Housing policy imperatives – part 3

Last week’s column delved into the vital issue of housing subsidy and its mis-allocation. This week, I will set out some suggestions as to how this wrong-headed allocation of public subsidy might be re-oriented to better serve our needy citizens.

The existing system is fundamentally flawed and in urgent need of reform, if we are to better apply the limited quantities of housing subsidy to the nation’s real housing needs.

In order to create a more effective and transparent equation for the allocation of housing subsidy we need to establish three things. Those are the quantity of housing subsidy which is available for the State to dispense; the housing need of those on the HDC’s waiting list and the housing quality of the new units produced by the HDC, since those ought to be raising the general standard of housing accommodation.

The key point here is that there is only limited housing subsidy available and a clear choice has to be made as to its allocation. That choice has been made under the existing policy, which in my view is inequitable and counter-productive. If we accept that the proper measure of a successful housing policy is needy families moving into new HDC homes which improve their living conditions, we also need to accept that a policy which can generate over 10,000 empty homes is a failure.

A supplementary point is that if we are spending vast sums to build new homes, we also need to obtain a measurable improvement in the nation’s housing standards.

The main points could be outlined in this way –

Housing Subsidy – First of all, we need to establish the quantity of housing subsidy the State is prepared to dispense. That can be determined by the sale of the new homes, as recently proposed by Minister Moonilal. The figure here being the difference between the market value of the new homes and the HDC’s sale price. I am of the view that we are at, or very close to, the ceiling as to the national percentage of home-ownership. Another approach would be to establish the difference between the market rental value of the HDC units and the rents affordable to the applicants on the waiting list. That figure can be capitalized to allow comparison between the policy choices. The proposed effort to sell the new homes will in fact be inimical, since it will have the effect of decreasing the amount of housing subsidy available to those who cannot afford to buy. In other words, the neediest people on the waiting list are being discriminated against by the policy of the HDC.
Housing Need Index (HNI) – We need to develop a framework for measuring the housing need of applicants for HDC housing. That analysis would need to include such items as size of the family, family income and their living conditions, as well as any special needs such as disabilities and the location of the extended family. The UK’s Department of the Environment and its implementing agency, The Housing Corporation, have already done substantial work in developing the HNI as a means of properly allocating State funding for housing across the nation. The USA’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has also done considerable work on this complex series of questions.
Housing Quality Index – In 1993 I proposed a Housing Quality Index for the UK which would have been a tool for measuring how effectively the State funding had been applied in creating good quality housing. The main elements of my proposal were to measure the quality of design of and amenity provided by new homes. The Housing Corporation’s approach to this can be viewed at http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/upload/pdf/710_HQI_Form_v3-1.pdf, see also this view from the UK’s Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) – http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/housing_quality. Training is available at the Housing Quality Network – http://www.hqnetwork.org.uk/index.

We need to allocate the limited housing subsidy to those in the greatest need. That is the only reasonable policy for this critical area of national development. That can only proceed properly on the basis of understanding the parts of the puzzle. Anything other than a comprehensive review of these wrong-headed policies is a recipe for more waste and empty homes.

Which brings me to an issue raised in last week’s column; the incidence of ‘policy silos’. That phrase – ‘policy silos’ – refers to a condition in which the activities of various State agencies impinge on the same issues and yet, incredibly, there seems to be scant, if any, co-ordination between those agencies. The aspects addressed last week can be summarized as –

The Minister of Housing and the Environment, Dr. Roodal Moonilal, making extensive statements on the sale of new homes, but being silent on the burning issue of new homes for rent. Silence as to the greater area of need, alongside ambitious proposals to advance futile policies in favour of the less-needy.
The Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education (MSTTE), Fazal Karim, proposes blanket rental subsidies for students in tertiary education.
The Legal Affairs Minister, Prakash Ramadhar, who is responsible for the rent control system, declares that he prefers that rents be determined by market forces.

Those are exactly the ‘policy silos’ we need to dismantle if we are to make any real progress on these vital issues.

Minister Moonilal should take the lead on this issue by convening a symposium or conference to debate these issues and establish some kind of policy consensus. We cannot continue this way.

We need to go beyond the numbers game of billions spent, jobs created and new homes built. We need to move to a new, clear space where our national housing policy is declared as existing to improve the living conditions of our neediest citizens. We need to move beyond the narrow perspectives which glorify home-ownership as the only correct answer. There are many productive and honest families, in advanced countries, who never own a home. They are no less worthwhile than those of us who are home-owners.

Most of all, Minister Moonilal should take urgent steps to distribute the ‘…approximately 10,000…’ homes to the most needy.

SIDEBAR: Re-purchase programmes

There ought to be a programme for those people who have HDC homes and no longer need them. That program would offer a cash payment to those HDC tenants who vacated their units. That would have the practical effect of releasing additional housing units to the HDC without the expense and delay of having to construct new ones.

Related reading:

Housing Policy Imperatives – Part 2 | Housing Policy Imperatives – Part 4

Change, not Exchange – Part 3: Jack Warner

Jack Warner, MP. Photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian — Austin 'Jack' Warner, MP and acting Prime Minister

On 6th June, I wrote in this space about the challenge to the new government to bring about a real change, as opposed to mere exchange. I ended that column by highlighting the worrying case of Jack Warner, one of my former history teachers, making history by being the first Cabinet Minister to hold other appointments. My objection to Mr. Warner serving two masters was that it would be impossible for him to give the full energies we have every right to expect from our Cabinet members.

We need to be mindful of the relationship between morals, ethics, law and of course, that scarce commodity, good sense. Obviously, law is the paramount authority, because we live in a republic ruled by laws, not men. No one should break the law and there are penalties for doing that. But we also know that in life we make many important decisions without referring to any laws. Those are sound decisions, which form norms, eventually described as custom-and-practice or culture. There are many acts, which are at one and the same time both deeply offensive to right-thinking people (and I think that most people are right-thinking) and in breach of no particular law. Many acts, with no need for examples, since this is a newspaper any child could pick up and read. There might even be laws against me describing such acts in print. Who knows?

The reality being that, as important as law is, the proper development of our society depends on far more than just law. Law is a necessary, but not sufficient ingredient for proper development. So, what do I mean by proper development? One of the key signs that we are moving forward would be an increased sense of consequence and the capacity to learn from our errors. Some examples of our failures in those respects were set out in the prior article in this series.

