THE EDITOR: There is a strong feeling that primary education, more than any other sector of education, is failing to secure its share of the educational and national expenditure (Plowden Report, 1966). The conclusion of the British Plowden Report in 1966 could apply to our present situation. Primary education in Trinidad and Tobago does not seem to get necessary funding as its secondary counterpart.  For the technocrats in the Ministry and the Project Planning Unit, education begins at eleven plus. Let us examine the facts. A Task Force was established to review Primary education a decade ago. They had formulated the great Education Plan 1993-2003. If a careful analysis is made of this Plan one would realise it has failed to deliver. The only defining moment of the White Paper (1993-2003) is Universal Secondary Education for eleven plus students. This was a revolutionary change rather than an evolutionary one. We are now reeling under the pressure of this spasmodic, haphazard move.

We are now paying the high price for remedial teaching of literacy and numeracy at the secondary level, which would have been unnecessary had we planned more wisely from the primary level. “From what we know about children learning to read, it would clearly be economic to tackle this problem at the primary rather than the secondary level”, (A Razzel, 1968). Hundreds of students enter Form One Specials unable to read and write. Many of them are functionally illiterate: They are unable to fill in a basic application form. Despite this, primary education is considered the Cinderella whose hour for transformation has not struck. We still continue to pump millions of dollars into secondary education at the expense of primary. Why not put money into three areas of primary education: staffing, curriculum development and physical infrastructure. Recent advertisements in our newspapers outlined the four areas of the Secondary Education Modernisation Programme (SEMP). A programme that is expected to last seven years and costs millions of dollars. The programme includes:
 Improved Educational Quality
 Construction and upgrading of schools
 Institutional strengthening
 Enhanced Sector Performance

Those same areas of concern in Secondary Education could also be applied to primary. But are we concerned about institutional strengthening of primary education? Are we concerned about improved educational quality at this level? Are we concerned about construction or upgrading of primary schools. Are we building our education system on a weak foundation? We need to fortify our basic education system by emphasising these four areas then we could proceed with SEMP. Life does not begin at eleven plus. What has Government done so far with primary education? They are now hastily preparing plans (Dr Romain’s Plan) for decentralisation. But critics have already argued that the Ministry’s version of decentralisation is based on deconcentration, which is a clone of central administration. When you clone the possibility exist that you may mutate. Mutation then creates a watered down version of the original or a creature so hideous to look at, he makes you vomit.

We must be brave enough to implement the recommendations in the White Paper (1993-2003). But this costs money. Are we willing to spend comparatively on both Secondary and Primary education? In words of Professor Deosaran, “Our society is wrong sided”. Apparently last comes before first and second comes before first. When the technocrats screw on their heads correctly, only then we can move forward. We need to crate a Primary Education Modernisation Programme (PEMP) to run in tandem with SEMP. Anything short of that is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Let us put the horse in its rightful place before the cart and stop giving primary education “a raw deal”.

DESMOND JAMES
Fyzabad

THE EDITOR: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2003 Article IV Consultation Staff Report has revealed some of the major weaknesses of our economy and our present socioeconomic construct. In the past weeks, the report has been the subject of much speculation as a number of experts and some Opposition UNC politicians were wondering out loud whether the report was deliberately being kept from the public.

Among the major claims and suggestions in the report are as follows:
(i) At the current and projected rate of consumption of oil and gas, based on proven reserves, our natural resources could be depleted by the year 2020.
(ii) The unemployment rate is due to increase with the mass retrenchment at Caroni Limited, which the IMF expects to be temporary.
(iii) The IMF has also chided the Government on a deterioration of its overall fiscal position, which is masked by the higher than anticipated returns from the energy sector.
(iv) The report also stated that at the end of 2002, overall public sector debt was 66 percent of GDP, six points over the allowable 60 percent. 
(v) It also pointed out a number of areas where the Government’s Revenue Stabilisation Fund (RSF) falls short of international best practice criteria. Among the recommendations, in the interest of transparency and accountability, was that the Parliament should approve expenditure from the fund.
(vi) The IMF report also strongly recommended that Government focus its increasing access through rising revenues on addressing long standing social issues such as health care, education and infrastructure.
(vii) By the same token, however, they warned against a repeat of the fiscal indiscipline displayed by the Government in the first oil boom of the early ’70s and the second in the late ’70s, which they referred to as “wasteful, inefficient spending”.

