THE EDITOR:
THE Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Institute (TTTI) is extremely surprised at the comment attributed to Calder Hart, Chairman of UDeCoTT, who was reported in the Business Express of November 23 as saying that the government’s “White Paper (on public sector procurement) is not of course Government policy …”

TTTI wishes to stress that, on the contrary, the White Paper, which was laid in Parliament last September, is very much government policy.

CALDER HART

The document itself says that it is “a statement of policy that sets out the State’s objectives with respect to public procurement and how these objectives are to be achieved”.

Following on this, the Minister of Finance announced in his 2005/6 Budget presentation that the government expected the new procurement regime to “come into effect by the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006”. TTTI is disturbed to note that these facts appear to have escaped the attention of Hart, who holds a multiplicity of appointments in our public sector.

In addition, TTTI is puzzled and concerned by another reported statement of Hart which suggests that UDeCoTT’s procurement rules are and should be different from such rules elsewhere in the public sector because of “the sort of development programme that UDeCoTT has …”

The Minister of Finance has made it clear that the new procurement regime is to apply to, inter alia, all State enterprises, and in late September the prime minister listed UDeCoTT as one such enterprise. TTTI therefore calls again on Hart to inform the public of the procurement rules by which UDeCoTT, an agency receiving public funds, currently operates. Last August 17 the TTTI Chairman, Reginald Dumas, wrote Hart asking that, in the interest of transparency, UDeCoTT “make public its procurement procedures on the (Tarouba) project and, indeed, on other projects as well”.

No reply has been received.

In light of these and other recent events involving UDeCoTT, TTTI is even more concerned about the direction and approach of the enterprise, and will therefore continue to pursue these matters, alone or in conjunction with others.

THE EDITOR:
SUBSEQUENT to my remarks over the weekend about Coach Leo Beenhakker requiring an open cheque to ensure Trinidad and Tobago’s Soca Warriors perform well at the FIFA World Cup, several interpretations have been made.

I cannot allow those who have misconstrued my comments to go unchallenged as much as I regret having to perpetuate this negative banter amidst the afterglow of national euphoria which is still among us following our team’s qualification for the World Cup.

Allow me to clarify what I said about the resources required by the coach of our national team.

Rather than prescribing Leo Beenhakker a budget that might constrain his ability to achieve the level of success we all know he is capable of producing from the team, I said the coach should be given an open cheque which would allow him to write our nation even further into the record books when we compete in the FIFA World Cup, 2006.

He has already done the improbable by taking the smallest team ever to qualify for a World Cup and also with the smallest budget ever provided any team in the event’s history.

We cannot now expect him to do the impossible and ensure our nation makes an impressive showing if he isn’t given every red cent to acquire all the resources necessary.

I said then and repeat now, that Coach Beenhakker will get all that he asks for even if I have to borrow the money.

My comments were never meant to suggest that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago give Beenhakker an open cheque, I believe that he should be given what in his opinion is required for the team to perform best.

And I stand by that statement of principle.

Come next year when the entire nation and the world is watching the Soca Warriors we must never have faltered at our most glorious moment simply because funding fell short of a nation’s goal.

THE EDITOR:
A TERRIFIED, disenchanted and virtually disenfranchised society lurches toward the fourth anniversary of the controversial and undemocratic removal from power of an undefeated incumbent in contempt for the majority vote on 10/12/01, the last free, fair and free from fear, independently monitored democratic election in a since-blighted and benighted society.

An unprecedented 326 murders, 49 kidnappings for ransom, marked deterioration in the quality and delivery of official goods and services, erosion of constitutional rights and privileges, ethno/political discrimination, nepotism, patronage and corruption, are all, since 24/12/01, strategies, or results of same, initiated by an “elevated” dispensation in search of “vindication” and the retention of power at any price.

In such circumstances, can any citizen, regardless of race, status or political persuasion, still wonder why the quality of life has so rapidly deteriorated and crime is rampant?

Surely the question now is not why, but how many more must die before this nightmare is ended?

To the same business oligarchy that applauded as “Solomon wisdom” and a return “to business as usual”, a decision contemptuous of democracy and natural justice, the obvious imperative of resolution by the electorate of the Parliamentary impasse of 10/12/01, was never part of their agenda.

They are now nevertheless, loudest in demand for reversal of resultant, rampant criminal anarchy. Significantly, their petulant disappointment that out of the evil they applauded on 24/12/01 has come bloody criminal violence and the same administrative failures and corruption, so firmly and overwhelmingly rejected in 1986, has been acknowledged only to the extent to which they too, have been impaceted.

To any, save those dazzled by visions and promises of handsome profits and unearned wealth, rampant crime was always an inevitable consequence of the democratic abuse so applauded by “pale shadows”, without whose covert manipulation and overt approval, 24/12/01 was impossible. Equally significant is that despite four bombs and the increase in kidnappings for ransom and murders, in ‘05 alone, the president of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce has been summarily dismissed from a prestigious government job -- for criticising the administration’s failure to reverse crime!