Some of the main points here were –

Board resignations – Jack Warner’s opening statement, made on Indian Arrival Day, was his strong demand that all Board Directors of State Enterprises and Statutory Bodies coming under the control of his Ministry must submit immediate resignations. In making that call, Mr. Warner relied heavily on custom-and-practice, good practice and established norms. He was, quite properly, declaring that he expected those high-ranking public servants to behave properly. No reference to law was considered necessary to see what was the right thing to be done. Yet when queries arose on Jack Warner’s multiple appointments, we were rapidly boxed-into a strange place where only the law prevails. That is ‘chinksing’ with a vengeance.
Warner’s statement upon his return home on the 15th was most instructive. Consider please that this was no hasty response to an ambush question and that the entire Piarco reception had been arranged by Warner. His emphatic reply as to the weakness of Rowley’s case was telling, in as much as it relied on the various examples of PNM wrongdoing that Rowley was accused of having condoned.

…If Dr Rowley is so concerned about the Parliamentary Code of Ethics, I want to ask him some questions this afternoon. “Why was he so silent when Mr. Manning appointed his wife, not once, not twice, but three times as a minister? “I want to ask him why he was silent when a Minister of Health had his son open pharmacies all over the country to sell CDAP drugs? Wasn’t that code of ethics broken then? “I want to ask him also why he was silent when another Minister of Health had his wife take all the insurance of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to a company she owned? Why was he silent then?

See – http://guardian.co.tt/news/politics/2010/06/16/warner-i-have-broken-no-law

Strange as it might seem, a mere 3 weeks into the honeymoon, we were witnessing a premeditated statement by a senior Minister to the effect that ‘two wrongs make a right’. Mr. Warner was trying to silence Dr. Rowley, by reference to his condonation. That is a sad and rickety foundation from which to proceed, but even more telling is Warner’s implicit acceptance that his own position was wrong.

Warner’s attempt to diminish Rowley’s victory was also interesting –

Not contented that he removed Patrick Manning from office—he got the easiest political ride in history—he had the temerity to accuse me of breaking some law, or transgressing some code of ethics…

It has to make you wonder, if that is Jack Warner’s view of Rowley’s victory, what is his view of the PP’s triumph?
In the midst of all the lawyers’ opinions, we had an attempt, by Michael Beloff QC, to set these local events in international context –

…Beloff said he was unaware of any precedent in any common law jurisdiction for a person holding at one and the same time, ministerial office and another post outside of the Government. “I have little doubt that a main reason is that the demands of ministerial office would usually preclude such dual appointment and the minister could be exposed to criticism for not devoting himself full-time to his government duties…

see http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/97564904.html
The silence of the lions – Most notable, for me, in all this, was the lack of comment from outspoken people like – Errol McLeod, David Abdullah, Makandal Daaga and Anil Roberts.
We voted against the idiosyncratic and bizarre leadership style of Mr. Manning, in which important policies were perverted and new precedents set for a favoured operative. It seems that the grounds for the decision were limited and the well-established precedents set aside for Mr. Warner and effectively, a ‘special case’ was made for him.

I say again that the State has a duty to be exemplary in its conduct. We have a right to reasonable, consistent and transparent decision-making by government. Another aspect of this is that this lawyer-driven decision seems, to me at least, to limit the PM’s power in Cabinet to control her team.

Apart from law, most of the people who supported Jack Warner on this issue seemed to proceed from either the ‘two wrongs’ principle or from the notion that Mr. Warner is a superior performer. It seems that, in this case, Jack Warner will have to ‘take win’ and all we can do is measure his reputation against his actual performance.

One of the fascinating aspects of this affair is the way in which power has been defined, and re-defined, in the unfolding. My favourite definition of power was always ‘the ability to set the agenda’. It has always been the case that the setting of the public agenda was a prerogative of the PM, leaving Leaders of the Opposition lagging one beat behind. As a result of that pattern, a lot of sound and fury became the norm of Opposition. In his opening statement on 4th June, Dr. Keith Rowley, as the new Leader of the Opposition, set out his objections to Jack Warner’s multiple appointments. We had comments from every sector of the society on this issue and many group exchanges on radio call-ins and the social media. Whatever one thinks of the actual objections raised by Dr. Rowley, it is clear that those objections shaped the public agenda. That is no bad thing. In this rounds, it seems that the change we voted for could be coming from unexpected places and with odd timing.

Housing policy imperatives – part 1

Proper housing is an essential part of decent human rights and the development of a just society. For those of us who have proper housing, we can be virtually blind to the plight of those who do not.

Dr. the Honourable Roodal Moonilal, Minister of Housing and Environment

We now have a new government – the People’s partnership (PP) – and given the swirling claims and counterclaims around State housing, it is important to re-open this discussion.

The first aspect of housing policy to be considered would have to be the basic model – ‘What is it?’

The main housing policy of the first UNC government was to provide serviced lots – i.e. land was acquired and developed with infrastructure (roads, drainage, electricity and water supplies etc.) before being distributed. That approach is based on the notion that it allowed the State to have a positive impact on the housing shortage with the use of limited resources. Between 1995 and 2001, that policy yielded a modest result, since only about 2,200 serviced lots were sold, with 376 new homes built.

The current national housing policy, entitled “Showing Trinidad and Tobago a New Way HOME” was initiated in September 2002 by then Minister Danny Montano with the stated goal being 100,000 new homes to be built in a decade. The annual target was soon reduced to 8,000, with those new homes to be sold to applicants. The aim was to increase the quantity and quality of housing available to those who were unable to afford housing in the open market. That program never achieved its targets and there was a consistent pattern of over-stating its achievements. The last claims we heard were that the total output had been adjusted (downward, of course) from 26,000 to only 15,394 new homes in the 7-year period from 2003 to 2009.

In terms of gross output, the PNM policy easily outstripped the UNC’s, even if, in terms of its own targets, it was a signal failure. From the aspect of output versus target numbers, the results are so mixed that it is difficult to settle the question of which policy was the more successful one.

For me, a key test of a housing policy’s success would have to be the number of people who have benefitted from an improvement in the quality of their housing. In that case, the existing policy is seriously wanting, since, despite the output of 15,394 new homes, most of those remain in the hands of the Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Just like with the actual numbers built, there has been a pattern of cover-up, shifting figures and plain dishonesty. Despite my efforts, I am unable to locate a published record of how many of these new homes have been given out.

