Shadow boxing with the budget

The presentation and debate over the national budget – the country’s socio-economic bible – is one of Parliament’s great show.

Apart from the money, it allows citizens to judge who is who – performance. The witty, quick-learning engineer-turned Minister of Finance, Colm Imbert, took four hours with his $59 billion ($6 billion deficit) budget, followed by two tiring weeks of very serious performances by dutiful members of both houses of Parliament.

What was the impact of these speeches on the budget?

In fact, Mr Imbert’s glossy budget document left as it ceremoniously entered. Not one word or number changed as far as I gather. What was the debate about then?

Soon after Imbert spoke, Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar quickly blasted his performance as "painfully deceptive" and "painfully out of touch."

The stage was set. Briefly, in act one in the Lower House, each government minister dutifully gave a report, each time attracting unfriendly, sometimes, blistering reaction from opposition members. That’s what the system now expects.

Same thing in act two in the Upper House with the nine independents, except two, seeking moderation. But at the end of all these well-prepared speeches – mediated by patient presiding officers – what was really achieved? What changed? If nothing, then some reality check is needed about the system. Tradition must not block logic, reason.

Some brief debate references: Works and Transport Minister, the besieged Rohan Sinanan, rolled into attack by pointing to the country’s “biggest scandal” – the UNC’s fiddling with Point Fortin highway OAS contract few days before the 2015 election. (loud desk-thumping, laughter, cross-talk). The UNC told the PNM “take it to court.” And so, the “you did it too” began.

The indomitable UNC senator Anil Roberts then rebuked government for “wasting taxpayers” money from the 1960s “Lock Joint” project to the “mono-rail $481 million feasibility study.” (loud desk-thumping, cross-talk, laughter). Temporary UNC senator Dr Tim Gopeesingh criticised the health system after which Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh returned a knock-out blow by reminding Gopeesingh how many doctors saved him when he had covid. (PNM MPs’ laughter) Gopeesingh remained shell-shocked.

Feisty UNC senator Jayanti Lutchmedial criticised expenditures, missing files and lost cases by the Attorney General’s office, then alleged that we have a “lawless government.” (loud UNC desk thumping) Well, that seemed to hurt. Colourful government senator Renuka Sagramsingh-Sooklal loudly assailed Ms Lutchmedial for not supporting the Bail (Amendment) Act. (loud PNM desk thumping).

Passionate UNC senator David Nakhid went for the political jugular when he criticised the PNM for allowing their respective constituencies, especially Laventille, to remain “destitute” and “crime-ridden.” (protests from govt side, UNC desk-thumping). Will this change Imbert’s precious document?

More excitement to come. Ms Persad-Bissessar brought back former Nidco chairman Carson Charles as a UNC senator obviously to respond to repeated allegations of UNC corruption with the OAS contract. The experienced Charles explained that there were “protective provisions” for the country. Charles also tackled food production by reminding us how Tobago used to feed us and Caricom states with provisions, farm products, etc. Many heads nodded.

Seeming to put a nail in the coffin, Imbert’s winding up speech emphasised that there was still “no explanation” for the OAS allegation. These performances should encourage, government to get real and expedite the promised inquiry for which $11 million curiously already spent. Clear the air. Stop the shadow-boxing.

The reality is not so much the heated debate but that no substantial change is expected to be made to Mr Imbert’s precious documents. That’s the system.

So what was the use, really, of the two weeks’ performances?

There is some accounting but where are the sanctions? Is it just shadow-boxing or what? Are the politicians satisfied with this? No concrete suggestion for reform from either side, especially when it should include constitution and parliamentary reform. Or is it a sad reflection of the “intellectual laziness” senator Lutchmedial mentioned or the “intellectual deficiency” senator Nakhid cited?

Next year, as the years before, will be the same well-prepared performances with nothing changed. We keep using the same system we had before political independence.

Do politicians really like it so? When are we going to emancipate our political system? This national budget needs to be democratised beyond simple, rigid majority control. Sharing the country’s resources equitably has very far-reaching consequences for all constituencies – government and opposition.