government has made a good decision.
EDDI RODNEY
WHEN President Jagdeo confirmed at a press briefing of Friday, February 15th last that the Administration would boost its security substantially by the procurement of helicopters, the aircraft that had been loaned to the Government by the Trinidad authorities was operating within specific locations and areas along the coast and elsewhere.
Similar to several Caribbean countries, Guyana has a limited indigenous capacity to maintain over a period that could be protracted (3: 6: 9: months) helicopters that are costly to acquire, to maintain and operate. In the case of the Bell 206 a number of points ought to be examined and understood.
* The heliship conforms with the manufacturers’ regulations that sets out under what kind of conditions – tropical, temperate or artic -- the helicopter would be operational.
* The features, components and technology that the Bell 206 carries also is a matter that the buyer must regard as a security principle. The buyer even after the aircraft has been paid for entirely, has an obligation to ensure that the relevant technology does not become stolen, or copied by another agency or manufacturer.
* The helicopter differs from the Type 412 in that there is a limitation on the numbers of passengers that can be transported. Additionally, the GDF 412 reproduces considerably more “blowback” or gravity/earth to “air push” when the craft is about to land or become airborne.
These are only some of the comparative advantages that the Bell 206 possesses in terms of its utility for crime-fighting, for discharging repellants as a deterrent and most important for a rapid low altitude (or below cloud) deployment as a surveillance machine.
But I would be reluctant to dispute with those who would have preferred the repair and rehabilitation of the Bell 412. What is certain is that the time factor must have impacted on the alternative/s. Further if one examines the performance of the Bell 206 (admittedly alongside of more powerful rotor driven aircaft) in instances such as search/rescue at Katrina, Hurricanes Mitch and Dean as well as during the most recent El Nina flood storms at the beginning of this year, then it would emerge that the Guyana government has made a good decision.
EDDI RODNEY
Broadcasters are held to a high standard of public
Broadcasters are held to a high standard of public
responsibility
April 19, 2008
Dear Editor,
In 2005 when the licence of CN Sharma’s television CNS
TV6 was suspended at the time of the flood disaster by
the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister
responsible for telecommunications, for what appeared
to be a deliberate attempt to make the President
appear contemptuous of the conditions of the flood
victims, I wrote at some length endeavouring to
provide information and explain what we should expect
of a licensed broadcaster.
It seems appropriate, given the suspension of CNS TV6
licence, to, once more, repeat much of what I said
then.
In every case the constitutional protection offered to
every citizen of freedom of expression has been
invoked on behalf of Mr Sharma. However, what we are
yet to understand, far less accept, in Guyana is that
the broadcaster is held to a much higher standard of
public responsibility in exercising freedom of
expression granted by his licence than is a newspaper,
printed publications or the ordinary citizen.
A broadcaster is granted a licence, in a democracy, on
the condition that he uses it to serve, to use the
language of the USA’s Federal Communication Commission
(FCC), “the public interest, convenience and
necessity”.
The broadcaster, in essence, is granted the privilege
of using the broadcast spectrum, to serve as a “public
trustee”, while benefiting from its commercial use
because he is being allowed the use of a limited
public resource, the broadcast spectrum.
The conditions under which the broadcaster must
function as a “public trustee”, are spelt out in the
licence and are governed by the regulations under
which the licence is issued.
In effect, the broadcaster who is granted a licence to
use the electromagnetic spectrum for commercial
purposes, is granted exclusive free speech rights
denied to others and, to justify this privilege, is
constrained to serve as a “public trustee” of the
airwaves.
Unlike the rest of the media, the broadcaster is bound
by statutory and regulatory obligations to serve the
public interest in a defined way which would abridge
the constitutional right of free speech which other
media and published speech enjoy.
There is no constitutional right to hold a broadcast
licence and monopolise a broadcast frequency to the
exclusion of others as some in Guyana seem to believe.
Where there are adequate broadcasting regulations, a
potential licencee must first justify at public
hearings by the regulating authority, his or her
qualification to be granted the right to a broadcast
licence.
In Guyana licenced broadcasters were, unfortunately,
given licences without hearings, without having to
establish their qualifications for a licence, without
any public justification for being granted the
privilege. Our broadcasters were granted licences
simply because they either first squatted illegally on
the frequency, or the government was persuaded to
grant them the licence.
The US Supreme Court has, as has every other Court in
the major democracies of the world, consistently
upheld the requirement that the broadcaster must serve
as a “public trustee” of the licence he holds and must
“conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with
obligations to present those views and voices which
are representative of his community and which would
otherwise by necessity, be barred from the airwaves”.
The Federal Communications Commission of the USA in
July 1960, issued a “Report and Statement of Policy”
which summarise the Commission’s powers over a
licencee’s programming and the responsibilities of the
broadcaster in this regard. These operational
guidelines should long ago have been applicable to the
granting of television broadcast licences in Guyana,
had not both the governing and opposition parties,
ever since we became independent, refused to agree to
a professionally drafted broadcasting act and
regulations to be implemented by an independent
Broadcasting Authority:
* The principle ingredient of the licencee’s
obligation to operate his station in the public
interest is “to make a positive, diligent and
continuing effort to determine the tastes, needs and
desires of the public in his community and to provide
programming to meet those needs and interests”.
