I DON'T UNDERSTAND

Okay. I'll admit that I have been more than a little bit lazy and haven't read or looked up the law about Trinidad & Tobago becoming (or not becoming) FACTA compliant. The truth is that I have 'no horse in this race' and being a (reluctant) member of the working class I felt that my time was better spent elsewhere. In any case, I reasoned, regardless of what I thought or said the law was going to pass or fail regardless of how I felt. (Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy/ But that ain't the point of this post ... perhaps that might be a good topic to discuss downstream?)


But a big part of my problem in trying to decide how I felt about the argument between the Government, the Opposition and the Banks was that I didn't understand exactly what they were arguing about. (Incidentally, if there is anybody out there who can explain clearly and succinctly exactly what the whole issue was about I'd be extremely grateful. And don't tell me that it was about becoming FACTA compliant. I want to know exactly what was offensive ... or alleged to be offensive ... about the proposed law.) On the one side the Government and the Banks were preaching that the sky would fall down and we'd be in real trouble if the law wasn't passed, that we would be blacklisted and would not be able to do any international transactions of any kind. On the other side the Opposition was saying that there were several clauses in the Bill that offended against our constitutional rights (I think that there were about three clauses) and they were digging their heals in. It was necessary, the Opposition said, to send the Bill to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament (JSC). But NOBODY said what these clauses were, or why they offended our rights, or why they were necessary in the first place.  And everyone that I asked didn't have a clue either.


Eventually, the Bill was passed without the "offending"clauses. The Government removed them so that the law would not offend the Constitution. But here is what I don't understand: if the Bill could have been passed without the "offending" clauses and it would be good law, then why didn't the Government do this in the first place? Why did we have to go through all this trauma and argument?  And if the removal of these clauses has made the Bill bad law, then why is the Government making bad law? And if it was in the country's best interests that the original Bill be passed then why didn't the Opposition support it? What exactly was offensive about these clauses? What rights were they infringing? And why weren't we told this in the first place?


Put another way, I personally do not have enough information to make any judgment here as to who was right or who was wrong on this matter. But I can say unequivocally that the firm impression that I have right now is that BOTH sides have been playing fast and loose with the rest of us and that we haven't been told the whole truth on this matter. I have said it many times before, and I'll say it again: there is only one reason for politics; only one reason for Government: to make life better for the people! Full Stop! There is NO other reason!!

DON'T CRY FOR ME, VENEZUELA

I had the pleasure last night of dining with an 80 year old lady who had just arrived from Caracas to visit her daughter who is married to a Trinidadian and lives here. Naturally, the conversation turned to what was happening in her unfortunate country and, more importantly, how was she surviving? I also wanted to know how the poor people were managing.


Here is some of what she told me:
- the black market exchange rate today is 400 bolivars to US$1. Nobody pays attention to the official exchange rate ... not even the banks. In any case, unless you have very high government connections it is impossible to buy US dollars at the official exchange rate; everything is priced at the reigning black market rate which climbs higher every day;
- everybody has lost weight ... except those in Government. This is because food is scarce. She herself has lost 5 kilos over the last 12 months;
- scarcities in everything are common. Meat is like gold and just as scarce and just as expensive;
- because of the scarcities people are hoarding. If you see an item in the grocery today you buy it, even if you don't need it, because it won't be there tomorrow;
- items like soap and shampoo are either not available or are of extremely poor quality. No luxury brands (e.g., Pantene) are available;
- the minimum wage is 1,800 b's a month. Put another way, the minimum wage is the equivalent of US$4.50 a month. No wonder that people are starving and crime is so high;
- public transport has collapsed and private taxis (like our PH taxis) charge whatever they like. My old lady friend has an ironer who comes in once a week for about 2 hours every time. The ironer charges her 100 b's for her time plus 55 b's for her taxi fare. When the ironer leaves she walks to another job;
- Caracas is now filthy dirty. The roads are full of potholes. The malls are empty and many businesses are closing or have closed.
- inflation is running at close to one million percent a year! Prices of goods in the shops change literally every day!


And you wonder why somewhere close to 10 percent of Venezuela's population has fled the country! Me? I blame President Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate), his sidekick Vice President Diodadas Cabello, who is the head of the infamous Cartel de los Soles, and who is probably the most dangerous Drug Lord in the Hemisphere, and the Cubans who have created a security apparatus that makes a coup most unlikely.  But it doesn't matter, does it? Maburro gets fatter, Cabello and his cronies get richer, the Cubans get their oil and the poor starve. Then neighbouring countries Like Trinidad & Tobago faced with an influx of refugees fleeing the tyranny, show no sympathy or empathy for these suffering people but instead complain that they are coming over here by the thousands. Of course, there is NO criticism of the tyrannical regime that has forced them to flee. Neither is there any consideration of how desperate  man or woman has to be to flee from his/her home and go to a strange land where they have no family, no friends and don't even speak the language! And the TT government sits down with these monsters, breaks bread with them and makes deals which are kept secret from the rest of us!


And nobody sees anything wrong with this!!
-

LIES, HALF TRUTHS AND MORE LIES

It is getting very difficult ... if not impossible ... to believe anything that the present Government says ... which is very sad indeed. Trust is the number one requisite for any Government to hold and when that is gone then there is chaos.


There are (unfortunately) too many examples of Government Ministers lying outright or shading the truth in such a way as for their statements on the particular issue that they are talking about to be so wildly misleading that to call them anything other than lies would itself be a lie. Take, for example, the statement by the present Minister of Planning Camille Robinson Regis. She is reported to have said that it was the UNC who built the HDC development at Greenvale. Now, that is simply not true. The truth is that the Greenvale development was approved by the then PNM Government in which Dr. Rowley held the position of Housing Minister. And guess who was the Planning Minister? That's right! None other than the great lady herself: Camille Robinson Regis. And guess what? At the time that the HDC was given the go ahead to build Greenvale there were adverse reports that the area could flood and the appropriate planning and Town & Country approvals were NOT granted.


But Mrs. Robinson Regis was right about one thing: AFTER the development was complete at a cost of around $300 million the UNC Government handed out the houses.  So? Who is to blame? The people who spent the $300 million in the first place or the ones who after the money was spent handed out the houses? Both? Yeah! I guess you could say so, but frankly, I put more blame on Mrs. Robinson Regis and her cohorts than I do on the UNC in this instance.


There are too many other examples of lies and half truths to list them all here. But let's take a look at another one: Petrotrin. We heard in  or about the middle of this year that a  decision was taken then to close down Petrotrin with all the resulting consequences that flowed from that decision. Okay. So far so good. I'm not here debating whether or not the decision to close Petrotrin was correct or not.


So? What happens next? We have recently been told that a foreigner, one Mike Wylie, has been hired to run one of the successor companies  (I think that it is Heritage Petroleum) as its CEO. Again, so far so good. (And again, I am not debating here Mr. Wylie's salary or anything else as to whether or not he is being overpaid.)  But yesterday in Parliament, Minister of Amongst Other Things Communication, Stuart Young is reported to have said that Mr. Wylie was hired in August of this year ... to which piece of information I thought 'hold it sheriff, she's heading for the strawberry patch!' Why? Because something here is dreadfully wrong with the timing.


You see for such a high level hiring to take place it would need to have been advertised. But we know that it was never advertised locally. Because if it had been then we would all have started asking awkward questions as to what in the name of heaven was going on? Why was this job being advertised? And the answers would have been ... how shall we say? ... embarrassing to the Government as they would have been forced to admit their plans. They didn't want either the Union or the country to know what was going on.


Of course, one could ask why wasn't a search done for a national, but you would only end up with the same answer. (I can't help but remember Dr. Rowley's plea some time ago to nationals in London to come back and serve their country ... but that's another story, again.)


What is most significant here is the TIMELINE. The search for a new CEO had to have started at least five to six months BEFORE the hiring of Mr. Wylie (which you will remember was in August). This would allow 30 days for applications to have been submitted, another 30 days to vet  and short list the applications  and another 30 days for interviews before arriving at the final short list which we now know to have been three people ... a Japanese, an Iranian and Mr. Wylie. And then there would be the final interviews and then the negotiations with the preferred candidate. As I said, you're talking of at least 5 to 6 months BEFORE August 2018. Which means that at least by the end of February/early March of this year they knew that they were planning to shut down Petrotrin.


