CEPEP will not aid TT’s economic development

THE EDITOR: The columnist, Mr Anand Ramlogan opined that “it pained me to hear people say... what a sad loss it is for the nation to have forfeited economist Mary King to the PNM” in his condemnation of the present independent Senators who, according to him, have failed to distinguish themselves and have undermined an important pillar in our democracy. In my case he signalled out my strident protest against corruption under the UNC when I was Chairman of the local Transparency Institute and as a Senator I should have used this stage to continue the protests for transparency in government. He then postulated that were the UNC at present in government handing out CEPEP contracts to councillors and campaign managers I would have probably gone on hunger strike outside the Red House.

I hear similar comments made by the UNC Senators when I disagree with their submissions in the House; note Mr Mark’s recent threat. To see this repeated by Mr Ramlogan is no surprise since it is the perception of others that he is in the UNC camp, which is his constitutional right. However, let me define my modus operandi on corruption. Though I am no longer a member of TTTI, as an individual I abide by the TI rule, ie, one does not investigate alleged corruption nor does one accuse anyone of corruption until there is public corroboration of these allegations. Even when this occurs the aim is to change the systems in such a way that this does not happen again. CEPEP, URP, LID, call it what you may, have all been used by the PNM, the UNC, to grant favours as they attempt to seek political advantage, a view that I have publicly stated. The opposition, whichever side, routinely slates the government for perceived corruption in URP or whatever. The CEPEP flak can be considered generally in this context. Yet, we have had a possible murder of a councillor who appears to have tried to stop corruption. However, if Mr Ramlogan were to read my columns he would see that I have branded the CEPEP as being an unsustainable economic intervention and it will have no impact on the economic development of this country.

If Mr Ramlogan were to read the Hansard he would see that my last Budget presentation condemned the present government (as the last UNC) for its lack of vision with respect to the use of its Budget allocation to create sustainable economic development. If Mr Ramlogan were in the House he would have heard me criticise the present junior Minister of Finance for his error in reducing the reserve requirement for banks, an instance in which the UNC’s Mr Dookeran supported the Government. He would have seen me bring to the attention of the House that the Government had unfortunately made certain public financial institutions exempt from the dictates of the Information Act without recourse to Parliamentary debate. My major duty to this nation based on my expertise is to make my voice heard with respect to its economic development (one of the reasons given by the then President of the Republic for my appointment to the House), especially in light of the depletion of our energy resources. Even in this aspect as the Chairman of a Joint Select Committee one has to elicit the required information from the Executive before making comments, constructive or other wise. Further, as part of Civil Society I am concerned about corruption and I raise my voice against this according to the strictures laid down by TI. In doing any of the above I ensure that it is done professionally and fairly without the use of sound bytes designed to titillate the media.

SENATOR MARY
K KING
Port-of-Spain