* “The licencee, is, in effect, a “trustee” of the
public interest in the sense that his licence to
operate his station imposes upon him a non-delegable
duty to serve the public interest in the community he
has chosen to represent as a broadcaster”.
* “Broadcasting licencees must assume responsibility
for all material which is broadcast through their
facilities. This includes all programmes and
advertising material which they present to the public.
With respect to advertising material, the licencee has
the additional responsibility to take all reasonable
measures to eliminate any false, misleading or
deceptive matter and to avoid abuses with respect to
the total amount of time devoted to advertising
continuity as well as the frequency with which regular
programmes are interrupted for advertising messages”.
* “The broadcasters should consider the tastes, needs
and desires of the public he is licensed to serve in
developing his programming and should exercise
conscientious efforts to not only ascertaining them
but also to carry them out as well as he reasonably
can”.
* “Broadcast stations should not become the private
preserve of certain individuals or groups to serve
their special interests nor should they serve the
exclusive interests of certain social, economic,
political or religious philosophies or of particular
business enterprises”.
* “Broadcasters must have a wide range of discretion
and freedom of choice in deciding on their individual
programmes and are to be judged by the overall
operation, presentation and balance of programme
measured in terms of satisfying community needs”.
CN Sharma’s use of his broadcast licence and the
unique privilege it grants and his right to continue
to broadcast are, therefore, conditioned by the
regulations under which he is granted the licence and
which hold him to observe the standard accorded to a
public trustee of the frequency he is allowed to use.
If Mr Sharma or any other broadcast licencee
broadcasts material which violate the standards set as
a condition of the licence, the Constitutional right
of free speech does not of necessity, guarantee him
the right to continue to hold a broadcast licence.
The Amended Regulations made under the Post &
Telegraph Act (Cap 47:01) Section 63(5) governing the
granting of a licence issued for the operation of a
television broadcasting station contains the following
conditions amongst others:
(a) the licencee shall ensure that nothing is included
in programmes which offends against good taste or
decency or is likely to encourage or incite or to lead
to public disorder or to be offensive to public
feeling;
(b) the licencee acting reasonably and in good faith.
Shall ensure that any news given (in whatever form) in
the programmes of the licencee is presented with due
accuracy and impartiality; and
(c) the licencee shall ensure that due impartiality is
preserved by the person providing the service in
regard to matters of political or industrial
controversy or relating to public policy.
The Amended Regulations establishing the Advisory
Committee on Broadcasting defines the appointment and
composition of the Committee and its functions. The
functions include advising the Minister (at first it
was the Prime Minister and is now the President) “on
compliance with the terms and conditions of licences
or otherwise” and recommending “appropriate action” to
be taken and “including revocation of licence”.
It is the responsibility, therefore, of the ACB to
advise the Minister on the action which should be
taken if or when any licencee, in the opinion of the
ACB, fails to comply with the conditions of the
licence set out in the Amended Regulations of June 27,
2001.
The legislation does not empower the ACB to do
anything or take any action which is not within the
functions of advising the Minister, unless the ACB is
specifically directed by the Minister under Clause 23
B 4(c).
The Wireless Telegraphy Regulations of the Post &
Telegraph Act at Section (63) 5, Clause 26(1&2),
however, provides for the Minister to act without the
intervention or advice of the ACB to cancel or suspend
the broadcaster’s licence for a period up to 12 months
or more, if he considers that the broadcaster has
failed to comply with any of the Regulations under the
Act.
The President, therefore, certainly had the right to
act. Did Sharma fail to comply with the conditions of
the licence?
In making that judgment, the President will have taken
into account the fact that the country remains under
threat of the heavily armed criminals who have
massacred 23 people and are still at large.
Clearly, in these circumstances, broadcasting a threat
to kill the Head of State and then re- broadcasting it
on a number of occasions is wholly irresponsible and
could be said “to encourage or incite or to lead to
public disorder”.
The Constitutional protection of free speech does not
protect a broadcaster from losing his licence if any
of the conditions set out in the licence are
considered by the Minister to have been violated.
Broadcasters, however, regardless of the conditions
which require them to serve as “public trustee”,
remain entitled to the common law protection of
“natural justice” and there is no precedent in
broadcast law which denies the broadcaster the right
to a fair hearing prior to any punitive action being
taken by a regulator against him.
The President did give a hearing to Mr Sharma and his
attorneys prior to taking action to suspend the
licence of CNS TV6 for four months.
It’s unclear exactly what advice, if any, was given by
the ACB to the President. It’s also unknown whether
the President sought the advice of the ACB, though,
given the existence and intent of the Regulations
establishing the Committee, it’s reasonable to expect
that he would have done so and in writing.
