JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Thursday, July 24, 2025

FACE-TO-FACE

Afra Raymond: JCC has no political agenda

by

20140412

The Joint Con­sul­ta­tive Coun­cil is press­ing ahead with its pro­pos­al for more ef­fec­tive leg­is­la­tion to con­trol and reg­u­late pro­cure­ment pol­i­cy in the pub­lic sec­tor.Pres­i­dent of the sev­en-mem­ber group Afra Ray­mond is adamant that Gov­ern­ment must take the JCC's points in­to con­sid­er­a­tion when the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion is de­bat­ed in the Par­lia­ment.

He is warn­ing that gov­ern­ment-to-gov­ern­ment arrange­ments do not guar­an­tee that huge state projects would not be con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with the brush of cor­rup­tion, and al­though the Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship ad­min­is­tra­tion is in­tro­duc­ing new leg­is­la­tion to deal with this thorny is­sue, much more needs to be done.

Q: Mr Ray­mond, is it fair to say the JCC is a pres­sure group, po­lit­i­cal or oth­er­wise, with­in the con­struc­tion sec­tor?

(Seat­ed in the of­fice of a spa at Val­sayn Plaza)

A: Well, it is an um­brel­la group that rep­re­sents in­ter­ests of the con­struc­tion, re­al es­tate and prop­er­ty in­dus­tries, with sev­en mem­ber groups.

This pro­cure­ment is­sue has been a source of con­tention over the years?

Yes.

Re­cent­ly the Gov­ern­ment in­tro­duced leg­is­la­tion to deal with this very emo­tive is­sue?

Yes.

Are you sat­is­fied that Gov­ern­ment has made a suf­fi­cient­ly strong enough move in that di­rec­tion?

Not at all.

What is the beef you (the JCC) has with state pro­cure­ment?

The ques­tion is not with any in­di­vid­ual group hav­ing a beef. The ques­tion is: no mat­ter what gov­ern­ment we put in­to pow­er, there are con­sis­tent al­le­ga­tions of cor­rup­tion, large-scale waste and theft of pub­lic mon­ey.I think the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion is a move in the right di­rec­tion, but in its present form it is not at all sat­is­fac­to­ry with what is re­quired of the coun­try...

What is it you want to see in the leg­is­la­tion that is not there now?

The main thing–I am glad you asked that ques­tion–is prop­er, ef­fec­tive pro­cure­ment law, which would bring prop­er over­sight and con­trol over all trans­ac­tions in pub­lic mon­ey–tax­pay­ers' dol­lars.The pro­pos­als tabled by Dr Tewarie in the Par­lia­ment on Wednes­day, April 2, un­der Clause 7, specif­i­cal­ly ex­empts gov­ern­ment-to-gov­ern­ment arrange­ments...

Why is this so of­fen­sive that it should be ex­punged?

Be­cause, Clevon, quite sim­ply, when we look at Mr Man­ning's record, look at the record of this regime, the largest projects, the most ex­pen­sive projects are tak­ing place through gov­ern­ment-to-gov­ern­ment arrange­ments. So if you are propos­ing a pro­cure­ment frame­work to im­prove ac­count­abil­i­ty and trans­paren­cy, but want to ex­empt the largest projects, well, that is one step for­ward and two steps back­wards.Our an­swer is "No."

Mr Ray­mond, what you are do­ing there is ac­cus­ing your gov­ern­ment–whichev­er is in pow­er–and the for­eign con­tract­ing gov­ern­ment, of pos­si­ble cor­rup­tion?

Clevon, Wednes­day's rev­e­la­tion about Na­pa by the Min­is­ter of Cul­ture–Dr Lin­coln Dou­glas–his re­marks are fea­tured promi­nent­ly in the Guardian from an an­swer in Par­lia­ment...about Na­pa falling apart.Those re­marks from the sit­ting min­is­ter–who is an elect­ed MP–speak to the truth of the al­le­ga­tions in these arrange­ments, and the lack of prop­er over­sight which needs to be cor­rect­ed if the coun­try is to move for­ward.

This has noth­ing to do in par­tic­u­lar with the present ad­min­is­tra­tion, and noth­ing in par­tic­u­lar with the last ad­min­is­tra­tion. The point is: it must be dealt with in a forth­right man­ner and the pro­pos­als sub­mit­ted by Dr Tewarie do not do that.

Apart from the per­ceived cor­rup­tion fac­tor in the State's pro­cure­ment process, is there a JCC hid­den po­lit­i­cal agen­da?

No. The JCC's agen­da is na­tion­al im­prove­ment.

Mr Ray­mond, what is the ul­ti­mate ef­fect on the av­er­age cit­i­zen if un­bri­dled cor­rup­tion is not stymied?

What it boils down to is two sorts of sim­ple lessons. The first thing is fi­nan­cial, just in terms of pure dol­lars and cents. At this mo­ment, the State of T&T pays more for things than any­body else...when you think of any of the big projects in the past, or any of the many, many things that are go­ing on.

The sec­ond im­pli­ca­tion is that in fact if we de­vel­op a sce­nario–which is what is hap­pen­ing–where most of the busi­ness in the coun­try takes place through the State, what hap­pens is that nor­mal peo­ple who are not po­lit­i­cal, not part of the po­lit­i­cal sce­nario, if they want to get a con­tract, they may have to en­ter in­to some kind of im­prop­er deal­ings.

