Dear Editor,
We refer to the article on your “Business Page” (page 12) of your edition of Sunday 17th April 2011, captioned `The Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport – or the sporting ministry? Beneficiaries of hundreds of millions in Sports and Art Development Fund Uncertain’
Those who appreciate the art and guile of colourful writing – be it attempted journalism, financial fiscal reporting or analyses or just creative expression – are bound to be sometimes impressed, even persuaded, by the writings of your Columnist/Accountant/Political Activist, Christopher Ram.
However, we at the Ministry in question have to be concerned and disturbed when the columnist’s clever writings employs suggestions, imagery and figures which effectively mis-informs the tax-paying public about how budgetary allocations – their money- are being utilized by this institution.
We now address a few of Mr. Ram’s assertions which we feel merit responses and clarification.
Disguised as analysis and concern for accountability, transparency and adherence to regulations, Mr. Ram’s diatribe begins by alluding to the fact that he has been President of the Guyana Lawn Tennis Association, which has had “an unsatisfactory relationship” with the ministry.
Right away, Ram establishes his personalized tone and bias, which evidently influence the more basic allegations and charges he makes later in his lengthy “Business Page”.
The truth, most briefly, is that at a meeting with Minister Frank Anthony, commitments were made to foster a constructive quality relationship between the Ministry and the Tennis Association.
The fact that Ram describes what actually developed as “unsatisfactory” cannot be ascribed to a Ministry that is expending millions to establish two Tennis Courts at a multi-complex National Racquet Centre at which modern Squash Courts will also be available, taking the sport to all strata of the Guyanese sporting public.
It has to be a real pity that Ram’s self-induced bitterness colours his attempts to denigrate the senior functionaries of the Ministry of Sport.
Noteworthy too, is that Mr. Ram had actually demanded that a specific percentage of the Ministry’s budget be devoted to his own Tennis Association during that initial meeting with the Minister. That audacity could not augur well for relations, despite the Minister’s willingness.
HISTORICAL WITHOUT
UPDATED RESEARCH
Mr. Ram repeatedly cites figures from dated reports, without bothering to update himself as to the latest developments, modifications or revision – all in the context of obligatory adherence to official financial regulations. All his examples of alleged non-compliance are therefore null and without merit. If this Ministry has Financial Reports tabled at the Auditor-General’s Office awaiting his audits and reports, the Ministry cannot be delinquent, (inviting) “charges being brought under the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act”.
This type of language by Ram is intended to subtly create public mischief against a Ministry he has obviously targeted because of his perceived “unsatisfactory relationship” with it. Needless to mention, Ram never sought either clarification or explanations from the Ministry itself.
RAM’S “CONCERNS” ABOUT
DISPROPORTION IN THE
MINISTRY’S ALLOCATIONS
In summary, and really for clarification of those interested, especially long-term beneficiaries, the Ministry has indeed invested heavily in sports development over the past three years. The capital works –from a new multi-purpose National Stadium, to a Racquet Centre, to an Olympic Size Swimming Pool, to a synthetic Track, among other facilities, expenditures will be disproportionate in relation to allocations for Culture and Youth where no major capital works were/are earmarked.
Not even Ram, we submit, could have any serious position against the promotion of sports at the national level, through which social cohesion would be engendered to the welcome detriment of those social ills like delinquency, crime and other social ills as well as the known health benefits associated with physical recreation.
Even so, we contend that any serious examination of this year’s budgetary resource allocations would reveal a balanced distribution amongst the Ministry’s three components and its administration, when current activities are considered.
THE SPORTS AND
ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND
Just before we conclude, a word about the Sports and Arts Development Fund. Because of certain exigencies and, sometimes, unplanned emergency requests meriting positive responses, this fund was established in 2007.
Special Projects such as the Caribbean Press, headed by Professor David Dabydeen, which has published eighteen of the Guyana Classics, with more to come; the funding of the Rugby Team to India’s Commonwealth Games; national representative football teams; urgent attention to the National Archives have all benefited from the resources available through this fund. All expenditure can be accounted for through vouchers and other documentation available at the Auditor-General’s Office. There is no “mystery” about this (type of) fund.
Incidentally, it is contempt for his fans and other readership, for Mr. Ram to cast aspersions about the status of the National Sports Commission (NSC) and the National Trust and their relationship with the Ministry. By Cabinet decision (March 31) just a few weeks ago, the life of these two independent, statutory agencies was extended. They are thus duly constituted entities which spend and account for their own allocations, with only their capital works being the responsibility of the central Ministry.
It would serve little purpose here explaining the updates being carried out at the new Olympic-size Swimming Pool. However, we close with a comment on his attempt to trivialize (as “funny”) the query about the policy of payment from the then Guyana National Service (GNS) to GUYOIL Company.
This query was validly explained to the Public Accounts Committee some time ago, which explanations, relating to the separate accounts were accepted prior to a current regularization of inherited systems of payment.
So Mr. Ram’s exercise in pillorying another government Ministry is compromised by his opening declarations about an “unsatisfactory relationship”, as well as his use of dated information, which could have been clarified had he utilized a basic tenet of professional journalism- approaching the other side for comment.
The Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport is one government entity, which has no objection to public scrutiny. It does take umbrage to one activist’s personal bias.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Kumar
Director of Sports
