The article attributed several statements I allegedly made to your news reporter pertaining to the housing development on the East Coast Demerara. It is not part of my psychological make up to be abusive and/or to denigrate others. My constant preoccupation is to get ahead with the job for which I have portfolio responsibility, and I do that job without fear or favour.
It bothers me, however, when the Stabroek News reports inaccurately and subjects itself to vain and spurious accusations that are completely bereft of analysis and fairness.
As Minister, I have repeatedly invited the Stabroek News to cover events where I speak ad nauseam of my ministry’s programmes and policies. Such fora would have provided invaluable information to your news team on the processes and methodologies that the ministry follows in our land allocation programme. It would have also provided your reporters with first hand, irrevocable evidence of how the process works in real time and with real people. Instead your paper absents itself from these occasions and relegates itself to back-room reporting that discredits your paper’s integrity. Take for example the case of your reporter seeking to waylay me for an explanation of these same processes and procedures in the chambers of Parliament which was in full session. It is imbecilic for anyone to believe that such an interview was possible. I believe that it would be useful for your reporters to be schooled in the difference between a ‘comment’ and an ‘interview.’
I have said on many previous occasions that my ministry follows a clearly defined and well documented process in land allocation. The process was no different in the case of the East Coast Demerara housing development at Plaisance. The CH&PA has elaborated several mechanisms which includes Public/Private partnerships, high income development, middle income development, medium income development and our internationally acclaim-ed low income settlement programme. The land itself was subject to approved valuation and sold at market value.
Journalism is intended to be ethical, not sensational and pampering political motivations. How can there be fairness when only one party’s view is expressed? Your paper regrettably continues to be guilty of this indiscretion.
Let us look at one recent example. On November 19, 2010, the ministry held a ‘One Stop Shop’ at its Brickdam office; all media houses were invited.
Again, Stabroek News absented itself at that ‘One Stop Shop’. I spent time again dealing with the matter Stabroek News raised. Now is the Minister or Ministry to be blamed for this absence? Certainly not, but would you be ethical enough to share the reason for your continuous absence at these activities where important public information is documented?
Yours faithfully,
Mohamed Irfaan Ali
Minister
Ministry of Housing & Water
Editor’s note
1. Minister Ali appears to be the victim of an inexplicable memory lapse, since he did respond to our reporter in the inappropriate terms which we reported in our edition of November 18, and we stand by our account of that response.
2. Minister Ali confuses general “processes and methodologies” in relation to the allocation of land, etc, with what happened in the specific instance of the Sparendaam land, popularly dubbed ‘Pradoville 2.’ In other words, the issue is not what the rules and procedures are, but whether they were followed in this case. Was the land advertised publicly, for example, and how was it allocated and valued? As our report went on to say: “Observers say this is crucial as ordinary members of the public are subjected to rigorous guidelines and procedures for the apportioning of land. How the land in a prime spot close to the city could have been allocated to big-wigs only is a source of concern.” As such, Mr Ali’s “ad nauseam” deliveries on his ministry’s “programmes and policies” are hardly relevant to the issue, and would have been of no help in enlightening the public about the Sparendaam land transfer.
3. Minister Ali now says that his ministry held a “One Stop Shop” on November 19 – two days after he spoke to our reporter – at which he spent time dealing with the matter this newspaper raised. We were not present, because these are not occasions when matters of policy and larger public interest are normally covered, and as it was, there was no prior indication whatsoever that Mr Ali was now prepared to make public details in response to the questions we had asked about ‘Pradoville 2.’ Perhaps we could remind the Minister about what he told our reporter on Wednesday when asked when he would speak to us on the Sparendaam land issue: “Ali said that he was busy and ‘when I feel like speaking to you I will speak to you.’ Asked when this would be, he asked whether the reporter was trying to ‘direct’ him. He then said that this would be when this newspaper stop with ‘y’all stupidness’…” Are we to understand, therefore, that Minister Ali changed his mind and decided to address the issue after all during the Friday “One Stop Shop,” but still omitted to tell this newspaper he was now prepared to do so?
However, since Minister Ali now says he dealt with the matter Stabroek News raised, perhaps his ministry could issue a press release for the benefit of the public detailing the specifics of what transpired in relation to the Sparendaam land in terms of tendering (or the absence thereof), advertising, valuation, sale, etc, rather than the meaningless generalities he offers above.
4. Minister Ali is being disingenuous when he claims what we needed was an interview with him and not a comment. In fact, if he had been prepared to be totally candid about the specifics of the Sparendaam land transfer, it would have taken only a brief time to convey that information – something which would have been comfortably covered by the word ‘comment.’ (The term is in any case a vague one in media parlance that has no specific time-frame attached to it.) However, if Mr Ali was of the view that there were complexities in the case which required a lengthy interview, he could have told the reporter to contact him at a time which he, the Minister, found convenient, to make an appointment. The fact that he was not prepared to do this and engaged instead in contumely directed at both this newspaper and our reporter, simply confirms the impression that there was something to hide.
5. We have stated on many occasions before that we are not aligned to any political party, and we repeat it here. We are, however, puzzled that Minister Ali should consider that questions raised in relation to a land deal about which the public has an undisputed right to know, represent evidence of promoting a political party. Surely he does not believe that in a democracy a minister of government does not have to answer any legitimate questions from the press which he happens not to like?
Once again, he opens himself to the charge that the government of which he is a representative, does not want the full details of ‘Pradoville 2’ out in the open.