But a decision like this is not taken in the dark. There would have had to have been discussions and decisions  AFTER the decision to close  was made to plan on how to go about the closure, what they were going to do, plan the successor companies, plan their management requirements, determine the various skill sets required and so on. In other words, it is not unreasonable to presume that the decision to close Petrotrin was made about a year before it was announced. Anyone who has ever advertised for a senior executive post knows what I'm talking about. And when we are talking about Government?! Well, they take an even longer time ... unless, of course there is/was a cabal inside the Government who took it upon themselves to do all that was necessary to fast track this matter and just get it rubber stamped when everything had been decided and done. If that is the case, then this points to a secret government working for their own purposes and not necessarily for the good of the country. There are reasons why safeguards exist and flouting them (or appearing to flout them) creates very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed at this time.


Now, there is an argument that commercial decisions need to be kept secret for as long as possible. The problem here is that Petrotrin is/was not a private company owned by private individuals, but a public company owned by the State, or, to put it another way, owned by the citizenry of Trinidad & Tobago. Different "strokes" apply to such a situation and you cannot apply normal commercial considerations to a State owned enterprise.


 Which brings us back to the original point of this post: we are being lied to with lies, half truths and more lies. And, for the record, a half truth is a statement that contains some element(s) of truth but which leaves the listener/reader with a very different impression from what has really happened and leaves out crucial and important details. There is a reason why when a witness is sworn in in the Courts he is asked to tell the WHOLE truth. And that is exactly what we are not getting!


What do you think?






B

WHITHER GOETH THE COUNTRY?

Just about everybody in the country is crying these days about the dire straits in which Trinidad  Tobago finds itself. Depending on whom you talk to the fault lies with the "other side", meaning the side to which that person does not belong or identify with. The complainers wax warm when it comes to discussing the leadership shortcomings of the other side. But the truth is that personal leadership shortcomings are not the main problem ... although, admittedly they have contributed to the problem. There has been a fundamental shift in the politics of the country in which both of the major parties have become more homogenous and the mix of actual concerns has turned more and more to issues of identity ...or to put it bluntly: Race!


PNM voters are overwhelmingly Black, Christian and generally come from the poorer sections of the society.


UNC voters are overwhelmingly Hindu and Indian with a large section of the Moslem and Christian Indians supporting that Party.


Very generally speaking, the UNC supporters are financially better off than their PNM counterparts and tend to rely less on Government jobs and largesse. The children of UNC supporters generally tend to do better in school than those of the PNM.


UNC funding tends to come from wealthy Indians (mostly Hindus) while the PNM tends to get most of its money from the Syrian community and a few wealthy businessmen who happily play both sides in the not unreasonable expectation that they will benefit from lucrative Government contracts when either side wins the next election.


The mainstream media is dominated by the African elements in the society as well (as in the case of the Guardian) by the Syrians. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media is overwhelmingly biased in favour of the PNM although they all pretend that they are not. (As I have said before, it is their constitutional right to be biased. It is dishonest for them to pretend that they are not when they are.)


Social media choices reflect and reinforce these identity lines. It is fairly easy to guess at the ethnicity of an anonymous writer/contributor on social media just from reading his/her comments on any particular issue.


The attitude on both sides of the political divide is not just that the other side is misguided, but that the other side is evil. In these circumstances, any form of compromise  becomes impossible and any chance of the country moving forward is as great as a snowball will have of surviving in Hell.


Both Parties are hurling themselves and the country off of a cliff and resist genuinely reaching out to the other side.  Probably, the biggest problem is the complete lack of trust that exists on both sides in the bona fides of the other side. Excuses and/or deflections are the order of the day ... on both sides! It's always "their" fault and "we" are always not guilty. "We" have never done any wrong and will never do any wrong! To which statement an unbiased and reasonable observer on the ferry to Tobago will raise his eyebrows in slight surprise and say "really"?

TRUTHS, HALF TRUTHS AND FAKE NEWS

"The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of a monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred."
Manchester Guardian, 6th May, 1926
C.P. Scott 1846 - 1932


I have put the above quote at the beginning of this post because I am fed up with all three of our daily newspapers who like to pretend that they are unbiased and present the facts fairly. They are all biased and they do NOT present the facts on almost any political issue fairly. Read the above quote again.  Probably the worst offender is the country's oldest newspaper, the Trinidad Guardian. There are a whole host of reports that can be high lighted ranging from the sea bridge to Petrotrin, but for the sake of brevity this post will concentrate on only one by way of example.
 The "venerable" newspaper that is the Guardian had two articles on the Grenville housing project this morning. In the first article headed "CAMILLE: PNM DIDN'T BUILD  GRENVILLE" it reports that the Planning Minister in response to criticisms about the flooding at that Government housing site has sought to put the blame on the Opposition UNC for building the project. But the article reports no fact checking that the Minister's statements are inaccurate to say the least. The fact is that the PNM when the present Prime Minister was Housing Minister approved and built the project DESPITE warnings from the experts that it could flood. The UNC Government under then Prime Minister Persad Bissessar completed the project and distributed the houses. Now, THAT IS the truth. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the Guardian will defend the article on the ground that it was reporting accurately what the Minister said! To which the answer is in the above quote "...nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong." But the "unclouded face of truth" in the Guardian article does suffer wrong precisely because it does not report the WHOLE truth. And it is a truism that a half truth is often more dangerous than a lie.


But  it isn't as if the Guardian doesn't know the truth, for in an editorial this morning headlined "KEEP POLITICS OUT OF GRENVILLE" this bastion of the "free press" (and, yes, those words are deliberately put in quotation marks ... I am being sarcastic) says "... As we understand it, there were warnings about proceeding with the development in the first place since the area had the risk of flooding."


To which the logical questions are : really? And when were those warnings given? By whom and to whom were they given? Who was the Housing Minister at the time? Who made the decision to go ahead? When was that decision to go ahead made? And why have you not put this in the report on Camille's rather disingenuous statements?


I'm sure you get the point. Look: I genuinely don't mind if the Guardian (or any of the other newspapers for that matter) has a bias in favour of the present Government. Heck! That is their constitutional right! What I am against is the PRETENSE that they are not biased when all of the evidence suggests that they are. This pretense is as dangerous as it is dishonest. It is dangerous because many unsuspecting persons will be persuaded that something is right when it is so obviously wrong. It is dangerous because this is how a dictatorship begins ... slowly creeping and controlling the media so that only reports favourable to those in power (whoever "they" might be) are published.


I have deliberately not discussed the other two newspapers in this post ... it would make it too long. But a casual examination of their reporting will show up similar problems and discrepancies in the reporting of the news and the lack of transparency. And the sooner that we call out these newspapers the better!

THE DAILY BIAS IN TRINIDAD'S NEWSPAPERS

It is practically impossible to see anything that is bipartisan or in the best interests of the country in any of the daily newspapers in Trinidad & Tobago. Over the weekend and in the face of devastating floods in the country affecting thousands of people the Guardian had a lead story on its front page about a family who believed that evil spirits had entered their home and had caused a member of the family to commit suicide. Honestly! You can't make this up! That was the lead story in this country's old newspaper with the flooding taking second place to this "news". Why the editors thought that this was real news has not been explained. One might be forgiven for thinking that the editors did not want to highlight any news which might (however remotely) make the Government look bad. And nobody could blame the Government for evil spirits!


Then, not to be outdone, the Express in an editorial this morning has criticized the Opposition for walking out of the Senate on Monday. What apparently happened was that the Opposition had suggested that the debate on the country's budget be postponed so that the Senators could go out and assist those persons affected by the devastating floods. It seems that Minister Franklin Khan  the Leader of Government Business in the Senate initially agreed ((according to news reports) and then for no reported reason changed his mind and said that the debate had to go on. The Opposition Senators took umbrage at this and said that the people were more important than the debate and then walked out.


The Express editorial accuses the Opposition Senators of grandstanding and says " ... to stage a walk-out in the Senate, where none of its members has direct responsibility to persons in any specific constituency was simply an exercise in despoliation. Nothing could have been gained from it. There was no point to be made in this fashion, except to further entrench in the minds of more citizens the emptiness behind many a political maneuver by those elected or selected to represent the people's interest."


To which, I say "what?" Read that quote again. What exactly is the editorial saying? In plain language I understand it to mean that politicians do not need to go out to physically help people in distress and in any event, especially where they do not represent a specific area of the country. There are persons whose jobs are to do just that. The politicians serve better by staying in Parliament or their air conditioned and comfortable offices and "direct" relief efforts.


A friend reminded me of the old story of the old man and his grandson walking along a beach. The old man picked up a starfish that had been washed ashore by the waves, and threw it back into the sea. The young boy asked him why he did that saying that it wouldn't make a difference to anything. 'That's true,' the old man replied, 'but it makes a big difference to the starfish!'


