QUESTION OF PERCEPTION

It is somewhat puzzling that Trinidad and Tobago should have been perceived by Transparency International as not only greatly more corrupt today than it was in 2001 under the United National Congress Government, but light years ahead of the United States in corruption. Admittedly, Transparency International has advanced that its ratings have been based on perceived corruption. Yet, because in giving Trinidad and Tobago a score of 4.2 this year, a quite noticeable drop from the 5.3 it perceived the country as deserving in 2001, it has sent a signal which will be interpreted by many, here, regionally and internationally, to mean that this country is more corrupt today than it was at the then peak of corruption three years ago. The people of this country are owed an explanation by Transparency International as to the method adopted in arriving at this conclusion, perceived or otherwise, as not only short term injury but long term can be done to Trinidad and Tobago’s image, however unintentionally.

Transparency International should state the yardstick it employed which led to its perception that this country had not only plunged further into the abyss of moral decay but was worse, far worse than that of the United States. Nationals need to know whether Transparency International discovered that ruling Party politicians and/or high ranking public servants engaged in and/or benefited from corrupt practices. I appreciate that the laws of libel will restrain the organisation from calling names even as it makes damning statements. Transparency International does not enjoy Parliamentary immunity or, indeed, any immunity at all. But it is clearly not enough for it to “buss a mark” which hurts the country’s good name, without letting us know, and not in general terms, the cancer we have to excise. What levels in the public sector, and the private sector as well, did Transparency International seek and obtain its advice on perceived corruption?

In turn, what measurements did Transparency International employ which led to the disparity in its ranking of the United States and Trinidad and Tobago on its Corruption Perception Index? Is the United States which Transparency International placed at 7.5 on its index, 3.3 above that of Trinidad and Tobago, the same country that even before its controversial invasion of Iraq last year is reported to have determined that a major corporation with alleged links to a high ranking official in the George W Bush Administration should have responsibility for multi-billion dollar contracts to be handed out for Iraq’s reconstruction after the country had been defeated? Is the United States, which is today ranked 17th in the world by Transparency International, and with a score on TI’s Corruption Perception Index of 7.5, the same country that had announced shamelessly that companies in countries which had opposed its invasion of oil-rich Iraq would not be eligible for any major reconstruction contracts? Is the United States still not largely pursuing this policy?

In turn, is there not the horribly distinct possibility that the United States, had it been another country acting, as it had done, in defiance of the United Nations and imposing not dissimilar terms and conditions, would have protested that the terms and conditions were not in accordance with good and acceptable practices? In short, that it was being asked to condone corruption? Is Transparency International aware of the age-old perception that the United States has often used its influence to pressure weaker countries to do its bidding, for example, in instances in which American companies could obtain substantial financial rewards? What is Transparency International’s perception on all of this? Corruption is perceived as being endemic in the United States, and scores of multi-national corporations are said to have received major contracts with the help of the State Department. Indeed, there are some United States corporate majors which are perceived as having somewhat more than just having an accidental ear in the State Department. In turn, it is perceived that some, not all, of the major political donors (should the candidate they back win) are assured of Government contracts, the value of which far exceed their financial contributions.

Is Transparency International aware that the United States government is perceived as having applied pressure, and not from a principled position, and continues to apply this pressure on the World Trade Organisation to end the banana regime of the European Union under which Caribbean bananas for decades have gained preferential entry into the EU? I wish to make clear that although I have raised these issues and perceptions I believe that much remains to be done with respect to the question of corruption in Trinidad and Tobago. The country has passed through a veritable five-year “Hell yard” — 1995-2001. During this time billions of dollars were corruptly mismanaged and misspent. In addition, many persons were severed from their jobs to make way for the appointment of friends and supporters of the then Administration. The battle against corruption continues and must continue, if only to ensure that the waste and moral decay which existed during the last Administration and which, in an earlier Administration, John O’Halloran and all too many others had been representatives and symbols of do not recur.