Publicité
Is this the end of Spin Doctoring?
My incredulity shifted to disbelief and then to questioning my own understanding of the English language and of basic economics before I realized that parliamentary discussions had actually been taken out into the public place.
Now, having already talked, in the columns of our broadsheets, about my support for Mr. Sithanen?s measures of targeting and having, in these same columns, evoked the nonsensical idea of my (or indeed anyone else in my position) subsidizing the exam fees of the children of people who are most certainly higher earners than I am and having to partially pay for their ?croissants? and ?petits pains au chocolat? as well as for the petrol that their driver burns to go and get them, I have owned myself de facto a ticket to the TINA-Wallah Club, a privilege for which I am truly grateful. It is comforting to know that if that comes from my ignorance of highly sophisticated economics, I am not the only ignorant one.
While my stance regarding the value of targeting remains unchallenged, I believe in Ms. Deerpalsing?s inherent right to express her own views, and the fact that she has expressed them openly outside the close doors is perhaps the beginning of a healthy era in the life of our parliament. It puts an end to the hypocrisy accusations our representatives are tossing at each other and arguably turns the page on a period of history where all disagreements were kept behind closed doors and we were given the official version of the spin doctors. More importantly perhaps, it gives us all the opportunity to participate in the debate and contribute positively to issues hitherto kept in a shroud of secrecy. The more ideas collide, the more new avenues are explored.
If Ms. Deerpalsing did indeed talk (disapprovingly) about the fact that the subsidies will go to one community only, it is unfortunate. If she meant it, it is sad. If it is true, we should all be ashamed of ourselves and not only rush into implementing the targeting measures as soon as possible, but also extend an apology ?à l?australienne? to try and wipe out a very ugly stain from the history of this country.
The overwhelming support Mr. Sithanen?s ideas have had is a measure of how sound they are. The press and its editorialists are worthy of praise in the role they have played in explaining and promoting these policies. Why, then, is the pill so hard to swallow? Part of the answer may have come in Ms Deerpalsing?s paper, whether we agree with her views or not.
«It gives us all the opportunity to participate in the debate and contribute positively to issues hitherto kept in a shroud of secrecy. The more ideas collide, the more new avenues are explored. »</I>
First, there are real and arguably legitimate fears which derive from our inherent suspicion and mistrust of our institutions: will the help really reach those who need it or will it go the protégés of those who will be implementing the decisions? Will we ever be able to address these fears and how?
The second, and perhaps more important issue, is the fact that the government should be sending the right signals. Ms Deerpalsing?s point about the religious subsidies is a valid one. If we are serious about maximizing the use of tax payers? money and channeling the help where the hurt really is, these subsidies should be the first to go and someone has to have the courage to put an end to them. Nobody needs to be paid to pray to a God they vehemently believe in, whatever the name they call him by. These religious subsidies are unreligious, irreligious and their implications immoral.
<I>«Nobody needs to be paid to pray to a God they vehemently believe in, whatever the name they call him by. These religious subsidies are unreligious, irreligious and their implications immoral.»</I>
Next on the list are the salaries of some chairmen of parastatal bodies and other cronies for whom posts are created by every government just to thank them with the tax payers? money for having helped col la fis. Some people, having a nice time at our expense in some big capital and draining the country?s resources through a huge salary and insane benefits should perhaps be called back to spend the rest of their days living on the memories of the photographs taken with their Hollywood idols and paid for with this very money we would like to use towards the deserving poor.
Last but not least are the duty free cars which suck up a huge amount of money every year and clog up our roads adding to the pollution and deterioration of the environment. Do middle class people need our money to pay for their second and third cars?
If these measures are taken, and are coupled with some benefits, nominal though they may be, which our elected members choose to willingly give up as a sign of good will, the pill of targeted help and any other pill prescribed to us for any other ills our society may be suffering from will just glide down our throats, no matter what our convictions might be.
So, Ms Deerpalsing expressing views some of us do not agree with is not such a bad thing after all. Couching them in such a delightful language is a treat. Criticizing these ideas is debate. Attacking her personality is not.
<B>By Touria PRAYAG</B>
Publicité
Publicité
Les plus récents