Maybe the politicians who have donned tall boots, gone into boats and helped to collect and distribute food, blankets and other much needed supplies haven't made a big difference in the overall scheme of things. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they made a huge difference to those people that they did help.


No, Mr. Khan and no, Mr. anonymous Express editor who is very happy to write this drivel and not own up to it preferring the comfortable anonymity of the editorial, there is such a thing called 'empathy'. Even if assuming though not accepting that there was grandstanding by the Opposition Senators, my question is: were they right to ask for an adjournment so that everybody (Government as well as Opposition) could go out and help the stricken? And if they were right to ask, what is the problem? Why not go out to help people? Unless, of course, there was an underlying fear that acceding to such a request might have made the Opposition look good. In other words, the Government's interests come before the people's. By no means should the Opposition ever be acknowledged to be right on anything!

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

What's wrong with this picture? UWI students, concerned for their safety and security mounted a protest demonstration late yesterday (Thursday) afternoon on the St. Augustine campus. They were clamouring for greater security. So somebody (probably the very university administration responsible for the students' safety and security) called the police who obligingly came and broke up the demonstration!


Now, if you think that there is nothing wrong with this picture then I really have nothing to say to you, for I think that it is so obviously wrong that it ought not to take a lot of words to prove it; and the old saying, 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still' would apply to you. You see nothing wrong with calling police to break up a demonstration where the students are demanding that the university authorities provide them with greater security?!? If that's what you think then I can only shake my head in deep sadness and say that now I understand what is really wrong with this country of ours.


There is a most unfortunate attitude that is often on display by persons in authority in this country. I call it a neo-colonialist attitude. In the "good old days" before 1956 there were two rules:
Rule 1 was that Massa was always right.
Rule 2 was that when Massa was wrong refer back to Rule 1.
Now that Massa has gone our present rulers slavishly ape all the things that he used to do and they insist on making sure that Rules 1 and 2 still apply. All that has changed is the colour of Massa's skin. They are in charge and therefore no damned dog has a right to bark! And guess who is the dog? That's right: us!! (Please remember Rule 2)


No. Even if the students went a little overboard yesterday (and I don't know whether they did or did not) the police action was extreme and uncalled for and should be condemned. We should also criticize the university authorities. It is not good enough for them to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and say 'well, there's crime all over the country'. No. This is their balliwick ... their turf ... their students ... and they should do more to protect them. They should take responsibility.

WHY?

It is very difficult ... if not impossible ... to understand why things keep going wrong in Trinidad & Tobago. It is difficult to understand, of course, if you are looking for logical answers which do not point to some sort of corrupt practice of one kind or another.


Take for example, the free school holiday today for all public school children. The reason given in the newspapers is because the Trinidad & Tobago Union of Teachers (TTUTA) is having an all day conference today and it is important that all their members attend. Okay. But what is more important? A TTUTA inspired teachers' conference or the education of the children? And if both are equally important why couldn't this conference be held on a Saturday? Why should the children not be taught when it is time to teach? Is this a good reason to cancel school? If you think that it is, then why do you think that the conference should not heave been held on a Saturday when the children have no school.


Let's turn to the political theatre that is unfolding now between Dr. Rowley and Dr. Moonilal. Dr. Rowley held a press conference yesterday (Thursday) in which he slammed Dr. Moonilal's allegations as false and political mischief. His lawyer, who was by his side, is reported as saying that everything that Dr. Moonilal said or alleged was false.


The problem here is that everything is not false ... or at least, does not appear to be false. The facts (as reported) are:
              (1) the email is real;
              (2) the email was sent to the Prime Minister's cousin;
              (3) the email begins with the words "Good morning Honourable Prime Minister ..."


Now, there are some who say that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that there is a fair  degree of certainty that it is a duck. So? Where are we with this? If Dr. Rowley was innocent of the charges then one would expect that he would protest his innocence all around the mulberry bush. But what if he was guilty? He wouldn't say "all yuh ketch me" and go quietly. He would more than likely also protest that he was innocent. The point here is that his protestations are natural and unfortunately take us nowhere nearer to the truth.


So, we now turn to the investigation by the relevant authorities that has been (quite properly) called for. The problem here is that when the emailgate saga exploded the same authorities launched an investigation which eventually ended some two years later with a whimper that seemed to suggest that the emails that (the same) Dr. Rowley had brandished in Parliament were faked. But nobody has been punished or called out for this. Why?


And now the very same authorities are being called on to investigate this A&V payment scandal. What confidence can the public have that these authorities will do their job fairly and impartially? And if you believe that they will, then why do you believe that? Do you believe that they did their job fairly in emailgate? If you do, then why do you believe that?


There are a few truisms here that hold firm when answering these questions: the first is that if you need more than one sentence to make your point then you cannot make it at all; you may need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain your point, but you must be able to make your point in one sentence. The second thing to note is that when somebody is telling you something that you don't understand, ninety-nine percent of the time it is because he does NOT WANT you to understand; one percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is saying.


There are a whole host of other things that don't make sense; the issues with the Galleons Passage for example. There are too many questions surrounding the whole Petrotrin saga that haven't been properly answered ... and the list goes on.


So? What is it that they don't want us to understand? And, more importantly, WHY don't they want us to understand?

NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL

Congratulations are in order to newly appointed Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith for the successful rescue of Natalie Pollonais. Mr. Griffith has been criticized (and in some cases rather severely) for talking too much. His critics have said that it is easy to talk but that he will fall flat on his face when he has to perform.


Well, guess what? He didn't! He performed and performed most credibly. The housewife was rescued (or 'extracted' as Mr. Griffith seems to prefer to say) and according to all reports was rescued safely. She is apparently unharmed.


Mr. Griffith came into office a few weeks ago and sent out a stern message to all: it wasn't going to be business as usual. He hit the ground running ... making some long overdue promotions and conducting security exercises that have resulted in several arrests. But this Natalie Pollonais kidnapping was his first real test ... and a most serious one at that!


To his great credit, Mr. Griffith kept his mouth shut and his head down until the victim had been rescued. Then he gave a brief press conference that outlined the bare facts. He refused to be drawn into disclosing confidential material as to how Mrs. Pollonais was found and praised the security services under his command and those that had cooperated with his people to the fullest. So much for "he talks too much!"


The country this morning can breathe a sigh of relief. We finally have someone at the head of the Police Service who seems to know what he is doing! And we should all join in clapping him on the back. Let's face it: at long last it is NOT business as usual.








P.S. You know what would have been nice? If the politicians (viz. Messrs. Young and Al Rawi) had resisted the urge to bask in the reflected glory of Mr. Griffith's success and simply stayed away from the press conference. Their presence did nothing and Mr. Young's attempt for the government to take some credit was as stupid as it was uncalled for.

WANTED URGENTLY: LEADERSHIP

The T&T economy is on the verge of tanking. We have something like a US$850 billion debt becoming due (the Petrotrin debt) around May next year. Either we pay the debt or we default on it. If we pay the debt then expect more belt tightening all around bringing with it a lot of pain. If we don't pay it then our credit worthiness will take a hit and we will find ourselves on the wrong end of economic sanctions, which will mean more pain. Either way we are in trouble. And a re-negotiation of the debt if at all possible) will also bring pain. In other words, we are in deep 'ca-ca'!


In the meantime, neither the Prime Minister nor his erstwhile Minister of Finance has anything coherent to say about the impending disaster facing us or what policies they are looking to implement now to stave it off.Instead, we are regaled with stories about how ferries (that don't work) are going to fix the sea bridge and about how there is going to be a new Sandals hotel in Tobago ... a deal that raises more questions than answers and which have caused most unnecessary and very ugly suspicions to arise that are probably better left unexpressed for now. We continue to give the Maburro regime a free pass even though that regime's policies are creating a refugee crisis in the Region as well as here at home.


The Prime Minister turns more and more to his base using polarization and culture wars to keep the base energized and (hopefully) intact. His Minister of Everything has taken a leaf out of Trump's playbook calling every little criticism either fake news or labelling the critics as being "unpatriotic", ignoring, for example, the fact that when his Government failed to give clear and cogent answers to the many questions surrounding the deal with Austal to buy some coastal patrol vessels, that his critics felt that they had no choice but to ask the Australian Government to investigate the deal ... which admittedly, looks 'fishy'. Why asking a foreign Government to investigate a deal around which many questions swirl could be  'unpatriotic', has neither been asked nor explained.


The Government's leading spokesmen are becoming less and less coherent and increasingly have nothing of substance to say on any subject. A Minister decries as fake news allegations that his wife's company got certain Government contracts and then in the next breath says that he recused himself from any decision making  concerning their being awarded. To which the only comment can be "WHAT"?