Dr. Moonilal, we need a clear statement of just how many new, empty homes the HDC has on its hands.

“Rent control is a thorny housing policy issue, but it deserves a second thought, since so many of our needy citizens occupy rented housing”

I went to the 2007 conference of the Caribbean Association of Housing Finance Institutions (CASHFI) and the PS of the Ministry of Housing said that a major issue was the fact that about 90% of the people on their waiting-list could not qualify for a mortgage. If the objective of the existing model is to promote home ownership in preference to rental units and 90% of the applicants cannot afford to buy, there is a clash between those policies and the reality of the needy.

New forms of housing finance were devised to overcome that hurdle and those included mortgages –

at 2%;
with zero-percent deposits;
even 100+% models which allowed the new home owner to spread the cost of appliances and furnishings over the period of the mortgage.

We need to re-consider our housing policy in fundamental terms –

What is the extent of housing need in our country? In last week’s ‘BG View’, there was a call for the national pensions proposals to be based on the results of the 2010 census – see http://guardian.co.tt/business/business-guardian/2010/06/17/pension-promises-deferred . The review of national housing policy must be based on realistic housing need data and that should also emerge from the census later this year. In “A critique of State Housing Policy‘, published here on 2^nd August 2007 – see http://www.raymondandpierre.com/articles/article35.htm – I proposed that our country has a 5-part housing market. In my view the task would be to determine the numbers occupying each parts and which of them we intend to provide for.
Is large-scale construction the only way to assist those in housing need? Another aspect which needs review is the matter of rent-control, since that is a cheap way of assisting those in housing need without spending vast sums of taxpayers’ dollars. The reality is that although rent-control legislation remains on our law-books, the rent control boards which regulate that area of civic affairs have been allowed to wither and die. Rent control is a thorny housing policy issue, but it deserves a second thought, since so many of our needy citizens occupy rented housing.
Are we at realistic limits in terms of tenure? To make a simple contrast, in 1992, when US President Bill Clinton launched his expansionary proposals to ramp-up home-ownership, about 62% of the homes in the US were owner-occupied. At the end of 2008, after a massive and disastrous experiment intended to increase home-ownership, about 68% of US homes were owner-occupied. Our current home-ownership percentage is about 76%. Given the poverty of those on the waiting-list, does it really makes sense to keep on building new homes for sale to poor people. Are we at the ‘Limits to growth’ where home-ownership is concerned?
What types of homes should we build? Large swathes of agricultural land have been ‘paved-over’ to build these new homes, which is to the permanent detriment of our food security, to name just one obvious concern. The fact is that we do not have enough land in this country to continue that pattern of large-scale development.

Next week, the focus shifts to issues of build quality, allocations policy, land grabbing and value-for-money aspects.
Related reading:

Housing Policy Imperatives – Part 2

CL Financial bailout: The Peoples’ Partnership position

Kamla Persad-Bissessar, M.P. Photo courtesy Guardian Media — Kamla Persad-Bissessar, M.P., leader of the Peoples’ Partnership and newly elected Prime Minister

The CL Financial bailout has been a major public concern since it was announced on 30^th January 2009 and I have been critical of the steps taken by the current administration to deal with the collapse of what was the Caribbean’s largest conglomerate. The leader of the Peoples’ Partnership (PP), Kamla Persad-Bissessar, has been noted for her strong criticism of the actions of the then Minister of Finance in making early withdrawals from the CL Financial group before the collapse. Her arguments in the Parliament are an important part of the story of this fiasco.

National elections are tomorrow, with the distinct probability of a victory by the united PP, so it is timely to consider the way in which that group might handle the bailout.

In addition to her major contribution to this debate, the opposition leader has recently promised to revisit the terms of the bailout and that is an intriguing development.

It is impossible at this stage to know what the PP will do on this important public matter, but I have been considering the role of certain major players.

The Insiders

For example, these are prominent people, formerly from the highest level of the CL Financial group –

Robert Mayers – Deputy Leader of CoP and former Managing Director of CMMB – Mayers retired in November 2008 and was reportedly the financial adviser to Lawrence Duprey. Mr. Mayers is not listed in the CL Financial Annual Return of 17th February 2009 as a shareholder.
Mervyn Assam – Former Trade Minister with UNC in the 1995-2000 period and UNC Senator up until the dissolution of Parliament in April. Assam was a founder of CLICO Investment Bank (CIB) and its last Chairman before the collapse. Despite the heat and temper of the election campaign, we have heard nothing on the role of Assam in the collapse of CIB. Yet again, the ‘Code of Silence’ is suspected, by negative inference, as it were. There seems to be some tacit agreement between the contending parties on this controversial matter. Mr. Assam is listed in the CL Financial Annual Return of 17th February 2009 as #22 of the 325 shareholders, holding 7,500 shares.
Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie – Former Principal of UWI (St. Augustine), Director of CL Financial and Republic Bank Limited at the time of the collapse. The Foundation for Politics and Leadership, which was founded by some of the leading figures in the Congress of the People (CoP), headlined Dr. Tewarie to speak at their January 16^th conference ‘Thinking Ahead – Governance in the 21^st Century’. Tewarie is reported to have been one of the Directors who was present at the last Annual General Meeting of CL Financial on 23^rd January 2009 at Trinidad Hilton. Yes, that is 7 days after they paid the final dividend; 10 days after they wrote the Central Bank and 7 days before announcing the bailout. Again, Tewarie is also silent on those events in the CL Financial Boardroom. Dr. Tewarie is listed in the CL Financial Annual Return of 17th February 2009 as #290 of the 325 shareholders, holding 1,171 shares.
Carlos John – Former close aide of Lawrence Duprey and Director of CL Financial. Now visible at political meetings and has reportedly been recently canvassing in support of the PP’s St. Joseph candidate, recently-retired High Court Judge, Herbert Volney. Mr. John is not listed in the CL Financial Annual Return of 17th February 2009 as a shareholder.

It is easy to imagine these men playing an important part in any future PP government.

The Outsiders

In contrast, the two UNC MPs who, publicly and in advance, voiced serious concerns over the CL Financial group were economist, Trevor Sudama and former Attorney General, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj. Both of those courageous individuals suffered the wrath of Mr. Panday and eventually found themselves sidelined. Ramesh was an MP in the last Parliament and ended up backing the very Basdeo Panday in the UNC’s recent leadership contest. A twisted road indeed, but ultimately, with Kamla’s victory, Ramesh has now been excluded from the ranks of PP candidates in tomorrow’s election. Only those two individuals in our public life had the foresight and fortitude to sound the alarm on CL Financial. For whatever reason, we have now come to an arrangement of forces which has no room for those two men.

