Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight.
[00:00:02] Speaker B: Instant feedback.
[00:00:03] Speaker A: Accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. Let's turn our attention now to my interview this morning. I have with me Dr. Bishnu Raghunath, Political analyst. As we deal with the bigger portfolio. That doesn't mean more work for these ministers. First of all, Let me welcome Dr. Raghunath on the program. Good morning to you, sir.
[00:00:25] Speaker B: Good morning.
[00:00:26] Speaker A: And thank you very much for joining me this morning. On the morning Rumble we talk about this.
It's not a reshuffle.
But is it a reshuffle? Dr. Raghunath, in your learned and political opinion, what do you think?
[00:00:42] Speaker B: No, it's not a reshuffle.
A realignment of portfolios simply means that as time goes along based on the policies of the government that certain divisions within certain and certain segments of certain ministries and departments fall and seem to fit better within the context of other ministries and to allow for synergies, so to speak.
And to that extent that is a realignment reshuffle. Now if you tell me a minister was demoted or promoted or something like that. Well then there's a reshuffle.
None of the ministers were changed from their previous ministries.
So therefore it is not a reshuffle per se. All right.
[00:01:40] Speaker A: And I thank you for clarifying the difference now.
Putting moving around the portfolios or responsibilities and resting it on the shoulders of other ministers while removing it from other ministries as you say, for integration, smoother trans. Movement of things and alignment.
How could it be that you have now given me additional portfolios But I do have more work.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something.
[00:02:18] Speaker B: No, no, no.
[00:02:19] Speaker A: But you can help me.
[00:02:20] Speaker B: When I say you don't have more work what it means is simply that they. Okay, so let me. Let me. Let me just use an example.
They said for instance the OJT program has been moved from one minister to another minister. I don't know which who is who. All right.
But any minister who is involved or overseeing OJT is not directly involved in the day to day running or is not supposed to be. Let me use corrective. Is not supposed to be directly involved in the day to day running of the affairs of Ojot.
What it tells us is simply that OJT for instance is where the policy decisions made by the government are to be implemented. So for instance, over the weekend we would have seen in the newspaper where Dr.
Prakash Prasad who is a minister who was. I think he was in charge of ojt. I think it has since been removed from him making the claim that we need probably to expand ojt we need to expand OJT into other areas that are not necessarily purely academic and that is into areas that are vocational and so on. And that is a policy decision that the government is taking.
Now, is Mr.
Minister going to be going and going and seeing who, which, who is getting in? No.
Now the minister is going to have to go to his OJT management and access OJT management. Now you do a review of what type of positions we need to look at and so on. They will then do a report and that is the report that the minister will simply read, consider and probably go back to his cabinet and discuss. And then they will then agree or disagree as to why the policy goes.
Is the minister involved in that process of actually shifting and doing the work? No. And that is what I say. It is not necessarily more work. Now when, for instance, you take certain other areas which has been shifted around, what we find is that there are synergies between what was happening in a ministry before and, and now for things to happen elsewhere.
And you see this when we, when we teach administration, we talked about looking at the whole history and the whole history would mean that you may have something in one ministry that is remotely connected.
But if you're going to deal with policy, you need to understand that remote connection.
Other things may be more intimately connected. You need to understand those connections. And to that extent you need now to bring to bear all of these various aspects of governance together.
And it is in that context that it might be better, for instance, something to go under a particular minister which was not there before. Because what that minister will now say, okay, fine, now we have this department will work with another department within that ministry and facilitate the delivery of the services.
[00:06:11] Speaker A: I hear what you're saying and I'm looking at what was gazetted in October. And I can, I mean from a layman's perspective we might understand what you're saying, but I find it difficult because I hear you with the minister will call a meeting and deal with the head and then the minister is not actually doing the job. But remember, the box stops with the minister. And if you are responsible, if that's under your purview now, then that's additional, may not be work, but it's additional focus. It's a shared focus approach. Now 625-2257 and 6273223 call. I saw you calling. You can call back and get, make your contributions. It's an additional responsibility that I'm now.
That's now under my purview. So if I had to check four things for the day, deal with four different departments, I now have to deal with eight or seven.