In any event, as I have already pointed out, under the
law the President does not have to rely on the ACB’s
advice.
Mr Jagdeo and Mr Hoyte did enter into a political
agreement that, as a condition of Mr Hoyte’s
endorsement of the Amended Regulations, the government
would not act independently of the ACB’s advice. The
Agreement does not legally bind the government to
honour it.
Was the President’s decision fair and reasonable,
taking into account the prevailing conditions in the
country as well as the fact that this is the second
serious offence committed by the station? The fact
that the law gives the power to the Minister and, in
this case, the Head of State who was the subject of
the threat, is unfortunate.
Guyana now remains the only major country in the
Caribbean without modern broadcasting law instituting
a politically independent Broadcasting Authority to
administer and regulate broadcast licences.
The legislation establishing the ACB was, at best, an
interim measure agreed to by the two major political
parties to bring some minimum order to the use of the
broadcast spectrum.
We have had broadcast legislation, in one form or
another, in draft in Guyana since 1969, but, to date,
the political will to legislate a modern Broadcasting
Act which will relinquish political control over
broadcast licensing and regulations, remains absent.
At the end of the day, Mr Sharma, because we are a
democracy, is getting his day in Court. We should,
nevertheless, remember that free speech is not an
absolute right, and, for the broadcaster who is
granted the privilege of a licence, it is a right
abridged by very specific conditions demanding
standards of public trust which all of our
broadcasters, including the State owned television and
radio stations, continue to treat with little respect.
Yours faithfully,
Kit Nascimento
responsibility
April 19, 2008
Dear Editor,
In 2005 when the licence of CN Sharma’s television CNS
TV6 was suspended at the time of the flood disaster by
the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister
responsible for telecommunications, for what appeared
to be a deliberate attempt to make the President
appear contemptuous of the conditions of the flood
victims, I wrote at some length endeavouring to
provide information and explain what we should expect
of a licensed broadcaster.
It seems appropriate, given the suspension of CNS TV6
licence, to, once more, repeat much of what I said
then.
In every case the constitutional protection offered to
every citizen of freedom of expression has been
invoked on behalf of Mr Sharma. However, what we are
yet to understand, far less accept, in Guyana is that
the broadcaster is held to a much higher standard of
public responsibility in exercising freedom of
expression granted by his licence than is a newspaper,
printed publications or the ordinary citizen.
A broadcaster is granted a licence, in a democracy, on
the condition that he uses it to serve, to use the
language of the USA’s Federal Communication Commission
(FCC), “the public interest, convenience and
necessity”.
The broadcaster, in essence, is granted the privilege
of using the broadcast spectrum, to serve as a “public
trustee”, while benefiting from its commercial use
because he is being allowed the use of a limited
public resource, the broadcast spectrum.
The conditions under which the broadcaster must
function as a “public trustee”, are spelt out in the
licence and are governed by the regulations under
which the licence is issued.
In effect, the broadcaster who is granted a licence to
use the electromagnetic spectrum for commercial
purposes, is granted exclusive free speech rights
denied to others and, to justify this privilege, is
constrained to serve as a “public trustee” of the
airwaves.
Unlike the rest of the media, the broadcaster is bound
by statutory and regulatory obligations to serve the
public interest in a defined way which would abridge
the constitutional right of free speech which other
media and published speech enjoy.
There is no constitutional right to hold a broadcast
licence and monopolise a broadcast frequency to the
exclusion of others as some in Guyana seem to believe.
Where there are adequate broadcasting regulations, a
potential licencee must first justify at public
hearings by the regulating authority, his or her
qualification to be granted the right to a broadcast
licence.
In Guyana licenced broadcasters were, unfortunately,
given licences without hearings, without having to
establish their qualifications for a licence, without
any public justification for being granted the
privilege. Our broadcasters were granted licences
simply because they either first squatted illegally on
the frequency, or the government was persuaded to
grant them the licence.
The US Supreme Court has, as has every other Court in
the major democracies of the world, consistently
upheld the requirement that the broadcaster must serve
as a “public trustee” of the licence he holds and must
“conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with
obligations to present those views and voices which
are representative of his community and which would
otherwise by necessity, be barred from the airwaves”.
The Federal Communications Commission of the USA in
July 1960, issued a “Report and Statement of Policy”
which summarise the Commission’s powers over a
licencee’s programming and the responsibilities of the
broadcaster in this regard. These operational
guidelines should long ago have been applicable to the
granting of television broadcast licences in Guyana,
had not both the governing and opposition parties,
ever since we became independent, refused to agree to
a professionally drafted broadcasting act and
regulations to be implemented by an independent
Broadcasting Authority:
* The principle ingredient of the licencee’s
obligation to operate his station in the public
interest is “to make a positive, diligent and
continuing effort to determine the tastes, needs and
desires of the public in his community and to provide
programming to meet those needs and interests”.
* “The licencee, is, in effect, a “trustee” of the
public interest in the sense that his licence to
operate his station imposes upon him a non-delegable
duty to serve the public interest in the community he
has chosen to represent as a broadcaster”.
