Integrity and the PP — Part 1
TREVOR SUDAMA Tuesday, September 27 2011
If we are to assess the PP in terms of the practice of integrity as an integral element of good governance, it is necessary first to divorce rhetoric from reality and promise from performance.
We must also remove the thick cover of public relations and spin which surround all government actions and look at what lies beneath. The state of emergency has now become an added distraction.
Historically, the rhetoric was no more resounding and compelling than the PNM’s crusading slogan in the elections of 1956 “to bring morality in public affairs”, which would translate into integrity in public life. Such a promise was the outcome of a relentless pillorying of the Gomes administration for widespread graft, corruption and other misdeeds.
Shortly after the elections, however, indicators of corruption and lack of integrity surfaced under the PNM administration with disturbing regularity. A Minister of Government would release his son without authority from a police cell.
Then there was the Lock-Joint scandal, the gas station racket, the DC 9 fiasco, the undervaluation of Government oil holdings sold to Tesoro, the import of contraband goods by a Minister and his open demand for a ten-percent kickback on investments. And this Minister was a confidant and protégé of the Prime Minister.
Later came the Caroni Racing Complex issue and the huge wastage, mismanagement and irregular dealings in the construction of the Mount Hope Medical Sciences Complex. Morality seemed to have taken flight.
The PP has not been as ambitious and extravagant in its campaign rhetoric to bring a new dispensation of integrity in public life as was the case in the first PNM campaign. Nevertheless it did promise in its Manifesto “not to tolerate any form of corruption”.
Furthermore the Prime Minister speaking to an audience in London shortly after being elected to office would proclaim that she is committed to rooting out corruption in Trinidad and Tobago.
Then there are the loud threats and fulminations of an Attorney General who rides cowboy style on what he perceives to be the corruption trail. However, his pursuit seems confined only to allegations of corruption under the former PNM administration. He is not overly concerned with reports of corruption under the current PP administration.
However the reality is that corruption takes many forms and seems to be well, alive and flourishing in Trinindad and Tobago today if we are to go by pervasive rumours of bribe taking by high government officials and bribe giving by those seeking favours including the multitude seeking contracts.
There is a mad frenzy in the pursuit of contracts whether for CEPEP, URP, housing, road rehabilitation and drainage, site developments, water and sewerage projects, purchase of materials and accessories and even consultancies. It is perceived as the sure route to get rich quick. One high official is said to be asking for $50,000 to grant a particular favour and is alleged to be at the beck and call of a generous contractor. Another is reputed to be boldly seeking gifts to facilitate the approval of projects. The above maybe deemed to be mere rumours but, given their persistence, one can conclude that there would be some truth to some of the allegations made.
The PP also promised in its Manifesto that it would “not politicise the civil service, commissions or State enterprises”. But reports of political appointments abound.
In one instance a government official was hand picked to head the Financial Intelligence Unit in the absence of proper recruiting procedures. When the Public Service Commission finally made an appointment to the post it was vetoed by the Prime Minister. One can draw one’s own conclusion as to whether this is evidence of the politicisation of the public service.
But the commitment given not to politicise State enterprises is the biggest joke of all when the only criteria for State board appointments seems to be party affiliation, being liming associates, relations and donors. And these criteria apply not only to the chairmen and members of State boards but to CEOs and other managerial ranks in these enterprises. Thus we have the installation of many square pegs in round holes resulting in the compromised performance and misdirection of many State enterprises. It is of note that 16 months after the PP has taken office a significant number of State boards are yet to be appointed.
The reason is that there is a careful process to determine party loyalties and compliant behaviour. A further discussion of State board activity will be continued in the next column.
Click here to send your comments on this article to Newsday's Ch@tRoom
