Showing posts with label Corruption. Show all posts

Flashbacks: debating the postponing of Local Govt. Elections

The Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 2007 debate:

This Bill, in our view, represents an erosion of the fundamental pillars of representative democracy. It is tied up with issues of representation. It is tied up with the rights of citizens to choose their government representatives. Indeed, it usurps the right of the citizen to recall their representatives. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

ether it is at the national level or local level, elections are ultimately about the right of citizens to choose who will hold office on their behalf; in whom they will entrust; the governance; whether it be local governance; whether it be national governance. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

Today, in looking at the governance structure and what we are trying to do is to extend the life of these local government bodies, we are taking the rights of the citizens to recall representatives. We are doing it in a context when there is a blood bathe in the country. I look at the Guardian of Monday, July 09, 2007: "Gunmen go ballistic. Six shot dead in 24-hour period." - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

It is in this context that the Government asks for a rubber stamp to continue with its programmes and its policies; to continue with its broken promises, because we come to reason for asking this Parliament to extend the life of local government bodies. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

We are of the view that this Bill represents an abuse of law; it is an assault on parliamentary democracy; on representative democracy; it demonstrates the fact that Government is about the business of depriving the population of its rights; violating the tenets of everything that constitutes good and effective government. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

Those persons had been elected, initially, for three years. They were required to go back to the polls and the public would have a say whether they had performed to the standards that were expected. But Government doing as it was, even as miserably as it was doing then, obviously , was of the view that it would be political suicide to go to the polls at that time. They knew they would be rejected with the general election due and impending, and they did not want to take that rejection by the masses, so they did not call a local election. They postponed it, and so, here we are again. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

The legislation speaks to the urgency of reform, and the need to schedule the programmes in the furtherance of the process of local government reform. In describing the problems then, that caused local government not to deliver at the desired rate, the Minister said, the reform is urgent, and that word urgent in its ordinary meaning, is that the reform exercise would begin almost immediately. One year later, we all know, nothing has happened. In fact, the Minister in piloting the Bill—and if this is not so, I am prepared to give way and allow you to tell us,—said nothing in terms of what had happened with that reform agenda from when you asked for the time last year July to this year July. [Interruption] What steps had been taken? Nothing has been said, and in piloting the Bill I thought that would have been very important, where you were coming to ask the Parliament to extend the time for a further year, that you would say, look, in this year that the Parliament granted, we have done one, two, three, four and five. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

So why do you wait on reforms that are not coming or keep being extended and keep extending? Why are you doing that, denying citizens the right of recall, in terms of voting in their local government elections? Why? One year ago, reform, one year later, reform. Let us face the truth. The truth is obviously you do not want to face local government elections at this point in time because of the state of the country; the crisis in the country, the crime rate, [Interruption] the food prices, the disgust [Interruption] and the protests that are taking place; you are afraid of calling local government elections. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

You want another budget. You want to call another budget. You postpone elections, you want to call another budget so you can fill your pockets and you can go out there to attempt to buy votes. That is not going to work again. Mr. Speaker, that will not work again. [Interruption] It may have worked when you bullied your way in 2001 and 2002. The electorate is a more sophisticated electorate, a more educated population who is totally fed up of what this Government has been doing, and so it is not going to work again; postpone it now then; it is not going to work. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

is that you are afraid to call the local government elections at this time. [Interruption] You are afraid! [Deskthumping] You are afraid to call it because that will be the barometer of what will happen in the general elections, and you know what will happen? Do you know what is coming? You will lose that election. You will lose that election, you cannot face it, you cannot take that at this time. [Interruption] And so, while the Constitution and law give the Prime Minister and the Government powers, that authority must be exercised in a responsible manner. Government must, at all times, respect the people. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

You do not need to have reform stopped at election. Tell me why it is necessary for the reform process to stop election for a third year. Why is it necessary to subvert and prevent the citizens and electorate of this land from exercising their democratic right? I come back to the issue of procedural democracy, and I said one major pillar of that democracy has to do with election. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

The Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 2008 debate:

Why do we need to postpone election for another year because of the reform process? Go ahead and do your reform, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the reform ongoing, you could reform as you have been doing since the year 2002 when you came into office six years ago, you can continue to 2020, but do not stop the people from exercising their democratic right. [Desk thumping] This is what I have serious problems with - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

