<B>By Deepa BHOOKHUN</B>

Imagine the Prime Minister going on the MBC and submitting himself to a torrent of uncompromising questions from journalists of the corporation.

Yes, I can guess what you are thinking.

Not likely to happen, huh? I agree.

Not so much because Navin Ramgoolam has a problem with taking questions from journalists ? as a matter of fact, he is quite good at that. During his rare press conferences ? and sometimes against the counsels of his advisors, Ramgoolam, freely answers questions on any given matter, making the most of his uncanny ability of talking a lot without actually saying much. One even gets the feeling he relishes those exchanges.

My own experience of him has been that he doesn?t take offence at any question, however rude, but will answer them in his own terms, which is fair enough at the end of the day.

An improvised Q&A with Ramgoolam after one of his public appearances can go on for minutes on end because our PM does like to talk.

The same cannot be said of Ramgoolam?s ministers. For insyance, Rama Sithanen, minister of Finance, after a television debate on the budget last year, where ?independent? journalists were invited and where obliging questions weren?t necessarily asked, decided that he would rather answer questions from MBC journalists only this year round.

You know, less messy and the ego isn?t bruised.

Most of the other ministers are also reluctant to put themselves through live interviews although to be fair, some of them perform brilliantly ? I am thinking of Rama Valayden and Satish Faugoo amongst others.

But it is not about what ministers want. The question is: why do you think it?s unlikely that the MBC will organize debates where the journalists employed by the corporation would mercilessly drill the PM or other ministers on any given topic?

Answer: simple -? would they dare? I regularly hear MBC journalists complaining, with resignation, that they can?t afford not to be indulgent and obliging, their jobs depending on them being obsequious. How terrible. But does it really, though?

If that?s the case, well it?s a damn shame. Because I saw a riveting debate on TV last Monday where French President Nicolas Sarkozy, invited by France Television (public service same as the MBC but thankfully not same at all in the way they operate) was submitted to forceful, irreverent and harsh questions on varying topics. Sarkozy, being a brilliant speaker, overshadowed them all, it must be said, but still the debate was frank and interesting; not like those inept operations in public opinion management that you have here.

Sarkozy came out of it looking like a tyrant (but a most clever one) and the public service journalists did an honorable job of trying to fluster their President. To be honest, the journalists weren?t as aggressive as they could have been but to me, they seemed like the epitome of fierceness when I compare them to their Mauritian counterparts.

So the question again; why oh why can?t we do this here?

I don?t believe the question requires an answer.