Guest commentary: Rambachan responds to Sunity Maharaj

File: Suruj Rambachan

I write in response to an article appearing in today’s (Sunday) Express under the title “Gift of a Trojan Horse” by Sunity Maharaj. The article concentrates on the $410 million constituency development fund but implies that it might be an attempt to affect free and fair elections in Tobago. 

Let me just categorically state that the People’s Partnership Government is not about undermining the freedom of choice of voters whether in Tobago or Trinidad to vote as they wish. The preservation of democracy, which includes the freedom to vote according to one’s conscience, is a principle which will always be upheld by the People’s Partnership Government. It is therefore noteworthy, the “writer’s sleight of hand” to suggest that unfair means are going to be used in the upcoming Tobago Elections.

On May 24th 2010, the people of Tobago unequivocally rejected the PNM and will have the chance to do so again in the THA elections in January. The people of Tobago, are principled and are very en courant with the issues of governance. As well, they have a good understanding of which political entity will best be able to advance the interests of Tobago. 

Long before the announcement of the Community Development Fund (CDF), the current government has been ensuring that the economic, social, educational and tourism interests of Tobago are being attended to. 

The resuscitation of the Magdelena hotel, the introduction of new and additional aircraft to Tobago on the domestic route, the expansion of educational institutions through the Ministry of Tertiary Education, the building of Roxborough Gas Station, the introduction of new buses, the completion of the Scarborough Hospital, the renaming of the Crowne Pointe Airport and the recently concluded $250million fund to support the tourism sector in Tobago are all initiatives that pre-dated the CDF. 

This is a clear indication that the intent of the government to ensure equitable treatment of Tobago was always present. Further, no government has had as many Cabinet meetings in Tobago as the Kamla Persad administration.

The Article by Sunity Maharaj seems to conveniently ignore all of these which pre-dated CDF. The writer also claims that the fund managed through the Ministry of Finance pending future legislation effectively erases the separation between legislature and executive and pulls the legislature under the control of the executive. 

It is a well known constitutional provision that separates the legislature from the executive. By no means is the PP government ever going to undermine the constitution of this country in the way suggested by the writer and it seems to be not only the writer’s figment of the imagination, but also a veiled attempt to introduce fears into the public mind.

The writer fails to properly inform that all expenditures of money are subject to budgetary approval in the parliament and that the parliament will have a chance to debate the $410 million in the upcoming budget. What the writer also fails to state is that all expenditures and accounts of Ministries and Government are subject to established rules and regulations as well as Auditor General’s audits and scrutiny. Further, the Auditor General’s reports are laid in Parliament and examined accordingly.

In addition, the presence of the Integrity Commission and the ability of any citizen to report abuse of public funds is now well known in our system of governance.

The writer also suggests that the Government is attempting to rope in the opposition to implement its development plan. This is laughable since it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the CDF is. 

The CDF is not a government development plan. The CDF allows all members of Parliament to access $10million each to implement projects on behalf of their constituents, projects chosen in consultation with the constituents. It might very well be, contrary to the writer’s view, that these projects may not have even been considered by the government. 

In this case, what is laudable is that the Members of the Opposition have an opportunity to use the $10million to perhaps even correct perceived imbalances in the development of their constituencies.

In a later part of the article, the writer says “If the People's Partnership Government were firmly of the view that the work of MPs needed to be bolstered with adequate funding, it simply had to bring its proposal to Parliament for discussion and debate”. 

This statement ignores the fact that the $410million included as it will be in the budget is subject to the Parliamentary debate. Further, the government has already stated its public intention to bring legislation to Parliament to govern the fund.

There seems to be a trend in this country to slow down the pace by which the current government wishes to proceed despite the best efforts of the government to ensure transparency and accountability. In fact, I venture to say that it is because of the commitment of the government to transparency and accountability that development work has not proceeded at a pace which is consistent with the demands of the people, resulting in noises from the ground. 

We agree that there must be dialogue, that there must be examination of proposals but the tendency in this society not to have time limits on such discussions has hindered progress. This government is always prepared to open itself to public scrutiny but it also has to take the decision to move on with its development programme in the interest of improving the quality of life of people everywhere.

The matter of the Constituency Development Fund approved by Cabinet has also drawn comment from MSJ leader as well as from select members of the Opposition. 

The task of representation has been made very difficult due to the impatience of constituents. This is not just a TT phenomenon but a worldwide trend. It appears that an “instant coffee” approach to representation is being demanded. Perhaps this is due to the disappointments of the past. As it stands there is a need to speed up delivery to constituents. The Constituency Development Fund aims to achieve this objective and more.

Perhaps one has to be an MP in order to understand the need for such a fund to empower MP’s across the political divide. Just as a matter of interest, the fund is going to be spread equally across constituencies. The impotence of Parliamentarians to respond with speed to problems of constituents is real. The frustration is not just that of the MP but also of the constituent and the community. 

