– Donald Ramotar…but Govt. defeats Motion to air unedited Parliamentary sessionsBy Gary EleazarGeneral Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party and Member of Parliament,Kurt Warner Cardinals Jersey, Donald Ramotar told the National Assembly that freedom of expression in Guyana is second to none in the world.However, his party did not support the Motion tabled by People’s National Congress Reform Aubrey Norton to have Parliamentary sessions aired live or unedited.PPP/C General Secretary Donald RamotarThe lively debate commenced one week ago and according to Norton, with the exception of touching on the cost factor attached to the move, the government benches did not address any of the issues that he had raised in the House when the motion was tabled.Among those speaking on behalf of the Government were Ramotar, Presidential Advisor Gail Teixeira, and Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee. They all debunked the motion whilst it was staunchly defended by its mover,World Baseball Classic Jerseys 2017, PNCR Member of Parliament Mervyn Williams and Alliance For Change’s Vice Chairperson, Sheila Holder.According to Ramotar, there were already mechanisms in place to cater for adequate coverage of the National Assembly.He pointed to a motion that was approved in the House some time ago which allows for journalists to have access to the proceedings and could report. He added that journalists were also allowed to cover the work of the various Parliamentary committees.He noted that countries that do cater for live coverage of the activities in the Parliament such as Canada and Australia were among the richest in the Commonwealth. “So we have to make a decision on how to spend our limited resources.”As it relates to the opposition argument that they were not given adequate coverage, he pointed to a newspaper article, the contents of which, he said, focused more on the opposition.But the opposition benches argued that the state-owned National Communication Network radio and TV had the most reach into remote areas and as such were the viable options for live broadcasts.Teixeira also pointed to the aspect of cost. “We will move, over time, towards live broadcasts.”The objective of the Motion was something already being dealt with at the level of a Parliamentary Management Committee.She noted that according to a 2003 survey, only five of the 60 Commonwealth countries provided live debates with Trinidad and Tobago following suit recently. She pointed out, however, that in the majority of cases the live broadcasts were not conducted by the State but rather by private personnel.She noted that in Trinidad it was broadcast over a cable service for which only subscribers were able to access it.Teixeira added also that the idea of the live broadcast was so prohibitive that even Britain was moving towards having the sessions aired via the internet.She noted that in Guyana, apart from the newscasts,Adam Clendening Jersey, there was also the Parliamentary roundup programme which was circulated to various television stations and aired.This programme was lambasted as biased and did not represent the views of the opposition,Alexis Sanchez Chile Jersey, and as such could not be an adequate alternative.She added also that even in the countries that do deliver unedited broadcasts, only a limited amount, “less than five percent,” would pay attention, calling it a niche audience, meaning people who were politically oriented.Attorney at law Basil Williams in defending the motion told the House that the populace,Cheap Jordan Shoes For Sale, despite of which party they supported, deserved the right to view how they are being represented by the elected officials so that they can make informed judgments for themselves.He reminded the House, too, of a call by the President of the Guyana Press Association who during a workshop for media operatives and MPs held by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had called for the live broadcasts of Parliamentary sessions or allocate radio frequency to do same.Home Affairs Minister,Air Max 97 NZ, Clement Rohee lambasted the motion by Norton as being politically motivated with no proper research and “void of any economic thinking”.He added that apart from the financial burden of unedited broadcasts, there were legal implications in that there “could be a slip of the tongue” and persons could make slanderous or libelous statements.He said that the time was not right for the motion and Norton should have consulted with other stakeholders first.Norton, who defended his motion, told the House that his argument wa