Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh has every right to be concerned over instances in which unfavour-able images of Guyana are propagated overseas and their impact on how Guyana may be perceived among important audiences, including, of course, foreign investors.
The minister is also correct in his assertion at a recent private sector forum that the business community ought to see it as part of its responsibility to ensure that those positive investor-friendly developments that have to do with management of the economy, economic growth, industrialization and state policies that augur well for private sector growth and overseas investment are disseminated to overseas audiences.
President Jagdeo has also made this point from time to time about reports on Guyana emanating from external agencies that paint a negative picture of the country’s social and economic climate while ignoring those admittedly positive developments that ought correctly to be given a comparable measure of prominence in those reports. One understands the President’s concern though, of course, it is unwise to either dismiss or ignore those reports since it is entirely reasonable to believe that such reports also get into the hands of potential investors who might use them as a barometer – perhaps the only one in some cases – with which to determine whether or not Guyana is an investor-friendly country.
Managing the external image of Guyana, therefore, must take account of a complex set of circumstances, which, contrary to what is sometimes believed, has to do with striking a balance between disseminating that which is positive and that which is not rather than on the pursuit of a propagandistic approach that seeks to suggest that what exists here is some kind of Utopia. External audiences, particularly overseas investors, are concerned about the credibility of the information that reaches them and if, for example, the local private sector were to come to be perceived as being concerned only with telling our overseas audiences what it considers to be the good things, then it will very quickly come to be seen as a questionable source of information.
The management of the Guyana economy through a globally challenging period of economic and financial crisis; the level of the country’s foreign reserves; evidence of higher levels of local private sector investment; investor interest in oil, hydropower and uranium and the raising of Guyana’s profile as a global advocate of climate change are accomplishments well-worthy of being brought to the attention of the international community and, particularly, potential overseas investors. As it happens, however, that is not the whole story. It would, for example, be by no means untrue to state that there is evidence of corrupt practices or at least shady dealings in several state agencies that involve both the diversion of monies from the public treasury and the enrichment of public officers; nor would it be untrue to claim the existence of a frustration factor, associated with sloth, bureaucracy and the requirement of offering bribes in order to get things done that have impacted on investor confidence in Guyana. There are other issues too – like the protracted delay in moving the tax reform process forward; the political entanglements that seem to defy efforts to resolve the problems associated with the management of our capital and what appears to be the virtually unsolvable problems associated with thievery at the Guyana Revenue Authority – which impact directly on investor confidence and are very real problems in our society. These too, like the aforementioned positive developments, are part of the Guyana story and while we must do all that we can to propagate the positive developments we cannot – even if we tried – wish the negative ones away.
It is simply not practicable to expect that the negative occurrences will not get reported in the media or that they will not find their way into the reports produced by the various international agencies. On the other hand, it is equally fair that such reports be attended by the details of such genuine efforts as are being made by government to reduce and, where possible eradicate corruption, to hasten the process of tax reform and to have the GRA clean up its act. If, however, there is an expectation that the negative occurrences will simply be ignored – which is sometimes the impression that is given – and only the positive developments reported on, then that is simply an exalted and unrealistic expectation.
Setting aside those matters that have to do directly with the economy, bureaucracy, and corruption – things which impact directly on investor confidence – there are also the social issues, like crime, in all its various forms, and the capacity of the law enforcement agencies and the legal system to provide protection to Guyanese and investors alike. These too are real issues and if it might be argued that there is sometimes a surfeit of ugly, crime-related news about Guyana that is disseminated overseas, it certainly cannot be argued that these are media contrivances. Again, it is fair too that even as we report on the crime situation, we should also take account of the efforts that are made to tackle the crime situation and the outcomes of those efforts.
Dr Singh is, of course, acutely aware of the cataclysmic changes which the advent of the information super highway has made to the culture of news dissemination and of the fact nothing, absolutely nothing of import – whether good or bad – that occurs in Guyana can be concealed from the prying eyes of the international community; and while we take his point that the private sector – and, we believe, the media – have a responsibility to ensure that potential investors are apprised of those investor-friendly events that occur in Guyana, we believe that equally, the investor-unfriendly occurrences ought to be reported and, indeed, will, be reported, whether or not the government, the private sector and even the local media choose to do so. The simple truth is that the contemporary information dissemination culture has created far too many prying eyes to allow for concealment of information – good or bad.
What we must aim for is the creation of an atmosphere of greater understanding between the state and the media that removes the underpinnings of hostility, suspicion and, on the government’s part, what is often a ‘policy’ of concealment of information, sometimes even in circumstances where the dissemination of such information would work to its advantage and to the advantage of the image that we create for potential investors. Here, we are not advocating an understanding that extends into having the media become a slavish propagator of state information, but an understanding that allows the media far more access to official information – in this case, information that has to do with the economy, business and investment – which, if the media are to be professional, balanced and responsible, they have a duty to take account of in their reporting of events and happenings in Guyana.
In the particular case of the Stabroek Business, there is one recent case in which an important policy maker in a key sector has agreed on the desirability of creating an environment in which more access to facilitating a flow of information on activities in that sector will be created. How we treat with that information, hopefully, will persuade other state agencies that there is no inconsistency between the role of the media in enabling the free flow of information and the infusion of various shades of information into reporting for the sake of balance and objectivity and the honest and objective reporting on positive national developments that impact favourably on the external image of the country.