It is clear that the points contained in the report are merely representative of the level to which our weaknesses are beginning to show externally. Local analysts have been issuing stern warning in all of these areas for more than a year. Now, there is no hiding from the facts. As regards point (i), as the technology for energy exploration and extraction is modified oil and gas will be extracted at a far more efficient level and there will be a high rate of increase in the level of consumption. Not 10 years ago, the energy industry was projecting that the then level of proven gas reserves would have allowed consumption  “well into the next century.” Today, with a much higher level of proven reserves, greater access to international markets and relatively stronger bargaining power, our reserves are being projected to last only for the next two decades.

But local experts are already on record as having warned against high expectations of seemingly unending supplies. ALNG President, Rick Cape, expressed concern very recently over the current situation being considered a gas boom. It isn’t, in his opinion. So the questions that arise will focus on the Government’s initiatives in capacity building for the non-oil sector. What is the Government’s programme for economic diversification? With the expectation of an increase in unemployment, a fundamental difference between local and foreign opinions is that optimism is not as buoyant here as it is abroad. The IMF’s expectation of a temporary increase is perhaps based on the assumption that the workers will be absorbed by the ‘revitalised’ sugar industry or, with the mention of training, into other industries. But here at home, knowledge of the sociological underpinnings of the industry leads one to appreciate that this increase in unemployment will not be temporary.

Sugar in Trinidad and Tobago was not simply an industry, it was a culture and way of life for thousands. In addition to the sudden rather than phased process of restructuring, training cannot be a short process if these workers are expected to be absorbed by other sectors. There is a complete lack of hard information on the nature of training, land use plans, estimated workforce for the new sugar company and also social implications and adjustments that were anticipated and planned for. In the absence of such information, local pessimism can be expected and is even justified. The IMF concern over the Government’s deteriorating fiscal positions could be linked to the Government’s increased expenditure burden. The annual budget was increased by 25 percent in 2002 as compared to 2001. A large part of the increase was to allow delivery of campaign promises and also service non-income generating CEPEP and other ‘social’ commitments. What happened was that (a) an enormous bloc of money was cornered, without the expectation of a return via income through taxation or other fiscal instruments and, (b) large amounts of money were being given as loans abroad and the budget lacked any compensating fiscal mechanism for the overall increase in expenditure.

There are also questions still to be answered by the Labour Minister as regards the amount of money channelled through the National Entrepreneurial Development Company (NEDCO) and other like agencies. So how is the fiscal position not expected to deteriorate? While one might speculate that this is part of a long-term plan, the absence of transparency with regards to spending leaves one to assume that good money is chasing after the maintenance of political power (read: not so good intentions) and nothing else. In spite of the indication of our public sector debt position being six percentage points higher than the allowable level, here too we have seen no hard information on how large amounts of money are being spent, supported by explanations of a strategic purpose for that new expenditure. What we are hearing of are requests for increases in the current budget through the Parliament and agreements for loans from international lending agencies such as the IADB.

Where the RSF is concerned, interpretation has been left to the devices of pro-Government members of the public in response to Opposition calls for detailed explanations of the use and position of the fund since 2001. With over $1 billion being deposited by the former Government, one is left only with a less than forthright suggestion of what the current level could be today. There has also been no word on working towards protection of the RSF by legislation and a policy on maintenance and use of the fund. Points (vi) and (vii) are related in that during the 1970s boom periods, the level of capital expenditure increased astronomically. Pressures of increased demand levels allowed prospects for the development of the non-energy sectors to weaken and overall competitiveness was compromised. Thus the post-boom period of recession and economic hardship! That period in the late 1980s saw Caricom countries pleading for leniency with lending organisations for Trinidad and Tobago. At the same time, then Prime Minister ANR Robinson reported a minus position in international reserves.

