Former Director General of the Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation Dan Callikan passed away during the week, unexpectedly succumbing to a heart attack. People from all political boards paid tribute to him. Whether one agreed or disagreed with what he stood for, no one can deny that the country has lost a fine brain and a great intellectual. As far as I know, the only interview Dan Callikan ever gave was to Weekly on February 18th, 2011. We thought it worthwhile to reproduce it this week for the benefit of our readers. We take this opportunity to present our deepest condolences to Dan’s wife, Sadhna Ramlallah, and the whole family.

Mr. Callikan, you are a media man but you seem to be avoiding the media at all costs. Any particular reason?
No, I do not avoid the media. I communicate when there is a need to communicate. When there are important things to say, important developments at the Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation (MBC), I come in front of the media and I put the information forward. What I am interested in is getting things done and delivering concrete results.

You remained silent when the debate about the dismissal of three people from your organisation created a very big polemic.
The polemic was engineered. In any case, there were not three dismissals – one resigned from the Corporation for her own reasons, one was made to retire with all the allowances she was entitled to and one was dismissed.

Still, Rehana Ameer and Pamela Patten were dismissed with no further ado. What were the causes which you have not disclosed so far?
Let me insist that only one was dismissed. At one point, they were both suspended but much as the media would like to link them, they are different and unrelated cases. Pamela Patten was suspended while an enquiry was carried out over an incident that happened during a transmission while she was duty officer. This was a professional matter. Rehana Ameer was suspended in the context of the circulation of an anonymous letter judged by the disciplinary committee to be highly defamatory

She says she was not responsible for the circulation of that letter.
Well, in front of the disciplinary committee, it was clearly established that she had circulated that highly defamatory letter.

But is that enough to sack someone?
Rehana Ameer was dismissed for two reasons: first for circulating the highly defamatory letter and second for making defamatory allegations in the press against the Director General of the MBC.

Oh, is that why she was sacked brit brit (summarily)?
By what yardstick was her dismissal brit brit? She was represented by her legal advisor and the president of the Parastatal Unions at the disciplinary committee and the board took the decision it deemed fit on the basis of the evidence presented by her lawyer

Why then did you remain silent throughout this episode? Don’t you care about public opinion?
My major preoccupation is to be respectful of the prerogatives of the board. Now that the board has already taken the decision, I am explaining to you the reasons behind this dismissal. May I add that, according to our constitution, if a person feels aggrieved or wronged by a decision taken by the board, that person can go to the Industrial Court for remedy. This was rightly pointed out by the minister of industrial relations in his interview with you last week. I still don’t understand why Mrs. Ameer has not done that yet. Though it is not my place to advise her on such matters.

But these women you are dismissing one after the other have won you the reputation of being an anti-feminist.
The board has dismissed one woman and retired one in the interest of the corporation. Three men were also dismissed the week before for consuming alcoholic drinks on the MBC premises. Accusing me of being an anti-feminist in the light of this would be difficult. Even for you ... (Laughs).

Should I accuse you of being a job-axing machine, instead? Would you rather live with that?
You must understand that when I took over, the situation at the MBC was nearing anarchy at all levels: human relations, administration, finance and marketing. The most abnormal and inacceptable practices were common practice here. Financially, we were nearing bankruptcy. We had a debt of Rs200million and a monthly deficit of Rs7 million. Are you suggesting that I should have stood by and watched it happen?

Was axing jobs the only way? Is sacking people the only way for the MBC to overturn
its debt?

Not at all. What I am trying to do is give you an idea of the general climate at the MBC when I took over and the conditions under which we had to function. We had to redress things at all levels and turn the situation around. Very few professional standards had been put in place or, if they had, they were not functioning properly. At the level of the staff, there was a huge amount of work to be done.

O.K. Let’s talk about staff matters.
When I arrived at the MBC, and this is a well known fact, there were clans and within these clans other clans. So the staff were divided and were tearing each other apart all the time. The situation was unhealthy. The climate of serenity appropriate for quality and professional work was lacking. We therefore had to redress the situation as a priority.

When you talk about this situation you have inherited, aren’t you pointing an accusing finger to your predecessor, Bijaye Madhoo?
All I am doing is giving you an idea of the situation as it was and the necessity for bringing in change and improving matters. There was such animosity between members of staff and the board and management that the atmosphere was not conducive to the creative work and quality productions that the public expects of the MBC.

