This is not the first occasion on which this newspaper has commented on difficulties relating to access to information on matters of business and the economy, which ought correctly to be placed in the public domain. Those difficulties are part of a culture of ‘managing’ the dissemination of information to the media which arises out of – among other things – a preoccupation among both public and private sector institutions with image-management. The routine media conferences hosted by Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon, are a significant part of that regime of official image-management.
There are other considerations that inform the behaviour of the private sector as far as its dealings with the media are concerned. We believe, for example, that both private sector umbrella organizations and individual businessmen remain acutely aware of what they perceive to be the risks that attend making public pronouncements that might not sit well with the political administration. One recalls, for example, that under the previous dispensation comments by businessmen on tax reform and ‘red tape’ associated with foreign investment have met with disapproving official responses. The private sector, therefore, has its own reasons why – on particular issues – it chooses, by and large, to avoid the media.
The problem, we stress, is not universal. It exists, however, at junctures that can seriously inhibit the flow of information to the public. At the level of the public sector it is particularly inhibiting to the free flow of information. We wish for example that both the central bank and the commercial banks were more forthcoming on matters that really ought not to be shrouded in secrecy. But only this week we were told by a state agency that “permission” would have to be sought to grant us an interview, pretty much along the lines of one already granted to a state media house.
Private sector umbrella organizations have for the most part taken to simply remaining quiet about most things though there are occasions on which we are graced with one of those peculiar media releases that talk a lot and say nothing.
It is against this backdrop that we comment on what, in recent weeks, appears to have been a genuine effort on the part of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI) to reach out to the media. The appointment of Clinton Urling as the association’s president has coincided with a surfeit of media briefings – though it has to be said that we had found Mr Urling’s predecessor to be accessible and open – on various issues including the creation of the key Advocacy Committee and, just recently, the landmark decision by the Chamber to make it possible for small businesses to become members of the organization. That apart, we have been hearing quite a bit about that work which the Chamber is seeking to do through Caribbean Export to support the small business sector
The upshot of this is that we have been able to publish quite a few stories on small business issues in recent weeks (which is part of the mission of this newspaper) and arising out of this we have even had a few enquiries about the work of Caribbean Export from people operating small businesses. By contrast, we have been able to learn very little from the relevant public or private sector entities about two issues that will have a critical bearing on the business community in Guyana, namely, the United States Food Safety Modernization Act and another piece of US legislation which will shortly require local commercial banks to make disclosures to the US Treasury Department about the assets of account holders who are United States citizens. The relevant public and private sector organizations that ought to be taking the lead in dealing with these issues – like the Private Sector Commission, the Bank of Guyana and the commercial banks – have, more or less, maintained a stony silence on these issues.
Still, we are more than comforted to discover that at least on private sector umbrella organization appears inclined towards a greater sense of openness, though we are by no means under any illusions that things will remain the same all the time. We understand that Mr Urling and his executive are keen to put the best possible face on the Chamber under their leadership and that in order to do so they must provide hard evidence of the commitment which they gave to being more open with the media. In the past few weeks they have certainly kept their word and long may that continue.