The list goes on, but one cannot help but view with dismay the floundering and ineptitude that is on display. Let's understand something: it is in the interests of EVERYONE  that this Government succeeds. It is always in our collective interests that whatever Party is in power succeeds. Wishing that they fail would be unpatriotic. But, equally, I would argue that it is unpatriotic to continue to support a Government that is failing.


And right now, this Government is failing badly. No amount of obfuscation can hide that fact. What we need now is a clear policy statement showing us the plan to stave off the looming disaster. Either that or they should resign. I'll say it again: there is only one reason for politics ... only one reason for government: to make life better for the people!! There is no other reason!!


So, I say to Dr. Rowley et al: lead, follow, or get out of the way!

A MOST OFFENSIVE SKIT

If I do something that upsets or offends you, the proper thing for me to do is to apologize even if there was no intention on my part to offend. Beauty is not the only thing in the eye of the beholder and there is hardly a person on this planet who has not unintentionally caused offence to someone over some act or statement.




That is why when I first heard (and then saw on social media) the very offensive skit that portrayed a woman in a yellow sari being attacked by goons dressed in red costumes I thought that the Prime Minister would quickly apologize and move on. Instead, rather ominously, he and his Minister of Everything, Stuart Young, labeled those who were so bold as to criticize the skit and the PNM as being foolish and saying that the skit was simply harmless fun. To which the reasonable man in the maxi taxi can only raise his eyebrows and say "really?".




Let's be blunt: the skit was offensive to the Hindu religion. No amount of twisting and turning can get away from that! It was terribly offensive. Can you imagine if a group of Hindus put on a skit at a UNC Party Family Day that portrayed Jesus Christ in some sort of sexual embrace with a woman what sort of howl would come out of the Christian sections of this society (which, by the way, are in the main African)!? And if the UNC Leader at the time were to dismiss the most legitimate complaints of the offended Christians as "foolishness" what the entire society would say!?




And then, on another level the skit was offensive to women. It purported to make fun of a woman being undressed by men! How can that be fun?! At a family function!? I got the meaning of the PNM red and the UNC yellow! Who didn't? But to portray one's political inclinations in this manner was simply awful and unacceptable in any civilized society. And no amount of laughing it off as "fun" can change that. Freedom of speech does not mean that you have a licence to do or say anything. There are always limits.


No. There is something very wrong with the Prime Minister's and Mr. Young's responses. Had an immediate and sincere apology been forthcoming then  nobody could really complain. If it was not intended to cause offence, then as stupid as it was it could probably be forgiven. Just don't do it again.  But these responses simply made things worse. And to compound it all, the whole sordid episode was so unnecessary in the first place.


This country is racially polarized and becoming more so with each passing day. True leadership requires ... no, demands ... that our politicians do everything to promote racial harmony. Endorsing such crude, vulgar and tasteless behavior as was demonstrated in this awful skit only serves to embolden the racists that dwell amongst us. It's time to say STOP!

WHY IS THE MEDIA GIVING THE GOVERNMENT A FREE PASS ON THE FERRY ( AND EVERYTHING ELSE)?

The Galleons Passage continues to make news in that it still ain't working although it has been here for about three weeks. Let me give you an example: The Guardian today reported "The Galleons Passage is expected to begin servicing the seabridge soon ... Confirmation came from Works and Transport Minister Rohan Sinanan as he gave an update into the progress schedule of the US$17.4 million vessel which docked on our shores on July 166 after a long journey from China."


So the ferry will start working "soon". All well and good.  ... except that's really not much news. But let's unpack some more. The Guardian report continues: "Sinanan  said a T&T flag was finally installed (emphasis mine) on the vessel last Friday. The vessel arrived with a flag of convenience from Vanuatu ... ." The newspaper quotes Sinanan as saying "That is one part of the process that has been completed. We are now finalizing the process with the Maritime Division and Lloyd's Register Broker and we are hoping that shortly we would have the vessel in place."


Now, what the heck does the Minister mean when he says that a T&T flag was "installed"? The correct terminology is that the vessel was reflagged! David Lee, the Chairman of the Opposition UNC had asked in a press conference on 28th July ( 6 days ago) if the vessel was going to be reflagged. Herbert George, the erstwhile Chairman of NIDCO had said on 20th July that in order for the ferry to be reflagged it needs to be certified by Lloyd's Registry and it was for that reason that the Maritime Division that had found some 150 deficiencies in the vessel had asked for a recertification.


So, it would appear that the Minister has rather cleverly obfuscated the issue by saying that a T&T flag was installed. Hey! Anybody can put a flag on a vessel. But to reflag a vessel is something completely different! And he (Sinanan) was trying to do a "cute" reply to David Lee without actually lying.


Now, I can't believe that the Guardian's editors are so dumb that they didn't see this. Of course they did! But they say nothing and just report the claptrap falling from Mr. Sinanan's mouth as if it is gospel. Why? The only explanation (other than stupidity) is bias. Can anybody give me another explanation? Why didn't anybody ask Sinanan what he meant by "installed"?




And then we have the fast patrol boats costing some US$74 million or more which are being bought without proper tendering procedures being followed but after the Prime Minister and his Minister of Everything visit the Austal shipyard in Australia. But again the Guardian says nothing. Why? I always thought that the newspapers fill a critical role in the democratic process.  I can accept if they are biased and don't want to report on matters that might be embarrassing to the Government. It is their democratic right to have a bias, but if they are biased they ought to be honest and say 'hey, we are biased.' But it is less than honest to pretend that they are neutral when they are not. And not following the tendering process raises a lot of red flags and very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions. Can you imagine what Dr. Rowley would be saying if it was Mrs. Persad Bissessar and Mr. Moonilal who had done that? Why is it acceptable for a PNM administration to do this but not a UNC one? But the press is not calling the Government out on this. Why?




There are other examples, but hopefully you get the point. Stories are being reported in a most uncritical manner in ways that are in fact misleading.  A clever ruse?




Of course, it could be just that the editors are stupid. Unfortunately being stupid and a newspaper editor is not a crime. Being biased and pretending that you are not, ought to be.

THE APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Okay. Full disclosure: Gary Griffith is a friend of mine. I also have acted as his lawyer in a few matters in the past (though not recently). One of those matters was the infamous 'emailgate' affair. I was satisfied then ... as I am satisfied now that the despicable allegations involving him in that sordid mess were all false. I am also satisfied that when it comes to matters of national security that he "knows his onions" probably better than anyone else in this country and that he is a man of high integrity.


But, here's the problem: the Prime Minister went on record in Parliament when his Government was rejecting the recommendation to appoint Assistant Commissioner of Police Dulalchan to the post of Commissioner of Police, and said that the Government could not support the recommendation because the process was "flawed" (his word). To which I thought, okay. I didn't think that it was a flawed process from all that I had read, and the erstwhile Prime Minister did not say exactly how the process was flawed, but if no less a person than the Prime Minister says that it was flawed, who am I to question that? Certainly, I didn't see any of the three daily newspapers seriously questioning how exactly the process was flawed and there has been no questioning of the Prime Minister by the media on this. Why? I don't know. Ask them.


But I did come away with the most unnecessary suspicion that the real reason for Mr. Dulalchan's rejection by the Government was not the allegedly "flawed" process but the fact that Mr. Dulalchan is of East Indian heritage. Do I have any evidence that this may be so? None whatsoever! It's just a nagging suspicion in the back of my brain that I can't get away from.


And then the Express reports in an exclusive headline on a Sunday that my friend Gary Griffith is tipped to be the next CoP!  Well, you won't be surprised to learn that I was as pleased as I ought to have been. I think he's a good choice and a good guy. But I've already confessed my bias.


So? What's my problem? In one sentence, my problem is that I don't for the life of me understand how the process that threw up Mr. Dulalchan as being the best candidate, can be flawed and therefore he (Dulalchan) should be rejected, but that we should not reject the third candidate (who would have been my first choice) using the same process.


Quite frankly, this whole thing has a most ugly smell to it. And Mr. Griffith's appointment (because from all newspaper reports it looks like it will happen next week) will be most unfairly tarnished by those who believe that race had everything to do with Mr. Dulalchan's rejection. And the truth is that at least half the country is going to believe that!  This is not at all happy; not for the country, not for the Government, not for any of the candidates, and certainly not for the citizens who are being taken for complete bobolees.


The democracy of our Republic is threatened ... seriously threatened ... when we allow our politicians to act as they please and not account to us properly. This issue ought to be addressed not on the basis of race or on who is whose friend, but on principle. Anything else is dangerous and divisive. And up to now it is not being addressed properly.

