The Government, it seems, “doth protest too much” when it comes to procurement legislation.
At the same time the Government is touting its benefits, opposition to it from many different spheres of influence, including the parliamentary Opposition, is very resounding, to say the least.
Trinbagonians selected a group of people to manage the affairs of the country because of the belief that they could be good managers. Why, then, does the Government believe it should not be accountable to the people? Or, if it does account, there seems to be a mixture of falsehood and truth?
It is unbelievably remarkable that it has taken almost six years for the current Government to realise that “The Public Procurement Act” of January 2015 was “badly crafted”, necessitating “The Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Amendment Bill, 2020”, which seems worse than “watered-down brandy” in its current incarnation, being bereft of legal, financial, accounting, auditing and medical services, if the Opposition entities can be believed.
How can anti-corruption be truly addressed when such key aspects, except maybe medical services, are germane to dealing with perceived corruption?
Wasn’t the act designed to address accountability and integrity in public affairs through transparency and good governance?
Of what value was input from the Private Sector Civil Society Group (PSCSG), which over the years has been clamouring for the Public Procurement Act to be operationalised by the Government?
Having seemingly removed the cover of requiring a constitutional three-fifths majority to ensure a greater acceptance by the population, why is the legislation being “approved” in stages, which requires a simple majority, thereby circumventing the need for the constitutional majority?
Hardly any explanations are given, and it’s almost “pulling teeth” to understand the legislation. Protests, it seems, are required to get a modicum of understanding of the Government’s intention, which seemingly creates more confusion.
The current manner in which procurement legislation is being dealt is akin to a “dog catching its tail” because Government “explanations” elicit more questions.
Isn’t the Procurement legislation designed to curb corruption?
Why, then, is there so much confusion and a seeming lack of motivation and urgency to get it right? It “staggers the imagination” to hear statements being made that suggest opposition to it is vacuous and unpatriotic.
Truth be told, the current parliamentary Opposition should not be complaining because it took almost five years before it crafted the legislation. Its locus standi or ability to take legal action has been diluted.
The fact that Trinidad and Tobago’s status on the Corruption Index is falling seems lost on both Government and parliamentary Opposition, as the bickering continues on what should or should not be done, as far as the legislation is concerned.
Both have been pussy-footing with procurement legislation going on ten years, but it is incumbent upon the Government to clearly articulate and educate all opposition entities to prevent misinformation.
The absence of cogent arguments for diluting the legislation gives precedence to the grapevine or gossip.
It is strongly suggested that the Government quickly convene a one-day seminar with all relevant parties, including the media, to address arguments, legal and otherwise, to create better understanding and to put to rest misinformation and omissions of the legislation and Government’s intention.
Anything short of this will simply “kick the ball of corruption further down the road” while giving the impression that corruption is being addressed, resulting in Trinidad and Tobago’s corruption index continuing to fall!
Is the Government “responsible” enough to “take the bull by the horns”, or will the bickering continue between Government and Opposition entities?
Harjoon Heeralal
Carapichaima
Recent Comments