WERE DEMONSTRATIONS A BID FOR LOST GROUND?

Were the Budget Day demonstrations in Chaguanas a carefully orchestrated move by power-brokers within the United National Congress (UNC) to recover political ground among former Caroni (1975) Limited sugar workers that they felt had been lost to Ramesh Maharaj? Maharaj, a former Attorney General in the 1995-2000 and 2000-2001 UNC administrations, who had figured in the collapse of the UNC Government in 2001, had been attracting audiences, which although not unduly large, yet had been such as to apparently make the UNC hierarchy uncomfortable.

Budget Day traditionally attracts understandably greater than usual attention from the Media and the general public. In addition, Trinidad and Tobago as a front runner in the race to house the headquarters of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, any demonstrations on Budget Day, plus the non turning up of UNC Opposition Members of Parliament in the House of Representatives for the Budget presentation, were certain to attract media attention, not only here, but regionally and internationally. The hoopla about crime would mean that the country would receive international media attention of the negative sort. And, whether justified or unjustified, would be of no concern to the once ruling Party, the United National Congress, whose biting comments on Trinidad and Tobago have on occasion been an unfortunate feature of its European website.

The domestic audience the UNC was able to mobilise on Monday, however, may very well, in addition to the above, mean that for the first time since the issue of VSEP for Caroni workers arose, it had a platform that Ramesh Maharaj would perhaps find difficulty in matching. Maharaj’s political campaigning, immediately before and after VSEP, had eroded once generally accepted support for the UNC and its leadership. Audiences, which for years had erupted in loud, excited applause for UNC Political Leader Basdeo Panday’s speeches, had begun of late to listen in relative silence. Worse, the audiences had noticeably dwindled. But Monday was different. I wish to make it clear that nothing I may have written should be construed to mean that Monday’s political volcano had been orchestrated by Panday. I cannot and will not comment on the demonstrations, as there are matters relating to them, which, by the time this column appears, may be deemed to be sub judice. But I can and will comment on the non turning up of Opposition Members of the House of Representatives, who were elected to serve not merely their respective constituencies, but the nation as a whole. Under the Westminster system, which this country has adopted, the official Opposition is supposed to represent, and indeed see itself as the alternative Government.

This is the second time in the history of our young republic that parliamentary members of the UNC Opposition have tacitly withdrawn their enthusiasm. The first time was during the short-lived 2001-2002 parliament when, acting on directions, the elected Opposition did not follow long established precedent with respect to the election of a Speaker, and vote for the candidate indicated by the ruling Party. True, the People’s National Movement had departed from this precedent for the 1997 elevation of Mr Arthur N R Robinson for the position of President. Admittedly though, at least one party member had honoured the custom. I switch gears, briefly. The attack by Israeli military aircraft on Syria, however couched, was in flagrant breach of international law. Had the reverse been true, the United States would have condemned it as an act of aggression, perhaps even declared Syria to be a terrorist State, and Israel, supported by the US and possibly the United Kingdom, would have responded by land and air.
Meanwhile, the United States, which earlier this year launched a vicious, unprovoked war against Iraq, on the spurous grounds that the peewat country had weapons of mass destruction, has declined to condemn Israel for its attack on Syria. It appears as though it is one rule for Israel, and another for Arab States, which are in America’s ‘bad books.’ I do not think it necessary for me to criticise again, at this stage, Saddam Hussein. US President George Bush and United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair have trotted out ‘tall tales,’ concerning Iraq, provided them by their advisers, and which brought about the near destruction of that country, through the use of weapons and technology far in excess of what Iraq ever had. Yet the security and other advisers appear unwilling to speak of Israel in terms not unlike those used against Iraq.

I return to the Budget. The country, however, is entitled to expect that the opposition members of parliament, having refrained on Monday from being in the House for the presentation of the Budget will, nonetheless, be there for the Budget debate, and will make meaningful contributions to it, including conclusions on the provisions and directions the Budget is taking. And while the 2004 Budget presented on Monday contains several pluses, the country would like to know what are the thoughts of the opposition on its being based on an anticipated revenue projection of an average of US$25 for a barrel of oil; its plan to deal with crime; its thrust for Education, Health, Housing, Social Services Delivery, and its $1.3 billion allocation for the Tobago House of Assembly. International experts, it was pointed out by some commentators, immediately following on the Budget presentation, have anticipated the average cost of a barrel of crude in the coming year as hovering between US$22 and US$25. It may be appropriate to mention that Trinidad and Tobago’s crude, because of its quality fetches an additional US$1.50 per barrel of oil, so that even though the average price should prove nearer the lower end than the upper, Minister of Finance, Prime Minister Patrick Manning would not be that far out, if at all!