Dumas' elusive games

CLEARLY Minister of Public Utilities Rennie Dumas has problems with answering questions directed to him in the House. For the third time this year we must point out to the Minister that his responsibility is to answer such questions as promptly and as fully as possible and be prepared also to reply to supplementary questions that may logically arise from his answers. Last January, we were critical of Mr Dumas for his inability after seven weeks to answer some straightforward questions posed by Opposition Senator Wade Mark about WASA's operations. In March we again had cause to criticise the Minister, this time for his most inadequate answer to Opposition MP Ganga Singh's questions about payments made by WASA in settling a number of legal matters.

Last Tuesday in the Senate, Minister Dumas was again playing elusive games with answering questions. This time he was asked by Senator Mark for the number of persons, their names and professions, qualfication and experience, who comprise the panel appointed by the Solid Waste Management Company to select companies/contractors for CEPEP projects. Instead of answering the question fully, Mr Dumas chose to identify panel members simply by their positions and qualifications, omitting to give their names. When asked why he had done this, Mr Dumas produced an unbelievable reply. He said: "Given the vilification of this programme by the Opposition throughout the country, the danger is that the individuals can become individual targets, not in their public function. We are asking the House to accept identification through the positions." How naive can this Minister get? Does he not realise that the whole purpose of the question is to find out the personal identities, by way of names, of those appointed to the panel and that the Opposition would insist on having them?

In any case, these are persons appointed by the state-owned SWMCOL to select CEPEP contractors and the Minister is duty bound to reveal them when asked to do so in parliament. It is quite ridiculous for him to conceal their names because he feels they should be protected from opposition vilification. If members of the panel are well chosen and if the Government believes in the purpose and integrity of its CEPEP scheme, then why worry about opposition "vilification"? In such a case, in fact, we would believe that naming members of the panel would be one sure way of refuting the vilifiers. On the other hand, by seeking to hide the names Mr Dumas may be inviting another kind of intepretation and strengthening the feeling of CEPEP critics. It is quite absurd also for the Minister to ask the Senate to accept his decision, and his reasons for doing so, in refusing  to answer the Opposition question as required. It is painful to have to remind Mr Dumas that there can be no hedging in answering questions in Parliament, that the demands upon him and other ministers to be accountable and transparent with respect to operations of the government are undeniable and uncompromising.

Finally, even Mr Dumas should by now be aware of the growing desperation among the ranks of opposition parliamentarians, some of whom appear hell bent on the creation of confusion and turmoil. What really is the objective behind all this unwarranted disrespect and defiance by senior representatives is, as yet, hard to tell but we must regard these angry and ill-founded outbursts as presenting a troubling development in our country. At a time when crime and indiscipline among our young people are cause for major concern, some parliamentarians choose to set the very worst examples. Minister Dumas should not want to provoke their self-righteous wrath any further.