?The superior political strategy of the ruling Democratic Labour Party (DLP) was again on display during last Tuesday’s presentation of the annual Financial Statement and Budgetary Proposals.
As it successfully did during the campaign for the February 21 general election, the team skilfully ensured the debate would focus on an emotive issue.
And, as occurred during the campaign, the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) fell for this tactic and focused much of their energy on the bait – in this case, the payment of tuition fees by Barbadian students at the University of the West Indies (UWI).
A week after the debate, the public is still unsure what, specifically, they can expect to happen as a result of the measures announced and precisely how some of them will be implemented.
For instance, how will the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) – whose chief executive officer Dr Dexter James explained last February that anything less than $200 million would “grossly” underfund it – provide the range of services and quality care Barbadians have come to expect when its allocation for this financial year was slashed to $110 after Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler announced a $35 million cut?
Given that future supplementaries will be limited, how will the QEH finance the shortfall? Will Barbadians have to start paying fees for their medical care? Is that what is meant by “measures to raise revenues within the respective agency” in Sinckler’s Budget text adjacent to the announced cuts for the QEH, Transport Board, UWI and others?
As the Minister never elaborated on this, we have to wait and see. What we do know is that James has already warned: “The existing package of services currently available at the QEH is underfunded and the hospital is not in a position to sustain the current package of services to which the population has become accustomed and enjoyed.”
Another ambiguous point that should raise alarm bells is the lack of a thorough explanation on the application of the consolidation tax so its true cost would be known. Is the 0.7 per cent of site value imposition applicable on the gross value where pensioners already benefit from a 50 per cent concession?
The statement from Minister of Transport and Works Michael Lashley that “Government made no pronouncement on an increase in bus fares” left people asking how the Transport Board, which usually gets a supplementary annually, will function effectively after its budget was chopped by $15 million?
Given the widespread reaction to the vagueness of some of the measures, it is clear that more needed to be explained by Sinckler and the respective Ministers during the debate. However, they were not fervently called to account as the focus was on the Dems’ red herring.
And what convinces me more that the tuition fees were just that were statements by Minister of Education Ronald Jones’ on television Sunday inviting discussion on the $42 million cut, which could be interpreted as implying the matter was not a done deal.
Of course, I am not saying that students having to pay their tuition fees at UWI is not a big deal. It is! But in the face of more immediate developments that could devastate this country’s economy, it was not the most important point.
The most substantial matter in Sinckler’s presentation was his statement of there being a loss in confidence in the economy, as an explanation why $300 million in foreign reserves was loss in 92 days or $3.26 million a day.
Sinckler said: “Noting the loss of over 300 million dollars in reserves in just over three months, it would be reasonable to deduce that much of this could be attributed to a decline in the level of overall confidence in our economy by foreign and domestic investors alike.
“Given this, Sir, the prolongation of the international downturn, the persistently high budget deficits of the Government and its unsustainable debt levels, together with the sluggish growth figures can be highlighted as the chief contributors to this apparent declining confidence.”
For a Minister of Finance to say this was tantamount to admitting that his management has been unsuccessful. But Sinckler didn’t stop there. He admitted the Government had not been responsiveness enough to the offshore financial sector.
He said: “We ourselves have not exactly made it much better by ignoring several of the low-hanging fruit which could make the facilitation of international business and investment in Barbados easier and more flexible. It is time to change that equation.”
The Budget debate should therefore have focused on the loss of confidence in the handling of the economy which has led to a flight in foreign exchange, a if this persists we would be forced into the clutches of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with their woeful medicine.
And it should have addressed Sinckler’s management.
• Sanka Price is an editor at The NATION.
