Dear Editor,
I was once professionally and intimately involved in the drafting of broadcast legislation for Guyana, along with Hugh Cholmondeley. It is a subject with which I enjoy a reasonable professional and academic experience. I write, therefore, to express both my shock and dismay that our government has, with seeming pride and satisfaction, granted an exclusive domestic broadcast frequency to the Government of China. I would be equally dismayed and shocked if our government were to grant such a right to any government.
The reason a country has broadcast legislation and establishes a broadcasting authority to grant a licence and frequency for broadcasting is that the airwaves (electro-magnetic spectrum) are a finite natural resource for mass communication and must, therefore, be used in a responsible manner to serve the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”
What the government has done, is to give, in effect, a broadcasting licence to own and operate a television broadcasting station in Guyana to the Government of China without it being subject to the regulatory requirements, principles and practices governing the issuance and use of a broadcasting licence applied universally in any democracy.
A fundamental principle and practice in any democracy governing the issuance and use of a broadcasting licence is, for instance, that the licencee “make a positive, diligent and continuing effort to determine the taste, needs and desires of the public in his (her) community and to provide programming to meet those needs and interests.” How, may I ask, is this public interest served, never mind regulated, by a broadcasting station broadcasting what amounts to Chinese propaganda?
Another fundamental principle and practice applied to the granting of a broadcasting licence is that a broadcasting station (licensee) “should not become the private preserve of certain individuals or groups to serve their special interest nor should they serve the exclusive interest of certain social, economic, political or religious philosophies or of particular business enterprises”. While it may be true that our Broadcasting Authority is yet to apply these principles to our domestic licences, they are most certainly violated by the granting of a licence to the Chinese government to broadcast material serving only its exclusive interest.
It is difficult, therefore, if not impossible, to understand how our government, which apparently has acted unilaterally in granting a broadcasting channel to China outside of the requirements of the recently passed Broadcasting Act and without the sanctioning of the Broadcasting Authority, should consider the granting of a broadcasting frequency to a foreign government to be serving the public interest and convenience of the people of Guyana.
I have quoted from the principles and practices set out by the Federal Communi-cations Commission (FCC) governing broadcasting in the USA. In fact, it is because of the application of these principles that ‘Voice of America’ is not allowed to broadcast domestically in the USA.
What our government has done, is to give to the Government of China, the absolute right to broadcast on a guaranteed domestic frequency, whatever it is the Government of China pleases to broadcast. What this does is to satisfy the political interest, convenience and necessity of the Government of China, not the public interest, convenience and necessity of the nation and people of Guyana.
Broadcast legislation, in fact, recognizes that while broadcasting is a form of expression subject to the constitutional guarantees of free speech of expression, it is dependent on utilizing limited channels of broadcast communication and, of necessity, must be regulated by the state on behalf of the public. By what means does the Government of Guyana intend to regulate this broadcaster, the Government of China, with regard to the broadcasting content on the channel gifted to them?
Whatever is broadcast on our airwaves, according to our Broadcasting Act, is intended to be administered and governed by an independent and autonomous Broadcasting Authority and regulated under licence by the authority. How, may I ask, was that licence granted in the first place and by whom and how will it be subject to the enforcement of the broadcasting standards set by our Broadcasting Regulations?
Finally, how does our government and, indeed, will our government justify the precedent it has set in granting a broadcasting licence (if that is what it has done) to a foreign government?
Why should another government, with whom we have diplomatic, trade and commercial relations, not expect the same privileged right and request an exclusive frequency to broadcast on a domestic channel?
What will our government say if, for instance, the Government of the USA requests an exclusive frequency to broadcast the Voice of America on a domestic channel, or the Government of the United Kingdom, requests an exclusive frequency to
broadcast the BBC on a domestic channel, or what if the government of Canada request an exclusive frequency to broadcast the Canadian Broadcast Corporation on a domestic channel, and we can go on and on?
I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any sovereign government which has granted to another government an unregulated exclusive right to broadcast on one of its domestic frequencies. Our government, no matter how much it wishes to cement relations with the Government of China, has made a horrific mistake and has set a dangerous and indefensible precedent.
Yours faithfully,
Kit Nascimento
