AFTER 37 months, the government on April 3 announced a million-dollar ex gratia payout to the families of the four men who died and the lone survivor of the Paria tragedy.
That the Prime Minister’s decision to broadcast this came mere minutes after that day’s cabinet meeting does not change that.
Nor does it alter the fact that the decision came 16 months after a commission of enquiry had recommended precisely this course of action be considered.
It is hard to decide what aspect of the timing is worse: the possibility – denied by an irritated Mr Young – that this decision is a general election ploy, or the possibility that the state took so long to come to this point and ultimately only did so because the PM became exasperated.
Both possibilities are damning.
Sitting in Whitehall for less than four weeks, the PM may have felt that by reversing a situation left in place by his predecessor, he could distinguish himself from Dr Keith Rowley’s approach. Having promised to introduce a “ministry of efficiency and implementation,” he may have felt the onus was on him to get done what had not been done before.
Yet, through declining to speak first with the families involved and the survivor, Christopher Boodram, Mr Young committed a disappointing blunder.
From a certain vantage point, given the culture of secrecy in governance, removing the delay between a cabinet decision and its announcement is admirable. Facing members of the media for questions immediately is laudable.
However, a simple conversation with the individuals involved might have afforded them an opportunity to express a view on whether they wished this matter publicised. This is an affair that involves incredible trauma and grief. It demanded utmost sensitivity.
An announcement of the payment of millions, in a situation in which people are fearful of crime, is something that required some forewarning. In the past, the PNM government has deferred to lawyers when it comes to revealing legal fees for this very reason.
And the commissioners had, in their November 2023 report, scathingly remarked “the way in which the families were treated was insensitive and uncivilised. The failure to keep them informed, especially in the first 12-14 hours, was shocking.”
Compounding the sense of callousness is the fact that Mr Young said nothing about the Paria board left in place, the legal questions surrounding corporate manslaughter, the comments about OSHA contained in the report and the issue of a recent slash of funding. He was also silent on the wider policy as it relates to industrial deaths. What about NiQuan?
Election or not, all this is a blunder Mr Young could not have afforded to make. Acting with haste is one thing, efficiency another.
The post Young’s Paria blunder appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
