GINA is a professional body which functions in the interest of Guyanese

Dear Editor,

One is not surprised at the Stabroek News’ editorial captioned: ‘The GINA and NCN subventions’ and its vengeful rantings, as a response to the opposition motion that dictated deep budgetary cuts totalling some $22B to the overall estimates for 2012.  Such could have been predicted of this print media house, given its right wing and seemingly anti-working class nature, but  more so in addition to having an old axe to grind relative to a decision by government in 2006, to cease having state ads published in its pages.

Rather than apply some objectivity to its paragraphs with their subjective assumptions, like the political opposition whose viewpoints they now boldly articulate, the editorial begins with the now all too familiar view that the GINA staff need not be sent home, since “these persons … are well within the resourcefulness of the government to preserve.”  I find this statement very bewildering and illogical since cuts are indeed cuts, and will undoubtedly impact disastrously on the agency’s means and ability to retain its staff levels.

In fact, the assault on GINA especially, was done with the underlying aim of bringing the agency’s existence to an end. One only has to recall the articulations of APNU’S shadow Minister of Finance Carl Greenidge, now famous for his statement that his party does not apologise for staff having to join the breadline. To further accuse the government of parading GINA’s staff on the picket line in an exploitative manner is not only wholly defamatory, but also without basis in fact and lacking merit.

Emphatically, the decision to mount picketing and other forms of protests against the cuts, with their consequential threats to the staffers’ livelihoods, was a positive decision that was unanimously taken by these young people, intelligent enough to realise and understand the potential  devastation that such will impact on their own and their families’ well-being. The response that they made was natural, thus such a suggestion by this editorial is tantamount to implying that coercive and manipulative tactics were employed by GINA’s management. There was no subtle hint at coercion, threats or even manipulation, neither on the part of the agency’s seniors nor even from the executive. The staff did what came very naturally – protest against an opposition diktat.

Let it be stated,  inter alia, that the general  budgetary cuts and their implications, are indeed a threat to the entire nation’s socio-economic interests, and will therefore hurt not  just PPP/C supporters as suggested by SN’s editorial.  Further, it is very surprising that the Stabroek News now criticizes punitive actions which had been imposed on CNS 6 for its repeated breaches to broadcasting rules, when it had previously criticized the channel. This can only be interpreted as a hypocritical stance.  But such is the price that is paid for media concubinage!

Therefore, one can only conclude that the real reason for such a twisted and vengeful editorial is the decision by government not to advertise with the newspaper in 2006.

The reason for such a decision need not be repeated since it is already well known; but suffice, where it is necessary to remind Stabroek News of the following: that as far as is understood, there is no known rule which supports its contention that it “was entitled to a fair portion of the taxpayers’ money spent on government’s advertising.” Is this media house contending that its very raison d’être depended solely on this discretion, rather than on a basis determined by circulatory strength?

Of course, SN’s piece has correctly stated that “Governments are properly entitled to have information on their programmes and activities disseminated to all of the public in a manner that is neutral and straightforward.” This is precisely what GINA has been doing in accordance with its mandate, and not mercilessly commandeering its employees on cheerleading expeditions “in every nook and cranny of this country” as suggested.

To repeat, GINA is a professional body, which precedent precedes this present administration, and it has always been staffed by professionally trained and competent personnel, whose given function is to promote and highlight the administration of the day’s development policies, wherever these are taking place.  There is no GINA staff member who has ever been sent to cover a development project that did not exist. Is it commandeering employees to perform the duties of highlighting the commissioning of a water treatment plant? The opening of a health centre?   Schools which will serve the citizens wherever these are found? Is this not in the interest of Guyanese, and therefore, is this not neutral?

It must be stated comprehensively, that GINA is about the people of this nation, the beneficiaries, whose lives have been/will continue to be transformed by socio-economic interventions such as those highlighted by this agency.

What is wrong about this, Stabroek News?

Yours faithfully,
Neaz Subhan