What is at stake?

Apart from the crucial Special Purpose Entities (SPEs), the CL Financial bailout has placed the entire group under State control. There are therefore substantial Directorships and contracts, within the very CL Financial group, to be dispensed.

SIDEBAR: FIXING the bailout

Some of the main issues which must be dealt with if the bailout terms are to be normalised would be –

Audited Accounts – There is an immense variance between the asset value of the group as per their 2007 audited accounts ($100.7Bn as published on 18^th November 2008) and as stated in their letter of 13^th January 2009 requesting urgent financial assistance (a mere 56 days later, the asset value was stated to be $23.9BN). We need to have the audited accounts for 2008 and 2009 published without further delay. In any case, that publication is mandated by clause 4.4.5 of the Shareholders’ Agreement.
Payment of CL Financial dividend – CL Financial paid a dividend of $3.00 per share to its shareholders on 16^th January 2009, 3 days after writing to seek the urgent financial assistance of the State. Steps need to be taken to recover those dividends from the shareholders.
Role of the Regulator – The Governor of the Central Bank has repeatedly told of the long-term concern over the risks inherent in CL Financial’s operations. We need to know if those regulators were at fault and to what extent could all of this have been avoided.
Fit and Proper conduct of the Directors – The ‘Fit and Proper’ criteria which are essential qualifications for Directors and Officers of Financial Institutions, were clearly not followed, if we are to believe the public statements of the Governor. What is to be done with the offenders? Will a PP administration be willing or able to dis-qualify those Directors?
Taxpayers’ protection for CL Financial shareholders – The Shareholders’ Agreement of 12^th June 2009 extended the bailout protection to the shareholders of the collapsed group. For the interests of shareholders to be protected in this situation is contrary to good sense and violates elementary principles of good public policy. It is unprecedented anywhere else in the world, including Nigeria, as shown in ‘Finding the Assets‘, published in the Business Guardian on 19^th November 2009. Literally, it is a case of ‘Only in Trinidad & Tobago’. Question is, will a PP administration be reversing that corrupt decision?
The strategy behind the bailout – Most importantly – ‘What is the strategy behind the bailout?‘ On 31^st March, there was a major press conference of the CL Financial leadership to announce the resignation of Dr. Euric Bobb and the appointment of Marlon Holder as the group’s new CEO. The promise to provide accounts and a strategy was a key feature of that event and it is awaited.

SIDEBAR: The role of SPEs

There are about 65 SPEs and the terms of the CL Financial bailout bring another 65 companies in that group within the umbrella of State control. That is a total of 130 companies and this could be an opportunity to re-shape the corporate culture of the place.

The opposition leader has been noted for her sharp questioning of the real role of the SPEs, even going so far as to suggest that they are deliberately used to avoid the norms of proper accountability in the spending of public monies.

The PM, Mr. Manning, also told us in his interview last Sunday that in some cases, the SPEs may have ‘cut corners’.

Both those statements seem to signal an acceptance of the need to change, but we will have to wait to see what actually happens.

Seeing the Big Picture – Learning the Lessons of the SPE fiasco: Part 5

I have set out the key findings of the Uff Report, insofar as the elements of governance go. Those were combined with recently published news to offer a picture of the manner in which our leading Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) are being governed.

The picture is an unflattering one, which few could seriously seek to emulate. It brings to mind the question raised here some time ago – ‘What was it really all for?‘ I continue to believe that the State must behave in an exemplary fashion, but that is not all.

The concerns over governance being raised in this series ‘Learning the Lessons’ are part of an attempt to query the true purpose and effect of the SPEs. The point I am making in this final installment is that there are pre-conditions which ought to eclipse even important points like missing years of audited accounts, unsigned contracts, ‘back-fitted’ financial documents, publication of massively-inflated achievements, bogus feasibility studies and the like. Just listing the important principles which have been violated, the whole situation seems incredible.

Important as it is to eradicate those unprofessional and dishonest practices, there has to be more to the development process. Yes, even if the main ingredients of good corporate governance were practiced at our SPEs, it would all be for naught, unless those companies are operating in accordance with a sound strategy for national development. Good corporate governance is necessary, but not sufficient, if we are to achieve the sound development which every right-minded citizen would desire.

nidco To illustrate this point as to the importance attached to strategy, I am going to shift focus from UDeCOTT and the HDC. I am going to consider the operations of NIDCO in terms of examining this issue.

In her maiden budget speech on 22^nd September 2008, the Minister of Finance set out the main elements of this government’s ambitious transportation plans. These were in four parts – the rapid rail project, the coastal water taxi, the building of more highways and a significant expansion of PTSC’s fleet. The Rapid Rail, Coastal Water Taxi and Highway building program are all being handled by NIDCO.

“…another slew of ambitious, extremely expensive and long-range plans being carried out supposedly for our benefit, but once again, we are witness to fundamental dishonesty on a huge scale.”

In ‘P3 and the Proposals’- published in this space on 23^rd October 2008, see http://www.raymondandpierre.com/articles/article58.htm – I wrote –

“The National Infrastructure Development Company’s (Nidco’s) high-profile advertisements for rapid rail are now giving one pause. Hear this: “As part of a holistic plan to ease traffic congestion and create a more modern, efficient, transportation network, the Ministry of Works & Transport…signed a design-build-operate-maintain contract on April 11, 2008, for the implementation of the Trinidad Rapid Rail Transit System.

Where is this holistic plan?

Were public comments ever invited on that plan?

Where can the public see that plan?”

It was plainly the intention of NIDCO, in this series of advertisements, to promote the belief that these four huge, expensive initiatives are all part of a comprehensive strategy.

I was very sceptical and continued to call for the ‘Holistic Plan’ to be published. All to no avail.

On 27^th November 2008, I submitted my application, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA), for a copy of the said ‘Holistic Plan’. My application was sent to both the Ministry of Works and Transport (MoWT) and NIDCO, its implementing agency.

That FoIA application and NIDCO’s reply also dealt with the Rapid Rail contract, but that is for another time.

