Rowley: I was not attacking Manning

In fact, Rowley stressed that he was happy to be part of the Manning Cabinet and did his job as a minister with "great enthusiasm." But he explained that he was motivated to speak out because of a concern about the shortcomings of the country and because he felt the country needs to take stock of itself.

"We have resources but the country has serious ‘systems failure’ across the board — encompassing the Parliamentary system, the public service, education etc.

"When I say that the efficiency level of government expenditure is about 40 percent, I am not attacking this government, or the administration before. I am talking about the system of governance.

"I go to play golf in the morning sometimes at 5.30 and when I am on the way to the golf course, I meet government workers packing up to go home. Do you accept that a man can do a day’s work and finish by 5.30am?"

Rowley said that his statements on education did not constitute an attack on Hazel Manning. In fact it was just the opposite. "I used the example of bringing up children in the context of ‘free education’ and I asked the questions, are we satisfied that we do have free education and if so, is the free education system delivering the quality of students we need or are we settling for mild mediocrity that is excessive failure while spending large sums of money? And somebody gets up and interprets that as Rowley attacking Mrs Manning, the Prime Minister’s wife. And I am saying ‘don’t be a fool.’ This issue arose long before Mr Manning was the Prime Minister and even longer before his wife was appointed education minister. But they (the people who think it is an attack on the PM’s wife) like bacchanal.

This problem (of education) has been with us for the longest while. One of my closest buddies was Augustus Ramrekesingh who was one of the better ministers of education and we used to have these same discussions (about the education system). It is not a question of who is the minister.

"One of the problems the country is facing is that we go into denial about our problems, hiding behind ministerial blame and responsibility (thinking and saying): ‘If you get the right minister, the problem will go away and if the problem won’t go away, then it is the wrong minister.’ Take the issue of parenting. Which minister is responsible for parenting? (None). That is a societal and behavioural thing and one of the big problems is the deterioration in parenting. And that is not as a result of the current minister (of education)."

On Senator Ramesh Deosaran’s criticisms of his statements about not attending parliamentary committees, Rowley said he merely stated that he had a choice to make. "I have three functions — one as a MP representing a constituency; two as a member of a Cabinet and three, as a member of Parliament.

Added to that I find myself being assigned (parliamentary) committee duties. And when I look at my distribution of time, I have to make a choice as to which of these duties I fulfil, especially between the ministry and coming to Parliament to which is in effect a talkshop committee. And I chose to focus on the ministry, at least I get something done there." If that is Senator Deosaran’s definition of ‘delinquency’ then he is obviously not a lexicographer."

Rowley stated that the whole committee system did not function properly. "Parliamentary committees don’t function because they are made up of fulltime Cabinet members and part-time parliamentarians. The fulltime Cabinet members give priority to their cabinet functions, while the part-time parliamentarians go off and do their own business to earn a living.

"Because members of Parliament would be less than honest if they tell you that they will work fulltime for $10,000 a month in this economy. But they accept it knowing that they will only be there part-time. And because they are part-time, billions of dollars of expenditure by the State is not properly overseen by parliamentary committees which are pretending to oversee it ... can anybody tell me I am wrong?"

He said he could not understand how his statement on the parliamentary committees could have provoked a debate on ministerial salaries because he never mentioned anything about minister’s salaries. "I can defend what I have said. What I cannot defend is the misrepresentations," he said.

Another distortion, Rowley said, was this motion that he was calling for an inquiry into the 1990 coup attempt. "I maintain that for something of that magnitude to have gone uninquired is a failure of the country. But the NAR government remained in office a year and a half after the coup attempt when everything was fresh ... So if anybody failed us by not having an inquiry, the first chunk of the blame has to lie with the NAR, whose number one item of business after the government was restored, should have been an inquiry into what went wrong. But low and behold a member of that government in the typical bacchanal way is calling on this government and giving us 14 days to have an inquiry, 15 years later ... I don’t want to hear anything from Rawle Raphael and those fellas ... I have not called for a Commission of Inquiry (into the coup attempt)."

On his statements about the number of senators in the Cabinet, Rowley said he was contributing to a bill to expand the elected House (from 36 to 41 MPS). "In supporting the principle of an elected House which should give a prime minister — now I am not talking about this prime minister, but ... a prime minister — a larger number of representatives from which to chose his Cabinet. And it was in that context of advocating a larger elected House, I was saying that it will eliminate the need for a larger non-elected element in the Cabinet. And it is in this context one talks about too many senators in the Cabinet ... I am not being specific to this situation.

"Because as a PNM MP I took serious umbrage that Panday, even though the law permitted it, put seven defeated candidates in the Cabinet via the Senate. It was a travesty against the principles of an electoral politics. And that was the PNM position. If you end up with a substantial or more senators in the Cabinet, you have to see that in the context of elected government. And it is not an issue of challenging the prime minister’s prerogative to put people in the Cabinet ... I know the law and the law permits that. But in a debate on expanded electoral governance, a comment on the size of the Senate and the Cabinet is not out of order. And if there are people who want to take it personally, then obviously they are missing the point.

"My statement was not directed at any member of the Senate or any prime minister or any individual ... I only expressed my view. Am I allowed that? I have seen it exciting certain people. But what is being said to me? That any point of view (I have) don’ t express it because it might excite certain people? Then where do you get the debate on issues?"

Rowley said that as someone who came from poor, humble, rural beginnings, his life was a tangible demonstration of the benefit one can derive from public policy. He stressed it was the hope that others can walk the same road (that he did) that drove him to continue serving in the public domain. "I have no doubt that there are issues on which the Prime Minister and I will have different points of view but rest assured that the Prime Minister knows that he can count on me as a member of his Cabinet to discharge that function with the seriousness it deserves.

"I have said over and over, I don’t take myself too seriously but I take my job very seriously." He added that he would, from time to time, make statements on public policy which he hoped would be taken in the spirit in which it is intended.