The post-boom period also saw the education system, health sector and general infrastructure still in a sore state. Today again, there are reflections of the boom period in terms of seeming indiscipline in spending with the announcements of hundred million and billion dollar projects including the proposed new Parliament, the institutionalisation of the $400 million CEPEP initiative and billion dollar home construction plans. We are yet to hear word from the Government on how it has learnt from the previous booms. The Prime Minister as Finance Minister has not yet articulated the Government’s policy programmes for economic diversification alongside boom conditions. The Manning administration has so far not demonstrated that it understands what developed country status is, and also what is required to create a developed country in terms of ideology and action. Or, if it does understand, it is being very frugal with information.

Still there is a compelling irony in that PNM in Government, past and present, has shown a clear preference for heavily centralised approaches in spite of expressed partly capitalist intentions. While at the same time, the UNC which is led by a man born out of the socialist movement, opted for a more market-oriented approach to governance. But one major issue here is transparency. In the absence of information, or at the very least, some hint of a solid plan, local experts and the layman population alike, can only speculate. Hardships in the post-boom period of the 1980s saw a bloody attempt to overthrow the Government of ANR Robinson. One wonders what act of man or God will herald the breaking point this time.

CHE  RAMSINGH
Marabella

THE EDITOR: Smoking is a great health hazard because of its effects on the body. Smoking can cause diseases of the lungs and heart. It is estimated that every cigarette shortens a smoker’s life 14 minutes. One hundred thousand die prematurely each year from smoking related diseases. That’s 11 people every hour! Some 300,000 young people smoke at least one cigarette a week. All drugs can be dangerous when abused, and abuse of drugs is one of the greatest health problems in our society. Cigarettes are made of dried tobacco leaves. When the leaves are burnt, about 4,000 chemicals are produced, all of which are harmful to the human body. There are five “killers” in tobacco smoke, nicotine, tar, irritants, cancer-causing chemicals and carbon monoxide.

The nicotine causes addiction, damages brain tissues, causes blood to clot more easily and hardens the walls of arteries. Tar kills cells in air passages and in lungs resulting in lung cancer. The Carbon monoxide gas stops oxygen from going into the blood. Irritants causes smoker’s cough and lung cancer. It also kills cells in the lungs. The major effects of smoking on the body are; nicotine stains, teeth yellow, throat infections develop, nicotine stains the fingers, sense of smell and taste deteriorates and stomach ulcers are more frequent. It takes 7.5 seconds for nicotine to reach the brain from the lungs. Nicotine also increases blood pressure by narrowing the blood vessels, which causes you to be more tense. Smoking also causes your skin to wrinkle at an earlier age than normal. If pregnant women smoke, the chances are that the baby will be smaller than normal or may be premature, and the likelihood of infant death is increased.

Smoking damages the air sacs of the lungs. This can result in emphysema. People with emphysema have difficulty breathing and very quickly lose their breath even during a light exercise. Smokers have a much higher risk of gum disease. Bronchitis is another major disease. It is caused when the air passages become inflamed. So the mucus, dirt and bacteria stay in your lungs. Millions of people have died of emphysema and bronchitis in the world. A person who smokes not only harms himself, he also harms others around him. People who do not smoke but breathe in tobacco smoke (passive smokers) are at risk also. Passive smokers, especially those who live together with heavy smokers are likely to suffer from sore eyes, smoker’s cough, headaches and lung cancer caused by inhaling side stream tobacco smoke, particularly if they suffer from asthma or hay fever. Smokers are not only destroying their lives but others.

Over half of the youth population in Trinidad and Tobago are smokers. Some smokers suffer while still at school. Children who smoke have an increased risk of suffering health problems such as bronchitis, ear, nose and throat infections, pneumonia and asthmatic attacks while still at school.
Smokers are more frequently absent from school, and are more likely to be under-achievers and to achieve lower grades overall than non-smokers. Young people become addicted to nicotine at an early age, but do not recognise their dependence until it is well established. It is always worth giving up if you do smoke. The risk of getting lung cancer and other diseases falls after smokers give up. I hope smokers take this message seriously. For the youths who haven’t started, always say, “no” to drugs and for the smokers, “stop smoking, don’t throw away your precious life.”