On 2^nd January 2009, I was ‘phoned by a civil servant from MoWT, who advised that they were ‘working on my application’; she confirmed by email later that day that “…we are still gathering the information and working on your request…”.

Just imagine that. 9 months after signing a major contract, reportedly ‘…as part of a holistic plan…’ and three months after publishing advertisements to that effect, I get an email from MoWT to say they are putting the plan together.

On March 6^th 2009, the Permanent Secretary of MoWT wrote me to apologise for the delay (these FoIA applications are supposed to be dealt with in a month) and direct me to pursue NIDCO for a reply.

On 4^th August 2009, NIDCO’s Vice-President Legal, Nirad Samnadda-Ramrekersingh, wrote in reply to my application for the ‘holistic plan’ –

“…please note that same does not exist either as a formal document or series of documents and that the term as used in the newspaper advertisement to which you have referred is simply a descriptive reference to the Rapid Rail Transit System, the Water Taxi Service, the Interchange Project and the existing PTSC and Maxi Taxi networks also described in the said advertisement. We are satisfied that this is the case…”

“…simply a descriptive reference…” Take that.

So there we have it, another slew of ambitious, extremely expensive and long-range plans being carried out supposedly for our benefit, but once again, we are witness to fundamental dishonesty on a huge scale. Just like UDeCOTT, with its bogus feasibility studies, we can see that NIDCO’s claims are also highly questionable. In the absence of real development strategy, we can only hope for a lucky accident. That is no proper road to national development. Particularly in the arena of physical development, where decisions have long-term physical, environmental and financial consequences.

As our servant with special responsibilities, the State is responsible for carrying out those developments in accordance with some sound strategy. We must raise questions which are fundamental if we are to do better. If we are to do better, we have to think and act differently. Big changes are essential if the State is to deliver the future we need.

SIDEBAR: National Infrastructure Development Company (NIDCO)

NIDCO is a State-owned company, established in 2005 and under the control of the Ministry of Works and Transport.

According to its website – www.nidco.co.tt – its vision is –

Vision
To be a key enabling vehicle for the development of infrastructure that enhances and sustains Trinidad and Tobago’s economic development and quality of life.

Its core values are –

Transparency.
Professionalism & Quality.
Integrity, Trust, & Honesty.
Meritocracy.
Teamwork.
Commitment.
Communication & Participation.

No reasonable person could object to those principles.

The Chairman of NIDCO is Professor Chandrabhan Sharma, of UWI’s Engineering Department; Professor Sharma is also a Director of Republic Bank Limited, TTEC and several other companies.

NIDCO’s President is Kaisha Ince, Attorney-at-Law.

Learning the Lessons of the UDeCOTT fiasco: Part 3

The reflections continue this week, by drawing heavily on the text of the Uff Report and the transcripts of the Uff Commission, to set some of the scandalous facts into context. This is for those who are still wondering ‘What was it all really for?’

Last week I wrote that the State must behave in an exemplary fashion. It is also important to know that the State has a responsibility beyond the moral plane. On an entirely practical level, it is clear that the State controls the majority of economic activity in our nation. As such, it is responsible for the majority of construction projects in the country. If we exclude the exceptional projects built for the energy sector, over 75% of the construction in the country is carried out by the State.

Apart from statutory undertakers – like TTEC, WASA, TSTT etc. – the State carries out most of its capital investment via various SPEs. Those would include:

National Infrastructure Development Co. (NIDCO)
Housing Development Corporation (HDC)
Urban Development Corporation of T & T (UDeCOTT)
University of Trinidad & Tobago (UTT)
Evolving TecKnologies and Enterprise Development Company Limited (e TecK)
Education Facilities Co. Ltd (EFCL)

The conduct of the State is therefore fundamental to the conduct of a huge slice of the business activity in our country. If the behaviour in the majority of our commercial relationships is improper, that is good reason for the cynical attitudes and poor standards which flourish.

Yes, there is considerable ambiguity in the term ‘improper’ and I am therefore going to illustrate.

The role of Boards of SPEs – As I said when warning against the appointment of Michael Annisette as an Independent Senator – see https://afraraymond.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/2008/01/12/an-unhealthy-choice/ – speaking of “…Directorships in significant State-owned enterprises…it is a widely-held view that such appointments, especially to those who are not experts in the relevant fields, are only offered to those in political favour. To put it plainly, one would hardly expect to see UNC or COP members, however expert, on State Boards under a PNM administration…” Despite the fact that there are many excellent and hardworking Directors of SPEs, that is the background to those appointments. Just to make sure, given the ‘silly season’ we have entered, I am equally convinced that when UNC was last in power they also allocated those SPE Directorships in a similar fashion.

The role of the Executive Management – Suffice to say that there is little difference in the considerations when making those appointments.

The role of consultants and contractors – It is impossible to say who these stakeholders support, apart from themselves.

One of the perennial questions is ‘How come State projects are almost always overbudget and late?’ That is a truly universal question and the problem, if only the main element is isolated for discussion, is that the parties are too close.

The typical contractual and managerial controls of budgets, accounting systems, independent professional advice and penalty clauses were all violated wantonly. Our Treasury has been plundered. See the sidebar for an extract from the Uff Report.

UDeCOTT and the HDC are the State’s two main agencies in the move to physical development, they are both under the Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment.

We are now clear that both have been failures when measured against the goals set for them. The sheer scale of the failure will be set out next week in this space, again with extracts from the published record.

We need to ask what has to happen differently? Can we make the change?

SIDEBAR: What is ‘Good Governance?’

Governance is one of the vexed aspects of this discussion on the purpose and performance of Special Purpose Entities (SPEs). Whether we are looking at the HDC or UDeCOTT, the concerns are similar.

At the national level, we can have a broad description of good governance which includes elements such as – equity, participation, accountability, transparency and conforming to the rule of law. Of course, when we focus on the SPEs, there is a narrower definition of good corporate governance being the rules which are followed by a Board of Directors to achieve fairness, accountability and transparency in the relations with the company’s stakeholders.

When one considers that the SPEs were introduced to overcome the delays of the old civil service rules, their corporate governance rules are key in achieving those elusive levels of performance.

Extract from the Uff Report – Paras 62 and 63 at pages 33/34.

