CECEP generating community employment, reducing crime

THE EDITOR: Sir I find it an imperative to write in defence of the poor and disadvantaged and, by extension, extend approbation for the pungent policy of the government in respect of poverty eradication.

I feel compelled to rebuff those who, for narrow and confused articulation, attempt to discredit the well intent and practical socio-economic benefits for the CEPEP programme, by lugubrious statements which indubitably are intended to poison the minds of a certain section of the political divide that is Trinidad and Tobago. Lest I or the Organisation I represent (MLIO) be accused of being a recipient or in anyway profiting from CEPEP, I will like to state categorically the MLIO is currently in no such position. It is therefore on the basis of objectivity and the uncontrovertive conclusion anyone, without hidden agenda, can draw when examining the CEPEP programme. It is certainly meeting its objective of generating community employment, imparting valuable entrepreneurial/management skills and reducing criminal activities in high-risk communities such as Laventille and Environs.

But what is the argument of those who criticise the CEPEP Programme? It is said that it is payback for supporters of the PNM. It is said that it is extremely expensive. It is also said that it is devoid of accountability. These arguments are extremely disingenuous to a programme that is indivisibly focused entirely on injecting pride of community, the inculcation of economic independence and the re-introduction of community spirit; values mass sections of the national populist have lost along the road of nationhood.

It is a conspicuous fact that CEPEP exists in all Constituencies (PNM, UNC and the budding). In short, it is being administered across the board (recent development in Central Trinidad has illuminated equitability inherent in the programme). I have no objection, and I am certain all of the poor in this country, as to the so-called high cost of the project. If anyone has such a concern, then they must explain what will be the cost of constructing additional jails, maintenance of prisoners and staff; I have not yet touched the cost of additional courts, magistrates, judges, state lawyers/prosecutors and supportive civilian staff. Need I go on?

On the question of accountability (whether project or financial), I find it rather ludicrous. The national population can see the various contractors hard at work all over the country; their visibility is blind to those who refuse to see! What is probably most laughable of those who question accountability is the fact that while they are claiming “accounting foul play”, they are at the same time spouting figures from evidently “reliable sources”. So if one knows the “Money Figure”, what is the complaint/hullabaloo? The quantum involved, in my view, is a minuscule investment in what Dr Ramesh Deosaran appropriately describes as “Social and Psychological Capital”.

I must however caution all beneficiaries of the CEPEP programme of their role and responsibility in contributing to augmenting the business-class in the society and making a reality of the vision of the Government to make Trinidad and Tobago a Developed State by the Year 2020.

The journey has just begun!

ERROL LESLIE
Vice Chairman
MILO
Morvant-Laventille Improvement Organisation