FERRYGATE ... WHY CAN'T WE GET PROPER ANSWERS?

There are a couple of truisms that are so basic, they hardly need repeating. And yet, sometimes it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of them so that we don't forget them. The first truism that I thought of in this #@&*% ongoing scandal with the infamous Galleons Passage ferry is that there is only one reason for government; only one reason for politics: to make life better for the people! Full stop! There is no other reason!


The second truism is a little more nuanced: it is when a man is telling you something that you don't understand, ninety-eight percent of the time it is because he doesn't want you to understand. Two percent of the time it is because he doesn't understand what he is saying.


So, I approach this ferry business again and ask myself what exactly is it that the various Government Ministers (Imbert, Young, Sinanan etc.) don't want me to understand? I mean, their statements and those of their surrogates on the ferry just don't make sense. Take,  for example, the latest statement coming out of NIDCO (the Government entity that is supposed to be in control of the ferry and its operations. First of all, the newspapers reported that Minister Sinanan questioned the authenticity of a report from Lloyd's Register that identified around 100 defects some of them quite serious) in the ferry. The statements from the various Government Ministers  were to the effect that the allegations of Opposition Senators Mark and Hosein that Lloyd's had put out a damning report earlier this month (July) were based on a fictitious report ... a fake report.  Aided and abetted by the three daily newspapers (who collectively seem intent on not reporting on this matter fairly or accurately and certainly have not seriously questioned the Government spokesman about it) the government spokesmen at first denied the Lloyd's report completely. Then, seemingly out of the blue, The National Infrastructure Development Company (NIDCO) then takes Lloyd's Register to task  saying that while the Lloyd's report identified 92 non-conforming issues on the ferry, the survey which was paid for and delivered on July 11 was done without a physical inspection of the vessel by Lloyd's.
To which I can only say "WHAT"?!?


What happened to the fake report? So there was a report after all? Why didn't the Ministers say that there was a report but they considered it inadequate because of whatever? Why attack the Opposition Senators and their credibility?


And then we were told that the ferry would be in operation within two or three weeks of its arrival. But NIDCO's chairman Herbert George is now being reported as saying that any delays  resulting from making the vessel compliant in order to work the seabridge is "...not a consideration. Safety is more important to us, as long as it takes to get it right." Which means what? Because the way I read that is that the ferry won't be in service within two or three weeks of its arrival down here!


I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. There are so many other issues that it boggles the mind. For example, we were told that the ferry was going to Cuba for ten days to have a canopy installed and some other very minor works done at a cost of a little more than US$300,000. No explanation was ever given (and no newspaper ever asked) why these minor works could not have been done in Trinidad. As it is, the ferry spent more than five weeks in Cuba and eventually left there reportedly with certain other works to be done down here! Again, WHAT?


We have been consistently lied to about this ferry and about everything connected with it so that nobody knows the truth. Why? What is it that the Government Ministers do not want us to know or understand? Because when we don't know or don't understand very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions arise that there may be some sort of corrupt activity lurking somewhere in the background. As to who might have "dipped his hand in the cookie jar", I haven't a clue. I can't even say that somebody did "dip his hand" in. But I can and do say that things are not at all clear ... or put another way, this story is as clear as mud. I can and do say that alarm bells are going off. Is it a false alarm? Maybe, but shouldn't we check it out? What if it isn't a false alarm? Why can't we get a straigt answer? Why is it that the newspapers are not asking the hard questions? Incompetence? Bias? What?


And to end up with the first truism with which I began this piece, a government can NOT make life better for the people if it won't tell the people the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Obfuscations and outright lies on anything simply destroys the democracy.

THE 'NOW-YOU-SEE-IT-NOW-YOU-DON'T' FERRY

It is impossible to get a clear picture of what is happening with the "now-you-see-it-now-you--don't" Galleons Passage ferry. The three newspapers in this country  (deliberately or incompetently ... you choose) have simply been reporting what NIDCO has been feeding them and if they have done any independent research they certainly haven't reported on it. Why they haven't is, of course, a rather serious question that deserves to be answered. That we will never get a proper answer from any of the newspapers as to why they haven't been reporting and asking questions  is a given. I have never seen any of them ever admit either to incompetence or bias. And I cannot think of any another as to why their collective reporting has been so shallow.


Let's start from the beginning:
a) When the new PNM Government came into power at the end of 2015 one of it's earliest decisions was to scrap the old ferry arrangement that the previous PP Government had in place. There were various reasons given which can be summed up by the allegations that the whole process in giving the contract for that ferry reeked of corruption and that in any case the ferry was not working well.
b) The next thing was that in January of this year with the 'sea bridge' collapsing the Minister of Finance announced in Parliament that a brand new ferry had  been purchased for US$17.5 million and it would be here by the end of March.
c) We were then told that this brand new ferry was coming from China and would have to go to Cuba to get some extra toilets and a canopy installed on the sundeck for US$350,000. Nobody bothered to ask (the newspapers again) why the extra work was being done in Cuba and why it couldn't be done in Trinidad. I guess that is too complicated a question to ask.
d) Then we find out that this ferry had been ordered by a Venezuelan businessman to operate on a river but that he couldn't pay for it so we got it. Questions: did this Venezuelan businessman pay any money down? Did he lose his deposit and did we get the benefit of that deposit? If not, why not? If we did, what was the amount that we saved?
e) Then the ferry's sailing date is postponed and then when it finally leaves Shanghai it sails south to Hong Kong before sailing north again passing Shanghai on its way to Hawaii. Why? This didn't make sense but I guess there was a good reason. But don't you think that we should know? Or is this a State secret?
f) Then it trundles across the Pacific at the slow speed of 11 knots ... which is about 13 miles an hour. Now, pay attention because then we are told that the ferry will be here by mid April. But if you did the maths you would have seen that there was no way that the ferry could have been here before end April/early May.
g) Then we are told that the brand new ferry suffered a mechanical problem in its journey across the Pacific and needed a new part when it arrived in Acapulco and so it had to wait for the part to arrive. But, hello! The last time I looked there was a rather magical device called a radio. You are going to tell me that the crew didn't know that the part had failed and didn't radio ahead for the part so that it would be waiting for them on arrival in Acapulco? Again, the newspapers (all three) don't ask these questions. Why?
h) Then the boat finally gets to Cuba where we are told that here will have to be some extensive refitting and two more engines have to be installed. To which I say 'what'?! When did they know this? And why, if they knew it from before couldn't all the parts have been ordered and waiting in Cuba for the ferry to arrive? Again, the three newspapers are like the famous three little monkeys who hear nothing, see nothing and say nothing.
i) Then we are told that these extra works will now cause the boat to be here in mid July. To which I can only say 'Really'?


Other questions also come up that haven't been asked by our mainstream media. For example, the distance in sea miles between Port of Spain and Scarborough is approximately 90 miles. Do the maths. This ferry is reported to cruise at 11 knots (approximately 13 miles an hour). There is no way that it can do that journey in 3 to 3 1/2 hours at that speed. So? How fast is it? And is that speed fully laden or empty? Because an empty boat is faster than a fully laden one. Again, the press hasn't asked this question! Why?


I'm not going to go on. But you get the point. At the end of the day the most important question is will the @#$%^&* ferry do the job that it is supposed to do? I sincerely hope so, for the livelihoods of a lot of people are depending on it. But after that question is answered then, at the very least all the other questions (including those that I haven't asked) need to be answered ... by everybody!


Finally, to the three newspapers, I honestly don't mind if you are biased and do not want to ask questions that are embarrassing to the political party that you support. But, if that is the case, then be honest and confess to your bias. If you haven't asked the questions that need to be answered because of incompetence then, again, confess to your incompetence. And if there is another reason why you didn't want to ask these questions then tell us what that reason is. Because, quite frankly, your silence on this leaves the ordinary thinking person with most unfortunate and unnecessary suspicions that are not good for confidence in the democratic process.

FIXING OUR THINKING ... AND THUS FIXING OUR PROBLEMS

Is poverty the result of laziness, immorality and irresponsibility? If people made better choices, worked harder, stayed in school, got married, didn't have children they couldn't afford, spent wisely and saved more, would they escape poverty?


This is essentially the story that we tell ourselves about why people are poor. Looking at the history of our country from the very beginning, but especially from 1956 to date, I reject this conclusion.. Low wages, lack of good jobs, the poor quality of too many schools, a banking system that rips off the "non-rich" (if I can coin a word), the lack of marriageable males in poor, black communities like Laventille, the ongoing discrimination against mainly poor, black males coming from communities like Laventille and Beetham, the lack of effective governmental support for institutions like the Family Planning Association (and please note that the key word here is "effective") all contribute to the tsunami of poverty engulfing us.