“Holding to account

62. We have observed, in the context of contractual issues as well as regulatory matters that there exists a culture of non-enforcement which appears to operate on a mutual basis. Contractors seem reluctant to issue proceedings for payments overdue or to enforce claims and employers in turn refrain from enforcing time obligations which are routinely not complied with. In regard to delay issues, the point was demonstrated by the fact that no witness or representative appearing at the enquiry was able to quote any case in which a contractor had actually been required to pay or had been debited with liquidated damages. In the wider field there was a tacit acceptance that regulatory approvals, particularly as to planning, were rarely given in a final form before the work was performed, this coupled with an expectation that such approval would be forthcoming retrospectively.

63. At the same time we had the impression that one contractor who made a habit of enforcing contractual rights, if necessary by formal proceedings, was regarded as being “confrontational”. Such an attitude does not sit well with the careful drawing up of commercial agreements; nor with competitive tending, which is carried out on the basis that contracts will be enforced. It is also inconsistent with the clear duty of directors of companies and public bodies to enforce the contracts they negotiate and enter into. If there is a desire to promote the timely and proper performance of public sector contracts, this will only be achieved by holding parties to account for any breaches of contracts freely entered into; as well as enforcement of legal duties in regard to regulatory matters. Enforcement must also be assured through efficient and timely processes of courts and other tribunals.”

The emphases are mine.

Ten to One is Murder

A Kaiso title for the Election season. And yes, we are told that CL Financial will rise again. The picture is even more clouded than a year ago and the rumours abound.

The latest developments are –

Press conference of 24^th March –
Justice Carlton Best
Following a front-page Express story, on the impending lawsuit by Justice Carlton Best to recover his $57,000 CLICO deposit – see ‘I want my Cash’ at http://www.trin idadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161613671 – the Governor of the Central Bank held a press conference that very day to tell us that those waiting for the return of their deposits would have to hold strain – see http://guardian.co.tt/news/general/2010/03/25/delay-your-redemptions. The further shocking news, after all the emphatic official statements that the group had good assets, was that if those were liquidated there would only be 10 to 15 cents in the dollar available to pay claims. Now how could that possibly be the case? How are we to reconcile these conflicting accounts of the situation with CL Financial’s assets? Is it that they are fully-pledged, over-pledged, or is there actually any ‘headroom’ within which the taxpayer can have a chance to recover the huge sums advanced so far? Which is it? Please note that this is not an isolated situation, as shown by another threatened lawsuit from a former Attorney General of Guyana for the recovery of over $500,000 from CLICO – see http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/03/27/former-attorney-general-threatens-to-sue-clico-trinidad/
Post-Cabinet Press Briefing – The Minister of Finance confirmed the Governor’s position to the media the next day, as reported in this paper – http://guardian.co.tt/business/business/2010/03/26/tesheira-clico-policyholders-be-patient. In that article, the Minister is reported to have affirmed, again, that “…“The CL Financial Group had sound assets that were valued at more than $100 billion…” Both the Governor and the Minister took steps to recover their own funds before the group’s financial troubles were public knowledge and that sits awkwardly, in the public mind, with their current appeals for patience.
Dr. Euric Bobb – At a Central Bank press conference on 31^st March, resigned as Chairman of CLICO and as a Director of CL Financial, of which he was the Chairman, until his resignation late last year.
Governance – His statements as to the poor governance at CLICO, the leading company in the CL Financial group, were astonishing, to say the least – see “Governance was an alien term in CLICO’ at http://guardian.co.tt/business/business/2010/04/01/bobb-governance-was-alien-term-clico. No reconciliation of the company’s bank accounts. No audit committee. Those are serious shortcomings in the basic accounting and governance controls in any company. For one which had investment as its centrepiece, those are shocking. They give the impression of unprofessional and haphazard management of a significant part of our nation’s savings. They detract from the reputation of the CL Financial chiefs. Surely these shortcomings found their way into the Management letter from the Auditor to the Board and Shareholders? Was the Central Bank aware that these elementary controls were absent? Even if there are serious shortcomings in the financial procedures at CLICO, are we not entitled to rely on the Supervisor of Insurance or Inspector of Financial Institutions to resolve those in favour of the investing public?
Marlon Holder – At the same press conference, we heard that he resigned his job as Executive Director of the Unit Trust Corporation to become CEO/MD of CL Financial and Chairman of CLICO – see http://guardian.co.tt/news/general/2010/04/01/utc-boss-takes-over-clico-chairman. Mr. Holder has had a high-profile career in the financial services industry at Citibank, FCB and the Unit Trust Corporation, before this latest move and we await his recovery strategy.
Reporting the changes – Both the CL Financial Chairman and the new CEO/MD recently confirmed that one of their leading priorities was to furnish a report on the state of the group and the progress towards its re-structuring. That report is anxiously awaited and must include the audited accounts for 2008 and 2009. As stated before, this is not negotiable and will be most revealing as to the apparent discrepancies in the asset values.
The Private assets – We also read recently that former CL Financial chief, Lawrence Duprey, had taken steps to limit the information he was required to furnish to the liquidator of CLICO (Bahamas) as to his private assets, allegedly acquired with CLICO funds – see http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/nart?id=161623489.

Hence this week’s title. We await the audited figures.

SIDEBAR: Leading Lawsuit

There were reports in the Sunday Express of 11^th April that the Central Bank had initiated legal action against Andre Monteil and Richard Trotman, both formerly of CLICO Investment Bank, for the recovery of huge sums allegedly obtained improperly in the HMB takeover – see http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/nart?id=161626823 and http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/nart?id=161626819

Those moves by the Inspector of Financial Institutions represent, as far as I am aware, the first time that legal action is being taken on this scale to tackle those accused of ‘white collar’ crime. It is a decisive step to tackle the widespread impression that jail is not for the rich or lettered class in this society. The course of this trial will be closely observed as it is the first step in a very long and necessary journey.

Our notions of development are rooted in the aspiration toward equality and opportunity. Those worthwhile concepts must be extended to include true equality under the law.

One of the really fascinating aspects of this unfolding financial debacle, which includes the UdeCOTT collapse, is the idea that those accused of this sort of wrongdoing have extensive rights. That kind of consideration is seldom offered to those accused of run-of-the-mill crimes. If nothing, else, the CIB trial will be a kind of long-overdue ‘Open University’ course in the boardroom dealings which are masked from most of our people.

