NEWS surfaced on Sunday that President David Granger has signed into law the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and that a number of broadcasters are in agreement with the 60 minutes time allocation for Public Service

Announcement as stipulated in the law.

The latter revelation-coming on the heels of protests mainly from groups not associated with the broadcasters would allow for the smooth implementation of the act and bringing much needed regulation to the industry.

There was also mention of broadcasters who had owed the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) millions in licensing fees, but are now coming forward to clear their arrears.

These developments aside, the industry is still fraught with other problems, which the administration has shown a willingness to address. The wild-west distribution of frequencies to specific individuals mostly aligned to the previous administration is among the thorniest of issues. Minister of State, Joseph Harmon during the debate on the amended act had disclosed how one entity – E-Networks was awarded 13 channels – the most for any single entity and the PPP’s Freedom radio has the widest reach. The owner of E-Networks is the brother of PPP, MP, Dr Vindhya Persaud and son of the late PPP stalwart, Reepu Daman Persaud.

Harmon revealed that in Regions Three and Four, E-Networks secured 10 channels; in Five and Six and another four. In addition, the opposition’s party radio station was granted the widest broadcast reach in the country.

Resolutions to issues of this nature should not be seen only through the lens of politics, given that it lends itself to the making of decisions outside of the policies, rules and standard practice instructions. Policies specifically would define how the sector will be treated and emerging from these, there are rules as to how licences are given and standard-practice to say how it is issued by those responsible for the distribution. It is clear from the Broadcasting Amendment Bill, which was piloted by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo that government intends to do just that.

The broadcasting spectrum is finite and does not belong to any individual; it belongs to the state. There needs to be clear policies as to how the spectrum will be treated, when and how it will be distributed, and for what purpose. In the specific case of the distribution of broadcasting licences by the Bharrat Jagdeo administration to persons perceived as friends and family of his, in the absence of conforming to policies and procedures, the issue needs to be returned to the status quo, hence the new requirement under amended act, where broadcasters must apply every year for a licence is most welcomed.

It has been revealed that they are persons who have requested licences that were never called, interviewed or given an opportunity to satisfy the requirement for the acquisition of same. Conversely, nearly every one identified as recipients of the licences are proven friends and family of Mr. Jagdeo and supporters of the PPP/C.

This issue must not be seen through partisan political lens, or a political party or government against a group or race. This issue must be seen for what it is: the broadcasting spectrum belong to the state and not a political party. Consequently, no political party or government has the right to dispense with it outside of the confines of the policies and laws. To allow this is to create another precedent for us, as individual and group, to be discriminated against in sharing of the national patrimony in which all of us have equal stake.

While the Broadcasting Authority was not in place at the time these licences were issued, the law does not vest the authority in any person or organisation outside of this body to grant licence. The issue at hand exemplifies a longstanding concern among the citizenry that the politically powerful and connected are wedded to the wrong view that the state’s resources/assets are their personal properties to dispense with at will, without regard for established norms, rules, laws and practices.

The predisposition to treat the state’s assets and resources as personal properties is a culture that has to be seriously addressed and measures taken to bring it to an end. The establishment of the State Asset Recovery Agency (SARA) is therefore key to bringing this culture to an end. The practice also leads to doubts and suspicion in the individual and government. It denies scarce/limited and finite resources being justly delivered to an individual and group that really deserve same.

In a society as small as ours, within which there exists continuous race conflict that influences prejudices against the other and which is also exploited for political expediency, the practice of treating state resources as personal property to dispense with at will is a hindrance in forging harmonious race relations. In this furor what is required to bring resolution is dealing with the matter in a principled manner, consistent with the policies and laws and recognition that the spectrum is finite.