So I now have to take an active look at what is happening in these other areas. So this is the ideology of not more work. Because I'm not physically sitting there doing the job. I have persons that already existed. And I fail to. I try to understand how shifting around can bring more efficiency when the workload now increases under one particular minister and it's less than another. Let's take this call. Good morning.
[00:07:37] Speaker B: Morning, David.
[00:07:37] Speaker A: Morning, chair.
[00:07:38] Speaker B: Professor Raghunath. I would like Professor Raghunath to explain this. What did the Prime Minister mean? Right. She said every minister or to be on top of his ministry. Could you explain that to me, sir?
Every minister has a right to be on top of his ministry. Thank you.
[00:07:55] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:07:56] Speaker B: Well, all I will say to that is simply that the Prime Minister says that a minister must be. Must be aware of what is happening in his or her ministry.
I mean, just before we entered into this meet, this part of the interview, you were having a discussion. You talk about conventions and so on and how things were done in the past.
You have to understand that Trinidad and Tobago is not England.
Trinidad and Tobago is not England. And I want to make this very clear.
In England, for instance, there's what we call ministry under the Westminster model. There's what we call ministerial responsibility.
A minister is responsible for everything that goes on in his ministry, his or her ministry.
And to that extent, if something goes wrong in that ministry, the minister takes responsibility.
In Trinidad and Tobago, we have seen many a time where ministers say, my ministries are a mess, but do they tender the resignation?
No, they don't. And to that extent, nothing happens. I mean, I'll give you a bad example.
I saw, in fact, I went a minister one day for another matter.
And I was in his office and he was the minister of agriculture.
And people came with a problem to him.
And he said he listened to the problem.
And then he asked his assistants, go and call so and so on. Go and call so and so. And they went and they called them.
And the minister turned to the people, the citizens of Buddha. He says, look, I don't know. And I am telling you, I don't know. And how many ministers don't know the technical issues affecting their ministries? We don't know it. But the fact of the matter is simply they are dependent upon these advisors. And it is these advisors who now have to come and tell Them Minister, we will do X, we will do Y. Now, if X and Y is not done, we hold the minister responsible because as far as we know, the minister told us X and Y is going to be done. But the point about it, is the minister going to do X and Y?
No, he's making policy. And that's the difference between government and administration.
Because the ministers make policy, they say, this is the direction we want to go. Whether the workers and the technocrats follow that policy and implement that policy, that's a whole different issue. Now, yes, the minister is supposed to be overall in charge of his ministry.
He or she is supposed to be seeing everything is happening. But the point about it is, a lot of times ministers don't know half of what is going on in their ministries.
And that is the point I'm making when I said, yes, we have not realigned. So for instance, I mean, you have that gazetted list there. If, for instance, you call two or three things that are listed under for instance Minister Saddam Hussein now, we'll show that there are linkages between what those issues are now to what currently exists in this ministry.
And in that context you are now going to say, aha, well, there are synergies there.
Let's see how that could be worked more effectively within that ministry.
[00:11:52] Speaker A: Well, with that being, let me take this call. Good morning. Respectfully make your contribution or your question. Good Morning.
[00:11:58] Speaker B: Good morning. Dr. Ragunath, my question is what does Erskine may have to say about the requirements for moving a motion? Some seem to think you can just announce that you are going to and going to a long speech and that's that. And others are saying, well, you have to say, I beg to move at the end of your whole description of all your problems and so on. Thank you.
[00:12:25] Speaker A: Now that's an issue that I know was going to come up, even though it was not carded for our discussions this morning. But you have been paying attention to the political landscape for a number of years and you can share some context. And I love what you said. We are not in England.
We are an independent nation, republic. We have distanced ourselves, but still we don't see the CCJ as our final court of appeal. We still refer to the Privy Council and the law Lords of England to adjudicate on matters of this country.
So the Westminster system seems to be on the docket. Whether it's not written law or legislated law in this country. We following the principles and the precedent set, your thoughts or your learned opinion on these motions that are Moved in Parliament when it should be said and the time frame in which it should be done. Can you share some context?
