But democracy presumes that most leaders would have some factual basis and if a politician was caught lying, there would be political consequences. This has helped to keep politics honest far more than any “code,” or law.
Minister Imbert knows much more about the acquisition of an executive jet than he pretended last week, a jet that was never acquired. According to a 2006, September 12 Express report, Imbert said that Prime Minister Manning‘s flight on a Canadian Bombardier jet, “was simply the manufacturer of the airplane making a demonstration aircraft available…The manufacturers…simply wished to allow the prime minister to participate in a test journey.” He continued, “Someone might ask you to test-drive a vehicle. That’s all it is. Don’t make more out of it than it is. I am sure you have test-driven many vehicles that you have not purchased, like all of us.”
Reginald Dumas writing in the Express on 2006, September 26, described Imbert’s description of the flight as “test drive” as “curious,” asking facetiously, if Manning was at the controls flying himself.
If there was a budget allocation for an executive jet in the 2008 budget, Imbert as Minister of Works and Transport, would have been responsible for its insertion. Likewise, he forgot that as a member of the 2002-2007 Cabinet, he agreed to host the Fifth Summit of the Americas and CHOGM. The extensive preparations for Conferences of this magnitude require host governments to agree well in advance (at least three years).
Whilst all of this was going on, I was safely ensconced in Barbados with no desire to be involved in T&T politics. I assumed office on December 3, 2007, long after the decision to host the conferences had been made, the 2008 budget passed, and the jet issue commenced.
I am not seeking political office.
Why should my role in planning the 2009 summits become an issue in 2019 on a local government election campaign platform?
Is Minister Imbert still resentful that he was not given the job of organising the summits? Or is Mr Imbert once again seeking to direct public attention away from the fact that T&T is not on a sound economic footing, that there is no turnaround and the economy is in slow (stable) decline?
Local government reform was a 2015 PNM general election promise. Shouldn’t the PNM be touting its record of accomplishments in local government, maintenance of the secondary roads and clearance of waterways to minimise the flooding associated with the rainy season, the co-ordinated work programmes of CPEP, URP and the empowered regional corporations? Shouldn’t he speak to the reduction of corruption in both UNC and PNM controlled regional corporations?
More importantly, as a prelude to the 2020 general election, shouldn’t Mr Imbert promote the economic mirage that only he could so clearly see in 2018?
Rather than outline the improvements necessary to improve the citizens’ quality of life, the conversation is about Cambridge Analytica and publicity seeking Christopher Wylie? Wasn’t “email gate” an unmitigated failure? Was email gate different to Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s complaints about phone tapping and surveillance of opposition officials by the PNM which led to the dismantling of SAUTT? What happened to the files? These examples illustrate that the UNC and PNM practice the same communication techniques; arouse emotional responses, deepen tribal mistrust and obfuscate real issues.
The “silly season” is about misdirection writ large.
Investigative reports into Petrotrin identified management failures, poor industrial relations practices, and overweening union power in Petrotrin. Yet, in 2017 Cabinet decided to give a 5 per cent pay rise and fired the management. In 2018, it decided to “restructure” Petrotrin describing the company as “bankrupt,” a “ward of the state” notwithstanding, Petrotrin never received a subvention and no report recommended closure. Minister Imbert, who at all material times controlled Petrotrin’s renegotiations with its bondholders, now gratuitously and graciously decides to give the OWTU extended terms of repayment. The betting is that the refinery will never reopen.
Both parties, when in opposition, complain about the volume and value of contracts awarded to Chinese contractors accusing each other of corruption. Both parties in office do the same thing. Why?
Economic turnaround remains elusory and can only be achieved when leaders begin to address the basics. The dichotomy faced by the public is the uncomfortable choice between which group is less corrupt, not who can lead and manage the country away from decline.