Dr Rambachan responds to Peter O'Connor's column

I read with great interest the Peter O’Connor Column of Sunday 13th May and in particular his seeming disappointments at what he described as a lack of change of culture. 

As Mr O” Connor will admit culture is a way of life, developed and solidified after many years. It includes the beliefs and behaviours, the traditions and prescriptions that guide and facilitate interactions and actions in a society. Mr O’Connor will also remember the words so often uttered, “is we culture,” as well as remember the words made famous by the Mighty Sparrow after the ONR lost in 1981, “We like it so!.”

Since 1981, we have come a long way. We have learnt that you can change a government and have a new Prime Minister including a Prime Minister of East Indian descent. We have, in my view, broken the back of race and ethnicity as well as religion in the choice of a Prime Minister as has happened in the case of Mrs Kamla Persad Bissessar. 

The people have displayed a maturity in this area of national life consistent with what is expected of a country celebrating fifty years of Independence. Yes Mr O’ Connor, we are changing the culture, maybe not as fast as we want but it has shifted.

Our people have demonstrated that they “did not like it so,” when they gave a constitutional majority to the People’s Partnership on May 24th 2010. This in itself was a significant moment of decision making and culture change in that they placed a woman as the Prime Minister. 

Our people have the capacity to change. The reason you are feeling a sense of despair arises from the noises which people are making with respect to the pace of delivery of services which they want and which they have been denied for so many years. 

In particular, the rural communities have been neglected for so long that people voted with the hope that this will change overnight. They voted for the PP because they could no longer bear neglect and denial of their rights as equal citizens to a more equitable distribution of the nation’s resources.

The government has not been a silent witness to these cries. The vigorous and aggressive programs of infrastructural development by the government are being witnessed across the country. 

The fishing community has been witnessing the development of their fishing depots. By the end of this year 22 depots will have been fully refurbished. The farmers have been experiencing the ease of accessing their agricultural estates as a result of over 300 kms of access roads being completed. 

The children in dilapidated schools have been going back to school after the long holidays to new as well as refurbished schools providing an enhanced environment for learning and self development. 

The Ministry responsible for Tertiary Education has been decentralizing the availability of opportunities for knowledge empowerment by making available facilities in Tobago, Debe and Chaguanas amongst others. Indeed YTEPP is now headquartered in Chaguanas and the Ministry’s headquarters will soon be located in new building facilities in Chaguanas, thus pointing to the government’s goal of decentralization. 

The Ministry of Legal Affairs has also created centres in fourteen locations where citizens now access birth and death certificates. They no longer have to come to POS for a simple service. So Mr O’Connor, there has been change in service quality and delivery. 

The Ministry of the People has been supporting the poor and the vulnerable and the differently able by giving mothers jobs to take care of their children especially those with cerebral palsy. 

The Ministry of Sports has begun fixing and refurbishing sporting facilities across the country. The programs of the government have been diverted away from the building complexes and have been directed to programs and projects which are people centred and empower people.

Your definition of change and culture shift has to do with the way you have perceived and understand governance. Yes, the government has made mistakes and yes the government and Prime Minister have been humble enough to admit these errors. But the government has also been governing in a different manner. 

The style not only of the Prime Minister but of the government is one of consensus building. This is not something which the country has experienced before as much as it is experiencing under this government. The desire for consensus has possibly slowed the pace of delivery. 

Maybe, it has even threatened the ability of the government to get its programs of action implemented. But this is the unfortunate price you have to pay for building a society in which people are given the right to participate and shape the future.

However, change has also been stymied by the presence of people in decision making positions and institutions steeped in traditional practices who fear that they are going to be losers of positions, patrimony and largesse if they were to “change the culture” or allow the systems to change. 

This is why the Licensing Office continues to be bedrock of corruption and lack of productivity. New systems there will mean an end to people being paid (bribed) to get transfers of their vehicles, certified copies etc. What is required is drastic action to weed out those who are “blockers”, those who protect the old. This will also require a new dialogue with the trade unions; one I hope they will be interested in pursuing.

A change in culture requires a mind shift. Unfortunately those who are blockers of change are asking, “What’s in it for me”, if I decide to change. The reason for asking this question is because they have already perceived that the gains from corruption will be a thing of the past. 