Then we came back again in 2007 and the same thing happened. What the Government did was to take the vote of every citizen in Trinidad and Tobago, and cast them in favour of existing councillors, and that is what I meant by subverting the procedural democracy. It took the votes of the citizens—all who would have voted in the local government election—and by this legislation you will be doing it again, you will be casting that vote in favour of existing councillors. The electorate out there, the burgesses want the right to fire some of those councillors because it is about accountability. You have no right of recall in our system, but because of the period set by the statute, at the end of the three-year period, you have the right of recall because you can cast your vote for or against. That is the system, and that is where the accountability in the democracy comes in, that is part of the substantive and procedural democracy; that the burgesses can say: “I don’t want you anymore. You have failed, you have not functioned, therefore, I should be able to exercise my vote and get rid of you.” - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

So there is absolutely no accountability according to the Constitution. We are in breach of that provision. They do not account to this Parliament, and they will not account to the electorate because those are the two mechanisms provided for us in the law and in the democracy, that you account to the people through election and through the Parliament and its representatives and none has been done. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

What is the reason for postponing the election? It cannot be reform because reform can be ongoing. Reform is something that we do all the time. In every ministry I am sure that you are ongoing in modernizing and reforming. That does not mean that you stop the democratic process for that to happen. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

Many of us are of the view that the stalling of elections is because the Government is afraid to face the people of Trinidad and Tobago. Why? We come back to the MORI poll. In food prices there has been an increase of 218 per cent since this Government came into office. Since they came into office inflation is 53 per cent, from then to now. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

As I close, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that any good reason has been given for stopping the local government elections in order to allow the reform process to take place. The reform process is ongoing, will continue to take place, will continue in process, but the election should go on. This is the third time we are coming, we do not support it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am of the respectful view that the reasons given for this Bill are not the true reasons and in fact, at the bottom line of it the Government is afraid to face the electorate because of its incompetence, its mismanagement and corruption in the entire system. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. - Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar

A politician and his word

A politician has earned the reputation of someone not to be trusted, they will say anything aimed at winning you over but will do the exact opposite. Is this reputation justified? Well in too many instances, it is. Take for example the recent controversy regarding the early proclamation of “Section 34”.

Make no mistake, the real issue regarding this bill is the sudden proclamation of particular sections. Why was this done? What was the intention behind this if not to protect party financiers? Was it to give effect to the bill to speed up the justice system, to clear the backlog, as was intended? But why just one section when the entire bill sort to deal with this? One justification put forward for proclamation of just parts of the bill was that this is normal, it is normal for bills to be proclaimed in part as "things are put in place", meaning all the infrastructure have been put in place for the proper functioning of the legislation. But, has this been done? Where are the rules?

I sincerely want to unconditionally apologise to Panday. Yes, that's what I said, no need to read it again. Why?

Ok, you seem unable to understand why, even after that spectacle that passed as debate aimed at explaining a wrong and attempting to correcting it. I will explain.Whilst Panday was still an MP, although with diminishing support, he held strong in his stance on legislation support. Panday vowed to not support any legislation the then Government brings to the house unless and until certain demands were addressed. He had called for constitutional reform back then and until that process begins he will not support any legislation and he stuck by it. He was determined to get what he wanted, he never trusted the then Government. And for that I want to apologise. I want to apologise because I have condemned him daily because I thought he was just being obstructive. I was very outraged at his behaviour as I have always advocated for Parliamentarians to work together for the benefit of the citizens. I want to apologise because it has become evident that he was right not to trust his opponents as did the present opposition regarding the promise by the Government to not proclaim this bill until everything was put in place. But the government abused this trust and went ahead and proclaimed selected sections.

The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act, 2011. was debated in both houses and passed unanimously in both houses. The Government had agreed with the Opposition to not proclaim the legislation before all was in place for the proper functioning of said legislation. But the Government, [secretly] went ahead and proclaimed parts of the bill which, according to claims from many quarters, would see cases against well known party financiers dropped. Was this the intention of the Government? Who knows. What the Government needs to do is explain why this was done unless those claims are true.

However, after listening to part of the debate yesterday as the Government scrambled to right their wrong [cover up what seems to be an attempt to protect party financiers], I am convinced that politicians can never be trusted [but I always knew this]. First off, I want to say that ALL Member of Parliament are to blame for this. But let's separate the blame, they all must accept responsibility for what has been described [by several experts] as a badly written clause. There were issues regarding the rules which were not present but this bill was however supported by all MPs. In that sense, they must all accept responsibility. Regarding the proclamation of sections of the bill, this is where blame must be placed solely at the feet of the present Government. My non-expert opinion on this law is that it was good law, it’s just that it was not complete, hence the hold on proclamation.