It used to be that there was a belief that if you worked hard and got a good education that you would benefit from upward income mobility. Certainly, that is what Eric Williams and his PNM preached in the 1950's and 1960's. And to a large extent he was right. He lifted the educational standards of the country and made education available to a wide swath of the citizenry who had never had the opportunity to go to school before. The country lurched forward by leaps and bounds.


But the problems of the fifties were very different from the problems of the eighties. By the end of the eighties trickle down economics as promoted by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were the order of the day. A.N.R. Robinson's NAR came to power preaching this gospel and changed the economic system in ways that essentially ignored the poor, arguing strongly that allowing a few people to make money would allow them to create jobs ... classic "trickle down" theory.


In the debate on the NARs first budget in 1987 I conceded in the Senate that the NAR's solutions would right the country's perilous economic situation, but I argued that it would be at the expense of the poor who would get poorer and benefit the rich who would get richer. I take no joy in time proving me to be right.


Unfortunately, Patrick Manning continued Robinson's economic policies as has every government since 1991. I argued then that the banks needed to be brought under control, that they were ripping off poor people. Unfortunately, nobody (except the people being ripped off ... but they had no power anyway) bothered to listen.


And so, today here we are: in a mess of our own making and pretending to be surprised. Without saying it out loud, we perpetuate the myth that poverty is a result of personal immaturity and irresponsibility and that all would be right in our world if only poor people  would know their place and work hard.


We continue to tinker with a broken education system that is simply not preparing our children for the challenges of the 21st century. Ask yourself this question and answer it honestly: if we were to blow up the education system this afternoon so that there was absolutely nothing left and we had to start again from scratch would you put back the exact same system tomorrow morning, or would you put back something different? Only one person has ever told me that he would put back the exact same system! So? Why do we simply tinker with the system? Why don't we start to think out of the box" and come up with new ideas?


This essay started out as a "crie de couer" for the poor people of this country. But in writing this I realized ... hey! Wait a minute! Who are the poorest people in this country? And the answer is the children. They own nothing and have no vote or control over their future.


We owe it to them to fix the system and come up with the same type of radical thinking that Williams did in the 1950's. It is a truism that problems cannot be solved with the same kind of awareness that created them in the first place.


There are solutions. That is the good news. But all the decision makers in our society are bound and gagged by traditional thinking and self-interest. And that is the bad news.

WHAT HAS THIS PNM ADMINISTRATION ACTUALLY CHANGED?

Listening to Finance Minister Colm Imbert's mid year review last week and then to his extraordinary attack the day after on several economists who had dared to say that they disagreed with him, got me to thinking. What exactly has changed in the two and a half years that Mr. Imbert and his Party have been in power? And are these changes for the better? Are we all better off now than we were in September 2015?


Well, I suppose that some people are better off now. I mean, Dr. Rowley, Stuart Young, Colm Imbert et al clearly are. They hold the reins of power, travel all over the world as far away as China and Australia, have the police clear the traffic out of the way so that they don't have to put up with the long delays that we ordinary 'plebs' have to face on a daily basis, are able to take their children to army shooting ranges and allow them to handle high powered weapons in breach of the laws of this land without penalty, can fraternize with known gangsters ... I'm sorry, I meant 'community leaders' ... without anybody really raising an eyebrow, can buy boats with taxpayers' money and not have to give the general public any real information as to the true cost of same or why they are doing things that don't make sense. (For example, can anybody explain why the Galleons Passage is going to Cuba for extra toilets and a canopy to be installed at a cost of some US$300,000  and why that work could not have been done in Trinidad?) The list goes on, but you get the point: some people are better off.


But are the rest of us better off? Have things changed for the better or for the worse for the rest of us? Certainly, most people that I talk to say that the crime situation bothers them enormously. Everybody that I talk to says that they either know somebody or are related to somebody who has been the victim of a crime. The murder rate is up ... by a lot! People have no faith in the police at all (but then , to be fair, I don't think that this last comment reflects a change ... just that things seem to have gotten worse).


Financially, most people seem to be worse off. The guy I buy my doubles from in St. James on a Saturday morning tells me that his business is down from a few years ago while his costs have gone up. A lot of people seem to have lost their jobs. Except for those lawyers lucky enough to get government work every lawyer that I talk to says that his business is down. (Okay, I know that a lot of people won't cry about that one!) Doctors also complain that they are seeing less people in their waiting rooms as people are increasingly reluctant to seek medical attention in the hope that two asprins and bed rest will cure whatever ails them. Getting foreign exchange to pay legitimate bills has become a nightmare. One person I know tells me that she can't get enough legitimate money to send for her son in university in Canada so she has to buy foreign exchange on the black market at TT$8 to US$1. This has made it much more expensive for her family and they have been forced to cut back on other things in order to keep their child in food and lodging in Canada. She wonders how all these companies like Starbucks, KFC etc. seem to have no problems in paying their royalties (which both she and I believe must run into millions) when she can't get Canadian $1,000 a month to send for her son. I tend to agree with her. It doesn't seem right. So I suppose that those big companies are better off?! Certainly, they don't seem to have foreign exchange problems. My friend, though, certainly is not.


So? Despite all the rhetoric, can anybody tell me what exactly has changed in the last two and a half years? Because from my perspective the only changes that I can see are for the worse. And if Mr. Imbert can really see clearly now that the rain has finally gone, can he tell us exactly where he thinks that we will be this time next year? What are his bench marks for a better life? By what standards does he say that we should judge him? Because at some stage he and his gang have to take responsibility. And it is only fair that he should tell us by what standards we should judge him. After all, surely that is a reasonable request?


I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is only one reason for politics ... one reason for government. To make life better for the people! Full Stop! There is no other reason!!

THAT PESKY NO CONFIDENCE MOTION

A lot of people will say that it is about time that the Opposition filed a Motion of no confidence in Rohan Sinanan, the erstwhile and seemingly hapless Minister of Works over his bungling of the ferry issue. That matter alone should have resulted in his dismissal from the Cabinet a long time ago ... although to be fair to him, I heard him on the television this morning seeming to cast some blame for the present imbroglio on his predecessor, the equally hapless Fitzgerald Hinds (which may or my not be true).


However, an equal number of people will simply sneer and rock back in their seats and say in effect that it won't matter a hoot because the Government has a built in majority and therefore the Motion will most certainly be defeated.  But those persons will be missing the point of a no confidence Motion. The point of using such a device (a Motion of no confidence) is to place on the record all of the things that an Opposition is complaining about pertaining to a particular issue and also to place on the public record the Government's response to the charges. That can make things very sticky for a Government around election time, especially if the replies are patently weak. Its hard to go against something that you have said on the record without looking like a liar or a fool ... or both!


Of course, the Government can drag out the debate ... which is most likely what will happen in this case. You see, such a motion can only be heard on the last Friday of every month, which is always designated as 'Private Members' Day', which means the day that ordinary Members of Parliament can bring a matter to be debated. The Government of the day can effectively stifle debate by causing the House to be adjourned early thus preventing further discussion of the issue at hand, at least until the Government has an answer to the particular issue being debated. It would obviously be in the Government's best interests to delay having this debate until such time as the Galleons Passage ferry finally arrives from its seemingly never ending journey from China and it (the Government) has something concrete to show besides Mr. Imbert's promises, which, sadly, are taken with more than a pinch of salt by most people.


What is most likely to happen is that the Government will probably allow the mover of the Motion (in this case, the Opposition Leader) to make her presentation and then either shut down the debate right after she has finished, or have one Government speaker reply and then adjourn the House. Then do not have the debate resume until that Chinese built ferry finally arrives ... which looks like sometime around the end of May/early June  ... if we're lucky!!


The Government would take a few blows, but at least once the Galleons Passage was here it would have something to show the voting public and it's PR machine could go to work with some semblance of truthfulness. Expect some shenanigans on Friday. Exactly what those shenanigans will be, is anybody's guess, but do not expect a conclusion of this debate. Its not in the Government's interests to have that debate right now ... and (as Camille Robinson-Regis reminds us) they're in charge!

UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS THE CROWN

I can't now remember who first wrote the story "Uneasy Lies The Head That Wears The Crown" but I do remember having to read it in the original Latin. Basically, the story was about a poor man who was hauled before the king for some minor infraction. Before the king sentenced him the poor man said to the king that he couldn't possibly understand the stress that a poor man had to suffer. The king answered him by asking if he (the poor man) didn't think that kings suffered even greater stress than poor people. The poor man scoffed at this and said how he would love to be king, even if only for a day.


