Remember Prime Minister Stephenson King’s April 2011 announcement that Saint Lucia had experienced GDP growth of 4.4 percent? In any event, we were reminded three weeks ago. The update returned to the forefront of the public mind all the associated bad memories, especially the wall-to-wall criticism of the day’s prime minister by the leader of the opposition and his surrogates, much of it based on wild speculation that went so far as to hint at co-conspirators in high places. How could it be that all the islands of the OECS had suffered zero growth, except for Saint Lucia? That was the question almost everybody asked.
To be fair, there was also much talk about a new ECCB yardstick, which may have encouraged the whispered suggestions of collusion.
Oh, but thanks to the current prime minister, we learned that his predecessor’s growth figure had been something of an exaggeration. We discovered, too, that the first the now leader of the opposition heard of the discrepancy was during the current prime minister’s 2012 budget presentation, when he said: “Mr. Speaker the performance of Saint Lucia’s economy has at best been anemic. In his budget presentation of April 14, 2011 the former minister for finance threw caution to the wind and declared thus”:
‘While the recession was still strong in the rest of the OECS member states, all of which experienced negative growth in 2010, the economy of Saint Lucia grew by 4.4 percent in 2010, compared to an average -3.2 for the OECS as a whole. The Eastern Caribbean Bank estimates that Saint Lucia will grow by 5.4 percent this year. Our own forecast is a more modest 4.5 percent as we concentrate on the implementation of a job-creating growth strategy.’
“Mr. Speaker,” said the prime minister, as if solemnly quoting Old Testament Scripture contradictive of pro-abortion beliefs, “the economy did not grow by 4.4 percent in 2010, as proudly announced by the former minister of finance. The growth rate was no more than 0.6 percent.”
No surprise that King could hardly wait to clear the air. Where he was concerned, the prime minister had with his slick tongue painted him in the colors of a lowdown prevaricating good for nothing betrayer of the public trust; a misleader of parliament and the people; a damn liar, if you will, when he knew only too well that technocrats provided the figures that finance ministers release to the nation, whether or not “proudly”—not the ministers themselves.
The prime minister would have none of that. Once you announce what the technocrats have given you, he said in his rebuttal, you own it; it becomes your responsibility, regardless. And I concur.
But then the technocrat who had provided King’s too-good-to-be-true growth figures also had his own truth to tell. Ironically, what the director of statistics said on the issue hardly justified the former prime minister’s election-time reputation as “de lyin’ King.” Rather, it tended to exonerate him.
In an exclusive interview featured in last weekend’s STAR the statistics director recalled the following details: “It was quite an unusual situation where we had to produce a figure by the end of February, our usual deadline. I wrote the specific letter (read by the prime minister in parliament) somewhere in the middle of April or so last year. That letter indicated we were having problems with the data source and so we could not decide with confidence that it was correct. If we cannot validate the input then we have no other choice but to respect the process and go ahead with the number. And that is what happened.”
He blamed flawed Customs records for the exaggerated figure on the import of construction supplies and wholesale and retail goods—which contributed to the 4.4 percent growth in the economy. They were revised down from 4.4 to 2.59 percent, he said. He could not say whether his warning letter read out in parliament ever reached King when he was prime minister. He knew only that it went to the then prime minister’s technocrats, addressed specifically to the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Finance (Editor’s Note: See page 5).
In any event, the final confirmation process before the statistics department can release definitive figures took place in March this year, the statistics director revealed. By which time, of course, Stephenson King was leader of the opposition under to account for his stewardship as prime minister.
So how should he have handled the suspect figures back in 2011—if indeed he knew they were suspect? Tell the nation he wasn’t sure about the GDP growth figure, for whatever reasons? Or should he simply have kept his mouth shut on the subject of growth? And what would the opposition have said then? What would regular citizens have said?