An overview of the Uff Report

Professor John Uff. Photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian — Professor John Uff

The Attorney General announced at the Post Cabinet press briefing on Thursday 1^st April that the full Uff Commission Report will be laid in the Senate on Tuesday 6^th April – see http://guardian.co.tt/news/politics/2010/04/02/uff-report-senate-tuesday. I was pleased to hear that, but there remained a widespread attitude of skepticism as to the outcome of the AG’s promise. One can hardly blame people for having those feelings since, as TTTI’s President, Victor Hart, has recently reminded us, PM Manning broke his promise to publish the report of the Bernard Commission into the Piarco Airport project. That was over 6 years ago and still no Bernard Report yet.

I received a copy of the Uff Report in my email on Saturday and several other concerned citizens as well, so it seems that some publicly-minded person wanted to ensure that it was not either suppressed or edited. Thank you, whoever you are.

The Uff Report is 512 pages long and contains 91 recommendations, so its sheer volume and the limited time available mean that I am unable to give a detailed review. This week’s column will therefore comprise an overview of the main concerns raised in the Enquiry and the way in which the Report has handled those.

CORRUPTION

Q – Does corruption exist in the manner alleged by the government’s critics?

A – At para 59. the Uff Report states that “…It is accepted that corruption is a problem of serious proportions in Trinidad & Tobago…to which the construction industry is particularly prone…”

Was there actually something corrupt or wrong at UDeCOTT?
Q – Is there good reason for concern at UDeCOTT’s operations, or is it a case of politically-motivated attacks?

A – Para 14.36, from the Commission’s discussion of the Ministry of Legal Affairs Tower/CH contract, is a classic of understatement – “…UDeCOTT’s application of its own rules discloses a worrying lack of transparency as well as inconsistency…”

Para 14.37 states – “…the appearance of Mr. Calder Hart’s fax number on the notepaper, which was no doubt hurriedly printed by CH Development, remains unexplained…”

Para 14.41 –“…there should be an investigation by an appropriate criminal Law Authority into the award of the MLA contract to CH Development, to include the role of Mr. Calder Hart and the conduct of the Board in not ensuring that an enforceable guarantee was given by the parent company of CH Development…”

LOCAL VS FOREIGN

Q – Are local contractors being unfairly replaced by foreign contractors or do the foreigners really deliver better performance?

A – Para 6.18 states that – “…no convincing comparison has yet been presented from which reliable conclusions can be drawn as to the relative performance of local and foreign contractors or consultants…”

PROCUREMENT

Q – Is it better for the government to try using Design and Build or should they stick with the traditional Design and Tender method of procurement?

A – Para 7.20 states that – “…there is no single system of procurement which should be preferred in all circumstances…”

The Hart legacy –
According to Para 12.55 – “…We have noted the apparent absence of any note of criticism or dissent within the UdeCOTT staff and the dominant influence of the Executive Chairman, Mr. Calder Hart. To the extent the failure of senior staff and directors to raise any voice in opposition to the level of financial irregularity found on the Brian Lara Project amounts to loyalty, such loyalty is clearly misplaced…”

The Property Matters critique of UDeCOTT started in 2008 on the theme ‘A considerable concentration of power’, which attempted to draw lessons from the Cadbury Commission as to the perils of the Executive Chairman.

The role of UDeCOTT’s Board and its Executive Chairman came in for heavy criticism, with the Report calling for full investigations into the Ministry of Legal Affairs Tower and the Brian Lara Cricket Academy. Furthermore, there is a recommendation that the roles of Chairman and CEO should be separated.

The Rowley saga –

Q – Was there really any money missing at Cleaver Heights?

A – Para 27.11 – “…the entirely erroneous addition of $10,000,000…”

SIDEBAR: Notes to Jearlean John

Jearlean John. Photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian — Jearlean John, Chairman UDeCOTT

On Tuesday 16^th March, I spoke at a JCC press conference and took the opportunity to issue two calls to Ms. Jearlean John – the MD of the Housing Development Corporation and newly-appointed Chairwoman of UDeCOTT. See http://www.caribdaily.com/article/267861/publish-udecott-accounts/.

On the question of the HDC’s fundamental role and its performance, I again raised the issue of their output. In the course of the Enquiry and in this column, I have pointed out the serious output shortfall of the HDC, the primary function of which is contained in its name. Housing Development. At the press conference I was openly skeptical about the often-repeated figure of 26,000 new homes built by the HDC in the execution of the present national housing policy (implemented in 2003) which set a target of 100,000 new homes in a decade. I doubted that even half that amount had actually been built and requested that Ms. John should publish a list of where and how many new homes were completed. On Sunday 28^th March, this newspaper carried a two-page ‘Special Report’ on UNC claims of voter-padding and that included the requested information. The article was probing another aspect of the housing riddle, but the two figures which struck me were ‘15,394 housing units constructed by the government in 2003-2009’ and the table detailing the locations and unit numbers with a closing total of 13,677 units. Either way, the total is far less than that claimed thus far and using the upper figure equates to an average of just about 2,200 new homes per year. That is a far cry from the original annual target of 10,000 new homes and even the revised target of 8,000. One can only wonder where the wrong, inflated figure came from and, those having been fed into the budget process, how accurate is our planning? It is all reminiscent of the outstanding query from the Uff Commission as to the Cleaver Heights housing project and the false claims as to missing money – Who told the PM that false information for him to have made those baseless and misleading statements to the Parliament? No one ever admitted to that in the course of the Uff Commission.

Thank you for releasing that info, Ms. John, even if it was in response to another call. Given our persistent culture of secrecy, especially in public matters, it is a welcome change.

My second call to Ms. John at that press conference was to publish the UDeCOTT accounts without further delay. As I put it – ‘Ms. John, if you want to be noted for integrity and transparency, you must publish the UDeCOTT accounts without delay. UDeCOTT has published no audited accounts since the end of 2006 and I was pleased to see the Ms. John’s positive response to those calls. See – http://www.caribdaily.com/article/268401/john-udecott-will-publish-accounts/.

Ms. John was reported to have been appointed and met with UDeCOTT’s Board on 25^th March – See http://guardian.co.tt/news/general/2010/03/26/udecott-pushes-complete-priority-jobs. That report in this newspaper concluded with a telling quote from the Deputy Chairman – “Bahadoorsingh said John was an excellent chairman, “Highly competent, very knowledgeable, no nonsense and to the point and very friendly, a pleasure to work with. “It’s a new era with this new chairman. I’m very impressed,”

We are waiting for either the prompt publication of UDeCOTT’s Annual Report, accompanied by audited accounts, or some cogent public explanation for the unacceptable delay in so doing. For all this time to pass, with neither of those events to taking place, can only deepen the atmosphere of distrust. We, the taxpaying public, expect better from you, Ms. John.