The king then said okay, but the deal was that the poor man would have to sit on the throne for the whole day and not get off. The poor man happily agreed to this and they exchanged places. The poor man looked at the king down below and asked how he could possibly regard this job as stressful, to which the king quietly replied 'look above you'.


Hanging by a horse's hair was a razor sharp, huge scimitar (sword). If the hair broke there was no way that the occupant of the throne could escape. And the slightest breath of air could cause the hair to break. The poor man understood then what stress the king had as at any moment his life could be ended while all the poor man had to worry about was putting food on his table.


All of the recent goings on inside the Government reminded me of this story, for it is common knowledge that Dr. Rowley wanted the job of Prime Minister and did all that he could to dethrone and defame his predecessor, Patrick Manning. Now that he has got the job he is becoming painfully aware of the various scimitars hanging by horses' hairs over his head.


I'm not going to bother commenting about the Daryl Smith imbroglio. That story in itself speaks volumes for itself. But there are other "swords". Take, for example, the Maxie Cuffie matter. The unfortunate Mr. Cuffie suffered a serious and debilitating stroke that has left him incapacitated for the last six months. No right thinking person can do anything but wish Mr. Cuffie a full and speedy recovery. But the business of the country is not about feeling empathy for an individual. The business of the country needs to be carried on a daily basis and will not wait indefinitely for an individual (no matter how deserving) to get better. Six months ... half a year ... is too long to wait and it doesn't matter how good a person Mr. Cuffie is. What matters is the answer to the simple question: can he do his job as a Parliamentary Secretary and as a Member of Parliament? If not, then the interests of the country require that he be replaced in both positions as soon as possible. And the next question: is he coming back now? If not, when?


And by the way, section 84 of the Constitution reads "A Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary shall not enter (emphasis mine) upon the duties of his office unless he has taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance for the due execution of his office (emphasis mine). In other words, in order to take up his new position the unfortunate Mr. Cuffie will have to be sworn in. Simple question: when is this going to happen?


And the list of problems goes on. There is bringing Ms. Marlene McDonald back into the Cabinet for the third time in the short life of this Government. People in the know say that this was done to shore up Dr. Rowley in the upcoming internal PNM elections. There are unconfirmed rumors that certain elements inside the PNM are planning a "palace coup"  and Ms. McDonald's appointment is to strengthen the Prime Minister's hand in the internal elections. Is this true? I honestly don't know. But the story sounds plausible. There are certain persons who are nothing if not ambitious and some of them have major backing from very wealthy financiers. Certainly, a Prime Minister who wants to keep his job will pay attention to such rumors and take steps to counteract any possible actions that might be being planned to remove him.


Then there is the infamous Galleons Passage or "Ferrygate" affair. Minister Imbert took great umbrage the other day when it was suggested that the boat wouldn't be here until May. Speaking personally, I don't see how it can possibly be here before June ... but that's not my point. My point is that it is clear that there are massive problems with the sea bridge and as Prime Minister that particular buck has to stop with Dr. Rowley.


And again the list goes on. The economy. Crime. Education. Health care. You name it. But the point here is that I am certain that Dr. Rowley had simply no idea how difficult it was/is to run a country. Certainly, one is entitled to ask whether or not he understands that even now. There are multiple reports of his playing golf during the week at times when one would reasonably expect him to be at his desk.

THE TOP TEN PROBLEMS FACING TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

I have been thinking about our (T&T's) problems. And because I am firmly of the view that if you can't say something in one sentence you can't say it at all, I am going to set out what in one sentence each what I think are the ten biggest problems that we have. You will realize that it will probably take a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to discuss each one properly. I don't propose to do that. I simply propose to list the "top ten" problems in the order that I see them as being important.  If you disagree with my order or even feel that some other problem/s is/are bigger and either should be higher up my scale or that something on my scale shouldn't be there, then feel free to say so. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and the first step in our journey ought to be articulating clearly each and every problem that we are facing. Incidentally, my list is not intended to be political or critical of anybody ... it is simply intended to be a discussion point and to try and come to a consensus as to the way forward. And, yes, I personally do have some ideas but as Chairman Mao once said, "if you want to lead the people, lead from behind". The point here is to promote a national discussion without rancor or finger pointing. It matters little at this point who is to blame for the sinking ship. The damned ship has hit an iceberg and is sinking. Rather than quarrel about whose fault it was that the ship hit the iceberg, I think that we should talk about how to save the lives of everyone on board.


So here is my list of the top ten problems that we are facing:
1) Lack of economic opportunity and employment;
2) Safety, security, wellbeing;
3) Lack of education;
4) Health security;
5) Food and water security;
6) Government accountability and transparency/corruption;
7) Racial conflict;
8) Poverty;
9) Inequality (income, discrimination);
10) Climate change.


Okay. That's my list. What's yours?

THE BAFFLING APPOINTMENT OF MARLENE McDONALD

Let's understand something: on the face of it Marlene McDonalds appointment on the face of it makes no sense. First of all, she was fired from the Cabinet when an issue arose concerning her husband having a job in her office and also getting certain favours. Indeed, that matter (which goes on back to 2016 is reportedly still under "investigation". (One can't help but wonder how long this "investigation" is going to go on and whether it would have been concluded by now if she was a different person ... but that's another story!) Then she was reappointed to the Cabinet but fired when a person who is reputed to be a gang leader attended her swearing in. And now she is reappointed for the third time because the Prime Minister says that everybody deserves a second chance. (I suppose he also means a third and possibly even a fourth and a fifth chance. But, again, that's another story.)




No. Her appointment as a Minister in the Ministry of Public Communications makes no sense and is completely baffling, unless ... wait a minute! Isn't Maxie Cuffie the substantive Minister? And didn't he suffer a massive stroke some five months or so ago? And haven't there been rumours going around that he is not getting better but is still severely incapacitated or even dead? And wouldn't the Prime Minister know whether or not the stricken Mr. Cuffie will in fact be well enough to resume his duties by Easter? (I know that they said that he was coming home at Easter but the innuendo from that statement was that he was going to be well enough to resume his duties then.)




Now, a few questions: what if the unfortunate Mr. Cuffie is in fact dead?  Well sooner or later that will have to come out. But from the Government's point of view the later it comes out the better because they would not want  by-election in Mr. Cuffie's constituency right now. They would probably lose and they would have to hold one if he was dead.




So, what if he isn't dead, but is so seriously disabled from his stroke that he can't function as a Minister but he can still hang on to his seat in Parliament? Now this makes a little more sense. The question of a by-election can be deflected by saying that he will be able to resume "limited" duties to look after his constituents and in any case the stress of running the Ministry is being handled by Ms. McDonald. Neat, eh?


What do I think? Well, I have absolutely no evidence one way or the other, but on the balance of probabilities I think that Mr. Cuffie is still alive but that he is severely incapacitated. I think that it is even quite possible that he will return at Easter, but that when he does we will see that he really will not be able to function properly.  I think that the Prime Minister knowing this is "taking in front" by appointing Ms. McDonald.




Of course, all this may be complete hogwash and Mr. Cuffie is well and fine (to which we will all sing 'Glory Hallelujah') and there is absolutely no hidden motive or agenda here. But this Government has told so many conflicting things on so many different issues ranging from the Tobago ferry to the A&P 'oilgate' scandal that it is hard to discern when we are being told the truth and when we are having the wool pulled over our eyes. In this regard, Dr. Rowley and his Ministers have only themselves to blame if they complain that people don't trust them.


Of course, one has only to look at Dr. Rowley's speeches on what he thought was misbehavior on the part of the UNC government to think about what he would be saying now if they had done this! I don't understand how right thinking people cannot see the hypocrisy at play here. Unless of course, the rule is that there is one law for the PNM and another for everybody else.




One final point, can anybody explain why the mainstream media has not tried to telephone and speak with Mr. Cuffie personally? Because I have seen no report that any reporter from any newspaper has so tried. I would have thought that in a matter such as this that such an action would have been done not once, but many times. Instead, the mainstream media simply reports in parrot fashion the medical bulletins coming out from the Government. This lack of action on the media's part raises certain ugly suspicions that are probably better left unexpressed at this time. But they(the media) should know that thinking people are taking note of their behavior.

THE FIRES IN PORT OF SPAIN

Like most people, I have been absolutely dismayed at the unrest that has been seething in East Port of Spain. There were quite a few people that I spoke to who were/are very against the rioters/demonstrators (or whatever you want to call them). The general feeling was that the police should just go in and "clean them up", by which I understood to mean that all the demonstrators should be killed and thrown in the Gulf of Paria. What these people saw was a threat to their very existence ... their comfortable way of life.


