Sir,
I found the article headed “Saint Ttooulis the moral avenger” published in the Sunday Mail on June 11, 2006 disturbingly biased and full of ironies which do not reflect responsible journalism.
In your article, I and every reader, witnessed once more your regular action in attacking and systematically criticising, through the Sunday “Coffee shop” and other articles or comments, Mr Christodoulos Christodoulou in his positions as Director General of various Ministries, Minister of Finance, Minister of the Interior and as a Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus. Disrespectfully comparing Mr Christodoulou with other people reveals a great degree of petty, immature and irresponsible journalism and indicates a continually vindictive attitude towards an individual who has maintained an exceptionally high integrity in every position he has rightly been appointed to.
I find it extremely distasteful as well as unfair for your paper to refer, in a tone of irony, about “the poor village boy…” Well, if I understood you correctly, in your estimation poor boys and girls should not progress and should always live in the shadows of the offsprings of the “mighty bank chairmen” and the wealthy people? I am sure that if you research this subject you will find similar commendable achievements by others who also come from poor families; these achievements should be applauded and not attributed to miserable standards. But what is your definition of “poor”? Mr Christodoulou comes from a rich family, rich in standards, morals and etiquette – ingredients which at times your paper clearly lacks.
Now whether his appointment is renewed depends on the President who, I am sure, will properly assess Mr Christodoulou’s work over the past four years. During that time he has been completely justified in giving the “banks a torrid time” and encouraging them to comply with EU directives and obligations the banks are subject to in the rest of Europe but seem to have difficulty complying with in their home territory. Quite rightly, Mr Christodoulou has had to talk “tough to the chairmen and take no nonsense from them”. In this regard, what you are stating is correct and over the years he has also corrected a lot of deficiencies and weaknesses in the banking system as a whole – hardly a claim which his predecessor could make! He has also settled the dust on the stock exchange scandal and successfully counteracted the continuous allegations involving Cyprus in the money laundering of Yugoslavian funds. Without doubt, he has managed to clean the tarnished picture of Cyprus in the international financial market. Another reason why the President should re-appoint him is to ensure continuity at a critical time in the financial history of Cyprus. Mr Christodoulou has been very effective in upgrading the Cypriot banking system and its standards of corporate governance; Moreover, he is successfully paving the way for the introduction of the euro and he is being increasingly respected by his international counterparts. Cyprus needs continuity in all these aspects which will ensure a stable image for Cyprus in Europe and elsewhere.
Your writer clearly misunderstood the role of a Central Bank Governor and his responsibilities when he described the Governor as “moral avenger”. What Governor Christodoulou did and stated was in the framework of his duties as a Central Bank Governor in defending and protecting the interests of the depositors in banks and the small and large investors in bank shares. Furthermore, he has an obligation to promote a healthy financial and banking environment with proper European standards of corporate governance.
After reading your newspaper’s issue on June 11, 2006 and comparing it with the article issued on the June 25, 2006 , I came to the conclusion that what you hold against Mr Christodoulou is directed from other sources because although the June 11 article is heavily biased against the Governor, the issue of the Sunday Mail on June 25, 2006, in your article “Gigantism from medieval Cyprus to present day”, inter-alia, refers unfavourably to the actions of the Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank and questions the decisions made by their respective Boards. In this regard, your newspaper’s position appears in total contradiction, or should your readers assume that you are admitting your mistake in unfairly attacking the Governor and you are now trying to rectify, indirectly, by this recent article? Or should we, the readers, expect a different position and assessment serving the interests of somebody else next week?
Ewart Williams, Pervolia, Larnaca