* “Broadcasting licencees must assume responsibility
for all material which is broadcast through their
facilities. This includes all programmes and
advertising material which they present to the public.
With respect to advertising material, the licencee has
the additional responsibility to take all reasonable
measures to eliminate any false, misleading or
deceptive matter and to avoid abuses with respect to
the total amount of time devoted to advertising
continuity as well as the frequency with which regular
programmes are interrupted for advertising messages”.
* “The broadcasters should consider the tastes, needs
and desires of the public he is licensed to serve in
developing his programming and should exercise
conscientious efforts to not only ascertaining them
but also to carry them out as well as he reasonably
can”.
* “Broadcast stations should not become the private
preserve of certain individuals or groups to serve
their special interests nor should they serve the
exclusive interests of certain social, economic,
political or religious philosophies or of particular
business enterprises”.
* “Broadcasters must have a wide range of discretion
and freedom of choice in deciding on their individual
programmes and are to be judged by the overall
operation, presentation and balance of programme
measured in terms of satisfying community needs”.
CN Sharma’s use of his broadcast licence and the
unique privilege it grants and his right to continue
to broadcast are, therefore, conditioned by the
regulations under which he is granted the licence and
which hold him to observe the standard accorded to a
public trustee of the frequency he is allowed to use.
If Mr Sharma or any other broadcast licencee
broadcasts material which violate the standards set as
a condition of the licence, the Constitutional right
of free speech does not of necessity, guarantee him
the right to continue to hold a broadcast licence.
The Amended Regulations made under the Post &
Telegraph Act (Cap 47:01) Section 63(5) governing the
granting of a licence issued for the operation of a
television broadcasting station contains the following
conditions amongst others:
(a) the licencee shall ensure that nothing is included
in programmes which offends against good taste or
decency or is likely to encourage or incite or to lead
to public disorder or to be offensive to public
feeling;
(b) the licencee acting reasonably and in good faith.
Shall ensure that any news given (in whatever form) in
the programmes of the licencee is presented with due
accuracy and impartiality; and
(c) the licencee shall ensure that due impartiality is
preserved by the person providing the service in
regard to matters of political or industrial
controversy or relating to public policy.
The Amended Regulations establishing the Advisory
Committee on Broadcasting defines the appointment and
composition of the Committee and its functions. The
functions include advising the Minister (at first it
was the Prime Minister and is now the President) “on
compliance with the terms and conditions of licences
or otherwise” and recommending “appropriate action” to
be taken and “including revocation of licence”.
It is the responsibility, therefore, of the ACB to
advise the Minister on the action which should be
taken if or when any licencee, in the opinion of the
ACB, fails to comply with the conditions of the
licence set out in the Amended Regulations of June 27,
2001.
The legislation does not empower the ACB to do
anything or take any action which is not within the
functions of advising the Minister, unless the ACB is
specifically directed by the Minister under Clause 23
B 4(c).
The Wireless Telegraphy Regulations of the Post &
Telegraph Act at Section (63) 5, Clause 26(1&2),
however, provides for the Minister to act without the
intervention or advice of the ACB to cancel or suspend
the broadcaster’s licence for a period up to 12 months
or more, if he considers that the broadcaster has
failed to comply with any of the Regulations under the
Act.
The President, therefore, certainly had the right to
act. Did Sharma fail to comply with the conditions of
the licence?
In making that judgment, the President will have taken
into account the fact that the country remains under
threat of the heavily armed criminals who have
massacred 23 people and are still at large.
Clearly, in these circumstances, broadcasting a threat
to kill the Head of State and then re- broadcasting it
on a number of occasions is wholly irresponsible and
could be said “to encourage or incite or to lead to
public disorder”.
The Constitutional protection of free speech does not
protect a broadcaster from losing his licence if any
of the conditions set out in the licence are
considered by the Minister to have been violated.
Broadcasters, however, regardless of the conditions
which require them to serve as “public trustee”,
remain entitled to the common law protection of
“natural justice” and there is no precedent in
broadcast law which denies the broadcaster the right
to a fair hearing prior to any punitive action being
taken by a regulator against him.
The President did give a hearing to Mr Sharma and his
attorneys prior to taking action to suspend the
licence of CNS TV6 for four months.
It’s unclear exactly what advice, if any, was given by
the ACB to the President. It’s also unknown whether
the President sought the advice of the ACB, though,
given the existence and intent of the Regulations
establishing the Committee, it’s reasonable to expect
that he would have done so and in writing.
In any event, as I have already pointed out, under the
law the President does not have to rely on the ACB’s
advice.
Mr Jagdeo and Mr Hoyte did enter into a political
agreement that, as a condition of Mr Hoyte’s
endorsement of the Amended Regulations, the government
would not act independently of the ACB’s advice. The
Agreement does not legally bind the government to
honour it.
