WE?WAITED?IMPATIENTLY for the Opposition Leader’s reply. Owen Arthur didn’t disappoint, and he didn’t mince words.
In modulated tones of the politician, and with some precision of the economist, he postulated that Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler’s Budget was simply “inviting catastrophe”, and initmated that the best thing the Government could do was to call an election and put the country back in his hands.
For Mr Arthur, the Minister of Finance’s “titbits” and “tinkering here and there” was not going to put Barbados back on a path of growth; that what Mr Sinckler had presented was “a collision of purpose and a collision of means”.
Such damning condemnation, although Mr Arthur told the House he was not there to provide “unnecessary criticism” since he had “a vested interest and professional interest” in the development of the Barbados economy.
The “alternative perspectives” that he would offer in respect of what Barbados should now be doing were not as detailed as we had hoped for. But we know he is sweet on selling the remainder of shares we hold in the Barbados National Bank, and sees the benefits of such precluding the
18-month increase in VAT to 17.5 per cent.
The merits and demerits debate could go on unendingly, each side blaming the other for the current circumstances, each side boosting its own recommendations, dooming those of the other. The fact is Mr Sinckler’s team is in governance, and it is to that side we must pay careful attention, not forsaking the input of the Opposition.
That there is grave illness of the economy, already showing signs of indecent haste towards unwelcome disaster, cannot be gainsaid. And such a situation demands swift corrective action. And so those parameters circumscribed the basis of Mr Sinckler’s presentation.
What were the available options to rein in expenditure? Both Minister Sinckler and the nation are fully conscious of the overstaffing of the public sector, coupled with low productivity and attendant inefficiencies. The Transport Board, although providing a useful service, along with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the National Housing Corporation, the University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus, the Barbados Water Authority and the Ministry of Public Works, all consume major chunks of revenue.
In all the above cases there is an urgent need for rationalisation and the long professed public sector reform needs to take root. The increase in bus fares, the refinement of the Barbados Drug Service, the adjustment in the policies relative to low-level matriculation admission qualifications of students
to UWI, the relaying of pipes programme of the Barbados Water Authority, although necessary must be supported by strict accountability and unrelenting efficiency.
Avenues for the boosting of revenues were limited. Equitable apportionment dictated the upward adjustment of VAT which, by its indiscriminatory application, impacts on all procurers of goods and services according to levels of consumption and usage.
Government is a continuum and therefore it is unproductive, in the present circumstances, to dwell on the apportionment of blame while the city walls tumble. There are serious lessons to be learnt if Barbadians are to continue to enjoy current or higher standards of living. Education, social and medical services cannot be maintained unless supported by sustainable revenue streams.
It is time to start trimming the fat, to encourage self-employment and to promote accountability, efficiency and excellence.
We wager Mr Sinckler and Mr Arthur will agree on that.
