Dr Leslie Ramsammy, the Minister of Health, has written this newspaper more than once responding to public criticism of himself or his ministry or correcting a report which had appeared which he perceived to be erroneous or incomplete. It is an excellent practice, acknowledging as it does his responsibility to account to the electorate for his public actions, and is in keeping with the requirements of a democracy.

Dr Henry Jeffrey, now Minister of Education, has also been in the habit of responding to his critics and Prime Minister Sam Hinds from time to time writes detailed letters on bauxite and other issues and, commendably, is usually willing to speak to the media on current affairs. And more recently Mr Ajay Baksh, who has been retained as a public relations consultant, has written letters on behalf of government ministries answering questions or responding to issues raised by members of the public. Finally, the Government Information Agency (GINA) has been revitalised and is putting out more information about the government's activities. These are all welcome steps in the direction of public accountability for the government's actions or, in some cases, its failure to act.

There are some institutions which do not respond to responsible public criticism and even fail to provide information on important issues of the day. The Bank of Guyana is a well known example but by no means the only one. Outside of government, organisations like Guyana Power and Light often write providing information on issues that have been raised or hold press conferences.

There have been a few surprising failures to respond to what appears on the surface to have been reasonable queries concerning public officials or institutions. One such case was a letter written by Mr Rex McKay SC complaining about procedures adopted and decisions made by two senior judicial figures. It is certainly true that judges normally do not and should not make themselves heard on contentious or public issues of the day. Where, however, there is a very detailed allegation of a procedural irregularity as distinct from a more generalised comment on say sentencing one might legitimately expect some response. More recently, Mr Desmond Hoyte, the leader of the opposition, has referred to what appear to be fictitious entries in the Cause Book in the Supreme Court Registry showing that a case had been dismissed. We believe that the Registrar should respond, as she has done forthrightly on other occasions.

It is desirable that public debate and the discussion of issues of the day should be as well informed as possible. It is the duty of the media to present such issues as accurately and objectively as possible and they are greatly assisted in doing this if public figures are forthcoming with information. It is also desirable that public debate should not be unnecessarily confrontational. Apart from anything else, the anger this generates often tends to obscure the issues. Experienced journalists know that much of the information they receive, sometimes given in good faith, proves on enquiry to be quite inaccurate. There is often a good explanation available for an apparent abuse or defect if only one is prepared to make the effort to get it.

Public accountability in terms of holding press conferences, issuing press releases and responding to criticism is an important part of a democratic society.