Was the President’s decision fair and reasonable,
taking into account the prevailing conditions in the
country as well as the fact that this is the second
serious offence committed by the station? The fact
that the law gives the power to the Minister and, in
this case, the Head of State who was the subject of
the threat, is unfortunate.
Guyana now remains the only major country in the
Caribbean without modern broadcasting law instituting
a politically independent Broadcasting Authority to
administer and regulate broadcast licences.
The legislation establishing the ACB was, at best, an
interim measure agreed to by the two major political
parties to bring some minimum order to the use of the
broadcast spectrum.
We have had broadcast legislation, in one form or
another, in draft in Guyana since 1969, but, to date,
the political will to legislate a modern Broadcasting
Act which will relinquish political control over
broadcast licensing and regulations, remains absent.
At the end of the day, Mr Sharma, because we are a
democracy, is getting his day in Court. We should,
nevertheless, remember that free speech is not an
absolute right, and, for the broadcaster who is
granted the privilege of a licence, it is a right
abridged by very specific conditions demanding
standards of public trust which all of our
broadcasters, including the State owned television and
radio stations, continue to treat with little respect.
Yours faithfully,
Kit Nascimento
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
SHARMA wrong and strong; GUYANESE can make it
Tough times ahead, but Guyanese can make it
THE International Monetary Fund (IMF) has sounded the warning and the people in the Caribbean, including Guyana, can brace themselves for some very harsh economic times. This is due mainly because of a slowdown in economic growth over the next two years as a result of a recession in the United States.
This a matter of grave concern to all of us as the IMF has painted a gloomy picture in terms of growth in the region which the institution says will slow to 4.4 percent this year and slowdown even further in 2009. Already the region’s people are buckling under severe food shortages and rising prices which have already led to social disorders in some countries in the region.
Global warming and climate change have already had telling effects on the world’s population and the prognosis is that millions of people will face starvation this year. This is indeed a sad tale, and quite rightly, Caribbean leaders have come together to form a common front to tackle food shortages and rising prices.
However, this will be an uphill task since the IMF has suggested that the Caribbean should not expect any relief from the rising cost of living which has hit countries across the world. The IMF has also predicted that prices in the region will increase by 7.9 percent this year while it is likely to drop back next year to 5.7 percent.
Only recently we saw riots in Haiti, Asia and Africa etc. which were prompted by soaring food prices that are hitting the vulnerable very hard.
The Guyana government has been keeping abreast with the situation and has already started taking certain steps to cushion some of the effects the rising prices will have on the people. The people recognise that in Guyana there are abundant supplies of food, especially agricultural produce, but some adjustments will have to be made to our eating culture.
Our Ministry of Agriculture has made tremendous strides and implemented numerous projects and programmes, to ensure that food supplies are sustained and not out of the reach of the average Guyanese. Some of the positive moves by the Ministry recently include diversification and a heavy injection of funds in the pig sector. Guyanese are aware that we have enough pork, beef, mutton, chicken, eggs and fish, vegetables and ground provision, rice and sugar, and in a move to bring down or regularize the price of flour and flour products, the government recently withdrew the licencing regime for the importation of the commodity.
At the moment we are in the process of harvesting a bumper rice crop which will satisfy both local demand and external markets, and when the state of the art sugar factory at Skeldon comes into operation later this year there will be increased sugar production from which the entire Guyanese nation will benefit.
While the signals are a source of worry, the Guyanese people are not likely to be so much affected like their CARICOM counterparts who depend largely on food imports to satisfy their needs.
The Guyana government must also be lauded for taking a firm position not to divert agricultural products for the manufacture of Ethanol fuel. This practice of using up large stocks of corn, wheat and other grains for the manufacture of Ethanol has significantly contributed to the shortage of supplies of these crops, and has also caused prices to increase.
We believe that with the resilience of the Guyanese people, it will not be too difficult for us to get out of this period, especially against the backdrop of our huge agricultural potential which has not been fully unleashed as yet.
Mr Sharma must be more professional
April 15, 2008
Dear Editor,
I really cannot understand the role of television personality Mr CN Sharma. I was told that Mr Sharma aired a person on his ‘Voice of the People’ programme calling for the death of the President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Now to my opinion this brings freedom of speech and professional journalism into disrepute. It is my gut feeling that Mr Sharma believes he is a powerful individual in this country. He speaks carelessly without due care and consideration. No intelligent person who pretends to be in the journalism field and is the owner of a television station should behave in such an irresponsible manner. He does not have any respect for the law but cries out when strong penalties are carried out against him. Not one of his advisors seems to know better because they are supporting him when he violates the law.
The President of this country is a human being like Mr Sharma and all others. Therefore from time to time he would make mistakes but how useful will it be if we join with the illiterate to use strong inappropriate words against him without thinking of the results.
I have one piece of advice for Mr CN Sharma, tone down and please do not get carried away with the support you are receiving with your ‘Voice of the People’ programme. This is the way people react when they can obtain something free of cost.
