Yesterday’s clash in Parliament between the House Speaker and Opposition MP, Roodal Moonilal, followed by the Opposition’s walkout concerning other matters may have slightly eclipsed his spotlight.
But even as the Opposition collectively stalked out of the Parliament chamber—Opposition MP Barry Padarath hurling a retort back at Government MP Stuart Young—Finance Minister Colm Imbert pressed on with his statement regarding withdrawal of funds from the Heritage and Stabilisation Fund (HSF). Though not reading from a teleprompter, he was clearly sticking to script—his own.
Since word that Government had “quietly” withdrawn $2.5 billion from the HSF—and subsequent negative comment—Imbert had been silent, even on questions sent to him Tuesday regarding whether he’d separated the HSF as he said in April he’d sought assistance from visiting Word Bank/IMF teams to do.
Later that day in the Senate, he had a centimeter more information for the Opposition which questioned the withdrawal. A reply so brief it could easily be seen as contempt for the Parliamentary process of accountability which such question and answer segments were designed to ensure for the public.
Not to mention contempt for the Opposition’s constitutional role. A role, Prime Minister Keith Rowley promoted many times while in Opposition, to justify raising issues about the past PP.
Imbert’s statement yesterday came after the fact of withdrawal was unearthed—largely the crux of arguments on the matter (financial technicalities apart) and a point Imbert appeared to miss by 2.5 billion miles.
In his statement—more reprimand for questioning his action, than explanation of it—he repeatedly pitched to Opposition and commentators— belabouring that they “should know” what was being done.
It however showed either patent ignorance or blatant disregard for the public who these sectors speak on behalf of. And who certainly wouldn’t “know”, unless government sticks to its promises on transparency.
In strong tones—level of which some would equate with the wrong of his action—Imbert failed to properly account on what would be paid by the HSF.
Or explain why protective services shouldn’t be paid from recurrent expenditure, but rather via HSF.
The view from on high in Government may make it difficult to see public concerns, such as the process by which the historic HSF withdrawal was handled.
But it’s a small step toward being perceived as having contempt for the public’s right to know what happens to T&T’s funds. In this instance, a situation which earns the Rowley administration nil points on trust, transparency and accountability—and will not be easily redeemable via explanation a week later.
The matter stands to become another example of instances where Government’s process has been questioned, particularly since the campaigning PNM had made much of the past Government’s shortcomings (real and perceived) on accountability deficit and—as with all things PP—promised better.
Imbert in a November 2014 address to the Port-of-Spain Rotary Club had pledged (among other changes), “We will communicate with you and keep the lines of communication open...”
Clearly, management “wuk” has overwhelmed some promises while financial constraints have done in others.
The argument of how much T&T’s economic landscape has been affected by the oil price fall and alleged PP mismanagement are now old.
In the current environment of austerity, solutions rather than excuses will be what is sought and Government will learn the hard way that, with a public already hit in the wallet (by overall increased costs) and the comfort zone (by crime), the tried PNM way of silence on governance issues, is no longer true for these times. Also, that public trust and help is no less important than private sector support.
Neither has team credibility been helped by the fact the PM has had to intervene in tourism as well as foreign affairs and trade issues.
Despite adding influential push to each, it has raised queries about the performance of the respective ministers involved.
Government should know only too well what the dangers of arrogance, bombast and secrecy can wreck on a political image.
Nobody in political office needs the example of any presumptive US Republican presidential candidate—now chastened down to teleprompter use—to learn that.