[00:13:24] Speaker B: Okay. No. Let me just be sure clear here that I am not going to get into the asking me and May's parliamentary procedure because I have not yet done any research on that to ask the question.
It is however, like we started off by saying convention.
Convention says that I beg to move. And once you say I beg to move, then that motion is moved. Now come back to Trinidad and Tobago. Come back to what happened five months ago or six months ago.
It was the same Member of Parliament sitting next to the leader of the opposition who told her say I beg to move.
[00:14:15] Speaker A: Repeat, the same member of Parliament sitting
[00:14:19] Speaker B: next to the leader of the opposition prompted the leader of the opposition to say.
[00:14:26] Speaker A: Prompted the Chief Whip.
[00:14:29] Speaker B: She was the Chief Whip. He was the chief.
[00:14:31] Speaker A: Right.
[00:14:32] Speaker B: Prompted the leader of the opposition to say I beg to move.
And that ended her contribution.
You all know that.
[00:14:49] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:14:50] Speaker B: And that happened about five months or six months ago.
Right. And she was unable. Now once you use the words I beg to move, I have completed my contribution.
And if I have completed my contribution, now all you could. Second emotion. Now all you could do everything else.
[00:15:11] Speaker A: Right.
[00:15:12] Speaker B: If I don't say it and I sat down, does that mean to say that the motion is hanging there in thin air and that is exactly what has transpired. And I'm saying convention and I'm not going to escape to.
[00:15:33] Speaker A: Excuse me.
And I love what you said because when I think it was Colm Imbert stood up to second it. They had to caution him because no motion was. Was moved.
[00:15:43] Speaker B: No.
And that is, I think he saw.
[00:15:46] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:46] Speaker B: The speaker deliberately allowed him to stand up and say I second motion. And then the speaker says, but what motion?
Because there's no motion on the table.
[00:16:00] Speaker A: I'm happy that you was able to.
If.
[00:16:03] Speaker B: If I. Good morning.
[00:16:05] Speaker A: Okay, one minute. Dr. Raghunath, I press the button a little too fast. Good morning, caller.
[00:16:11] Speaker B: Good morning. Dr. Raghunath. Dr. Abernard, you have made a statement in saying that the minister doesn't really know what's going on. They're Ministry. They are policy driven.
I want to ask a question.
What is the role of the PS within the ministry under the Minister?
[00:16:32] Speaker A: What is the role of the Permanent Secretary's responsibilities under the Minister?
[00:16:43] Speaker B: Okay. So again, going back to Westminster tradition and so on, the Permanent Secretary is the advisor to the Minister as well as the Chief Administrator in executing, in overseeing the execution of policies within that ministry. The chief, the Permanent Secretary is also the Chief accounting officer for that ministry.
So again when we have to understand what is a Permanent Secretary, okay, We have to understand it in that context that the so if for instance a minister brings or comes to say we have decided as a government we are going to do X today it is the Permanent Secretary to first of all tell the minister whether that falls within the purview and portfolio of the ministry one whether the policy route that the minister is proposing is an acceptable one and it falls within the parameters of the public service regulations and everything else.
It is the so for instance, the Permanent Secretary tell Minister I mean they say you can't do that Minister. That is not acceptable within the context of our governance system or Minister, yes you could do it, but you may have to alter the route so that we could implement this policy.
That is the role of so the minister, the Permanent Secretary is the chief advisor to the minister.
Now second thing, the minister can go on or is not supposed to. Maybe I should keep these things correctly. The minister is not supposed to go on 10 tell somebody go and do this, go and do that.
The minister is a politician.
The minister has to speak through the head of the administration and the head of the administration is the Permanent Secretary.
So the minister if the minister wants to direct that something be done the minister has spoke to the psychological. The PS has to give that direction. That is why for instance, when I said earlier, when you interrogated me earlier about whether the minister has any additional work, the minister can go and tell the head of OJT go and do this. You know, anything the minister has to tell the head of OJT is supposed to know. That doesn't mean to say they don't do is supposed to go through the Permanent Secretary and the Permanent Secretary is the one who is supposed to issue the directives to the head of ojt.
Okay? That is the role of the Permanent Secretary. The Permanent Secretary is the intermediary between the politician and the administration.
