. . . (W)hen a government steals from people in the way of consumption taxes and takes that money and spends it on their own high lifestyles, and unnecessary buildings, then that government not only has contempt for you, but what it most unfortunate, you have contempt for yourself, because you allow them to do it. – Errol Barrow, Mirror image speech, May 1986.
ERROL WALTON BARROW long ago gave Barbadians two pieces of good advice that should be eternised.
The first was that if they wanted justice, they should stay out of the Law Courts in Coleridge Street.
The second, and perhaps of greater import, was that they should not allow any Government to bribe them with their own money.
Two items in the media recently jogged the memory of Barrow’s remonstrations with the Barbadian people about the foolishness they have allowed, and continue to allow, Governments to do to them, very often in a seemingly inadvertent manner but which nonetheless screams “insulting, and disrespectful”.
The first is about acting appointments in the public service and the other is the botched attempt to integrate the public/private sector transport services at a time when the road network is perhaps in its worst state of disrepair ever, with potholes greeting Cabinet members whether they turn left or right on Bay Street.
But more of that, anon.
Now, it is widely acknowledged that the public service, has an unfortunate reputation for being populated by hundreds of people acting in posts, sometimes beyond their qualifications, and very often to the detriment of the quality of the services they provide to their customers and bosses – the taxpayers.
So rampant and long-standing has this acting epidemic been over the years, without respite under successive Administrations, that I seem to recall hearing for the first time from a senior officer in a moment of levity during the Duffus Commission of Inquiry, that the Bridgetown Port had so many people acting it should be known as “Hollywood”!
The first and more offensive news item that caught my attention spoke of 89 employees of the National Housing Corporation (NHC) getting an “early Christmas gift”.
“The employees received their permanent appointments following several months of intense negotiations between the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) and management of the corporation,” the item read. “NHC management informed the NUPW of the ‘good news’ via a letter on December 8.”
The letter read: “Please be informed that the board of the National Housing Corporation at its meeting of September 15, 2016, approved the permanent appointment of 80 staff members. These persons include those who were appointed for the first time, as well as those appointed on promotion.”
The item said workers from all categories, including clerical officers and foremen, were covered by the agreement and quoted NUPW president, Akanni McDowall, as saying this was the first time in the union’s history that it had managed to secure appointments for such a large number of employees from a single entity.
However, there was no mention of outstanding appointments, if any.
Now, I would be the first to rush to congratulate McDowall and share in the joy of the appointees some whom might have been waiting for a considerable period of time.
However, what is particularly galling is that even taking into account the traditionally molasses pace of the public service, generally, those workers were only informed by letter on December 8, three clear months after the board’s decision!
Further, the timing, which seems deliberate to coincide with the Christmas season, appears to be a cynical construct by an Administration which had kept them in despondent limbo for untold months but was now sleighing in like some compassionate Santa Claus bearing gifts for their patience and loyalty.
The hard-working taxpayers at the NHC, it seems, were being told through this token that they should accept their own overdue money, and furthermore, overlook other pressing issues such as terms and conditions of service.
This manner of attempting to ease the plight of long-suffering workers is exactly the kind of degrading posture about which Barrow warned Barbadians who today are among the most heavily taxed people in the world.
And the Freundel Stuart Government in anticipation of heavier calls on the public purse, and in recognition of its constrained revenues, has prudently raised the limit to which it can borrow by a further $1 billion.
How far are we away from the example chosen by “the Dipper”?
“The Tom Adams Government [1976-1985] had $600 million in each and every year at its disposal to bribe you with your own money, and then spit in your face,” Barrow noted.
Public officers should ask themselves what kind of mirror image does such a Government have of them, and more pointedly, what kind of mirror image do they have of themselves.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email: [email protected]