The reality is that if the culture is to change, then the government will have to be prepared to boldly “fracture” the existing culture and perhaps even be prepared to bear the cost of such fracturing. The government has recognized that the culture must change. It has chosen to achieve this culture shift by invitation and consensus not dictatorship and authoritarianism. 

It has chosen to get people to coalesce around a common vision and mission and not to stifle public expression. Indeed the press and media have never been as free as they are under this PP government despite the events at the Newsday and CCN TV over which the Government had no control.

The answer to a lot of the problems in the public service lies in the application of proper performance management systems, and where they exist in the enforcement of these systems. The public service need not be a bureaucratic affair that is slow and dysfunctional. 

If the performance management system is applied and if peoples’ performances are measured and rewarded or punished, there will be a change. 

But in this, the trade unions must have a new thinking. They must not defend a culture of non-performers but must embrace productivity. If the trade unions claim that they are equal stakeholders in the development of the country and if they want to participate then a culture shift is also required on their part. This is a dialogue required as of yesteryear.

This government opened the doors for such collaboration and has been walking the talk. Labour despite its differences with the government is represented in the Parliament. Labour however is not the only constituency the government must satisfy. 

Governance requires that the needs of all stakeholders be balanced. Governance requires that the overall national interest be taken into consideration in achieving that balance. Good Governance is not only a matter for the government. It is a national goal!

It is easy to forget from where the PP government started, not that my aim is to excuse the PP for any level of discontent in the population. We began with the debacle of CLICO and HCU and the possible derailment of the finances of the country, and even with the greater possibility of the intervention of the IMF. 

Stabilizing the financial system at a time when the financial crisis was still at its peak was no small achievement. We have done that and put the country on the path of growth. 

The pressure on the people would have been ten times worse than in 1986/87 when the NAR had to take very stringent measures to deal with the economy and the finances of the country. We have avoided this experience. In the process we have kept the unemployment rate generally below 6%. This too is change because it changed the course of the country away from policies which would have been like having to swallow bitter pills. 

This country has to meet debt payments incurred by the last administration, including debts to contractors, all of which have taken away valuable resources in the first two years of office and affected many programs of the government. This was the reality! Should we have neglected dealing with these matters, the nation would have been struggling.

The Prime Minister and the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry and Energy have been working to ensure that TT continues to be a preferred place for global investors. The travels of the PM have been severely criticised, (with even you alluding to it by making reference to Wattie Newton, the PM’s sister), but what would have been TT’s position if the PM was not engaged in marketing TT overseas. Today, TT has once again secured its space in the global mix. 

Investors are coming to TT for discussions. The visitor arrival numbers are up. Our entry into Latin America and Central America is being pursued with great success. Our strategy is clear. We are engaging the BRICS (countries) where growth has been taking place despite the melt down. The results are not going to be overnight ones. 

There is a period of gestation during which investigations and feasibilities will be undertaken and during which relationships will develop. All of this will take place as the investors come closer to making the investment decision.

There are those who find some kind of joy in saying that there is no confidence in the economy. Let us be real. Are companies leaving Trinidad? Are people buying less houses and cars? Have you noticed the expansion in the entertainment and food distribution sector? 

There is no lack of confidence in the economy. 

What has happened is that there is a wait and see attitude by the traditional business sector as a result of the change in government. This is understandable since there is a new administration in place. The administration has demonstrated that it is supportive of the private sector and is bent upon involving the private sector in the strategy of economic transformation and diversification. However, the government cannot force the local business community to get involved. 

The government sets the stage and provides the facilitating conditions. The policies of this government are not anti-business. Examine what the Agricultural Development Bank has done with its lending rates and what the Ministry of Food Production has done with agricultural incentives and you will conclude that the government is bent upon an expansionist policy. 

The government has not raised taxes! While the traditional investor community engages in the wait and see approach, a new breed of entrepreneurs is setting up shop particularly in central and south Trinidad. 

While complaints are being received about the marginalization of the local contractors, yet the HDC houses are being built by local contractors, the bridges, roads and drains are being constructed by local contractors. Jusamco and Coosals appear to be fully operational. 

