It has been the third consecutive national budget that has seen the State‘s premier media, the  Government  Information  Agency(GINA), having been deprived of its annual subvention, by way of the combined Opposition- sponsored motions to that effect. Offering the spurious reason for such actions as biased reporting and propaganda, it has always been the OBSERVER’S contention that such acts are undemocratic, which constitute an assault on freedom of expression, and the right to be informed.

It is unbelievable, that such a brutality, behind such a baseless argument, could be advanced by the parliamentary opposition, on a media the likes of which had existed during the PNC government’s undemocratic years in Office. Of course, the Guyana Public Communications Agency (GPCA), the precursor of GINA, performed very much the same functions as the latter now does.
OBSERVER must compliment Peeping Tom for reminding readers of this fact in his column “GINA and the right to freedom of expression.” He was very objective in underlying the fact that freedom of expression is sacrosanct.
Every government has the god-given right to disseminate information on its policies, whereby the public is informed as to matters that have to do with their daily lives. Both Barbados and Jamaica are two examples within CARICOM that announce their respective government policies through designated agencies. In Europe, the Netherlands is another example that employs such a methodology.  And so, what is incorrect about any government that seeks to announce its programmes?
Is it offensive for any government, albeit that of the PPP/C to announce via its designated agency, GINA, that it will be commissioning a bridge; a water treatment plant; or a hospital? What is so unfair for GINA to be executing this mandated function via its outlet?
The Opposition must be reminded, that it cannot be vociferous in its call for government to be upholding the right of citizens to be informed of what is being done, and in the same breath, seeks to protest when it is done. And here again is a reminder – that funding is an absolute for any agency tasked with the responsibility of public information.
Surely, OBSERVER posits that had one of its Chairmen, the late Kester Alves, been alive he would have acknowledged that the GPCA had its budgetary allocation.
Therefore, to remove money meant for the daily operations of  GINA is incontestably a  murderous foray against its  functions, since such an aim is directed towards an important human right of any citizen – the right to be informed.
GINA can proudly and honestly justify its proud record of communication performance, and existence. It has never reported on a development issue that did not exist!