But did you need to sack so many people to establish the kind of climate you are talking about?
We definitely needed to put an end to some of the causes behind a toxic atmosphere in which circulating highly defamatory anonymous letters was common practice ...

What did this letter you seem to take such exception to accuse you of?
That I will not tell you. If I revealed the contents, I would be circulating defamatory comments too. All I can tell you is that I have rarely come across anything as defamatory.

Isn’t that a measure of the unhappiness of your staff?
Anonymous letters have nothing to do with unhappiness. It is an unprofessional and cowardly practice which has been commonplace at the MBC for too long. It comes from a laissez-faire climate and a lack of discipline at all levels.

But there is apparently no other way to communicate with management, is there?
Let’s be serious! Are you suggesting that people should resort to the circulation of defamatory letters, attacking the personal lives of colleagues and destroying their family lives in order to communicate? Trade unions should be the first ones to denounce such practices as being immoral, unethical and against all principles of human rights and decency. At the MBC, we have regular meetings with the employees and with the unions. There is a dialogue open all the time. We have an open policy and when an employee is aggrieved, he or she can come in and talk about it.

Some of your employees talk about a climate of terror. That is hardly conducive to dialogue, is it?
A work environment characterised by basic discipline cannot be likened to a climate of terror. Such a comparison is sheer demagogy. If you had been here at our annual party just a couple of months ago, you would have realized that that is not true at all. Board members, management and employees all shared in the same happiness. And the employees were smiling ...

Well, after a couple of drinks, smiles come on more easily.
We do not serve alcohol during our get-togethers. So alcohol has nothing to do with the pleasant climate in our get-togethers and in our day-to-day activities. We have a good relationship and that’s the only explanation.

But if you have such a great relationship, why do employees resort to circulating anonymous letters?
Anonymous letters are the hallmark of cowards and those that have something to hide and are afraid of the light of the day. It is unfortunately a disease that is quite widespread in many institutions. It is an easy way to settle scores. You know, when you want to put an end to excess and wastage, there will always be unhappy employees who will complain. So they resort to these shameful practices. We had to put an end to excessive and unwarranted overtime. These things had become the ‘rights’ of certain employees. When you try to put some sort of logic and order in the situation, many non-performing employees become unhappy. But the main thing is that we have turned the situation around and, at the same time, improved the quality of our films and programmes. Previously, viewers used to protest a lot.

Anonymous letters are the hallmark of cowards and those that have something to hide and are afraid of the light of the day. It is unfortunately a disease that is quite widespread in many institutions. It is an easy way to settle scores.

They still do because the films you show are out-dated ...
Broadcasting old films as well is a choice we have made to give a wider variety to viewers. People who are 50 and over are happy to watch these films again. Young people too are interested in finding out about the history of the cinema. Look at the success of remixes. If you take a film like James Bond, for example, it is one of those evergreens. We have opted for a reasonable balance between new films and old films made by well-known producers and starring famous actors.

Your recent decision to have different channels for each language is a way of compartmentalising people, isn’t it?
Previously, the problem we had to face was a lack of space and therefore we were unable to satisfy the viewers who wanted to have access to different languages. Now, we have more channels and therefore viewers have more choice. All the linguistic communities are happy to have access to these different languages and cultures. By opening up perspectives, we have given people more choice. It’s our way of saying we care for our viewers. And at the same time, a way to celebrate the diversity of our country.

But the MBC is still perceived as an instrument of propaganda for the government in place. You would of course disagree with that, wouldn’t you?
Of course! I have to say here that before I took over, the news bulletin was, in a nutshell, a parade of ministers.

Isn’t it still?
The prime minister is the only minister seen on television occasionally. That is because he is the one who dictates the policy of the country. It is normal that he has access to the MBC so that he can inform the population of what his cabinet intends to do.

The other thing you are generally reproached with is that you broadcast only good news. Don’t you come across any bad news at all?
In our dossiers, we deal with current issues. And we don’t hide anything. If we are dealing with poverty, for example, as we did last week in our Hindustani programme, we go out to people and listen to them talking about their hardships. Our main aim is to inform people of what is going on in the country.

For the last two or three weeks, the Medpoint scandal has been at the centre of a big polemic. Did you inform your viewers of that?
Of course. We relayed Maya Hanoomanjee’s press conference, Pravind Jugnauth’s as well as those of the leader of the opposition.

