Dear Editor,
IN the USA, the United Kingdom and most developed countries there is the concept of fact-checking. This is more evident during an election season, but the fact is, it is also available outside of the prescribed election period. The rationale underpinning fact-checking is to hold the politician to account without which they may not do their homework or more concerningly, they may intentionally distort the truth.
In Guyana, some politicians literally walk out their beds and turn up at interview studios without any preparation or research. This is concerning when one considers that young impressionable children may be looking at those substandard interviews and may wrongly believe that this is the level to aim for– ankle-level low. Also of concern is the fact that if they cannot effectively manage their time, then how can they manage a country? Of greater concern is the fact that the electorate would have been deprived of invaluable information– due to the tardiness of the politician — in making an informed choice on polling day.
Rhonda-Ann Lam was on Mark Benschop radio last week. She was being interviewed by Melissa Davy. There were no forensic questions; there were no entrapping questions. In essence, there were bread-and-butter questions. Questions that I would have been able to answer without any preparation. Unfortunately, Mrs Lam mumbled and fumbled through the interview and in the process made erroneous and misleading statements. Those erroneous statements were many, but I will focus on the three I found most concerning.
Ms. Davy put to Mrs. Lam that there is massive improvement in internet access across the country. The question was asked of Mrs. Lam about her views on the improved internet access, even in the hinterland regions. Mrs. Lam’s first response was to downplay this achievement by stating that the the United Nations stated that everyone should have free internet which is presently not the case in Guyana. Ms. Davy subsequently asked Mrs. Lam who will pay for the free internet access. I am quite sure Mrs. Rhonda-Ann Lam has relatives overseas and should know that no country in the world provides internet free to all its citizens. That alone should have alerted her that something was wrong with her response. Unfortunately, her thoughts were jumbled and she responded that the state will foot the bill. The fact is that the UN never declared what Mrs. Lam stated– far from it.
What the UN stated is that internet access is a human right and everyone should have access to it. They were referring to countries where internet connection may not be available in the rural areas. Moreso, they were referring to countries such as China, where the state controls citizens’ access to the internet. By making internet access a human right, it becomes mandatory that governments provide internet access or face sanctions. Clearly, Mrs. Lam, as someone with an English degree, you must know that access is not synonymous with “freeness.” The government has a responsibility to make the internet available(access) and the citizens decide whether they will purchase.
The second blunder was in relation to Ruel Johnson. She was asked of Ruel’s repeated actions of writing damaging statements on social media about the government of which he was a part. Her response is consistent with the response of all the TCI members. In her attempt to defend Ruel Johnson’s actions, Mrs. Lam’s response was that when Ruel was critical of the PPP government, members of the opposition APNU+AFC were happy, but when he was critical of the APNU+AFC Government, they were not happy. It was shocking to hear such a fallacious argument when on multiple occasions I have corrected members who hold that view. Clearly, Mrs. Lam must have anticipated that question. Clearly, she should have realised that an informed answer was required. The fact is, when Ruel was critical of the PPP Government he was a regular citizen, hence he was entitled to that. When he repeatedly wrote damaging statements about the government, he was their employee, hence his damaging comments were covered by employment law.
All companies, businesses or governments have their brand to protect. Because of this, laws are in place to protect their brand where employees cannot take it upon themselves to publicly write or utter damaging statements which can damage their brand. The law is not there to protect only the employers, it is also there to protect the employees and provide them a medium to ventilate their grievances indoors, via the established mechanisms. As a result, it is mandatory that employers have an internal grievance procedure that employees can follow if they have grievances. Any employee who ignores this established internal grievance procedure and choose to ventilate their grievance publicly and in the process damage their employer’s brand can be fired. When Ruel chose to write damaging information about the government, he was employed as an adviser, he was damaging their brand. He was in breach of his contract to not damage the government’s brand.
Most employers would have terminated his contract with immediate effect. The fact is that any student of politics must have seen what advisers and ministers do when they do not agree with a government’s policies. They simply resign then they can be critical of the government if they so wish, providing what they disclose are not state-sensitive secrets. Look at the many employees of the Trump administration who resigned because they did not agree with his policies. None of them went public to attack him or his administration when they were part of it. Look at the four prosecutors who were involved in the Roger Stone case, who resigned recently because they were not in agreement with Trump’s action. Look what has happened under Boris Johnson, before and after BREXIT. Look at his Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid who recently resigned because Boris Johnson wanted him to change all his advisers which he did not agree with.
He did not hold onto his job, enjoy the massive pay then go venting his anger on social media and as a result damaging the government’s brand. What I have described is standard procedure that has been around for centuries. Ruel Johnson refused to adhere to it since he is weak in his conviction and wanted to have his cake and eat it. Someone who has a strong conviction in his/her belief is prepared to give up their government position for it and not be collecting a monthly income while biting the hand that is feeding them. That’s the issue Rhonda-Ann Lam that made many Guyanese distrust Ruel Johnson. He attempted to damage the government’s brand and in the process he has irreparably damaged his own.
The third misstep by Mrs. Rhonda-Ann Lam was when she was asked which voters she would be targeting. She said she would be targeting swing voters, but in the process of explaining swing voters she was actually describing undecided voters. As a result, I would now briefly describe the three.
Decided voters as the name suggests have already decided and likely to have been voting for their party for years. It makes no sense targeting that group.
Undecided voters have not determined which party they will vote for. In some situations, their votes can determine the outcome of the elections then they are considered swing voters.
Swing voters are generally undecided voters, but what differentiates them from the standard undecided voters is the fact that their votes can potentially determine the outcome of an election. As a result, politicians invest heavily in this group. On many occasions after the American elections you would observe that the reporters are eager to determine who won the “swing states,” since that may give them an indication, before the other states have declared their votes, of who is likely to win the election. Also, exit polls are useful in this regard.
Please permit me to close on the issue of semantics. Mrs. Rhonda-Ann Lam, being popular is not the same as being well known. You kept repeating that Ruel Johnson is the most popular member of TCI, nationally. You actually meant he is the most well known. For future reference, popular means well liked, while well known is self explanatory. You have a degree in English, use it.
Regards
Dr Mark Devonish
