IF YOU DO NOT KNOW, FIND OUT!

Feb 19, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

During the time of Forbes Burnham an incident occurred in the security sector. Burnham asked his security Minister at the time about the incident. The Minister who was unaware of the incident replied that he did not know of the matter. To which Burnham replied, “It is your duty to know.”
The point that Burnham was making was that persons entrusted with public office must take responsibility for the sectors that come under their portfolios and seek to find out what is happening in those areas. When matters are brought to their attention, they should have the answers. If they do not know, it is their duty to find out.
It is accepted that a person holding public office cannot always know everything (even though that person is some who behaves as if he or she knows it all) and therefore there are times when things happen that can slip the attention of those who normally pay the keenest attention to the most  minor of details.
The President of Guyana cannot know everything and we therefore must accept his explanation that he did not know about the running of a pipeline to an area in which he is constructing a home. He did not know. He should be believed.
But now that he knows that a pipeline was run, he may wish to have those responsible for this area of government, answer questions that were initially raised, not in this newspaper, but in the National Assembly.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about a pipeline being run to a housing scheme, regardless who will be the future residents. In fact, one expects that all schemes, public or private, will enjoy such facilities and therefore there should be no reason why answers could not be provided as to the pipeline which was run to that scheme or whether that pipeline existed.
The issue should never be about whether a pipeline should have been run. The issue should have been about answering the questions about this pipeline when it was asked.
In that respect, there must be some amount of disappointment in the manner in which this issue has been dealt with both in the National Assembly and in a recent presidential press conference. The manner is which the questions were dealt with does not bring respect to the offices of those involved, and could subject these offices to a loss of the high regard in which they ought to be held.
Even if the President was unaware about the pipeline issue, he ought to have read about it in the news reports about the Budget Debate when questions were first asked about the pipeline.
If he did read about it, then he ought to have made it his duty to find out. To simply state that he did not know does not enhance the credibility of the office he holds. If on the other hand, he did not know about any pipeline or about questions being asked about it in the National Assembly, when asked about it at his press conference, he should have simply deferred the question to the relevant subject Minister with the instruction that answers be provided.
Instead of doing this, what we have had was an answer which will not bring an end to this matter.  And there is no need for this matter to be prolonged. Answers that should bring closure to this matter should be provided. But will those answers be provided?
One of the incessant complaints of this newspaper is about the difficulty in obtaining information from the government. When that information is obtained through unofficial channels and made public, this newspaper is derided as having an agenda, or is accused of being part of the new opposition in the country. Does anyone take such statements seriously?
It does absolutely no credit to those holding high offices to be making such accusations and only causes disrespect to their offices.
The issue therefore is about public accountability. The issue is about the public’s right to know and the government’s duty to facilitate information.
While the government may contend that they cannot guess what questions the media have in mind, at least when questions are asked, both by the media and by parliamentary representatives, answers must be provided because even if someone did not know about something, once it was brought to their attention, they should find out.
The President himself indicated that when he came back from overseas he asked questions about the laptops which were purchased by the Office of the President. Therefore, and quite commendably, he made it his duty to find out and he was told that there was a competitive process.
In the same way, he could have indicated that he would seek either to find out whether a pipe main was laid in the area where he is building his home. This is how public matters ought to be conducted.
There is no reason, absolutely none, why this matter should have become an issue. The intended residents of that area deserve water like any other and no one will begrudge water being given to them. So why then even if the information was not known, could attempts not be made to find out and make the necessary disclosures?

---

---