|
|
In closing, this must be considered one of the most unique Budget Debates in our post independence period and I wish to deal with two issues. The first relates to my own role as Minister of Finance and the second to the performance of this Administration in its ten (10) years in office. I intend to speak only briefly about my own role, as one must be careful not to personalize such matters. However, I have come to accept, perhaps moreso in the last two to three weeks the extent to which, for whatever reason in a society such as this, the mood, utterances and public reaction to the Minister of Finance can affect all sector and more broadly, the economy. Much criticism has been leveled at me over these last few weeks. Much of these have been fair, some amusing and some not so fair. I have reflected on these criticisms and I have learnt a lot. As regards the criticism, which I have found amusing, some say I smile in the midst of imposing taxes. Life is strange, as one of my predecessors was criticized because it was claimed that he never smiled. Some view my approach as uncaring. I have no intention of launching a PR campaign to suggest that I am a "good guy". Those who really know me - my family, friends, my support staff and my constituents - know the truth and they have given me the support of friendship which have carried me through this period. Thanks and respect are due to them - particularly the women. Madam Speaker, I need to say something about an issue, which has received a great deal of commentary, especially in the recent weeks and that relates to my style in discussing issues. For those who work with me, they know that I drive them hard and I drive myself harder. More fundamentally, I cannot and I will not tolerate sloppiness of thought and analysis. I take this stance for three reasons. The first is that my whole history, my whole background, places the highest premium on the acquisition of knowledge and skills. When I opened this Debate in the House, I paid tribute to my parents who were present - ages eighty-two (82) and eighty-one (81) respectively. My father left school at twelve (12) to become an Apprentice Mechanic in the sugar industry and my mother at thirteen (13) to be, first, a Shop Clerk and then subsequently the tougher job being a housewife and a mother of six. Despite those initial set backs, they placed the highest emphasis on the acquisition of knowledge by their children. The deal was simple - they provide the infrastructure - home environment, books, and clothing and we had to perform. It must be one of those mysteries that based solely on the income of a mechanic, that they were about to put us through school and never in my recollection were we ever short of books or clean uniforms. But we had to perform to excel, that was the deal. Therefore, it is incomprehensible to me that in this era when people have access to more educational opportunities, to more sources of data and information, that they can claim ignorance on matters of importance or claim that nobody had told them. My second reason for rejecting sloppiness of thought and analysis is that, by training and by vocation, it would condone mediocrity. If this is not to be tolerated in the 20th century, it is a sure prescription for continued deterioration in the new millennium. This is so whether it occurs in the media, in this Honourable House, in a hotel, in a factory or in the country at large - transportation system best or worst example. My third reason for being intolerant of sloppiness of thought and analysis is that, in some instances this can be dangerous, as in a country strapped for resources, it is too easy to promote the view that there are simple, easy answers to difficult problems. Hence, the public can be sold the idea that the tough choices which are presented to them could easily be avoided of only those in charge "cared". Moving from a personal statement, I must pause to speak on behalf of all elected representatives - those of us who have not just talked but have put ourselves on the line. We in this House who have offered ourselves to the public, for acceptance or rejection, should have a common understanding and a common bond. In that regard, we must demonstrate to the public and the country at large, mutual respect. Too often the scorn and the ridicule directed at politicians by the public are fostered by the way in which we interface with each other, the things we say about each other or the things we allow members of the public to say about each other without dissenting. A second issue relates to the issue of personal integrity. I have chosen quite freely to become involved in elective politics. However, this in no way changes my moral values and my ethics and it is important that the public recognize the dangers of tarnishing the integrity of anyone who enters elective politics without even one small bit of evidence. We run the risk of scaring away from this area of service, those we would wish to attract, leaving the field wide open to those we should seek to exclude. Ironically, many of those who would seek to condemn without proof, are often ones who have never made a single contribution to national service. Now to the Government, this Government which has been characterized as "uncaring and insensitive". There has never been an Administration which has accepted the need to be as self-critical as this one is. We freely admit, after ten (10) years that there are areas