Dear Editor,

Who exactly does the government think we are? Complete fools? PM Samuel Hinds is now telling us that the Chinese have not been allocated a licence notwithstanding that they occupy a spot on our electromagnetic spectrum since they are using a Guyana frequency space which was allocated to NCN!

This frequency was given to NCN even though no licences were to be given until the Broadcast Authority was formed as agreed between Jagdeo and Hoyte since 2001, but let us say that the frequency was properly allocated to NCN, they cannot then use it to put the Chinese on the air since they would be usurping the functions of the Broadcast Authority which is the only one authorised to make such a determination. In addition, the new Broadcast Act (deficient as it is in so many ways) does say that if that is what they intended to do, they would have to get permission from the Broadcast Authority, which of course they never did.

I am afraid that we have lost this battle. I will not go into the reasons why I think so; the public already knows, it’s reflected in every letter I see in the newspapers, but on naming the authority Mr Ramotar named six people who can never be independent or impartial while the opposition was only allowed to name one. Such an act cannot be entertained. After the appointees being named, the new authority then announced that the broadcasters then on the air immediately applied to become broadcasters under the new act, and people kept asking me why they had to apply again. My answer is simple: by applying they are in fact agreeing to several things some of which have not yet been determined, ie what criteria will be used to determine who can and who cannot be a broadcaster, and a continuing question as to whether the findings of the bipartisan board agreed to by the government and the opposition will be honoured.

The act does have conditions, but there are contradictions. What role would the opposition play in such a situation? By applying they are agreeing to the method of selection of this lopsided broadcasting authority which will never be independent or autonomous, and they are agreeing to pay, as a fee to the authority, a certain percentage of their gross annual income of the previous year without knowing how much that percentage will be. They are agreeing to give the government a certain amount of free airtime every week, to broadcast government propaganda, without knowing what yardstick will be used to determine the amount of time per week and the type of material they will have to broadcast, and numerous other conditions which by applying to this authority they are giving tacit agreement to − without knowing exactly what those conditions will be since they have not yet been determined. Hugh Chlomondeley used to call it the cart before the horse.

This plan the opposition has which is to leave this bill in place and modify it bit by bit over time, is a certain path to disaster. They should repeal this entire bill now and in its place produce two bills to save time. The first one will be more important and can be drafted in just a few days, and should outline the way we will establish a more equitable way to select the members of an independent  authority which can represent all the special interest groups. After selecting a truly autonomous and independent authority of knowledgeable people they will then come up with all the conditions which will regulate broadcasting. The persons identified in this Jagdeo authority have no idea or expertise in this matter and to date, predictably, are simply a conduit and a rubber stamp and have allowed 10 radio licences so far, issued to friends of the PPP and Jagdeo to be put in place, all of which are improperly and illegally granted.

The following is contained in UNESCO’s ‘Guidelines For Broadcasting Regulations’ in a democracy; it’s the second edition by Eve Salomon I am quoting here. She is an international media consultant with particular experience in broadcasting and press regulation. She was Director of Legal Services at the UK Radio Authority and is a member of the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.

At 2.21.1 Means of appointment: we are told that, “It is vital for members of a broadcasting regulatory authority to be able to function free from any interference or pressure from political or economic forces. Therefore the means of appointment should be set out clearly in law and should be done in a democratic and transparent manner.”

The new independent authority I propose should after a reasonable period of consultation with the opposition, religious groups, women’s groups, the private sector and civil society organisations, including trade unions, etc, come up with a complete and reasonable list of all the conditions which a person must abide by in order to broadcast in Guyana. This is what I understand Trinidad is doing. We have in this country people like Kit Nascimento who can be retained as a consultant to help the authority make these regulations.

I urge the opposition to embark on this path as being the only one which makes sense, since by the time they act on the path they have embarked on, it will most certainly be too late.

I maintain that this is a better method of attacking this problem since whilst the opposition is modifying the Broadcast Bill currently in place, the PPP can do whatever mischief they want, and they can do a lot since they have no regard for their own laws, which would be difficult if not impossible to undo later.

I fear that by the time they act so many licences will have been awarded to PPP friends and supporters that it will be impossible for the opposition to conduct a legitimate election in this country.

Also, notwithstanding the fact that the electromagnetic spectrum is a finite national resource, the authority is obligated to ensure that this country can afford the advertising revenue to finance 20 radio stations. Since the first 10 stations were awarded to those allied to the PPP, then the next 10 must be awarded to people who support the opposition.

This regulatory body when installed and before it commences granting licences for either TV or radio must have studies done to determine how many stations the various markets (Demerara, Essequibo, Berbice) can support since it is in no one’s interest to have too many radio and TV stations which by virtue of the limited Guyana advertising pie will not properly serve the public’s interest, convenience and necessity. At all times broadcast regulations must be done to satisfy the public’s interest, and not for political gain which has happened in this case.

Yours faithfully, Tony Vieira