The Congress of the People (COP) put out a release labelling this sordid affair as "The Saga of s34 – Blunders or Manipulation of Parliament". They had this to say:

The Proclamation by the President on the day of the Jubilee Anniversary of the Independence of Trinidad and Tobago and the subsequent application to a High Court Judge by Ishwar Galbaransingh and Steve Fergusson to have criminal proceedings against them brought to a halt have raised the grave questions about the bona fides of the government or parts of it in this entire affair. This situation is cause for the most serious concern and alarm.

and called for the following:

1. That the repeal must be done in such a way as to eliminate the attempt to utilise the section be stopped, whether by retroactive effect or other legislative means2. That the government, or anyone acting on its behalf, do nothing to prevent any future attempt to have those indicted in the US in relation to the Airport matters extradited to face the charges there.3. That no amendments to Bills be introduced in the Parliament by government on the floor and without express prior consideration thereof by the appropriate governmental body.4. That any person found to have acted with mala fides in these developments be not allowed any function on behalf of the government of Trinidad and Tobago.

The above says a lot to those who can hear it.

The DPP subsequently issues a statement on this also, this is what he had to say:

On Independence Day, section 34 of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) Act 2011 was brought into force. Curiously, no other substantive provision of this Act has been brought into force even though the declared legislative thrust of this Act is the abolition of preliminary enquiries. Section 34 (1) cannot stand on its own without absurdity, while 34(2) and 34(3) have nothing to do with any such abolition.
In fact, section 34(2) and 34(3) are of such effect that any matter involving offences committed over ten (10) years ago cannot now be tried unless they are excepted by Schedule 6 of the Act. However, Schedule 6 does not apply to the captioned matters.

After about ten hours of debate, well not debate but rather ten hours of rum shop banter, we are nowhere close to having a proper understanding of why this proclamation was done. Instead of accepting responsibility, the government went all over the place talking about PNM corruption, illegal parking, Landate, Clader Hart, Montiel, Clico, and on and on and on. Not one word about why this was done and in whose interest.

Therefore, I am publicly apologising to Basdeo Panday for condemning him as he took a stand against broken promises by holding back support unless certain things are done. I know now this is the best one can do considering the type of politics and politicians we elect.

Panday, I'm sorry..... STAND TALL!!!

Jesus Christ, I can't believe what I am hearing. "Political Analyst" Hamid Ghany says he is not prepared to say there was some conspiracy, because to do so he would have to implicate other Parliamentarians. Again, what madness really going on in this place boy.

1. A bill [touted as necessary to speed up the justice system] was debated and passed by both houses. It was agreed [notwithstanding Section 34 being part of said bill] that this bill should not be proclaimed until "everything was in place".

2. Certain sections of the bill was proclaimed.

Questions:

1. Was everything put in place?

2. If no then why the proclamation?

3. If yes, then why the repeal?

4. How was this particular section going to address the justice system?

5. Has anyone, other than those involved in serious fraud utilised Section 34?

6. How long does it take to prepare to file applications to the courts?

7. What exactly might be the error Ghany is speaking of?

Developed Country Status

During the past ten years we have seen a lot of work toward “developed country status” as articulated by the government at the time. Port of Spain has been transformed, literally overnight, into a city filled with skyscrapers. We have what is labelled an International Water Front supposedly as a demonstration that we are a developed country, at least to the eyes. For that is just what it is. This is nothing more than someone experiencing an increase in income and spends it on bling. For the real development, development of the people has not even left the gates.

To be fair, there has been an education drive toward developing an innovative people. I have always been of the view that the only way to develop a people is to educate them which leads to them being productive citizens rather than depend on hand outs, the country benefits. But what has this achieved? Has anyone collect data on what the system has churned out compared to enrolment? Has anyone looked at the drop outs and the waste of public funds in this regard? It it enough for you to say that we have “free “nursery to tertiary” education without knowing the returns on that investment by tax payers?

Today we are experiencing what some may tern a stagnant economy, no activity they say. Why is this so? My suggestion would be that we decided to spend everything that we earned whilst the stream was unending, at least so many thought. I have no doubt that eventually we would in fact get to a state in our development that we would in fact be considered a developed country. My concerns however are in relation to the processes used to get there. Should this development be all at once or should it be a phased process? Had we phased out the development in terms of infrastructure we would have effectively not created a situation where inflation would have been a factor to contend with for example. And as revenue falls, we would have had some savings s activity could have been sustained thereby maintaining employment and encouraging investment.

But it was argued at the time that if we don’t do it now, we would not be able to do it later at the cost we were doing it at. But is that so? Almost ALL of the projects undertaken were over budget and overdue in terms of delivery. Further, there is the priority factor, today after billions in expenditure many of the problems we face ten years ago are still with us today. Maybe they would have disappeared in 2020.