Against a wealth of incontrovertible evidence, economic “exemplars”, committed to the cult of profitable compromise, are content to “run with the hare while hunting with the hound”.

That less fortunate citizens in ever increasing numbers are fatally impacted by “morality, spirituality and the rule of law” is of concern only in proportion to it’s adverse impact upon their persons or balance sheets. The fate of Eddie Koury, is yet to be recognised as a tragedy beyond their capacity for rationalisation.

Unfortunately, after the intensive campaign of vilification, allegation and persecution, mounted by usurpers, with enthusiastic collaboration by an until recently, partisan media, against an unjustly deposed incumbent, the only democratic alternative to current anarchy, incompetence and official corruption, has been reduced to internecine squabbling.

That stunning success of the politics of mass distraction poses now, a graver threat to the social fabric than rampant criminal anarchy. Deprived, at least pro temp, of that democratic alternative, in the absence of some unanticipated intervention, the awful inevitability of an angry and frightened electorate resorting to politics of the bullet, eschewing a devalued ballot, against a dispensation of demonstrated incompetence, “elevated” by presidential decree and “vindicated” in power by terrorist intimidation, is a bloody prospect, no longer after 326 murders, to be confidently dismissed, as “not possible in TnT”.

In this ominous scenario, with the Opposition apparently committed to self destruction, whither, if anywhere, might national salvation be envisaged?

The sole prospect, suggested by support for the recent efforts of Steven Cadiz and his team, appears remote and unlikely. It rests with the same “pale shadows” that applauded 24/12/01.

Will they on this occasion honour a responsibility to the society which has enriched them?

Or will they, as has been their wont, continue to profitably compromise with incompetence and crime for a few dollars more -- confident in their ability to evade looming disaster, like Indo candidates for kidnap, by voting with their feet?

THE EDITOR:
I WAS amused to hear that the prime minister said there were ghost gangs in URP and the Minister of Local Government stating after him that there was none.

The prime minister said there were criminal elements in URP, the minister said there was none.

I live at Chandangore, Chase Village and let me tell you there are criminal elements in URP, there is a labour co-ordinator who works at Couva URP, her two daughters work there and her daughter-in-law works as an area foreman. This woman knows me very well since we were both members of the United National Congress (UNC) up to 2001, when she jumped into the People’s National Movement (PNM).

How she got that job no one knows, but she also has other family members working in URP.

Then there is a deportee from America who boasts that he was a killer and is a friend of the Minister of Local Government. He lives in Morvant, yet he works in Couva.

Recently, police had to be called in to investigate the dissappearance of material in Couva.

And let’s not forget the other labour co-ordinator who lives at Dow Village. He seems to be the smartest of them all.

Poor people can’t get jobs yet this woman has her whole family employed in URP.

Even her family living in Chaguanas works in Couva.

I’m sure she would know me when she reads this, because she worked with me at the Cunupia Police Station under the UNC which she is a member of, but then I have nothing against her joining the PNM to get what she wants.

Most of us did, but such blatant corruption should not be tolarated. Then there is the one-eyed guy who goes around interferring with women and there are numerious reports against him in the Couva Office and the Couva Police Station, yet he is still working.

It seems if you are with the PNM you can get away with anything, even if the prime minister says it should not be so.

THE EDITOR:
AN “East Indian housewife and mother of two” has sought to elevate the United National Congress (UNC) infighting to the status of the Third Century BC Punic Wars between the Roman Empire and the Carthaginians; represented by Cornelious Scipio “Africanus” and Hannibal.

This she has done in the print media and by “paid” radio commercials. I must thank the kind lady for jerking my memory back to school days and in an attempt to understand the rational of her comparison, she put me on a search in my old and dusty textbooks.

One gets the impression that she refers to Scipio when identifying the UNC (Hannibal the People’s National Movement (PNM), with Panday at the centre, Dookeran strengthening the flanks and Maharaj securing the rear.

The reference: “Maharaj secures the rear in the event the flanks weaken as in 2001,” is probably her most enigmatic statement.

Analysis of Trinidad and Tobago’s political occurrences of 2001 and comparing them to the history of the Punic Wars (Third Century BC) the following salient issue appears: “In 187 BC, Cornelious Scipio’s brother Lucius was accused of misappropriation of money (bribes) received from Antiochus.

As Lucius was in the act of producing his account-books, Cornelious wrested them from his hands, tore them in pieces, and flung them on the floor of the Senate house.

“Lucius was later condemned and heavily fined.

“Cornelious Scipio himself was subsequently accused of also having been bribed by Antiochus, but by reminding the people that it was the anniversary of his victory at Zama he caused an outburst of enthusiasm in his favour. The people crowded round him and followed him to the Capitol, where they offered thanks to the gods and begged them to give Rome more citizens like Scipio.

“Retiring to his estate outside Rome, Scipio spent his final years complaining of his countrymen’s ingratitude, until his death in 184 BC.” Sounds familiar?

If I am not mistaken this “East Indian housewife and mother of two” was the same person that invited the members of the UNC to “not vote for slates” in the October internal elections of the United National Congress (by paid radio commercials).