VENAI RAMSUMAIR
Cunupai

THE EDITOR: Someone who identified herself as Cheryl Baptiste of the Marketing Department of the Public Transport Service Corporation (PTSC) instructed me over the phone to put in writing a request for the names for the members of the PTSC board — information I need to update my files. Baptiste said she was told to say so by Nicole Chapman, Corporate Secretary.

Have we become a secret society like the USSR prior to 1987, where information was closely guarded, and the public was routinely denied routine information? When it becomes necessary to write a formal request for something as basic as the names of board members of a State Corporation in a country in which I happen to be a citizen by birth, then I am seriously wondering about the direction in which we are heading. If verification was the aim, my name and phone number are in the phone book, and I could have been given the names over the phone. Instead, iron bureaucracy prevailed. Away with bumptious officialese and tedious twaddle!

LLOYD CARTAR
Port-of-Spain

THE EDITOR: We, the Vendors Association of Maracas Bay, are totally fed up with the condition we face in order to make a living to support our families. TIDCO has let Maracas become a disgrace. There are stray dogs that break into the dirty, smelly, broken garbage bins, scattering garbage everywhere and creating an eyesore. Dirty water pools after heavy rainfall causes flooding in the huts and by our booths. There is now mud and an overgrowth of weeds near our booths which are unpleasant to us and to customers. Sand blows into the drains and the drains back up, causing even more flooding. For years we have had problems with the sewerage system and tot his day it does not work properly. This is a health hazard for swimmers and how can TIDCO offer food in such an area?

Our booths are an embarrassment — they are too small, we have poor electrical wiring, leaky roofs, broken windows and doors and improper water supply. We cannot afford to fix these things; we cannot even afford to pay our rent. Day after day for years it has been a struggle. Most of the time we have to throw away our flour, shark and vegetables because we do not get enough sales. While we are throwing away our goods, the vendors in the car park are making thousands of dollars a day selling approximately 1000 pounds of shark per week at an estimate re-marketable value of $15,000. These vendors are then able to put up tents, tables and chairs which attract even more customers and can therefore offer a wide variety of salads and dressings because of constant sales in the car park. But our plight is not against those car park vendors, but against TIDCO itself.

We do not understand why TIDCO would let money go down the drain by not helping us because at this point none of the vendors on the beach can pay their rents and that by itself is a substantial loss to TIDCO. We want TIDCO to help us, but we also want TIDCO to genuinely improve the beach. We feel they should erect more huts and sheds on the beach because people need more places to shelter from the hot sun and heavy rains. The need to have better garbage bins, and more of them, so that people will not litter the beach and dogs will not tear open the bags. They should catch stray dogs as well. All of these improvements, along with better shark and bake facilities, will make Maracas a better beach and bring in more tourists.

We also strongly feel that TIDCO should build another car park for two reasons:
(1) The vendors on the beach cannot compete with the successful vendors in the car park. There are five regular rent-paying vendors in the car park and eighteen vendors on the beach who cannot pay their rent. It is not fair that the majority of the vendors should be located so far away from parking facilities.
(2) Another car park would be very profitable for TIDCO as well. There are plenty people who park by the Maracas Hotel and also illegally on the sides of the road — creating serious traffic congestion on Sundays — who could pay to park in a proper car park on that side of the beach. There are many people who only go to that side of the beach closer to the hotel. Why not create parking facilities for them? There is plenty room in front of the drop-off zone that would be suitable for a car park and we know this because for months now people have been driving right in through the drop-off zone and parking on the sand. If there was a second car park, TIDCO and the vendors would both benefit.

We are trying very hard to prevent ourselves from being evicted and we are pleading with TIDCO to please consider this letter. We do not want to continue to protest but no one will listen to us. Maracas is the most popular beach in Trinidad because it is accessible and because of US — the shark and bake vendors. We deserve to have some input about these “renovations” TIDCO claims to be making. We do not want to be in this position. We want to be able to pay our rent and support our families. Some of us have been vendors for over 30 years. Ever since the car park was built everything has changed.
We are desperate TIDCO, please help us.

VENDORS ASSOCIATION OF
MARACAS BAY