The current fiscal debate going on in our country has attracted the attention of many from all walks of life. That is as it should be given that we have an active two-party democracy with freedom of expression; an independent judiciary and a Press, in which subject to the laws respecting defamation and contempt of court, may publish that which its reporters and editors feel should be published in the public interest.
As members of the Fourth Estate, we would be irresponsible and deserving of censure if were to misuse our power to be alarmist in the manner in which we report the news, especially as it relates to the economic consequences of any government policy announced in the Budget or otherwise.
We are therefore not accepting the accusation made by Prime Minister Freundel Stuart that we have been alarmist in the execution of our duty to inform.
The immediate issue which attracted the Prime Minister’s comment was the matter of temporary workers receiving letters or notices informing or reminding them that their employment was due to end.
We saw it as our duty to report the news, and on the face of the information then available, there was a genuine public interest in this matter being raised to active public attention. Indeed given the recency of the Budget debate, and the contents of that statement which spoke to the need to cut public expenditure; and given the proximity of the receipt of the letters and indeed the receipt in some cases of termination slips, we duly reported the issues raised.
We can hardly be accused of being alarmist when it took the Honourable Prime Minister, whose duties include responsibility for the Public Service, some time to find out what was causing these letters to appear in the hands of temporary employees.
That meetings have had to take place between the Prime Minister and senior officials within the Civil Service to get to the core of this issue is proof of the correctness of our approach.
The Prime Minister has now been able to speak directly and with all relevant information to the public on this issue, and to give us an explanation about what he calls a “false alarm”.
We feel that democracy was well served in this instance. The issue arose, there was some anxiety on the part of workers and their unions, the Press gave the matter due publicity and the Prime Minister was able to properly update himself and to seek to bring some peace and calm back to workers.
Now if those workers are better informed because of the information given by the Prime Minister, it is because the Press dealt with this matter in a mature, non-sensationalist and non-alarmist manner even in pursuance of its duty to give the people the facts and let them form their own judgments.
On reflection, we anticipate that the Prime Minister will agree that we were faithful to our public duty.