The Permanent Secretary is the advisor and the council to the minister.
So for instance, I mean I'm trying to think so for instance, let me go back in history how many a times we have had ministers who knew nothing about our ministry.
So my Marvin Gonzalez was Minister of Public Utilities.
We would have heard the Prime Minister at the time Keith Rowley say the reason I put Marvin Gonzalez is because he know nothing about Wassa.
Right can say that. And I'm using Marvin Gonzalez as that example.
Who is going to tell Marvin Gonzalez about Wasa who is so forced to advise about wasaac.
It is the Permanent Secretary. Because Marvin Gonzalez should not have any power to go directly to any employee of WASA and ask them what's going on here.
The person who is supposed to advise him and direct him is the Permanent Secretary. Yes, he could have interface with them, but it must be through the Permanent Secretary. In other words, let me flip it a little bit. You talk about the Parliament.
A member of Parliament is not supposed to address another member of Parliament. They're supposed to address the Speaker. The speaker will then forward the question.
So that is the. The triangular route that has to be taken. That's the same triangular route that the Minister and the PS has, where the Minister will have to direct him to the PS and the PS could direct.
That is where we have to understand administration, we have to understand politics.
[00:22:00] Speaker A: A message to my phone and let me say good morning going out to Moses.
Good morning to you, Prison officer Moses. A message came into my phone and on the message board.
And I can understand, based on what you have just said, where the.
Why this question came up. Is it that a Minister gives a directive to the ps, the Permanent Secretary, the Permanent Secretary understands the runnings because once a minister is assigned to a ministerial portfolio, the Permanent Secretary don't change, the peers stays. Government comes and goes. That job is permanent. They're there.
They now advise the incoming minister of what the Ministry is about, what has been happening over the last year. Bring the minister up to speed. If the minister gives a directive or sends out something to be done and the PS says no, and I will draw a plain.
The peers belong to the Pink Party because they like the pink. But the Orange or the Purple party in power.
But I had voted for the Pink because I like the Pink Party. I find I didn't like what was going on there. But the Purple Party in power now, and I'm the Permanent Secretary, I have a bias already, as it were, because I have a job to do. But you know, I kind of like the pink when the purple comes in and wants to initiate certain things that is handed to him or her by the Prime Minister.
But I'm the P.S. and I'm saying to you, Dr. Ragunath, this can happen, you know, because I'm advising you, you are telling me that this is it, that if I push back on the Minister for. For something that the Minister is directing me to do or to get done, what happens in a case like that when there's a stalemate between Permanent Secretary and Government Minister?
[00:24:07] Speaker B: Okay, so can I use two examples to answer Your question I appreciate that. Sure.
I go back to an example probably before your time and before many of your listeners time or some of your older listeners might know. 1995 Adesh Nanan is Minister of Education came in in November.
Two weeks later he has a meeting with Cheetah.
He's a dentist so he doesn't know anything about education didn't have nothing to do with Education so he's dependent upon his permanent he has two PS's in his ministry sits in a meeting with Cheetah and Tutor then informs them that there's a circular that they understand that is going to come out and they would like to have discussions on it before it reaches the membership in the presence of the Permanent Secretaries. Arish Dalan gives Tutor the undertaking that we will hold on that circular until such time. Now may I remind you this that policy decision by that circular was made under the previous government.
The election had come two weeks later. This is happening.
Three weeks later or four weeks later the circular reaches the members of Tutor. Tutor complaints to the Minister where you're lying we face because you tell us you're holding it Then called to a meeting with his peers and his peers says well it was in the system already and we couldn't stop could have been stopped. That is their job.
And the fact of the matter is what Adish Daman immediately called for was to do removal of the Permanent Secretaries. They were sent on leave and then the new PSS were assigned to that ministry. Example 1 example 2 several years ago about four or five years ago again Ministry of Education Karl member went to the Parliament and say we're going to pay Teachers day back pay on so and so date before the before December.
I can't Remember what is 2021, 2022 somewhere around there he was going to get back pay to teachers.
The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education say that can't happen because we have not yet done the calculations and whatever else and that can happen until probably May of next year because we need about the time frame to do the calculation is 12,000 teachers or how many teachers and we have to do calculations and so on.