CL Financial Bailout Timeline

Between November 2008 and June 2009 CL Financial entered a downward spiral. From TT$100.666Bn in assets to TT$23.Bn in less than two months. Here we set out some of the key developments from slip to slide.

http://www.xtimeline.com/timeline/The-CLF-Bailout—T-T

The UDeCOTT finale

Calder Hart. Photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian — Calder Hart

The resignation of Calder Hart as Executive Chairman of UDeCOTT and all four other major Boards he chaired is no surprise to me. None whatsoever. I had already noted in this space the consistent false claims and bogus rationales emerging from that individual.

One of the main ones is the ‘Anancy-story’ that all these new buildings would reduce the rents paid by government for offices. Those false claims of savings to the public purse were often repeated by the PM and his then Minister of Planning and Development, Camille Robinson-Regis, but they were withdrawn when challenged to let us have some figures. By my calculations, the UdeCOTT offices will cost this country about 3 times MORE per square foot than the space now occupied. Hart has consistently declined/refused or ignored my several requests for information on the touted savings.

We need to locate this moment firmly in context, so that we are not fooled, again, into seeing these issues too narrowly. Some main issues are –

Rationale – If we are to do better with our limited resources, we need to behave differently. Before we can behave differently, we need to think differently. This entire UDeCOTT/Calder Hart/JCC/Imbert/Rowley/Uff scene has been useful in that huge areas, previously hidden, have now been revealed. It is an opportunity for us to learn from our mistakes. In my view, the weak spot in the link is that we have no proper system for project origination, selection and ranking. We need to start asking the essential questions – ‘What are we proposing?’ and ‘Why are we proposing that?’
Cabinet-Approved? – We need to be mindful of the PM’s address to the Senate on 13th May 2008 – see http://www.ttembassy.org/051308.htm – in which he emphasised that all UDeCOTT’s projects were carried out with proper Cabinet approval – after a thorough process – and that that organisation enjoyed his full confidence. One is now bound to reflect on the implications of the doctrine of Cabinet solidarity – one for all and all for one. Does the Cabinet as a whole share in the political cost of Mr. Manning’s vote of confidence? If Mr. Hart’s actions were indeed Cabinet-approved, why the need for him to resign? If he is guilty of ‘going too far’, does the doctrine of collective responsibility apply here? Do his fellow Board Directors share in that responsibility? How far does the stain spread? Are the other companies Hart chaired OK?
UDeCOTT’s procedures – For example, UDeCOTT was shown at the Uff Commission to have separate tendering rules from those applicable to other State Enterprises. Even with that special approval in hand, UDeCOTT found it necessary to breach its own tender procedure. Other shocking evidence of improper practices emerged at the Uff Commission, so one can understand their strong attempts to derail that enquiry. The public should brace for a critical report with many unpleasant revelations. The report of the Uff Commission must be published without delay or dilution.
UDeCOTT’s board – On Monday morning, I was disgusted, but not surprised, to read about the flat refusal of the other UDeCOTT directors to step down. Some real predictable alibis there – ‘Innocent until proven guilty’, ‘needing more information before a statement could be made’ and, of course, the classic one, ‘squeaky-clean’. The most worrying aspect of UDeCOTT’s shambles is the steadfast silence on its audited accounts. I published End-notes on the Uff Commission in this space on 17th December 2009 – that article highlighted Hart’s opaque explanation for the lack of accounts for UDeCOTT. UDeCOTT is the largest State Enterprise and, at the Uff commission, its attorneys stated it to be a $20Bn + company. We have all heard over and over from the PM that it is the best-performing State Enterprise. The lack of audited accounts since 2006 is shocking. No accounts for 2007, 2008 or 2009 and that could never be exemplary or squeaky-clean. It is obvious, to anyone with a shred of sense, that a company which was unable or unwilling to publish audited accounts for three years has serious issues, none of them likely to be positive. I doubt that the Unit Trust would buy, or continue to hold, shares in a company which had failed to publish accounts for three years. I doubt that any prudent or proper investment house would do so. What is worse, UDeCOTT has offered no cogent explanation for its failure to publish accounts. The difference with UDeCOTT is that we are constitutionally unable to divest ourselves of those shares. It seems to me that the contemptuous attitude of those at the top is informed by this reality.
Hart’s testimony – Calder Hart, under oath, denied the allegations made by Carl Khan as to the link between the owners of CH Limited and himself. Given what has transpired here, is Hart guilty of lying to the Commission? Is that a criminal offence? Readers need to note that the instant Calder Hart’s and UDeCOTT’s attorneys refused to question testimony of Carl Khan, it was tantamount to an admission of the truth. That refusal to cross-examine Carl Khan was almost 6 months ago, so this trusted civil servant was given time to prepare before his resignation. Not everyone is offered that sort of courtesy and consideration, as Dr. Rowley’s case shows. It is a clear case of double-standards. Calder Hart appears to have enjoyed a most favoured status, for whatever reason.
Manning’s judgement – This entire sorry episode casts a shadow of doubt over the quality of judgement exercised by our Prime Minister. Consider that since Carl Khan filed his evidence in May, Calder Hart must have known that his days were numbered. Did Hart tell Manning that there was truth to the accusations? Yes or no? Did Manning ask him? Did they just keep on with the relationship long after a wise person would have broken it off?

Finally, we need to deal with the widespread belief that after all is said and done, the country is better off as we have gotten many new buildings for our money, even if a few things went wrong, or too far. I do not support those views, for three reasons –

Firstly, none of the UDecott projects make any commercial sense. Even NAPA, which is supposedly of some cultural or artistic importance is now being seriously questioned by many responsible groups.
Secondly, what we are hearing is a version of ‘the ends justify the means’ and that is not an acceptable path to developing any modern country. Every time we have tried that, the costs far outweigh the benefits. That is the strategic and moral bankruptcy which took us to this sorry place.
Lastly, we need to remember that most of UDeCOTT’s projects were paid for with borrowed monies, which we are only now starting to repay.

AfraRaymond.net

A Thinking Man's Weblog

Tag: tobago