A regular reader suggested to me that I was a little harsh last week with the headline ’the flag is a symbol of PNM arrogance and waste’. The reader further suggested that perhaps I judge the PNM by a different standard from the one I use for the UNC. I believe that in both cases the reader is correct. As PNM is the Government I do have higher expectations and my comment was indeed harsh, and deliberately so.
I concluded, ’If (the flag) contributes to the Government’s understanding the stupidity of what has been done and leads to a significant change in policy then it will be cheap at the price. However it seems doubtful that anything can make this government re-evaluate its own definition of development.’ This is a statement of my frustration that our Government’s view of development is so different to my understanding of the original philosophy behind the People’s National Movement.
Let us try to put development in context. Very many oil and gas-based economies have attempted to diversify and take off into self-sustained growth but have ended up with societies in which the rich have become very wealthy and the poor and destitute remained in a subsistence lifestyle. Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia are all examples of countries containing super rich and very poor and an inequitable distribution of wealth. Perhaps only Norway has achieved diversification and equitable development where the benefits have been seen by all.
After leading Trinidad and Tobago into independence and out of colonialism it is not surprising that the emphasis of the PNM was on development from the bottom up, i.e. development through support and services to the people of Trinidad and Tobago. This was extremely important to transition the newly independent country away from a centralised economic and political system which was designed to serve the elite ruling classes. The PNM therefore quickly identified that investment in education, healthcare, social infrastructure and control of the commanding heights of the economy were critical to local development.
Vision, of course, cannot be static. Once there was equal opportunity for all and local control over most businesses it was possible to privatise state enterprises and welcome foreign direct investment. Assisting the development of the people of Trinidad and Tobago does not necessarily require the socialist and xenophobic policies of Hugo Chavez. It is also excellent that we should seek to map out the path to sustainable development by documenting a plan, which was what was attempted in the 20/20 Vision project.
This plan again cannot be static because circumstances and priorities do change and so the plan itself may change even if the objectives remain the same.
Somewhere along the line, however, we have lost focus on what is necessary to achieve self-sustained growth and a diversified economy. When we built the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex at Mt Hope over 25 years ago, the vision was to provide healthcare services second to none and be a centre for the Caribbean people seeking advanced quality healthcare. All these years later that facility has not been properly maintained and far from being a centre for advanced quality healthcare many of the elite in Trinidad and Tobago (including the leaders of the UNC and PNM) seek medical services overseas.
What development there has been has come from the private sector and the public sector remains with other buildings well over 50 years old (St Ann’s, Port of Spain General and San Fernando hospitals), equipment is outdated and human resources in short supply. Overall most people will be very disappointed at our lack of progress in healthcare, and perhaps also in education. More critical is the complete failure of national security (from police to the judiciary). Roads and bridges, too, have failed to keep up with the needs of the people.
The current Government seems to have lost sight of the need to diversify and invest in sustainable development. Gary Hunt thinks his $2 million flag is part of the 20/20 Vision. Prime Minister Manning thinks the $500 million Academy for the Performing Arts is part of the Vision. Perhaps they also believe the International Financial Centre and the Tarouba stadium are part of the Vision. But the conversion of energy surpluses into large buildings that do not generate a return on the capital employed and require significant upkeep and debt payments is not sustainable.
The planned entertainment and carnival centre may be the greatest folly of all if it destroys the Queen’s Park Savannah as well as costing millions. Much of this expansion of buildings has been done out of hard currency borrowings using foreign contractors and imported labour. Surely the need to import construction labour when we still have to run a CEPEP project is an indictment in itself?
The complaints about the Government’s development programme are not just about value for money but more importantly about the inappropriate prioritisation of the needs of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. At a time of budget deficits, while we are still reliant on energy-based industries, these mega projects suggest we are victims of a giant pappyshow rather than any 20/20 Vision.