PS was removed from the Ministry.
Another PS was brought into the Ministry because now calling what was not Minister Education we had another Minister Education I think it was nine got to go and and but here was the PS telling the government this cannot happen in that time frame.
The PS was removed, transferred, sent on leave whatever another PS was brought in.
Was the other PS able to deliver?
Well they tried all kinds of things for bringing additional staff in the ministry or whatever else.
Less than half of the teachers was able to get their back fee by December of that year.
Right? They had to wait till the following year. Again, the PS knows the running of the ministry.
The Minister doesn't know.
Right? And that is where I see.
The PS is the one to know how the ministry is going to run. It's supposed to advise the Minister. Now again, the PS is a public servant. The Minister is a political appointee. The minister could say whatever the minister wants to say. The PS has to stand up and say this is what is possible, this is what is not possible and this is what you can do and what you cannot.
[00:28:47] Speaker A: That is a very, very scary realization because if and when these campaigns, these political rallies are held, the election fever is in the air, the bell has been rung and we are now having public meetings and putting out a manifesto of promises and things that we are going to do as an administration. If you vote for us, then we sit in office and we are stopped in our tracks. As we come in as a brand new minister, bright eyed and bushy tail and a Permanent Secretary watch me and say slow your roll.
I understand more you make on the campaign trail. But this is the reality of this ministry. This, this is where our public purses, this is where our funding is. This is what is happening.
I'm sorry but this can happen.
You have lent some context to make persons and myself even wonder how can we trust things being said on a political platform?
And the final thought as we wrap the interview this morning, one must be cognizant of this and I've said it in the past, we have ministers in particular ministries, we have government personnel. We have people that are elected to office and they hold different portfolios.
But bear in mind their profession, what they were trained to do from a university level, what they hold a bachelor's in and all these accreditations behind their names, their doctorates and all these things and have nothing to do with, with the ministry that they are now assigned to. They are now learning from the ground up. How practical is it Dr. Raghunath for political luminaries to keep a manifesto promise to the population if the Permanent Secretaries are sitting there removed and they bring a next one for you and leave because you just made a good point. The other Permanent Secretary couldn't get all the teachers paid.
They're telling you what's happening.
Are we being misguided on the political platforms when it's election time? Are we saying to the citizens now that we have to rethink how we vote and where we cast it and understand the realities of who really operates these. When it comes down to the governance of these ministries, who really operates it. What is your advice, your final words as we get set to wrap?
[00:31:24] Speaker B: No, I mean, let's put it like this. Michael Manley, a former Prime Minister of Jamaica, once said, politicians are visionaries.
Administrators are the executors of that vision.
If the administrator tells the politician, you can't execute that vision, it is the politician who now being the visionary that he or she is supposed to be, now has to go and get a final, a different format of that vision in order that they deliver on their promises.
Right?
So the course may be the same, the outcome may be the same that the politician is looking for. The course that they have to follow may have to change. And that is where, again, I can't tell people who to vote for and who not to vote for. People are, that is their democratic right. They have to vote for whichever party they want to support, whichever candidate they want to support.
Whether or not that person is going to be able to deliver on their campaign promises or not, we really have to wait and see. Bear in mind several things.
One, campaign policy promises doesn't mean to say that campaign promises are made to be delivered within any short time frame. You win an election, you win an election for five years and for that five years you are now you have that, that time to deliver on your promises. I want to give you one example in closing.
In 2010, Kamala Prasad Bisesa promised that we're going to bring procurement legislation to the Parliament.
She won the election in May 2010. In July 2010, she laid the legislation in the Parliament. Do you know when campaign prime finance legislation was, sorry, not campaign procurement legislation was passed. It was passed in 2015.
Right.
It took them five years but they delivered on the promise. Like I said, promises are made when they are kept. That's a whole different issue.
[00:33:43] Speaker A: Dr. Raghunath, we'll have to end the interview there. I want to thank you very much for touching base this morning and sharing some context on the political landscape in Trinidad and Tobago. We'll talk again in the not too distant future.
[00:33:53] Speaker B: Have a great day, sir.
[00:33:54] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