Corruption is but the main reason the former regime was removed from office. The manner in which allegations were dealt with, the key factor. What this effectively did was to raise concerns about the real aim of the government. Whilst we saw all the tall buildings in POS the real aim may have been to siphon funds into private bank accounts. None of the projects had any positive direct impact on the ordinary citizen. Had the intention been to really improve the lives of the ordinary man, many may not be demanding from the present regime what past government failed to provide given the revenue stream and the wastage.

Social Programs, aimed at improving the lives of the small man. I would agree that there were several social programs that seek to address some of the needs of the poor man but were they effective or were they just there to maintain the vote bank. I pity those who access these programs knowing that their lives would be no different five, ten years down the road. What these programs have done is to keep persons in a state of dependency, where they are beholden to a government. Is this people development? Should we demand more? Or should we just continue to vote for hand outs whilst an elite few benefit from the largesse created by our tax dollar.

Development must mean more and we must demand more.

An Immigration Blunder or Vote Bank Creation?

I was listening to a talk formatted program yesterday and the issue regarding the freeing up of requirement for Indians and Russians to come to this country was discussed. I must point out here that I agree fully with the concerns expressed. Those concerns relate to persons who initially would have come into the country to invest, work etc. The host indicated that after they have been here for some time and have become comfortable and have settled in they may not be willing to return to their home country considering that they may have been at the lower end of the social ladder at home.

In relation to these persons wanting to remain in this country, the host raised a very important issue related to elections. His concern (and I support this concern) was that by having persons come here and eventually being able to vote, a government can secure victory at the polls. This is very possible, think otherwise and you are fooling yourself. This was done decades ago with our neighbouring islanders.

The issue of persons coming into our country and eventually being able to vote and as voters would be loyal to a particular party has been a concern by many for a long time. We all have heard of the complaints about persons from up the islands coming in and voting for a particular party thereby giving them an unfair hold on power. Which over time contributed to the mess we are in today, because of this advantage, there was no real democracy in terms of our elections. It is in this context I share the concerns of this host

I cannot understand why any government would have to go out of their way to get persons to invest in a country, It is either we are attractive to investors or not. And if we are attractive to foreign investors, then we should be capitalising on those investments, not create a situation where persons would come in, get all these perks and then export their earnings. How does the country benefit from this arrangement? Unless of course the aim is not investment.

The same goes for tourism, tourist are attracted to what a country can offer in terms of its sites, culture etc. In other words, what that country has that is unique so as to get people to visit. Tourists, IMO would not be attracted to a country as a tourist destination because they don’t have to get a VISA, I don’t get this.

Give them the credit!!!

MP for Laventille East/Morvant, Donna Cox in her contribution to the budget debate yesterday indicated that the decrease in crime stated by the govn't is as a direct result of initiatives of the then PNM government and that credit must be given to the PNM. I want to agree with her fully. Things don't happen overnight and neither can this happen in 3 months into a new regime's term in office.

I have always maintained that today’s results, positive or negative, is a direct result of past actions. For instance, the decrease in crime has to be a direct result of past initiatives. Something all have been clamoring for, for the past eight years.

Similarly, the state of our development or non-development today has to be a direct result of past actions by past governments. For instance, after the “Oil Boom” of the late 70’s early 80’s and after the waste of our resources via corrupt leaders who plundered those resources, we were left with a situation where a new regime had to implement harsh measures in order to bring back the economy.

Yet again, within the past eight years, the resources of this country were again squandered by a corrupt regime who disguised it as development. The results of this will be seen in the years to come.

Therefore, this is why I must maintain that we must place credit where credit is due and nowhere else.

Laptop Kickbacks???

Computer manufacturer giant Hewlett Packard (HP) to pay a US55 Million fine to settle a federal investigation into allegations of kickbacks for government contracts as reported by eWeek.com.

The government of Trinidad and Tobago has presently contracted HP to supply Laptops for its Laptop for SEA students program. Many have raised concerns about this and have questioned the process, the specs, the cost etc.

The government on their part have attempted to allay the concerns of citizens, the Prime Minister, in response to concerns have indicated that all is well.

"I can assure you there has been no kickback to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, or to anyone in Trinidad and Tobago. That I can give you the assurance on. So whatever is happening there, I'm sure there will be investigations according to law," Persad-Bissessar said in Tobago where she and her cabinet are holding a retreat.

"I see people sending out things that we can buy an HP for $300, and we are paying $400 or $500. We are not just buying an HP we are buying a package that will give a guarantee for damage, loss or repair," she said.
She added, "Secondly the firewalls that will go up and thirdly the software that will go into the HP. So it's not just you buying a flat HP with the normal windows, it's far more than that and my Minister of Education will be taking some time to explain why it cost more than if you walked into the United States and bought one."

