|
|
|
 |
|
UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: Strange move by Mottley
1/21/2010
By Hartley Henry
Like many of you, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Indeed, I am still awaiting the publication of a retraction in the other newspaper. There is no way, I said to myself, that Opposition Leader Mia Mottley could have been quoted correctly. Why would she be stoking the Al Barrack fire? And more importantly, why would she be advising the Government to float a bond issue to raise the $63 million, knowing that that would necessitate a full scale national debate on the issue? Why does Ms. Mottley want this matter ventilated on the floor of Parliament and, why now?
I know that as a political operative, she takes no prisoners, but going to this length to put her own former colleagues “under the gun” is the most bizarre political stunt in recent history.
Certainly she must know that when the true story is told and whatever normally hits the fan, smashes into it, that some will splash on her. I cannot see any government borrowing or otherwise raising $63 million without coming to the country and explaining, chapter and verse, how and why the money had to be raised.
I could understand, for partisan political expedience, a member of the current administration agitating for this matter to be widely ventilated, but it must be of concern to senior members of the Labour party the decision of the current leadership to have the matter brought to the fore at this particular time.
Of course, there is the school of thought that it is better for it to be exposed now, rather than in the throes of a general elections campaign when revelations could harm electoral fortunes. There is minor strategic merit in this, because $63 million is a lot of money and a scandal of this magnitude could haunt a political party for decades, far less a couple of years. Therefore, to my mind, whether it is exposed now or 36 months hence, it is still a political scandal of enormous proportions. Nevertheless, the question remains, why is Mottley leading the charge on behalf of those who want the issue exposed and examined? Who does she want to expose?
As I wrote a few weeks ago, the legal aspect of this matter has been dealt with in and through the court, but the political and administrative flaws are yet to be examined and brought to light. Strangely, the latter aspect is what the Leader of the Opposition is in effect triggering, by calling on government to find the money, by whatever means, to settle the bill now.
How does it serve her interest to have the former Barbados Labour Party administration placed under the microscope for its dealings in this matter? Sixty-three million dollars is a lot of money and I am sure the public will be very unforgiving of any individual or group of individuals responsible for saddling the taxpayers of this country with such an enormous debt. Perhaps the court of public opinion might rule that the guilty person or persons are not fit to hold public office. Could this be the desired outcome? Something tells me ‘I am getting warm’!
There are clearly more questions than answers posed by Ms. Mottley’s very animated entry into the discussion and her insistence that the money be found to pay the debt in full. She did not suggest it could be paid on terms. She did not ask for the parties to sit and negotiate. She demanded that the money be paid and be paid in full, forthwith. She said float a bond, raise the money and pay it now!
It is a serious political gamble and one from which the government of the day, the Democratic Labour Party, has nothing to lose and all to gain. Certainly, I would find it most amazing if the David Thompson-led government was to follow Ms. Mottley’s advice and raise this $63 million over and above the money that is needed to build a new hospital.
From where I stand, if there is $63 million to be raised by virtue of the floating of a bond, I would have thought that that would have been for use in the medium- and long-term creation of sustainable jobs for Barbadians. No one is questioning the ruling of the court and the obligation of the government to honour and respect the ruling of the court, but how is it that the Leader of the Opposition is not equally alarmed about the hundreds of small, ordinary Barbadians who have won judgments in the said courts against the said government and who for years have not been paid. Are they not people too?
Why does Mottley continue to champion the cause of a few and not the majority? What of the hundreds of ordinary Barbadians who have had their lands acquired for years unending and to date have not been paid a cent by the government? What about persons injured and who won judgments against the government and who for decades have not been paid? What of all the small businessmen who have done work for successive governments and who are yet to be paid?
Why is this Al Barrack case the only one in which the Leader of the Opposition has taken a personal interest? This cannot simply be about natural justice and concern over harm to Barbados’ international image. This is far more involved. Only time will tell.
(Hartley Henry is a regional political strategist. He can be reached at
hartleyhenry@gmail.com)
Email
us your comments. | Top
|
|
|
|
|