Mr Ray­mond, I might be na�ve, but do you be­lieve that peo­ple who en­ter pub­lic of­fice go there to steal tax­pay­ers' mon­ey?

(Hands rest­ing across his chest and a heavy sigh) That is dif­fi­cult to an­swer, Clevon...I will at­tempt to an­swer in an hon­est way, not di­rect­ly, but in my own way.

I am putting it this way: the sit­u­a­tion in this coun­try is that...the con­trols that we have at this mo­ment–re­gard­ing mon­ey, con­tracts and so on–are so poor, so weak...if you, me or the most hon­est friend we have be­comes Prime Min­is­ter in the morn­ing, im­me­di­ate­ly you have to find a Cab­i­net of about 20 peo­ple, im­me­di­ate­ly you have to find about 1,500 peo­ple to put on boards and com­mis­sions...this is how the coun­try runs.

And be­cause of the large amount of mon­ey and the weak con­trols, with­in a month or two months, those same friends may well be com­mit­ting acts that may em­bar­rass you.I am not try­ing to ex­on­er­ate the cur­rent po­lit­i­cal ad­min­is­tra­tion or the last one–I am a crit­i­cal per­son when I need to be. The point I am mak­ing is: who­ev­er you put, temp­ta­tion is a hel­lu­va thing...I am just putting that back to you as an at­tempt to an­swer.

Quite cor­rect Mr Ray­mond, but are you in­sin­u­at­ing that our brand of politi­cians are in­trin­si­cal­ly dis­hon­est?

(Briefly con­tem­plat­ing the re­sponse) I am say­ing the temp­ta­tions are huge; the pun­ish­ment is small and in­fre­quent; and you see it in the dri­ving on the roads, you see it in the columns writ­ten by peo­ple like you and me. If you do not have prop­er con­se­quences for bad be­hav­iour, you get these prob­lems. It is not the per­fect so­lu­tion, but you have to bring in­to place some laws which could have some pos­i­tive ef­fect on the sit­u­a­tion–which is what we are fight­ing for.

Be­fore Dr Tewarie took the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion to the Par­lia­ment, did you have con­sul­ta­tions with the Gov­ern­ment?

Yes, we met with the Gov­ern­ment's leg­isla­tive re­view com­mit­tee be­fore the leg­is­la­tion was fi­nalised and we have had con­sul­ta­tions; but our points were not tak­en on board.It was tabled in the Par­lia­ment and Dr Tewarie has said that he is al­low­ing a pe­ri­od of at least three weeks to take pub­lic com­ments, but we think that is too short. It is a com­pli­cat­ed mat­ter.

So you would be sub­mit­ting ad­di­tion­al com­ments? Are you op­ti­mistic that the JCC's con­cerns would be ad­dressed this time?

Not with­out a se­ri­ous strug­gle.

I have been fol­low­ing this pro­cure­ment thing for sev­er­al years, es­pe­cial­ly through the ef­forts of the lo­cal branch of Trans­paren­cy In­ter­na­tion­al when Mr Vic­tor Hart was at its fore­front. Why has it proven to be that dif­fi­cult for suc­ces­sive gov­ern­ments to pass the nec­es­sary laws to sat­is­fy the con­cerns of groups like yours?

As I said, temp­ta­tion is a hel­lu­va of thing...it is uni­ver­sal.

But in T&T, are wrong­do­ers not made to face the con­se­quences of acts of dis­hon­esty, as in for­eign ju­ris­dic­tions?

This is what we are fight­ing for, Clevon, and I want to make my­self to­tal­ly clear: we are fight­ing for a sys­tem of laws that will bring about a dy­nam­ic ef­fec­tive pub­lic of­fi­cial who would reg­u­late, who would in­ter­vene in sit­u­a­tions where there is wrong­do­ing, ir­re­spec­tive of the po­lit­i­cal ad­min­is­tra­tion, and take the nec­es­sary ac­tion to pro­tect the pub­lic. Rec­ti­fy im­prop­er con­tracts.

Mr Ray­mond, the fact this ad­min­is­tra­tion has tak­en leg­isla­tive ac­tion to deal with this thorny is­sue: isn't that a sign of good faith?

We need to mea­sure that state­ment, which has some per­sua­sive mea­sures, against the fact that spe­cif­ic ex­clu­sions were made with the gov­ern­ment-to-gov­ern­ment arrange­ments.

If his­to­ry is any guide, can it be said that these large gov­ern­ment-to-gov­ern­ment projects are a cov­er for cor­rupt ac­tiv­i­ties?

(Fin­ger on lips and hushed tone) Yeah, I think so. We had an episode of it last year with a hos­pi­tal pro­posed for Pe­nal, and af­ter some pub­lic con­tro­ver­sy, the con­tract was ter­mi­nat­ed.

Again, isn't that an in­di­ca­tion that this Gov­ern­ment is se­ri­ous on the ques­tion of cor­rup­tion?

Yes, they took ac­count of the con­cerns; it was with­drawn. But what I find in­ter­est­ing is: that depth of con­cern hasn't found its way in­to the bill.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored