While to err is human, Minister Webster’s parliamentary howler in pricing the netbooks for the government’s one laptop per family (OLPF) programme betrays something else more fundamental. It unmasks a government that has become so comfortable about not having to be really accountable to parliament or to the people that it is unprepared for even the most basic of questions. Given the magnitude and importance of this programme and the likely questioning by opposition MPs during the consideration of the budget estimates one would have thought that Minister Webster would have been properly primed for questioning on the laptops. She wasn’t. And even if one were to be charitable and to accept that she made a slip of the tongue when she uttered $295,000 as the unit cost per laptop instead of US$295 she did not seem to be any the wiser when the opposition MPs audibly voiced their consternation at her disclosure. Even then she was not aware that $295,000 was a hopelessly incorrect price. She did not immediately correct herself and neither did her colleagues and it wasn’t until the following day when the story hit the press that the backpedalling began. She had quite clearly been fed figures which she wasn’t familiar with but nonetheless vociferously prepared to defend.
Ms Webster may have been alien to the figures as the OLPF is President Jagdeo’s baby and is a work that is quite evidently still in progress and, of course, he is not answerable to Parliament. However there is no room for incompetence in this project. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be at stake this year and whether the money comes from China, the long awaited Norwegian tranche or from outer space the expenditure is being made on behalf of the Guyanese taxpayers and as a result the government is obligated to submit itself and its plans to rigorous scrutiny and evaluation.
Not because the President has grandiloquently presented this project with its lofty ideals to the public it must be accepted without questioning. To the contrary, it should be subjected to the minutest dissecting because it has flowed from on high in a country that has become inoculated with disinterest
In its short lifespan this project has been beset by a host of questions which would have deterred even the most persistent of donors. International guidelines for financing projects of this type would have long since gouged craters in its logic. China’s participation in its financing may be predicated on other considerations hence the absence of more intense questioning of the government.
So the essential questioning is left to the stakeholders in the country and any well-meaning government committed to transparency would agree wholeheartedly to adequate scrutiny.
First, how was the decision made on which netbook to purchase? And was that decision cognizant of the educational objectives of this programme.?
Second, will there be public procurement for these netbooks and where is the evidence that such notices have been made available for all of those here and abroad who might be interested in tendering?
Third, how are the families to benefit from this project going to be chosen? Indeed, how were the persons initially chosen for the launching of the project identified? This is essential if it is to be accepted as a project that truly tries to determine which are the neediest families in the country and to evenhandedly include them in the list of 90,000 to be helped.
Fourth, what about the ubiquitous question of the security of the laptops and where they are going to be kept. The President might threaten and cajole persons about what would happen if these netbooks are pilfered. The bottomline however in Guyana is that wherever valuable equipment is left about the place it will be stolen. Similar programmes for laptops in other countries have distributed them via school where they are also stored when not in use. That sounds far more sensible than the Jagdeo model.
Fifth, what about internet connectivity – who will pay for it and how reliable will this be. What about servicing of the machines when the inevitable breakdowns occur? Who will be responsible for software updates and upgrading?
There are myriad other questions and this is why the eminently sensible call for a review of the project by the GAP MP Mr Everall Franklin should be heeded by the government. If the government is serious about accounting to the public then it will find some way to make the arrangement. One of the ways this can be done is to place the matter fully before the Economic Services Committee of Parliament. Another way is for the government to uncloak the mystery surrounding this project, provide all the documentation pertaining to it and to allow IT experts from outside of the government to assess it. It is either this or an unending series of questions in the future about the wisdom and arrangements of this programme.