Local government corporations all use only local contractors. Is it that the traditional construction players are being replaced by this new group of entrepreneurs who might well have been sub-contractors to the old group?

The Tourism sites that are being rehabilitated and the sporting facilities that are being constructed by the Sports Company are being done by local contractors. The government has also made it clear that at least 40% of all contracts being done by foreigners are to be done by local contractors. 

The reason why foreign companies have been getting work here has to do in part with their ability to finance the projects with low capital costs to the government. A balance has to be struck. If the large projects cannot get going, employment will be affected, economic growth will be affected and poverty levels will also increase. 

On the other hand, the local contractors must ask why their prices are so much higher than the foreigners as appeared to be in the case of the Debe University project. Must the country pay higher fees and costs to accommodate local contractors? We must be fair to the government.

Mr O’Connor speaks about favouritism and cronyism etc on the part of the government. I want to say that this is another misconception. A government has to have people with whom it can work and who are prepared to help the government to carry through with its plans and programs. This is not about favouritism. 

As one who has been involved in the selection and consideration of persons for Board positions, I have witnessed firsthand the extent to which the Hon Prime Minister goes to ensure that there is ethnic balance on all Boards as well as competence. Where should she look for these persons? 

She must look at the cadre of persons who fought with her over many years to win government and who also possess the competence to do the job. Should she leave the same people she inherited? Surely not! Many of these persons are the ones who fought to keep her out of office. Would they support her programs now that she is in office? 

In my view she has to have people she can trust, people of like mind. I don’t think that this is favouritism. Yes there are a few who have disappointed. This too is to be expected. The accusation of cronyism and favouritism is unfounded and unfair. 

Was it not this PM who fired Mary King, who reshuffled her government and moved people out of the Cabinet. Does this suggest favouritism? The Prime Minister has always separated her personal relationships and friendship from her job as Prime Minister. In my view there are no favourites in her government. She judges persons by their performance.

Let us look at the persons she brought in as Ministers. Verna St Rose Greaves has been a critic of the government. John Sandy is a new face brought in because of his competence. So too Dr Bhoe Tewarie, Devant Maharaj, Nicole Griffith, Kevin Ramnarine, Fazal Karim, Emmanuel George, a former Permanent Secretary, Vasant Bharat an extremely competent individual. His is a great example. 

He was one of the last to sign the letter to the President to support her as Leader of the Opposition. That did not go against him. It was his competence which was being judged. Apart from these she has been giving young people an opportunity to learn alongside experienced persons thus showing faith in the youth population. Where is the favouritism especially when you look at it from the point of view expressed by me?

Above all of this is the fact that she has managed a coalition government with great success. No matter the deliberate attempts to show division and dissension, you must give credit to the Prime Minister for her ability to hold the partnership together. 

In so doing she has shown an understanding of the politics and the people like few other leaders have shown in the past. Presented with an opportunity in 1986 to forge unity in the country, the opportunity went a begging. In 2010, the population has again given us an opportunity to unite the country.

It is clear that the wishes of the people for unity are being respected by the Prime Minister resulting in her engaging in compromises and as well ensuring that the government is perceived as one that practices equity and has an equal vision towards all. 

She has dashed the hopes of those who wanted to see this coalition fail. She has done so to such an extent that they no longer speak as to whether the government will last or not last. 

You will recall her speech at the launch of the 50th Independence celebrations at Queens hall when she addressed the issue of compromises, a clear statement that she intends to engage in and encourage compromises for the beneficial interest of this country. In this she is supported by the majority of people in this country who know that the way forward is through compromise, sacrifice and cooperation. This is the culture she is building.

Despite the existence of the Westminster system of Government in which it is said that the winner takes all, the PM and the government have not behaved in this fashion. There is sharing, there is caring, there is no geographic discrimination as existed before. 

The culture has been changing and will continue to change under the PP Government. With the mandate given to Prakash Ramadhar to fast track the Constitutional Reform process, shared understanding will be developed and further consensus will be arrived at which will pave the way for unity and shared prosperity.

Surijrattan Rambachan | Minister of Foreign Affairs and Communication