Think for yourself and apply just a small amount of professionalism when you are hosting your programme. I can tell you very honestly you were totally wrong to encourage that illiterate caller on air. Please accept your fault and let this ban be the last for your television station.
Yours faithfully,
Tajpaul Gainda
Support closure of Sharma
IT is most unfortunate that it has reached a stage where a local TV station has to be suspended because of unethical broadcasting. But the offence is very serious.
I fully support President Jagdeo for his action to ban the operation of Mr. Sharma’s television station for four months due to irresponsible broadcasting and breaching television protocols.
As I understand it, President Jagdeo did not suspend the Channel because of the remarks made on the first day but because of the presumptuousness of Mr. Sharma to air that exact programme three times without deleting or editing it. This is an act of sheer recklessness.
I read in the newspapers, Mr. Sharma is taking the issue to Court because his lawyer Nigel Hughes advised him that Mr. Jagdeo being the subject of the complaint was in no position to close the station. But Hughes did not tell Mr. Sharma that President Jagdeo is the Minister of Information and can make his rule in this regard and more so him being the threatened subject.
Sharma said he believes that the Government is not pleased with his decision to allow regular airtime to the Opposition Parties. Why would the Government be upset with this decision? I would more think that the Government feels sorry for Sharma since he is being used by the other so-called Parties as a tool to attack the Government, hoping to destabilize it.
Mr. Sharma you are wrong but want to play strong in this situation. Put yourself in the President’s boots. I think you would have revoked the licence rather than enforcing only a suspension.
Why don’t you come out of the clutches of your advisers? Don’t you realize they are using you, Mr. Sharma?
PATRICIA MAHENS
Govt. was elected by majority of people
ONCE again we are hearing that threatening the life of the President in the public media is freedom of speech.
Once again all must be reminded that freedom of speech comes with consequences.
It is most ludicrous for the AFC to compare the ruling PPP/C Government to Burnham and Hoyte illegal governments of the past.
The AFC must be reminded that this Government was elected by the majority of people for the people of Guyana.
Channel 6 and Sharma were very lucky to be on air for so long.
It's about time action be taken against this vile TV station and its owner.
AFC has to be out of its mind to say this Government is dictatorial and worse since the days of Burnham.
First of all, if this Government was dictatorial and worse, Sharma would never be on the air to make his mischief.
Secondly, the AFC would not be a political party to come to the defense of Sharma.
Thirdly, the AFC and Sharma will never be able to call for mass street protest in Guyana.
Fourthly, Sharma and the AFC would never have any news media in which to write about this episode.
If this PPP/C Government was dictatorial, the voices of Sharma, AFC and PNCR would have been silenced a very long time ago.
It's about time this Government act as it is mandated to act for the majority of people that elected it to Govern.
So it's bravo to the PPP/C Government and good riddance Sharma and Channel 6 are gone.
T. KING
Sharma must learn from mistakes
FREEDOM of speech and expression is healthy in any democratic society such as ours in Guyana.
However when threats are being uttered to any particular individual or groups then it’s not tolerated. And it’s being viewed as unwarranted and unwelcome.
Therefore a strong message is being sent to the proprietor of Channel 6 to be responsible for what the station is broadcasting to the world.
I must give credit to CNS Channel 6 for showcasing most of the shortcomings in society.
Many contents aired on Channel 6 are in the interest of the underprivileged. No one will deny that but there is the use of intemperate language that separates what is being considered acceptable.
There are certain limitations and guidelines that a medium needs to adopt and unfortunately this specific channel needs to understand that being controversial and not screening certain comments will end up in this current dilemma that they are being faced with in having their broadcasting licence revoked for four months. This is not the first time Channel 6 was warned for unwarranted comments and unhealthy contents aired to the populace.
When a democratic Head of State is being threatened with death, it’s totally unacceptable. And maybe this channel will understand and reconsider what is allowed to be broadcast to the world.
These days in Guyana everyone easily criticizes the government even for the heavy rainfall … There was once a time when Guyanese could not even hold peaceful demonstrations. How soon we forget.
I sometimes wonder if a television transmission licence would have been granted to so many independent broadcasting houses in Guyana if the opposition PNC regime were in power. Let alone criticizing them.
Any democratic society in the world will do exactly what was done to Channel 6. Some will go to the extent in revoking their licence indefinitely,
So Mr. Sharma during this suspension period its time to rethink and learn from the mistakes that Channel 6 had made to cause harm to itself and tarnish its image.
AYUBE KHAN
Toronto Canada
PPP says Channel Six has a history of violations
THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) yesterday commented on the suspension of Channel Six licence, which, it claimed, is causing opposition forces to make the issue one of freedom of speech.
A press release from the ruling party added that Channel Six has had a long history of violating broadcasting rules, and to talk about killing any individual is unacceptable. To do so in relation to the Head of State is much worse.
The statement said it should be noted that if the Channel Six proprietor recognized that a caller talking about killing the President was a violation when it occurred live on television, why should he continue to rebroadcast the same programme at least on three occasions.