In light of the settlement by HP, how confident can we be that all is well. Madam PM, con you really afford the population the confidence that everything is in fact above board.

Why did you VOTE?

Please consider why you voted and why you really voted. I ask this because I am hearing allot of talk about broken promises, two months after the election which saw the former regime soundly and loudly voted out of government..
I am hearing people say that the electorate voted for the 3,000 pension at age 60 and without any qualifying requirements. I am hearing that the electorate voted for a crime plan which would see the first phase being rolled out between June and December 2010.
I know why I voted, I did not vote for any of the platform rubber talk from either parties, as I have been very vocal against this type of voting and blind loyalty. Platform rhetoric on the campaign trail is designed to hoodwink and to trap votes. And for those who would be so foolish to take what was said as the only deciding factor in casting a vote, I feel sorry for them.
I voted based on what obtained over the past eight years, the squandering of our resources, the neglect of the needy in society, the failure to curb an escalating crime trend, the continuous defence of corruption, the arrogance of Ministers as they addressed concerns related to corruption and I can go on and on so not to belabour the point I will say this. The fact is that the population today is a more educated one and the old politics has lost its relevance. The first sign of this was after the result of the internal election of the United National Congress. And then the result of the May 24 General Election, and if this was not convincing enough, this emancipated electorate again demonstrated just how developed they have become in terms of electing their leaders, they voted overwhelmingly in the July 26 Local Election and once again stated clearly what they voted for.
So the question remains, or does it?

Morality. What Bloody Morality!!!

The People’s Partnership has campaign on a new type of politics/governance. They promised that no longer will the old style of politics obtain. No longer will persons be appointed according to party affiliation, no longer will the voice of the electorate be ignored. They have promised instead that whatever they do, would be in our interest and would involve what is termed consultation. So what have we gotten thus far?

Toady, former Public Utilities Minister Ganga Singh was appointed “acting CEO” of the WASA. And what's wrong with this, nothing really. But wait, this was the very Minister who, whilst in office, found himself in situations where questions were raised regarding deals made related to some of the utility companies of this country. Canadian forensic investigator Bob Lindquist and his team of investigators has returned to investigate alleged corruption in the multi-million-dollar desalination plant contract, the Desalination Company of Trinidad and Tobago (Desalcott) owned the Desalination Plant. The desalination contract started in 1999 under the then UNC administration and two years later, Lindquist was called in to investigate allegations of corruption, by then Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj. There was also the T&TEC/InCogen deal, which saw the country tied to a Take-or-Pay agreement.

Apart from the issues raised above, another equally important issue is, how was this appointment determined. Is it a political on? The PP indicated that it is a temporary one, until the board can instituted and appoint its CEO. OK fair enough, but is it? Why wasn’t someone from within WASA used, is there no one who is capable to perform an acting role, if no such person exist, then why pay them salaries, what are they doing?

Many have been very vocal in condemnation of the former regime in relation to similar matters, including me. And today I am equally vocal and would continue to be. And if we are to be consistent, (that is if our intention was genuine) then we must continue to raise flags hen we see things like this.

Where is the promised new Politics? Maybe someone should check one of the many political meeting venues to see if it was left behind.

Minister Defends Singh's Appointment

Conflicting Interests

Over the past days (more than nine) the talking point on most talk shows is the issues related to the Member of Parliament Jack Warner’s dual roles re: Government Minister and FIFA Vice President. One side of the divide believes that no conflict exist, the other believes that one does. My view is that the possibility exists for future conflicts – and this is the issue that should be debated, not if he can do the job and do it well, or if he is a super minister or not.

The Integrity in Public Life Act spells out what must be done in relation persons in public life.
24. (1) A person to whom this Part applies shall
ensure that he performs his functions and administers
the public resources for which he is responsible in an
effective and efficient manner and shall—
(c) arrange his private interests whether
pecuniary or otherwise in such a manner as
to maintain public confidence and trust in
his integrity.
29. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a conflict of
interest is deemed to arise if a person in public life or
any person exercising a public function were to make or
participate in the making of a decision in the execution
of his office and at the same time knows or ought
reasonably to have known, that in the making of the
decision, there is an opportunity either directly or
indirectly to further his private interests or that of a
member of his family or of any other person.
29 (2) Where there is a possible or perceived conflict
of interest, a person to whom this Part applies, shall
disclose his interest in accordance with prescribed
procedures and disqualify himself from any decision-making
process.
Clearly from the act, there is no requirement for Warner to give up any of his posts, what he must do however is to declare his interests. There is the argument that because of precedence and convention he should, but there is a problem with this, many have, and rightly so, raised issues of precedence in relation to the Karen/Clico issue for example, and there are many other instances where clear conflicts existed. For this reason I am on the side of caution and had indicated that Warner should in fact decide/choose one.
I am also reminded of the stance the former government took on matters of this nature, they had indicated that the government is finding it difficult to get persons to serve on boards because of the requirements of the Integrity in Public Life Act and had sort to amend it so as to encourage persons to serve, why someone would not want to adhere to the strictest of scrutiny I don’t know, maybe they have motives.
Whilst the ideal situation would be for all to give up private interests I am not sure that even that will prevent possible conflicts (corruption). There were several instances of conflicts in the last Government and even with those who have given up private interests. What is necessary for these conflicts not to turn into corruption is for the proper systems to be implemented to prevent corruption. Instead of demanding that Warner resigns one of his posts, we should be demanding that the systems that govern public business are strengthened to prevent corruption. This has been talked about on the election campaign since 2001, but once in office the former regime did nothing, instead they went ahead and did exactly what the regime before them did, they ignored the recommendation of the Airport enquiry so as to fast track its development drive, which was in reality an exercise in self aggrandisement of a man made god.