where we have made far less progress than we should have. We have no hesitation in citing these instances. Example - unemployment has remain flat when it should have been reduced. We will have to do better. Related to this is the fact that economic growth has been absent. There are many reasons which we can advance to explain the lack of growth but although those reasons may have sound technical bases, we must do better! Finally, in terms of debt, whilst we have made significant progress in bringing external indebtedness under control, domestic debt has grown and as I have indicated in my Opening Presentation, this represents a major challenge for the immediate future. We have made significant positive steps and with very little reflection, I have selected just a few to refute the false charge of an "uncaring and insensitive" Government. Let me begin with number 1 - for the poor, for the worker and for the pensioners - control of inflation. Note that inflation for FY 98/99 was 6.0%. Consider what has happened between 1995/96 and 98/99 in controlling inflation. Is that the action of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Second: The stabilization of the foreign exchange market, the build up of the NIR and the elimination of black market which affected investment and those at the bottom of the ladder, who cannot protect themselves. Are those actions of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Third: Government pensioners where every year since 1991 we have unilaterally increased pensions in recognition of the impact of inflation. Furthermore, we have introduced a health insurance plan for government pensioners, providing them with protection in their old age, similar to that which present workers enjoy. Are those actions of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Fourth: We have created the Social Investment Fund which in three (3) years has disbursed over $532 million on a total of 140 projects to improve communities island wide. Is that the action of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Fifth: Education in terms of increasing access to tertiary education. In ten years we have increased the number of students in tertiary institutions by 50% from 19,000 to over 27,000. Furthermore, we have moved the percentage of the population with tertiary training from 2.2% to 5.9%. Are those the actions of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Sixth: In terms of provision of housing solutions, over the past six years, the number of beneficiaries totaled nearly 32,000. This represents 45% of all benefits provided in the NHT's 22 year history. Is that the action of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Seventh: In terms of provision of training through H.E.A.R.T, over the last five years we have more than doubled the number of young people trained annually - from 15,500 in 94/95 to over 32,000 in 98/99. Is that the action of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Eighth: In terms of bringing equity to the financial sector, we have just reduced the tax at source on interest for ordinary savers from 25% to 15% in effect giving back $800 million this year to these savers. Is that the action of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Ninth: Health over the past ten years, we have eliminated measles and eradicated the virus that causes paralytic poliomyelitis. We have also introduced the drugs for elderly programme covering nearly 110,000 persons. Are those actions of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Tenth: In terms of protection of deposit holders, insurance policy holders and pension funds, we have intervened through FINSAC in the process protecting over one and a quarter million small savers, pensioners and holders of insurance policies. Is that the action of an uncaring and insensitive Government? Eleventh: Rural Electrical Programme (REP) over 6,135 houses wired in the last five years. We do not for one moment pretend that the decade has brought all the progress we have wanted, but we have never failed to listen and we have never failed to take the action in the interest of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. As I bring this Debate to conclusion, I wish to say to my fellow members of the House that our ability to adjust to unexpected events demonstrates the strength of our democratic system. Whilst we all accept that there is need for changes, one basic lesson learnt is that the design of the system, although important, is not the critical criterion. Rather, more important is the willingness of those involved to use that which is in existence for the maximum of the people, even as we seek to improve on it. The experience in the last few weeks has highlighted the difficulties we face, in particular, the sense of hopelessness felt by a significant segment of the population. This Administration has heard and has responded. In the final analysis, however, we will never be in a position to respond to social needs without getting the fundamentals right. In this context, the Budget, despite all the difficulties, must take us one step closer to returning the fiscal to a surplus. As I have said before, we in this Administration recognize that it is a fine balancing act. However, whilst the task is difficult it is not insurmountable (insuperable) with the full cooperation from all parties and with the help of the Almighty, we can do it.
|| Previous | Table of Contents ||
|