The PPP noted that this is not the first time that Channel Six sought to create problems and incite the people.
“We recall that during the 2005 floods, Channel Six aired a programme showing the President dancing with Minister Gail Tiexeira. The impression conveyed was that while a large section of people were suffering, the president and ministers were enjoying themselves,” the release said.
It pointed out that in fact the clip showed on the station was taken at a Christmas party a year earlier.
“This type of behaviour is unacceptable in our democracy,” it continued.
“We must have standards and ensure that in our society laws are upheld,” the release said.
The PPP said that it hopes that such violations of the broadcasting licence would not be repeated by Channel Six or any other medium in the future
THE International Monetary Fund (IMF) has sounded the warning and the people in the Caribbean, including Guyana, can brace themselves for some very harsh economic times. This is due mainly because of a slowdown in economic growth over the next two years as a result of a recession in the United States.
This a matter of grave concern to all of us as the IMF has painted a gloomy picture in terms of growth in the region which the institution says will slow to 4.4 percent this year and slowdown even further in 2009. Already the region’s people are buckling under severe food shortages and rising prices which have already led to social disorders in some countries in the region.
Global warming and climate change have already had telling effects on the world’s population and the prognosis is that millions of people will face starvation this year. This is indeed a sad tale, and quite rightly, Caribbean leaders have come together to form a common front to tackle food shortages and rising prices.
However, this will be an uphill task since the IMF has suggested that the Caribbean should not expect any relief from the rising cost of living which has hit countries across the world. The IMF has also predicted that prices in the region will increase by 7.9 percent this year while it is likely to drop back next year to 5.7 percent.
Only recently we saw riots in Haiti, Asia and Africa etc. which were prompted by soaring food prices that are hitting the vulnerable very hard.
The Guyana government has been keeping abreast with the situation and has already started taking certain steps to cushion some of the effects the rising prices will have on the people. The people recognise that in Guyana there are abundant supplies of food, especially agricultural produce, but some adjustments will have to be made to our eating culture.
Our Ministry of Agriculture has made tremendous strides and implemented numerous projects and programmes, to ensure that food supplies are sustained and not out of the reach of the average Guyanese. Some of the positive moves by the Ministry recently include diversification and a heavy injection of funds in the pig sector. Guyanese are aware that we have enough pork, beef, mutton, chicken, eggs and fish, vegetables and ground provision, rice and sugar, and in a move to bring down or regularize the price of flour and flour products, the government recently withdrew the licencing regime for the importation of the commodity.
At the moment we are in the process of harvesting a bumper rice crop which will satisfy both local demand and external markets, and when the state of the art sugar factory at Skeldon comes into operation later this year there will be increased sugar production from which the entire Guyanese nation will benefit.
While the signals are a source of worry, the Guyanese people are not likely to be so much affected like their CARICOM counterparts who depend largely on food imports to satisfy their needs.
The Guyana government must also be lauded for taking a firm position not to divert agricultural products for the manufacture of Ethanol fuel. This practice of using up large stocks of corn, wheat and other grains for the manufacture of Ethanol has significantly contributed to the shortage of supplies of these crops, and has also caused prices to increase.
We believe that with the resilience of the Guyanese people, it will not be too difficult for us to get out of this period, especially against the backdrop of our huge agricultural potential which has not been fully unleashed as yet.
Mr Sharma must be more professional
April 15, 2008
Dear Editor,
I really cannot understand the role of television personality Mr CN Sharma. I was told that Mr Sharma aired a person on his ‘Voice of the People’ programme calling for the death of the President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Now to my opinion this brings freedom of speech and professional journalism into disrepute. It is my gut feeling that Mr Sharma believes he is a powerful individual in this country. He speaks carelessly without due care and consideration. No intelligent person who pretends to be in the journalism field and is the owner of a television station should behave in such an irresponsible manner. He does not have any respect for the law but cries out when strong penalties are carried out against him. Not one of his advisors seems to know better because they are supporting him when he violates the law.
The President of this country is a human being like Mr Sharma and all others. Therefore from time to time he would make mistakes but how useful will it be if we join with the illiterate to use strong inappropriate words against him without thinking of the results.
I have one piece of advice for Mr CN Sharma, tone down and please do not get carried away with the support you are receiving with your ‘Voice of the People’ programme. This is the way people react when they can obtain something free of cost.
Think for yourself and apply just a small amount of professionalism when you are hosting your programme. I can tell you very honestly you were totally wrong to encourage that illiterate caller on air. Please accept your fault and let this ban be the last for your television station.
Yours faithfully,
Tajpaul Gainda
Support closure of Sharma
IT is most unfortunate that it has reached a stage where a local TV station has to be suspended because of unethical broadcasting. But the offence is very serious.
I fully support President Jagdeo for his action to ban the operation of Mr. Sharma’s television station for four months due to irresponsible broadcasting and breaching television protocols.
As I understand it, President Jagdeo did not suspend the Channel because of the remarks made on the first day but because of the presumptuousness of Mr. Sharma to air that exact programme three times without deleting or editing it. This is an act of sheer recklessness.