Without expressing any point of view ...
Exactly. The MBC Act does not allow us to comment on polemics, religion or politics. The idea is to avoid the problem of the MBC taking a partisan position in political debates. And we respect the law. So when the issue about the Medpoint clinic arose, we were present at all the press conferences dealing with the subject. Like the other sections of the press. The law does not permit us to have editorials but we relayed the information objectively. This is the role of the MBC concerning information in general – we have adopted an outreach policy of going towards people instead of being Port Louis centered. We have been going out to see people working and setting up their small businesses ...

But you show those who manage to get out of poverty, not those who are sinking deeper into it.
No. This is not true. If you watch the MBC, you will also realise that we have dealt with those who are subject to scourges like alcoholism etc. We have also tried to explain the consequences of that on health and family. We have done this through interviews, some of which are very hard. But we also portray the activities of those people who try to overcome their difficulties through their efforts. Such examples can help others to emulate them and improve their lot.  

But the perception remains that you are a political instrument.
We are a political instrument in the wider sense. In the sense that we are open to the plurality of the Mauritian nation and its aspirations.

The MBC act does not allow us to comment on polemics, religion or politics. The idea is to avoid the problem of the mbc taking a partisan position in political debates.

But during the political campaign, many people were under the impression that your coverage was biased.
Yes. Let’s talk about this political bias. Do you know that Mr Bérenger was, in fact, given, proportionately speaking, more time than his opponent Dr Navin Ramgoolam? I have the evidence to back this up

Maybe, but you showed him saying silly things. (Surprised)
I covered what he said. It is for him to decide what he wants to convey. He was contending to become prime minister. It is not for me to decide for him what he should say.

Some people also say that you did not show the crowds he attracted. (Shakes his head)
I have recordings I could show you right now which the MBC broadcast of Bérenger walking into the public meetings and out of them. It is easy to level accusations but I have the facts. Now, is it my fault that Bérenger does not attract the crowds in the same way that Navin Ramgoolam does? It is a question of personality. The MBC cannot be blamed for that. Coming back to programmes, we have a range of artists now collaborating with the MBC. Some of these artists are known to be MMM sympathisers. We do not take that into consideration. We broadcast their creations irrespective of their views.  

The MBC has always been perceived as a panier crab...
This is precisely why there was a crying need for a tidying-up. The situation is changing gradually. And our programmes are attracting more and more viewers who are satisfied with the quality we are now producing.  

What is, according to you, the percentage of the population which is satisfied with your programmes?
I’d like to be guided by hard facts. In the near future, we intend to conduct regular surveys. People have noticed that there has been a radical change in the programmes. It would be interesting to know what the population thinks about programmes such as “Balade dans vilaz”, “Couleur Marine”,” 100 pour 100 Femme”, “Tai Faim” ; “Metissage”, “Bhojpuri Top 5” etc ... You will also note that we have introduced programmes in English such as “Out & About” because it is important for Mauritians to be as conversant in English as in French.

What is missing from your list are political debates. Do they scare you?
We will definitely include interesting political debates in our programmes. We already have discussions about AIDS, drugs and other social scourges with our NGOs. It is clearthat we have opened up to NGOs and we will continue to go towards politicians as well. This is already done through our coverage of parliamentary activities. Opening up is important.

When you talk about opening up, are you also talking about opening the air waves?
That is a question you should put to legislators. It is not my decision.

But is it a decision you would support if your opinion were sought?
I personally have no problem with it. What is equally important is to have diversity in programmes and we are working on that. Our programmes now attract more viewers and the advertising agencies are coming towards us more and more.

Isn’t that because you are in a situation of monopoly?
Not really. This year, our advertising has increased by 17% compared to last year. This means that when the programmes are no good, advertisers run away.

Where to?
There are private radios and billboards as well as the press. All these options are open to the advertiser. So the contracts we have signed with some advertisers we did not have in the past are the result of hard work, not monopoly.

Your move into your new quarters in Moka was done very fast and apparently smoothly as well.
Indeed. And for that, I would like to pay tribute to all the staff at all levels who have made it possible to move our HQ from Curepipe to Moka in only six weeks while most people thought it would take at least six months. The MBC staff can do great things when properly motivated and when there is a professional and serene work environment. This is the spirit needed to achieve excellence and satisfy the public.