PNM Party / PNM Govn’t

As the PNM moves to regroup and possibly rid itself of the negatives that played an important role in its landslide defeat in the May 24th General Election, one must ask if it's too little too late. This is a party that boast of being the longest running and most "disciplined". Enil (Party Chairman) had indicated, foolishly in my view, that the PNM as a party is separate from PNM the Govn't, how can this be when during the campaign the party boasted of all that they (PNM Party in Govn’t has done.
It is therefore only logical that both are the same, for the principles of the party guides Govn't policies, the Party determines who represents us.
Now in opposition with just 12 seats (a loss of 14), what can the party do so that the electorate can regain some semblance of confidence that it is in fact a party who seeks to develop the people of this country rather than the elite few that has plundered the resources of this country. This is the very party that defended every allegation of corruption made against the Govn't. To now decide to act and rid it of the many arrogant and know-it-all is not going to do this so called disciplined party any good; for once they had the power they flagrantly ignored the cries of the people, the warnings of massive corruption even from within. Instead, silenced the one person who raised questions about the operations of the PM’s (Project Manager) development machinery (Udecott) and the Party did nothing about it but allowed the corruption to flourish.
The next few weeks into months will be very interesting and this cannot be compared to any past instances (33/3) the population is far more intelligent to simply forgive and forget such high-handed disregard for the plights of the poor. The population today is in fact thinking about the future and how today’s actions affect this future. It is absolutely necessary for this all-time corrupt party to look very carefully at those it selects to represent the people, no longer will they be able to get away with its policies of corruption and hold people to ransom with things like CEPEP and the many other social services. The people will demand more. And I am not sure that the party can deliver more than it has after spending billions with no real development of the people.

...Of Corruption and Men.

The UNC was voted out of office on the basis of "allegations" of corruption which was eventually proven by the new government. The new government was elected into office on the premise that they will deal with corruption, they promised also to look at the procurement procedures in relation to the construction sector, which was the main area of corruption under the UNC regime and in particular the Piarco Airport project.

However, after getting into office and given a “mandate” with 26 seats, the PNM government has done nothing significant to end the means to corruption. Instead they did the opposite to what they have promised. The PNM regime has continued with the UNC’s use of state enterprises to carry out contract work in the name of fast tracking. Udecott being at the forefront of this the government’s main tool in its 2020 development drive.

The present regime has defended ever single allegation of corruption linked to Udecott, even those made by one of its own members of parliament and even went as far as to fire that member. And at the eleventh hour they want to tell you and I that they are addressing these concerns, rubbish, they eh fooling me, are they fooling you?

The report of the CoE into the Piarco Airport Project has never been published in the public domain. However, according to the Sunday’s Newsday, this report had made recommendations aimed at preventing a repeat of the Airport fiasco. The present regime has ignored the recommendations of the 2003 Piarco Report; hence we have today, a repeat of the Airport scandal except it is at least ten times worst.

The following are some of the recommendations of the 2003 Piarco Report:

• Statutory bodies and state agencies as well as local corporations should play no part whatsoever in the preparation of the award of any public contract of any kind;

• Parliament should be allowed to debate the raising of state funds for public construction projects;

• No major contracts should be afforded to foreign contractors unless local expertise is not available or readily available locally;

• There should be limits on who should participate in the preparation for or in the award of public contracts.

On the creation of state enterprises, like Udecott, the 2003 Piarco Report had this to say, “they can be used (badly) despite of the best intentions of its management personnel.”

On the use of foreign contractors, like Shanghai Construction, the 2003 Piarco Report had this to say, “project handled solely by expatriates (consultants and contractors) have always been plagued with allegations.”