I read in the newspapers, Mr. Sharma is taking the issue to Court because his lawyer Nigel Hughes advised him that Mr. Jagdeo being the subject of the complaint was in no position to close the station. But Hughes did not tell Mr. Sharma that President Jagdeo is the Minister of Information and can make his rule in this regard and more so him being the threatened subject.
Sharma said he believes that the Government is not pleased with his decision to allow regular airtime to the Opposition Parties. Why would the Government be upset with this decision? I would more think that the Government feels sorry for Sharma since he is being used by the other so-called Parties as a tool to attack the Government, hoping to destabilize it.
Mr. Sharma you are wrong but want to play strong in this situation. Put yourself in the President’s boots. I think you would have revoked the licence rather than enforcing only a suspension.
Why don’t you come out of the clutches of your advisers? Don’t you realize they are using you, Mr. Sharma?
PATRICIA MAHENS
Govt. was elected by majority of people
ONCE again we are hearing that threatening the life of the President in the public media is freedom of speech.
Once again all must be reminded that freedom of speech comes with consequences.
It is most ludicrous for the AFC to compare the ruling PPP/C Government to Burnham and Hoyte illegal governments of the past.
The AFC must be reminded that this Government was elected by the majority of people for the people of Guyana.
Channel 6 and Sharma were very lucky to be on air for so long.
It's about time action be taken against this vile TV station and its owner.
AFC has to be out of its mind to say this Government is dictatorial and worse since the days of Burnham.
First of all, if this Government was dictatorial and worse, Sharma would never be on the air to make his mischief.
Secondly, the AFC would not be a political party to come to the defense of Sharma.
Thirdly, the AFC and Sharma will never be able to call for mass street protest in Guyana.
Fourthly, Sharma and the AFC would never have any news media in which to write about this episode.
If this PPP/C Government was dictatorial, the voices of Sharma, AFC and PNCR would have been silenced a very long time ago.
It's about time this Government act as it is mandated to act for the majority of people that elected it to Govern.
So it's bravo to the PPP/C Government and good riddance Sharma and Channel 6 are gone.
T. KING
Sharma must learn from mistakes
FREEDOM of speech and expression is healthy in any democratic society such as ours in Guyana.
However when threats are being uttered to any particular individual or groups then it’s not tolerated. And it’s being viewed as unwarranted and unwelcome.
Therefore a strong message is being sent to the proprietor of Channel 6 to be responsible for what the station is broadcasting to the world.
I must give credit to CNS Channel 6 for showcasing most of the shortcomings in society.
Many contents aired on Channel 6 are in the interest of the underprivileged. No one will deny that but there is the use of intemperate language that separates what is being considered acceptable.
There are certain limitations and guidelines that a medium needs to adopt and unfortunately this specific channel needs to understand that being controversial and not screening certain comments will end up in this current dilemma that they are being faced with in having their broadcasting licence revoked for four months. This is not the first time Channel 6 was warned for unwarranted comments and unhealthy contents aired to the populace.
When a democratic Head of State is being threatened with death, it’s totally unacceptable. And maybe this channel will understand and reconsider what is allowed to be broadcast to the world.
These days in Guyana everyone easily criticizes the government even for the heavy rainfall … There was once a time when Guyanese could not even hold peaceful demonstrations. How soon we forget.
I sometimes wonder if a television transmission licence would have been granted to so many independent broadcasting houses in Guyana if the opposition PNC regime were in power. Let alone criticizing them.
Any democratic society in the world will do exactly what was done to Channel 6. Some will go to the extent in revoking their licence indefinitely,
So Mr. Sharma during this suspension period its time to rethink and learn from the mistakes that Channel 6 had made to cause harm to itself and tarnish its image.
AYUBE KHAN
Toronto Canada
PPP says Channel Six has a history of violations
THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) yesterday commented on the suspension of Channel Six licence, which, it claimed, is causing opposition forces to make the issue one of freedom of speech.
A press release from the ruling party added that Channel Six has had a long history of violating broadcasting rules, and to talk about killing any individual is unacceptable. To do so in relation to the Head of State is much worse.
The statement said it should be noted that if the Channel Six proprietor recognized that a caller talking about killing the President was a violation when it occurred live on television, why should he continue to rebroadcast the same programme at least on three occasions.
The PPP noted that this is not the first time that Channel Six sought to create problems and incite the people.
“We recall that during the 2005 floods, Channel Six aired a programme showing the President dancing with Minister Gail Tiexeira. The impression conveyed was that while a large section of people were suffering, the president and ministers were enjoying themselves,” the release said.
It pointed out that in fact the clip showed on the station was taken at a Christmas party a year earlier.
“This type of behaviour is unacceptable in our democracy,” it continued.
“We must have standards and ensure that in our society laws are upheld,” the release said.
The PPP said that it hopes that such violations of the broadcasting licence would not be repeated by Channel Six or any other medium in the future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)