Mickela Panday
The budget debate was symptomatic of what passes for “politics” in our country. Instead of constructive debate and the suggestion of ideas and policies to move our country’s economy forward, all our people got when they tuned in to the debate were allegations by each side accusing the other of corruption or impropriety.
Unfortunately, as we have seen over the last 13 months, the PNM Government is more or less getting a free pass despite its ineptitude because no one has regard for the Opposition, so discredited are they by their stint in government. So when the former minister of housing talked about alleged “dirty emails” and the inappropriate favouring of an employee at the HDC to enable her to get a house under the present government, no one was interested because none of us have forgotten the abuse of power by his government allegedly favouring media personnel and others with housing for political ends or the alleged corruption in the public housing sector, all under his watch. The present Minister of Housing, in keeping with the absence of depth in the debate, talks about the millions of dollars spent on HDC key handing out ceremonies by the PP. If it was not so hollow, it would be hilarious.
Then the former CEO of WASA who was also the minister responsible for WASA (both appointments under the PP) reveals that he has written the IADB in relation to a contract for a waste water plant in San Fernando. This from a member of a government that did not use the IADB with its rigid procurement conditions, to fund the collapsed Point Fortin Highway project but used cash from the Treasury instead, allegedly to provide avenues for unjust enrichment of cronies. The same government that oversaw the murky Beetham waste water project since abandoned by one of the PP government’s favoured contractors.
Of course, the low point was when the Oropouche East MP, seeking headlines and diversion, displayed photographs of two young people outdoors wielding what appeared to be high-powered assault guns used by the military. The suggestion was made that they were the children of a cabinet minister. How any of this was relevant to a budget debate is beyond most of us. It was wrong and inappropriate of the MP to do what he did.
But of course, the PNM, in classic style made a mess of it. The AG quickly held a press conference at which he neither confirmed nor denied that the young people were his children. He said that he and his family had been invited by the Defence Force for a “threat assessment” but he avoided frontally dealing with the questions raised in the public about these young people holding such weapons. What was the harm in simply telling the truth? The PM went further and said that a member of the State’s security service breached his oath and took and distributed photographs which “created a threat for the children of the AG.” Like the AG, he did not deal directly with the public’s concerns. Fresh from his public spat with the President, the PM was now attacking the security service. This was unfortunate and inappropriate. Firstly, how does the PM know that a member of the security service—whether a member of the Defence Force or the AG’s security detail—took the pictures and distributed them? And how does this “create” any threat to the AG’s children? These strains between the PM and the President and now the State’s security service by these public attacks by the PM do our country no good.
Unfortunately the Defence Force statement that it had invited the AG and his family to Camp Cumuto for “training” as the Defence Force “traditionally provides close protection to national strategic leaders” didn’t help matters. The statement said that the Defence Force employs a strategy of “exposing the principal and his/her family to scenarios that may be encountered during the time the principal is in office.” This is most extraordinary. Our country’s security apparatus protects our leaders, it doesn’t train them for combat, and it certainly can’t be allowing civilians access to their weapons. Our Firearms Act doesn’t allow anyone to be in possession of a firearm without a licence and you have to be at least 25 to get a licence. Apparently the AG’s children are under 25.
All of this leaves more questions to be answered, but the place for this is not the Parliament, let alone the budget debate. The country burdened by crime, a recession and institutional decline is tired of this constant “politicking” in the legislature where the people’s business is supposed to be attended to. Never has there been a more important time to put the interests of the country ahead of childlike behaviour and party politics.
