- NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - Aujourd'hui 08:00

Why should we "move on" from PNM rule?

PAOLO KERNAHAN In the aftermath of the general election, the victorious UNC advertised a barrage of exposés on the two terms under the PNM. Even though the practice of “bussin’ files” against opponents is standard procedure, there appears to be less of an appetite for this accounting given our parlous state of affairs – rampant violent crime, soaring prices and cost of living, economic stagnation, etc – issues on which the government campaigned and won. The argument for moving forward advanced by online commentators and the media is that the UNC was chosen by voters to deliver change, not to keep us mired in the past. Government went ahead with its fusillade of revelations anyway – a sweeping inventory of the previous administration's sins. Oddly, these disclosures haven't attracted the tenor of public scrutiny and media coverage typically applied to such tell-alls. Posts online of clips extracted from parliamentary sessions illuminating the worst rot seemed to fizzle, like an interlude at Debble Plam where you forgot the viagra – again. In instances where there were comments on Facebook posts, browsers countered talk of a perverse culture of political patronage by dismissively saying, “How much de UNC pay dem lawyers in 2010-2015?” People don’t realise how ridiculous it is to assume that position. That’s exactly why the PP government was run out of town on a rail. The PNM, once in office, clanged the bell of PP graft and pork barrel spending from the first day when Shamfa Cudjoe haughtily declared: “We in charge” to the last, desperate flatulence on the campaign trail this year. This government, though, is expected to hold its tongue. One newspaper editorial warned against following the PNM’s repeated harping on PP governance. The business of governance requires that the party in power do both – run the country effectively and hold their predecessors accountable for flaws of character and leadership that hobble the aspirations of the nation. Disclosures in parliament, which have attracted surprisingly little media or public attention, gave just a snapshot of the chicanery and billion-dollar back scratching going on behind closed doors and interlocking directorates. Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries Saddam Hosein, illustrated a complex feeder system established through a so-called 100 million dollar reforestation program in which several PNM activists in key constituencies were beneficiaries. One of the contractors in this scheme runs a martial arts school. There was a story of a company registered as a restaurant getting a contract to build a box drain. Perhaps the most scandalous of the lot was a proposal under the previous government to relocate the office of the registrar general to a mall – a move that would cost taxpayers millions. One of the names associated with that mall is a character straight from PNM central casting. Eye-watering legal fees attracted a smattering of murmurs, which were waved away by nearly-PM Stuart Young as necessary to defend the state. Young also, quite laughably, blamed UNC activists for inflating legal fees through FOIA requests. Perhaps if the then government weren’t so keen on shielding the secrecy vital to their rapacious interests, those costs wouldn’t have been incurred; UNC activists didn’t hire lawyers to fight their own FOIA applications. Bloated legal fees must also be processed in the context of countless frivolous legal actions pursued against citizens and lost in the courts. The PNM government wasn’t defending the state; it was defending itself. While all of these lucrative contracts and briefs were being signed, the last administration was slashing spending across crucial service delivery and enforcing property tax and other varieties of taxation to suck the blood out of ordinary citizens to cover recurrent expenditure. Are we supposed to simply move on from all this? Colm Imbert recently tweeted words to the effect that the PNM has a history of regaining office after five years, so the infighting in the party must stop. Many explain away the PNM’s defeat at the polls as a consequence of the party being out of touch with its supporters. What this says quite emphatically is that the PNM learned nothing in defeat and will pick up where they left off in five years without missing a step. Trinis must decide which is worse: bombardment with allegations of corruption, incestuous political relationships and wild spending, or suffering the consequences of those evils. If citizens are indifferent to corruption and the undue influence of moneyed interests, then you can expect the same behaviour from the very government you’re urging to keep it moving. The post Why should we "move on" from PNM rule? appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.