The CDF addresses this issue of speed of delivery and redress. People voted for service. The PP government campaigned on better service. As a result it is incumbent upon government to ensure that measures are devised to prompt the delivery of service. To fail to so do would be to break the psychological contract (contract of unwritten expectations) between the MP and the Constituents.

What are the issues being put forward against the CDF? 

1. The potential for misuse or as one MSJ put it “bobol”. In response to this claim, it is being deliberately forgotten that the MP is subject to the Integrity Commission and as well any member of the public can if he/she feels that the MP is engaged in corrupt practices report it with evidence to the Police. Further, the monies are not being given directly into the hands of the MP but upon request as a result of a verified need related to infrastructural development. The oversight of Parliament will also be available since a law enacting the Fund as well as the freedom of MP’s to file questions in Parliament will be available. In any event, it will be foolhardy of an MP to want to be embarrassed as to the misuse of this fund. The fund is appropriately called a CDF, which means also that it invites community oversight and participation in development of the Constituency. 
2. On the same issue of accountability, there will be a process by which the funds are administered. In this regard, a diligent MP will want to ensure that he/she gets the maximum number of projects, since it allows him to create a good impression of delivery and representation. It must also be noted that not all projects will find acceptance since a discerning MP will ensure that there is prioritization and an even spread throughout the constituency. 
3. The fund does not cater for projects other than infrastructure and emergencies for which 10% can be used. In this way events which can misuse funding like cultural shows etc will not be funded by the CDF. For these purposes, the Government has been very generous through the Sports and Culture Fund as well as the Ministry of Arts and Multiculturalism etc. 
4. The suggestion has been made that the fund is an election tool. This criticism does not hold water since it is spread across the board and benefits all MP’s. If it is an election tool it is because the constituents will be able to determine from the use of the funds how well their problems have been addressed. This means that the fund will cause MP’s to be measured on efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness and constituency management. Indeed the fund empowers both the MP and the constituents. From my point of view it increases the interest of constituents in political decision making, in constituency development and in addressing accountability. The ability of MP’s, opposition and government to claim impotence is now vastly removed. The quality of representation will of necessity improve. 
5. The suggestion has been made that the monies should have been placed in the hands of the local government corporations or the self-help commission. These organizations have their functions demarcated in the laws which govern what they do. What is being missed here in this suggestion is the empowerment of the MP. A person goes to the polls and promises to deliver services. People vote hoping that this will occur. The MP can only do this if resources are made available and if he/she is given the opportunity to make decisions that reflect the needs of constituents. A smart MP would have a team of persons including local government representatives in the constituency, involved in the selection of projects as well as in the creation and management of a Development Plan for the constituency. In this way, the fund will promote greater direct citizen participation and build the environment for the much touted participatory democracy. In this way there will be transparency and public oversight. 
6. In an environment subject to climate change and erratic weather conditions, the need for a fund to cater to disasters is very important. I have not heard any great amount of criticism about this aspect of the fund. What this facility does however is brings immediate relief to constituents and complements the local government authorities which are the first respondents to disasters. It also assists the MP in developing a core of volunteers who will be more excited to participate in dealing with disasters knowing that resources are immediate. Again as simple as it may appear, the CDF has the potential to create a greater spirit of community. 
7. On the matter also of a lack of accountability, all, government funds are subject to audit by the Auditor General. Today these public audits do not only deal with adding up the accounts, but are also “searching” audits which look for value received. This is facilitated by comparisons of costs for similar projects by other public and private organizations. 

One of the tragedies of our society is the tendency to see the negatives before we see the positives. We fail to celebrate what is right in the world and as a result we lose out on the many possibilities that are there for us to bring benefit to our people. 

Corruption real or perceived by the population has tarnished the institution of trust between politician and citizen. We have to work harder to disprove them and to demonstrate that we are a govt which prides itself on accountability and open government. Thus far we have done well. 

We need to show that we are courageous enough to introduce new institutions which will positively impact upon governance. We must not be afraid to put our views forward. We have pledged to bring about change. We cannot do this by using the same institutions and approaches which the people rejected. We must show the benefits of what we are doing with new approaches like the CDF. We must inform our constituents that they will be the beneficiaries.

In closing, we must note that we have announced the CDF. As a result, we have raised expectations that with the new budget, the fund will be available. We have introduced the risk of possible dissonance and further dissatisfaction if we cannot in a very short space of time introduce the promised legislation. 

Given that the legislation can be a prolonged process, in the meantime, we can use the special purpose companies to supervise work on behalf of MP’s so as to ensure that in the first quarter, the fund becomes available. 

We may wish to note in passing that the former Minister of Local Government introduced MP Projects through the special purpose companies to the tune of $4 million each MP, including the Opposition! This appears to have been working well.

Surujrattan Rambachan | Minister of Local Government; Deputy Political Leader, UNC