Ministers and the mediaSEAN DOUGLAS Sunday, October 11 2009
click on pic to zoom in
Minister of Public Administration Kennedy Swaratsingh....
DO Government Ministers understand the role of the media, and their own role? The question arose in a most glaring way at Thursday’s post-Cabinet media conference at the Diplomatic Centre, when Minister of Public Administration, Kennedy Swaratsingh, seemed to get offended when reporters asked him about what they considered to be the most pressing issues of the day.
It all began when three out of the four ministers attending gave the most mundane presentations on the minutiae of their portfolios, when in fact the attention of the rest of the country was clearly focussed elsewhere on more vital issues.
Swaratsingh spoke of the launch of an employee assistance programme (EAP) for the Public Service – which is certainly a noble thing, but is not the most urgent issue facing the country now.
Legal Affairs Minister Peter Taylor spoke of a conference to try to patent local folk knowledge, while Culture Minister Marlene Mc Donald spoke of the splendid programme at the People’s Space at next month’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), both issues were, however, clearly not urgent matters. In the last few minutes of the questions session, reporters tried to get information about the issues that they and their editors thought were the matters of most importance to the wider public.
A female print reporter asked about the status of Udecott. The Newsday reporter took up her call and tried to hold the Government to account.
The past week has seen very serious concerns about potential threats to the good governance of this country. The Government-appointed board of Udecott got a High Court to freeze the Commission of Inquiry into Udecott, chaired by Prof John Uff, which has so far found that billions of dollars in projects have been run with little accountability but rather almost as one big family business.
At the post-Cabinet briefing, the Newsday reporter questioned the absence of so many ministers whose portfolios are now prominent in the news, such as Attorney-General John Jeremie who should have been present to discuss the Uff inquiry.
Swaratsingh interjected to cut off the reporter, chiding: “...Spend the time asking questions to the Ministers who are here. If you are interested in doing that, please proceed...”
Newsday asked, “The question I have to ask you is could you all use your good office to impress on your Cabinet colleagues the importance of being here to address the issues of the day.”
Swarartsingh ignored the question. He turned to invite questions from another reporter, but that reporter in turn supported the call of the Newsday reporter.
Swarartsingh chided the reporters present, retorting, “It always amazes me that you choose to spend the time thinking about what you would want to ask... Unfortunately you don’t get to make those decisions, as to who comes to the post Cabinet press conference. But insofar as ministers who are available to you, either use the time to ask questions or we can adjourn the press conference.”
He suggested reporters seek out the AG in Parliament.
Newsday said, “We could ask a question. Did Cabinet discuss the Uff situation?”
He replied, “We did not discuss it today.”
The other burning issue of the week was the establishment of a Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) under a Bill of the same name, passed by Parliament with the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Bill, to combat money-laundering.
The Bill creates an FIU which enjoys sweeping and some say, draconian powers, to investigate any business or commercial activity deemed suspicious. The Government hustled Senators and MPs into rushing through the Bills, even though to an observer it seemed that not all the implications of the Bill were properly understood.
The FIU Bill, mind you, imposes a $1 million fine and three years imprisonment not for being found guilty of any offence, but merely for failing to supply information requested to the FIU!
Was the Government really telling the truth by saying that if the Bill wasn’t passed by Friday the country would be blacklisted internationally? Was some bureaucrat in Geneva or New York watching his clock with telephone to find out if Trinidad and Tobago passed the Bill by say 4 pm, in the nick of time to avoid black-listing? That’s a bit hard to believe.
The key issue with the FIU was that despite the Government agreeing to drop a clause that said it be subject to policy directives from the Finance Minister, the Bill still retains the clause that says it will be a department of the Ministry of Finance. Where is the insulation from the political directorate, asked many?
The Government ignored Prof Ramesh Deosaran’s call for the FIU to be set up totally independent, and calls from the Opposition and Independent Senators for it to fall under the Central Bank.
Newsday tried to raise this issue at the post-Cabinet briefing but did not get a receptive reply from Mr Swaratsingh.
Newsday asked if Cabinet had discussed concerns that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) might be a “Big Brother” as it is located in the Ministry of Finance?
Swaratsingh replied, “Tomorrow we will be in the Parliament and we will deal with the amendments that will come from the Senate, and you will feel free to come to Parliament tomorrow.” Another topical issue this week, dealing with two issues close to the hearts of most citizens – schooling and crime – was the strip-search by three police officers of 32 pupils of St Joseph’s College after $1,400 went missing from a pupil.
Was it ethical, and was it lawful?
Newsday tried to raise the question at the post-Cabinet briefing but we were blanked.
Minister of Public Utilities, Mustapha Abdul-Hamid, stepped in to field the query instead of Swaratsingh.
Abdul-Hamid said, “I don’t know if that’s a fair question to be asking. The ministers who are relevant and who may be in a better position to respond are not here, and I suggest that you take action otherwise...”
Overall, reporters at the media conference saw at first an attempt to create a smokescreen of irrelevance to block out the really vital issues from being discussed frankly. When reporters stood together and stood their ground to press for accountability and transparency from the Government spokespersons, the reporters were met with exasperation, bordering on hostility.
Even after the formal media briefing had ended, it was clear that Swaratsingh was very hot under the collar indeed.
There seemed to be a feeling that reporters must only be there to take down Ministers’ words, but to have no curiosity and questions of their own.
One good outcome of the event is that hopefully all parties concerned – the public, the politicians and the media – will give some thought as to the sacred duty of the media to be the eyes, ears and mouth of the public.
In fact on Thursday, the incident was broadcast on TV6, which was also highlighted on Friday by radio broadcast duo, “Tony and Dale”, and Ms Marcia Henville who interviewed Swaratsingh on her talk-show.
The Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MATT) stood firmly behind the reporters, in a statement on Friday, saying they were shocked and disappointed by the ungracious conduct of Mr Swaratsingh.
MATT stated, “It is inappropriate for any minister to attempt to scold professional journalists for doing their job. In so doing, Swaratsingh displayed an alarming lack of respect and understanding not only of the news media, but also of the interest of the public whom he is sworn to serve. The media are there to represent that public interest.”
MATT said journalists would be failing in their duty if they did not ask queries of the urgent issues of the day, such as Udecott. “It is therefore highly inappropriate for a Government minister to respond to queries on those topics by being discourteous and disrespectful to journalists who are voicing the wish of the public to be told more about how the Government is conducting the people’s business.”
MATT queried Swaratsingh’s remarks that reporters don’t choose which Mministers attend the news briefing, with MATT asking why this couldn’t be done.
MATT quipped that given Thursday’s events, the Government might now instead want to merely issue press releases and Government Information Services recordings of selected ministers reading their speeches, as opposed to what is now being seen as a propaganda platform in which the media are used as stenographers to record only the tidbits of information the Government chooses to share.
“Professional journalists have more useful and productive ways to spend their time. MATT believes the minister owes the media an apology.”
