The Bungling of the Bundling: A response to Dr. Suresh Narine of IAST

Apr 27, 2014 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

 

By Khemraj Ramjattan
AFC Leader

In what I must describe as a critical yet sympathetic response to the Opposition’s non-approval of monies for the Institute of Applied Science and Technology in this year’s Budget, its Director, the good Dr. Suresh Singh, and a close friend, may have misapprehended why the Opposition did as it did.
The Opposition wanted to direct its drones to two Talibans. One was NCN and the other GINA. Not only are these two State agencies disgustingly pro-government, and destructive of the views of the Opposition, they are also decidedly corrupt! The Harry Permessar’s Report found this as a fact concerning NCN.
The subventions granted to these two agencies totaled $221M. They appear under Agency 01 Office of the President and line-item 6321 called “Subsidies to Local Organizations.” These allocations for NCN and GINA were bundled with others into this one sub-head totalling a sum of $847M; and, further still, bundled with other sub-heads, under one Head called Administrative Services – Office of the President, which all totaled $1.336B.
The more specific bundle in which IAST’s allocation of $122M appeared included allocations for Office of the First Lady- $10M; Presidential Guard Service- $254M; Integrity Commission-$17M, among several others.
On the very first day at the Committee of Supply stage, there was a three-hour delay of the start of proceedings. The Opposition utilised a large proportion of this time, pleading with the Government team for a delinking or an uncoupling of the large bundles of line items, so that the Opposition’s proposed non-approvals of certain line-items like GINA or NCN could be more clinical and will not offend or cause any severing of the good allocations like the one for IAST.
But Ashni, Anil and Gail were loud in their No! Prime Minister Sam Hinds was distinctly more cautious and restrained as the implications certainly dawned on him. I was present at the meeting in the Speaker’s Chambers, and the words and demeanour from this trio out of the quartet on Government side was one that was daring us to non-approve. They were even insinuating that a General Elections will be called if we non-approve these line-items.  I rather suspect they felt we may not want to call their bluff.
I had personally warned the Government side at that meeting that this approach was pushing us too far and was forcing us to rubberstamp the entire Budget. Their response was that the allocations were always structured this way and, moreover, in accordance with the ruling of C.J. Chang, it is the Executive’s prerogative to have it this way. They were not budging.
It may be timely here to remind Dr. Narine that in 2012 and 2013, the Opposition had pointedly targeted GINA and NCN. We had reduced or cut very clinically to $1.00 the subvention to each of these agencies by a Motion to Reduce, which is specifically provided for under Standing Order 76. Hence, allocations to IAST, to the First Lady, to the Presidential Guard Service and so on were not in any way affected or severed in these two preceding years.
But our Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, rushed to the High Court and argued in what is now known infamously as the Budget-Cut case that Standing Order 76 is not worth the paper it is written on. Unfortunately, acting C.J Chang was persuaded by that argument! Our Parliamentary Standing Orders were argued and held to be of no legal effect by these legal luminaries!
I have since appealed against this wholly flawed and absurd argument and ruling, the legal ramification of which is now dawning upon this Government.
So to use your graphic agricultural phrase, Dr. Narine, we never slash and burn in 2012 and 2013. However, in 2014 the Government prepared the ground, walked us to it, gave us the match and then dared us. It is in this context and circumstances that a slash and burn occurred, if that is how you want to characterise it. But most certainly it was wholly as a consequence of Government’s action, and not the Opposition’s. The Government’s action threw us into this perilous position. Yes, I will concede there was collateral damage. But the Government should be indicted for this. It would be intellectually dishonest to conclude anything otherwise in this context.
Right up to the last minute, that is, just before the vote on this Head, Moses Nagamootoo for the AFC and Carl Greenidge for the APNU stood up and pleaded that Government delink NCN and GINA from IAST and other items in the bundle. Gail said “Absolutely Not”; Ashni, “No Way”; Anil; “Wha wrang wid alyou?” It still flashes across so vividly.
Little did they realise that by this folly they were bungling by their bundling!
I agree with you Doc, that……”it is unconscionable for functioning agencies with important mandates to be held at ransom”. But the Opposition was left with no other choice excepting if it wanted to make a mockery of itself in a grand show of impotence by being cowered and coerced into a rubberstamp mode. We behaved responsibly; the Government behaved hugely irresponsibly.
They continue to behave irresponsibly when they fail to bring a Financial Paper for a Supplementary Appropriation for allocations which have been collaterally damaged as your Institute here, Doc. I hope you will call them out to hustle up and do so. Rest assured that the Opposition will give its whole-hearted support for IAST’s current and capital allocation of $172M. We could even increase it if you supply us with justification.
On a final note, I noticed that you lament the loss of a Phd. Chemist to Israel because of uncompetitive salaries. Competitive salaries in this field of science and technology will be paid to your staff only when the PPP Government stops hatcheting and axing huge sums of revenues – (approximately $50B I have found) – through the scandalously unconstitutional methodology of not putting all public monies from various State agencies and companies into the Consolidated Fund.
So if you think we “slash and burn”, Doc, I want you to know that your friends in the Government “nuclear bombed” the Budget long before it arrived in the Assembly.
I hope you will one day pose publicly such a question to the Government, that is, why it excludes these streams of revenues from the Consolidated Fund?

---

---