The 2003 Piarco Report refers to an example during the 1980’s where a foreign contractor (Sam P. Wallace Co. Ink., involved in the famous #100 million Caroni Racing Complex where after millions have been expended, all we are left with were some piles and steel rods on the ground.

Today however, after being given the mandate from the people, the people who believed you when you told them that what happened at Piarco must never happen again, we have a $20 million commission of enquiry telling us the very same thing that one did several years ago.

What is necessary in all of this is for us to understand that whilst the goals, in principle, of a government in office may be well intended, we must not discount the fact that corruption can become a part of the process. This is absolutely necessary for us to understand this and demand that the relevant measures be implemented to eliminate as much as possible the avenues for corruption to take place.

Finally, we must NOT allow ourselves to be so blinded, that we remove one party and elect another and think that our work is done. We must ensure that the right procedures are put in place to protect our wealth.

A Church on the Hill

I don't know what to say about the PM's statement in Parliament concerning the Church. What madness really going on in this place? The PM went into the history of all that previous governments did, about rebuilding the temple in the sea, and etc.
But as far as I am aware the temple in the sea was an open issue, it was not suddenly discovered that this is being done. And herein lies our problem in this place. The PM indicated that no one said anything about that project, but are up in arms about the church. Some people just don't get it. But then again, like Panday's monkey statement, the PMs raising these issues are well designed to again play on the emotions of the blind loyalists.

The issue here is not about if the state should or should not assist church, temple, mosque etc. This in fact should be applauded. The issue is the manner in which it was done, and in this instance, something does not seem to be above board. The PM began his statement by referring to the constitution and quoted in part;

Whereas the People of Trinidad and Tobago

a. have affirmed that the Nation of Trinidad and Tobago is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, faith in fundamental human rights and freedoms, the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions, the dignity of the human person and the equal and inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed by their Creator;

d. recognise that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;
but he seem to have no idea that between those two clauses there are two others;

b. respect the principles of social justice and therefore believe that the operation of the economic system should result in the material resources of the community being so distributed as to subserve the common good, that there should be adequate means of livelihood for all, that labour should not be exploited or forced by economic necessity to operate in inhumane conditions by that there should be an opportunity for advancement on the basis of recognition of merit, ability and integrity;
c. have asserted their belief in a democratic society in which all persons may, to the extent of their capacity, play some part in the institutions of the national life and thus develop and maintain due respect for lawfully constituted authority;
and yet another
e. desire that their Constitution should enshrine the above mentioned principles and beliefs and make provision for ensuring the protection in Trinidad and Tobago of fundamental human rights and freedoms;

These seem to elude the PM or he has decided to purposely leave them out because it would be in line with the modus operandi of the PNM that is to simply ignore the plight of the citizens in terms of crime for example.

But back to the church on the hill, nothing has been said on how this church is being funded, we know that it is state land, and I have no issue with that. Why is Shanghai being used on this (private) project? Wasn't Shanghai brought here under a government to government arrangement, this puts to rest that the government has no input in this matter. What about the approvals for this project, the TPRC is blowing wind about a threat to shut down this project, we all know that that is just BULL, this was put out there and would be "fixed" by the state.
I can't wait for the next best thing to blog/blag about, for as per all others before it, this issue has but a short shelf life, and by the way, it seems as if the mortality rate of this and similar issues is increasing, or maybe it is that they come up so often that we eh even gettin time to shit in peace.

A Spending Agenda

Does anyone have the right to sell something that does not belong to any one person/entity? I hold the view that sole rights should not have even been up for consideration, all the BULL about being allowed to tender by the Minister does nothing for me.
How the hell anyone could tender against an entity that has the unlimited financial backing of the state and mind you a state that has no thrift in its spending. I strongly believe that the main contention here is selling sole rights of what belongs to the people. I am also certain that no patron, spectator or passerby was informed about this and none gave permission to be featured on something that would be a revenue earner.
I feel compelled to plug in here that these ventures are well designed to siphon state funds. TSTT’s recent Beyounce concert is but one example of this madness. Break even meh foot, we don’t even know what was spent (squandered), how the hell are we to believe that they “break even” after they rolled over on their back, somebody getting screwed here. The many other mega projects labelled as development are but for the same purpose, just as the Piarco Airport project was designed to rip off the tax payers of this country.
What is more disturbing is state spending that does not allow for open scrutiny, there are numerous instances where the state has and continues to spend and the only redress the citizens seem to have is what the nine day wonder syndrome affords, we shout about it and then move on to the next issue. I cannot agree that we would become developed by 2020 or any other day the PM may have in any of his pocket. Development includes mechanisms for redress (e.g. referendum and recall) that the citizens can access if they believe that the state is wrong on a particular issue. For a party to be in government for most of our independence and to not see it fit to improve on our legislative framework so as to afford for transparency, accountability, inclusivity is nothing short of shameless. But there is a reason for this, for example when Minister Imbert can stand up in parliament and indicate that they would pass legislation because we (the govn’t) have 26 seats, and tell the opposition that they are irrelevant, strengthens my assumptions.
But back to the Carnival rights issue, considering that CNMG has, according to the figures presented, effectively made a lost, they did not even “break even”. I am of the opinion that this too is but another mechanism designed siphon state resources. Some may find my bold statement is, well bold. But I have good reason to be so bold, considering the modus operandi of this regime, nothing they do is open and transparent, questions in parliament are left unanswered, they have weaken the Integrity in public life act, the Freedom of information act and continues to use its majority (minority) in parliament to do as they wish, notwithstanding that the majority of the population is saying that they should redirect their priorities.
As I end, allow me to apologise for straying but I think that it is relevant if we are to look at these issues in a broader context, we must try to understand the driving force behind government’s actions.