Let us revisit the statistic director: “If we cannot validate the input,” he told the STAR, “then we have no other choice but to respect the process and go ahead with the number!” So, the, what’s all that guff about de lyin’ King?
In all events, I can’t help wondering why—in the advertised newly fostered atmosphere of parliament that leaves absolutely no room for imputing false motives, let alone for possibly sub judice pronouncements—the current prime minister never informed his immediate predecessor about confirmed GDP figures until his House shaking revelation and the lecture that followed it.
As elsewhere I have said: some things are better left unsaid—especially when the only possible result is more devastating divisiveness. The prime minister might easily have corrected the growth discrepancy of 2011 without pointing fingers, literally and otherwise at his predecessor.
The correct announcement might easily have been made upon the March confirmation of last year’s GDP—even before the Budget presentation. But come to think about it, it really was not what the prime minister initially said about the discrepancy that proved the problem. Rather, it was the opposition leader’s altogether understandable defensive reaction that shaped the prime minister’s rebuttal speech.
I mean, it’s not as if he had never found himself in similar pea soup: back in 2005, as I recall, few people demonstrated any faith in the prime minister’s announcement that GDP growth was 3.5, for the same reasons so many had doubted King’s 2011 figures.
BTW: A recent HTS poll revealed the majority of questioned Saint Lucians see no reason why King should apologize to the director of statistics, a suggestion twice proffered by the current prime minister, not once demanded by the director of statistics.
Whichever way you look at it, we now have still more reason to distrust government declarations—or, for that matter, their motivations. As do such bodies as the IMF and the World Bank that depend on government agencies for their quarterly outputs.
Indeed, the current suspicion is that the acknowledged customs glitch that had handed King reason to crow, if only for a short time, had also occurred on the watches of other prime ministers, albeit unacknowledged. The government is duty-bound to restore public faith in our public sector departments. The prime minister might begin the process by requiring the Finance PS to explain why it took more than a year to confirm the 2011 GDP figure, and why upon receipt in March he did not release it to the general public!
Some things are better left unsaid—especially when the only
possible result is more devastating divisiveness. The prime minister might easily have corrected the growth discrepancy of 2011 without pointing fingers, literally and otherwise at his predecessor.’’
Browse Ads
Search Ads
Place Ads
Really Rick are you having a laugh? Your expectations of magnanimity from politicians towards their opponents cannot be so absurdly naive. This lot is renowned for generating massive amounts of spin – more than anything Shane Warne could muster on a 5th day Sidney pitch in order to:
(a) promote their own accomplishments/agendas
(b) attempt to obscure their lapses
(c) downplay their opponent’s achievements
(d) highlight their opponents flaws
Did you then seriously believe that Kenny would ignore an opportunity to stick it to King when it was virtually handed to him on a plate? Really??? Methinks thou jesteth ha ha ha
.
No statistics practitioner worth his or her salt will release information so compromised to and government department let alone the Prime Minister on which they have to make decisions of national import or make pronouncements to the public that would subject them to ridicule or public distrust.
The one thing in which lawyers and politicians have the greatest deficit is trust and when something like this happens it further erodes any semblance of trust one would have had in the Prime Minister or the Director of Statistics.
Cont…
Cont…
Having said that, even Jim Snow could have seen that these “GDP growth” figures were bogus and would not have presented them in parliament and use it on political platform as a basis for their reelection. I remember my astonishment when I saw this being reported in the press and touted by Mr. King. I said,” 5.4 percent growth? In your mouth King”. Such growth figures are compatible with a robust construction industry, the era of “green gold”, 90% hotel occupancy, some dent in unemployment and consumer spending that makes small business owners smile.
Cont…
I dared to prognosticate then that we would be proud if the economy grew 1 percent but it would not surprise me if we recorded negative growth that year.
What we had in 2010 was a spike in unemployment with the newly minted secondary schools graduates, hotel workers being laid off in the wake of declining tourists’ arrivals since the world economy was in the throes of the economic meltdown. Arguably, that was the year we recorded the lowest figures for banana exports due to the hurricane and construction was not doing all that well then.
