DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?

by David Walker

David Walker

This, we are constantly reminded, is the age of misinformation. I for one, have come to mistrust most of what I hear second or third hand or worse. So when a report last week took my breath away, I had to ensure that it was accurate before I would comment on it. This was despite the fact that it came to my attention via the Newsday. I had to check that it was similarly reported in the other dailies and on social media.

Satisfied with the bona fides of the reported statement, I can now share it with you, and will comment on it below. The article in the Newsday read in part as follows:

“These are the people who drove Sandals' family out of Tobago with their stupidness and their lies...and now behaving as though something was lost. You can't lose what you never had. You never gave them a chance to sit down with the Government and discuss terms and conditions."

You will doubtless recall, that just as now with Superior/Marriott, the Prime Minister had previously made a series of strident statements praising the proposed Sandals deal and absolutely demanding that it be built and that it would be good for the country. By the statement quoted above, we now know directly from him, that he had not even the slightest notion about the terms and conditions that we would be subject to.

He is presumably now doing the same again. His reference to what he sees as his Sandals failure makes clear that sees the UNC and others as the problem, rather than his failure to negotiate in the nation's best interest and his failure to address the questions he has admitted that we were asking.

He is telling us not to expect answers to legitimate questions about the Superior/Marriott proposal, of which I have a few (below). He is telling Superior just as he told Sandals that his negotiating position is that he will accept any and all their terms and conditions even before entering the negotiating room. How else is one to interpret negotiations where one party has indicated in advance that they will undertake the project no matter what? I quote from the Newsday article again. “I am giving you fair warning. That project you are talking about..come hell or high water... Tobagonians will have”.

The Prime Minister is boasting to the population that he has not the slightest clue about how to handle commercial negotiations. Can you imagine being the other party in “big money” negotiations where the Prime Minister of the country broadcasts that he is determined to buy your product or service before he has any idea of the terms and conditions? Even better (or should I say worse) he is determined to apply the same strategy as he did with Sandals inclusive of withholding information from the public, then criticizing anyone who dares to ask a question.

We now know through his own words that he cannot answer our questions because he hasn't asked any himself. Once he likes what is promised by the other party nothing else matters to him. I now understand that he has not been refusing to answer questions out of spite or malice. The truth which I now see and understand is that he cannot answer them because he does not know the answers. What I find most remarkable is that he now boasts that he makes these expensive and often disastrous commitments well ahead of negotiations about terms and conditions.

I fear that this lies at the root of all major acquisitions and arrangements under this regime. If this is his approach to Sandals and Superior/Marriott, I have to believe that it was the same for most if not all of his major acquisitions and developments. This is an approach guaranteed to result in inflated costs every single time.

That is quite likely the way he went about buying boats from Australia and digitisation expertise from Estonia. What is the likely impact on the Treasury of this misguided approach, I wonder?

There are other troubling aspects of this whole Superior/Marriott matter and the statements of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Much was made for example of the track record of Superior in the hotel construction and management field by the politicians.

No details were given to support that assertion. Our basic research has found that the company and its key personnel were associated with two major hotel projects in the country.

The first was Carlton/Brix in Cascade which is just about to be opened several years after the promised date. The second is Hilton in San Fernando which was announced with great fanfare some years ago by the same politicians but which remains another unrealised dream today with work apparently yet to commence. Is that the track record that they are praising and calling on us to rely on in support of this development? Are you convinced?

Then of course there is the claim that this project is undertaken at no cost to the taxpayer and that we bear no risk whatsoever. Given that terms and conditions have not yet been negotiated, how can the Prime Minister assure us that there will be no cost to the taxpayer? We already know from their statements that a valuable piece of land is being leased to Superior/Marriott as part of the arrangement. Has there been a professional valuation of its worth in the open market as there should be, and how does that compare with the price that Superior/Marriott will be paying? Providing assets at less than market rate is a cost to the country and contradicts the statements by the Prime Minister and others.

But suppose for just one moment that there really is no cost or risk to the taxpayer. If that is so why is the government front and centre of the announcement? Surely, they are saying that this transaction is nothing to do with them. Yet the Prime Minister declares haughtily that this project will be delivered “come hell or high water”.

Which is it? To be able to assert that he has control over the outcome must mean that he will be involved in the negotiations and therefore will meet all demands by Superior/Marriott. Can you really imagine what those demands might include other than cash injections, favourable land and other asset transfers, tax concessions and risks that may only mature years later?

More than that, if he is sincere that there will be no cost to the taxpayer and that there is no risk to the Treasury involved, then he should tell us what role government is playing. Perhaps then we can understand why he and the folks at THA are brazenly seeking credit for this promised project. They can't have it both ways.