ASK ME NO QUESTIONS

I have long accused the present Government of being indifferent to and contemptuous of the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000. I’m now willing to put my head on the political block to defend my theory that members of this administration, once ardent champions of the Integrity Act, nowadays view the legislation as a nuisance and not the necessary tool in the task of sculpting an open and accountable government that it is, or that they once considered it to be. Here’s why.

Recently, Sunday Newsday specialist political writer Sean Douglas spotted an Integrity Commission advert in the papers, which invited the public to scrutinise the Register of Interests of public officials. To quote Sean, he decided to “take a peek.” In his report, published in last Sunday’s edition, Sean noted that a few ministers had dated their forms August 2003 but had submitted these in August 2004. One minister, he wrote, had failed to sign his form. Sean also reported that Mr and Mrs Manning stated they owned no land, “although an Integrity Commission spokesman assured him that “land” included “the land on which a house is built” and the Mannings were said to own a townhouse.

Newsday sought a response from some of the ministers named in the report about the alleged anomalies in their statements of interests. Mrs Manning was the only minister who was gracious, who seemed genuinely worried that she might have made a mistake in filling out her form. She told the Newsday reporter that she and her husband had received professional help completing the statement, but added that she would have to “go back and find out exactly what happened.” Unfortunately for Mrs Manning, her concern, though welcome, comes a little late, given that her husband might well have violated the Act’s Code of Conduct in appointing her to office. However, at least she attempted to answer the reporter’s question.

Contrast Mrs Manning’s response however, to the biting tone of Ken Valley’s reply when he was asked to explain why he had signed his form August 16, 2003 though it had been submitted in August 2004. His declaration, he retorted, was filed within the statutory period and it was “stupid’ to make an issue out of dates and signatures. Even if we assume that Mr Valley, who coincidentally is a Minister in the Ministry of Finance, is right in his assertion — and I intend to test Mr Valley’s odd hypothesis by submitting my Income Tax return for 2004 with the wrong date and sans signature — his cutting remark makes it clear that he has no patience for the least of questions about his declaration and that he has forgotten or could care less that the Register of Interests is published to afford the public an opportunity to inspect the business of people in public life and that it is their right and duty to ask their public officials questions, even ones that these consider “stupid.”

Minister of Health John Rahael was equally dismissive of Newsday’s queries, wanting to know what “the big deal” was when asked to account for the apparent irregularity in the years on his form. Rahael, the man, who recently scolded the media for spreading “misinformation,” displayed his own complete ignorance of the content and intent of the Integrity in Public Life Act when he expressed his outrage that these declarations “which were meant to be private and confidential” were now in the public domain. What rubbish! What misinformation! Sean Douglas had not broken into the Integrity Commission’s office and stolen the forms; Sean had perused the documents at the Commission’s invitation.

Minister Rahael also took the opportunity to add injury to his insulting response by peddling the tired and tiring PNM line that private citizens would be unwilling to serve in public life because of their concern about the manner in which their declarations could be exposed in the press. In other words, Rahael’s last preoccupation was whether he had filed his form in the correct manner. His main concern was to preserve the culture of secrecy in public life, to see Trinidad and Tobago stand politically and philosophically still, living forever in an era when public officials were left to enjoy and abuse power without accountability, when citizens were only allowed to participate in the democratic process once every five years, by casting their vote in the polling booths. You tell me that Rahael cares about the essence and purpose of the Integrity Act, about the political metamorphosis of TT? How can he? He doesn’t even know the Register is a public document.

What I also want to know is why the Integrity Commission is accepting forms without signatures and with incorrect dates and whether the same policy holds for the declaration of assets and liabilities to which the public is not privy. Can the Commission tell us whether these backdated, unsigned declarations are in fact valid as Ministers Rahael and Valley assure us they are? Truth be told, I don’t really expect an answer from the watchdog body to any of these queries; the Integrity Commission is best known for its silence on every issue. What I do expect is continuing contempt toward the Act, repeated blows to its body, spirit and intent from this administration. I also anticipate that if the PNM attains its much sought constitutional majority in 2007 and it is beginning to appear that it just might, we can kiss goodbye to the Integrity in Public Life Act. That among other things.

suz@itrini.com

Columnist’s note: In last Sunday’s column, the word “principal” was replaced by its homophone “principle.” The error is regretted.