Cont….
Cont..
So there was no economic metric or no sector of the economy that was so rosy that it would have resulted in such a hyper inflated prognosis of growth.
There should be no reason why the Director of Statistics should be pressured into releasing statistics on the economy if his data sources were compromised, not even with a caveat. You release such figures when you can justify and defend them, and it can be released any time within the year not necessarily before budget or you risk compromising your professional integrity and the integrity of the process. How can I ever believe a word from you going forward.
A word to the wise: “Discretion is the better part of valor.”
The question remains even after this leading article headline “Who spike King’s figures?”
If the PS in Finance advised King to “run-wid-it” (referring to the bogus GDP growth figure) then he was either setting King up for a fall to ingratiate himself to the new administration. He probably had read the tea leaves and wanted to jump ship to protect his job by throwing both King and St. Catherine under the bus.
PS Finance was duty bound to vet this metric and advised the Minister of Finance accordingly. He was derilect in his duty or nefarious in his actions. Pick your poison.
My problem is why was the figures given if they were not sure? Did the PS ever get the letter? Who is getting fired because of these mistakes?
The way I see it the former prime minster can not be the only one paying for this mistake. The figures were not produced by him. They were given to him, so some one made a mistake and a mistake of that size should not be repeated. Therefore where is the root of the mistake and who is going to pay for it so it does not happen again.
Then there is the matter of the time why did it take so long? If they he was saying tthe wrong thing on the platforms why didnt some one correct him?
all these are question that will not be answered in St. Lucia
I would just like the government to get to work and stop playing games with unnecessary distractions. It is good that the statisticians working now are good mathematician. We will appreciate accurate statistics for the following 5 years. Let us move on.
take out king
put kenny
we still have a
bad economy
LOOOOOOL
The beauty of Statistics is you can massage the data to give the result you want. You want a good GDP, massage the data to give you one.
Statistics is just another word for borbol in St. Lucia, just as the VAT is going to make the island a slave prison. Your master is the big red man who has an attitude of that not seen in 150 years, all he is missing is the big whip his great, great grandfather used to lash the backs of those who toiled for free on the sugar plantations. The new whip is always on your mind, that you have to crawl and scrape the bottom of the barrel to please the man built like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It is unfortunate that King could not empirically discern sizable growth from near stagnation. After St. Catherine’s warnings about suspect figures there should have been cause for a pause.Unfortunately, King chose to drink his own sugary Kool-Aid. I hate when that happens. Approaching elections does strange things.
‘It is unfortunate that King could not empirically discern sizable growth from near stagnation’
In other words?….
Simple english is a virtue … really… it shows that you have communication skills..
Over here the most highly educated and paid reporters work for the tabliods… which in turn cater not to the high brow but to the masses.
I remember King’s famous speech about this high growth, was in Grad school at the time. Funny how countries who manufacture and have high export rates see some growth, others are gradual and thats fine. What does St.Lucia export or manufacture? We depend on tourism to eat. With the financial crisis, it seemed even more nuts that we could have seen so much growth, let alone any.
We may find this funny, but St.Lucia is being laughed at because of our Politicians. We should really see this as a wake up call. There should be a minimum level of education, experience and proven track record for elevating to public office. We must stop running our country like a mom and pap shop.
The man in charge of stat should be fired. You cannot be running a department on Guess work. In not all professions there are ethical codes. If you know the information you are going to give out will cause more harm than good, as it is not an accurate reflection of the current status. As a professional you are obligated to withhold that information. It is not the Prime Minister’s Stats he displayed. So When International Organizations question our information from this department we should not be surprised that they may just look at it with a microscope. It matter not the warning Label put on the figure.Accuracy, Accountability, and Transparency. Gov of SLU Stats and not a a Drug at M&C.