Has the government wasted our resources

The following is an article in the Trinidad Guardian, following the article is an email exchange between Anthony Wilson and myself.

Jamaica's highly indebted national airline, which is up for sale, may remain in Caribbean hands.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding has told parliament that he has held talks with Trinidad and Tobago-government-owned Caribbean Airlines over a possible buy-out.

He said he had also been in consultations with his Trinidad counterpart, Patrick Manning.

Caribbean Airlines, the three-year-old successor to BWIA, is among two shortlisted prospective buyers for Air Jamaica, which is reported to have debts of more US$1.2 billion.

BBC

Rowley on the attack

Read the article here

Conversation with the REAL flag man

Marlon RadioPolice 05 November at 09:23
Sir, could you do us a favour and not insult the citizens of this country please. We deserve better, after all you people depend on us to vote for you so you can have all that you have at our expense. I am trying to be very polite to you, well not you your office, but its difficult, so I would end by asking that you find it in your hart, if you have one, to not insult us.

Gary Hunt 05 November at 20:56
I think it was honest to lay all the facts on the table.

Marlon RadioPolice 06 November at 09:03
but Sir, the facts came in trances, listen, no one in this country rases these issues just to make others look bad or that we hate them and want to bring them down, But please sir, you must understand, if you were on the outside of this matter looking in as we are, I am sure that you would understand that from the outset it did not and cannot make sense. You first indicated that you were not too sure of the cost, but also indicated that Cabinet approved it, how could cabinet approve it without a cost. You then stated that it (the flag) cost 18,500, then eventually you indicated that the cost was approximately 2 million. How does this look to you sir, honestly? People in this country does have alot of national pride, but we do not need a flag to tell us that we are a proud people, we need water, good roads, safe communities with recreational facilities, to name a few. Again sir we rasie these matters for one purpose, and that is to force a change in the priorities. I do hope you can understand.

Thanks for your reply anyways

Gary Hunt 06 November at 19:54
There are many notes that come before cabinet. This year so far over 3000 notes have come before cabinet for approval!!! Last year when that was approved it was part of a larger work programme for the HCS and JPC. Difficult to remember numeric details of each note. The flag cost $15,600 + VAT. The structures required to fly the flag is what we clarified. Open and honest. SPORTT even took out and Ad in the paper and gave exact figures. Water, good roads, and safe communities and recreational facilities are constantly being worked on. Remember each dept. of Government is given an budget to operate. This year MSYA operated with very high efficiency. A lot more was done for a lot less. Millions was given back to the Minister of Finance by MSYA. National development is being implemented on many fronts.

Marlon RadioPolice 10 November at 12:47
For the past few days I have been trying to come up with a reply to this, but I cannot seem to come up with one, except to say, please sir - lets rethink how we D people money nah.

Does Spending help when the government is corrupt

$196 Billion Later, Still Little Proof U.N. Health Programs Work - Infectious Disease - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

True Accountability

Transparency and Accountability in this country is but words used to hoodwink an already brainwashed population into believing that the government is not corrupt. The following quotes demonstrate what true accountability is all about.

"We will stop outsourcing services that should be performed by the government and open up the contracting process to small businesses," he said. "We will end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts that run up a bill that is paid by the American people. And we will strengthen oversight to maximize transparency and accountability."

"It's time for this waste and inefficiency to end," the president said.

"Far too often, the spending is plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud, and the absence of oversight and accountability," Obama said. "In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition; in others, contractors actually oversee other contractors."

Read the complete article here.

Watch the video here.

TTHaveYourSay®