Crying Wolf

“It may be that the Government should be given some credit—as opposed to flippant cynicism—for providing financial assistance to citizens in need, especially our young, in pursuit of outfitting themselves educationally, thus gearing up to make a contribution to the advancement of our country. Minister Marlene Mc Donald’s explanation in the House, a few days ago, gave a little more understanding of the assistance provided by her ministry, and damped down the controversy, contrived or genuine.”

I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to comment on the scholarship scandal without dealing with the following points:

1. How could the Attorney General’s Office describe the so-called “financial assistance” as scholarships when providing the information in court?
2. the scholarship was never advertised and was, therefore, secret; if it wasn’t advertised, there was no equality, as non-PNM students were intentionally excluded;
3. the criteria was hitherto unknown, and this obviously led to a lack of transparency;
4. many recipients were known PNMites who could hardly be described as poor and needy;
5. the list painted a picture of political favouritism;
6. the ethnic imbalance was glaring and wrong;
7. the areas of study were not relevant to the needs of the country;
8. unlike national scholarships, there was no obligation to serve the state after qualifying;
9. many persons listed as having received money have since publicly disclaimed and denied this.

The Guardian editorial of December 5 was an apologetic, defensive response that praised the Government and skilfully avoided the above issues. At times, it read like something from a PNM manifesto, as opposed to an independent newspaper with the motto “Guardian of our Democracy.” The author of this editorial was, perhaps, the only person who thought that the minister’s statement in Parliament gave a better understanding of the issue and dampened the controversy. It’s quite the opposite. The minister sought to justify her refusal to disclose this very information to Parliament, on the ground that she was trying to shield and protect the awardees from this kind of public scrutiny.  

When public funds are being spent, the public has a right to know, and there is no countervailing privacy argument that can override this. It is a basic principle and fundamental tenet of democracy that there can be no secret expenditure from the public purse without accounting to Parliament. The issues raised by the minister’s speech which, apparently, escaped the attention of the editorial are:

1. How was equal access to this scholarship achieved in the absence of public advertisements?
2. How did the awardees come to know about the opportunity?
3. Why were some persons given so much, and why were others given so little?
4. Why were persons who clearly do not meet the criteria of “poor and vulnerable” given these scholarships?
5. If Opposition MPs had asked for assistance on behalf of poor constituents—and this was evidence that the scheme was not that secret—why did some persons receive more than one scholarship, whilst others were confined to one?
6. Why were persons named as beneficiaries when they received no money?
7. How is it that the ministry did not pick up the unaccounted surplus at the end of the financial year? “Whey de money gone?’
8. What changes (if any) are proposed to ensure transparency, equity and fairness in this programme?
9. Why was money being given to pursue courses at foreign universities that were available locally?
10. Should the Fraud Squad not be called in to investigate this matter, to ascertain the status of the missing funds?

Dr Keith Rowley was hauled before the Integrity Commission and eventually fired over a “missing” $10 million. This has been clarified and repeatedly explained to be an accounting error. However, the PM wanted it to be the subject of a commission of enquiry in the interest of transparency. The muted response to the claims, that some awardees never received any money but are listed as having done so, underscores the malice against Dr Rowley. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. The editorial appeared to trivialise the important issues raised in this scandal by stating at the onset the “national community appears to be engaging in one of those dust-ups which brings on the regular players...emitting the regular noise.”

Those who questioned this scheme were described as “self-appointed activists, skewed by partisan political posturings.” As for the admonition that we may be unnecessarily crying wolf, (“the barking of a watchdog, if indulged in for every passer-by, will eventually lead to a fed-up society, ignoring the one time a true burglar appears”), might I suggest that the editorial was guilty of trying to dress up the wolf in sheep’s clothing, because it refused to cry “Wolf!!

By Anand Ramlogan