What I saw was something different. I saw a beaten, downtrodden people who had literally reached the end of their rope. I saw a people who were still somehow hoping that somebody somewhere would somehow miraculously make things right for them and allow them to have a little place in the sun but losing faith that the prayed for miracle will ever come. God, they feel, has really abandoned them.


What I am seeing is that it is not going to take a lot to push these people over the edge. If a man feels that he is in a corner and that there is no way out for him, then he won't care if he takes the whole damned society down with him.  And people are reaching that stage now ... if they haven't reached it already!


No. Now more than ever we need to sit down as a society and come up with solutions that will get us out of this terrible morass. We need to sit down and discuss a complete revamping of the education system which has failed us terribly ... even our so-called prestige schools are little better than dumps ... and don't even talk about our health care system which is worse than awful. Our security system also needs a radical overhauling.


Look: the truth is that there is little difference (if any) between the policies of either the PNM or the UNC. There are arguments about 'who t'ief more' that can and will never be settled. There are also arguments about who are better administrators of the economy ... but there are never any serious policy discussions and I defy anybody to lay out for me the policy differences between the two parties. Because I certainly can't see them!


And let's agree that we should stop blaming the Prime Minister and his government for everything. The problems that they are facing weren't created overnight. But while not blaming them for everything let's also tell them in no uncertain terms to lead, follow or get out of the way. If you don't have a clue how to fix the problems then say so. There is only one reason for politics; there is only one reason for government: to make life better for the people!! There is NO other reason! Period!! So fix it or go. But stop all the 'shillyshallying'. Fix it!!


That solutions do exist is a given. There are always solutions to every problem. Some may not be either acceptable or palatable, but there are solutions. If we really want to turn this place around we need to start a national dialogue now that is policy and solution oriented. We need to start discussing ideas without disparaging those whom we perceive to be against us.


I have a thousand ideas on how to make this little republic a better place. I have put forward some of them and will do so again in the future. Unfortunately, my efforts to discuss issues like education, health care, national security, etc., have all fallen so far on stony ground.  That's all right. I don't pretend to be the Oracle of Delphi with all the answers  and will happily accept other ideas that can unite us and take us forward. But right now, can we not see that people ... real people ... citizens of our country are really hurting. Can't we stop being fearful of them and figure out how to help turn them into valuable and productive citizens? Because if we don't, the fire in East Port of Spain will spread and engulf all of us ... and probably sooner rather than later.

THE S***HOLE PRESIDENT

As a Caribbean man I take strong exception to the President of the United States calling the Region in which I was born and by extension the country where I was born a s***hole. Look, nobody can deny that there is a lot in both the Region as well as Trinidad & Tobago that needs fixing. Nobody can deny that Haiti which has real problems and without a massive amount of real aid (and not aid with strings attached) is unlikely to emerge into the sunlight any time soon. (And by the way, I am aware that he didn't specifically name T&T but it is clear that we are lumped into his definition of "s**hole countries".)


But that fascist who sits at the head of what is today the most powerful country on the planet ought to remember a few home truths:


First of all, Haiti didn't get where it is today without a great deal of "help" from France. And yes, the word "help" is deliberately put in quotation marks. After the (successful) war of independence in Haiti France agreed to give that country it's independence provided that Haiti pay to France a crippling amount of "reparations". The payments continued throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th. These payments were to compensate France for the loss of it's colony and it's properties. (By the way, amongst the "properties" lost were the slaves!!)


Now, the jackdonkey that is the President of the United States today seems to have conveniently forgotten that one of the root causes of the rise of Hitler and the Second World War was the penalties that the victorious allies imposed on defeated Germany and the reparations that Germany was forced to pay to them. The result of these reparation payments by Germany caused massive hardship in that country and gave rise to the demagogue that was Hitler who blamed the Jews for Germany losing the war. If it wasn't for the treacherous Jews Germany would never have lost the war!! At least, that was Hitler's argument which resonated with the German people in much the same way that Trump's racist words and incitements do with ignorant white Americans today.


The point here is that except for the names and a few other changes, Haiti's story is not dissimilar to Germany's after the First World War. The difference was that Germany had the wherewithal to rise again from the ashes of defeat and rebuild when Hitler (having come to power) stopped the reparation payments. If Haiti had stopped the reparation payments to France, the latter would simply have invaded Haiti and enslaved that country all over again. In other words, the Haitians had no choice!


But the racist jackdonkey that is the president of the United States today doesn't see that! Anybody who isn't pure white (e.g. Nordic) just isn't welcome in a country that was in fact built on genocide (but that is another story again)!


No. I am personally offended. And I am just as offended by the seeming craven cowardice of my Government which has to date failed to stand up to the bullying jackdonkey and telling him where to get off. The jackdonkey should be told bluntly that his brand of racism is offensive to all right thinking peoples around the world.


And to those who say that we should just keep quiet because the United States can do us great harm, I reply that I prefer to die a man than to live the life of a coward. And to the racist jackdonkey I say, just because we speak with an accent do not make the mistake of believing that we think with one.

TWO KINDS OF TRUTH

I read somewhere once that there are two kinds of truth: the first is the unalterable bedrock of what actually happened or was actually said; the second is the malleable truth of politicians, corrupt lawyers and their clients, and charlatans bent and molded to serve whatever purpose is at hand. (I'm going to refer to them as a "Truth One'' or a "Truth Two" respectively.)




I was reminded by this when I saw all the events of December, 2017 and before unfold before my unbelieving eyes. First of all, there was the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago expostulating before an incredulous public that it didn't matter whether or not the emails in the infamous 'emailgate' scandal were false; what was important was what he called "the substance". Well? What was the substance of those allegations? Answer: that the then Prime Minister and several then senior Ministers conspired to murder a journalist. Okay. So? This is a most serious allegation to make. Where or what is the evidence of it? Answer: there is absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever! So what "substance" could Mr. Al Rawi  possibly be talking about? This is obviously a "Truth Two".




Then we have the 'fake oil' scandal. The allegation (which seems to be a fact) here is that the oil company, A & V Drilling, overcharged Petrotrin by almost $100 million for oil that was never delivered. This is a "Truth One". But then Dr. Rudy Moonilal stands up in Parliament (and later repeats an allegation outside of Parliament) that basically said that Prime Minister Dr. Rowley was part and parcel of this overbilling. Now this is obviously a "Truth Two". Apart from Dr. Moomilal's allegation there is no evidence whatsoever that Dr.Rowley is in fact guilty of anything.




But what is most interesting here is the way that both the police and the mainstream media have treated with Dr. Moonilal's charge. When Dr. Rowley made his infamous email allegations the press and the police were all over the scandal and the denials of the then Prime Minister and her Ministers were met with scoffs and scorn. This time the press and the police have simply ignored the allegation that Dr. Rowley may have had his hand in the proverbial cookie jar and have simply willed the potential scandal away. Why? If there is nothing there then Dr. Rowley deserves to be comprehensively cleared. But if there is something there then equally something should be done. Immediately.




Quite frankly, the very different treatment by both the media as well as the police give rise to very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that are probably better left unexpressed at this time. But you don't have to be a genius to figure out what those suspicions are.




Then we have another example of a "Truth Two" taking place in November. Minister Stuart Young announced in early November that the Prime Minister had been invited to a conference in China at the end of November which was to be attended by ten world leaders. After that the Prime Minister was going to have a State visit in China. The only problem with this announcement was that there was no such conference taking place! But when this was pointed out to the Government, Minister Young angrily lashed out and said how the questions being asked were embarrassing to the Chinese Government!! To which I can only say what!? How? But "Truth Two's" don't depend on logic. They run on their own alternative facts.


Then we have the scandal over Massive Goseine's song about Rowley's mother and her counting. Of course, every West Indian understands exactly what this song is all about and to pretend that it is some form of art is just plain nonsense. The trouble here is not with the obvious vulgarity but with the very obvious hypocrisy of those who saw nothing wrong with the smut and racism of African calypsonians like CroCro and Sugar Aloes when they sang their smut about the UNC politicians. The truth is that the critics of Massive's song would be much more listened to if they had criticized the racist and smutty songs of the Black calypsonians in the first place. And the Indian community feels completely justified in turning to the Black critics of the song and thumbing their noses at them because of this hypocrisy on their part.


So, we are left with a "Truth One" which is that this country is hopelessly and helplessly polarized and divided along racial lines. We are left with a possible "Truth One" or a "Truth Two" (depending on which side of the racial divide that you sit) which is that the mainstream media is biased towards the PNM. And the last possible "Truth One" or a "Truth Two" (again depending on where you sit) is that the police service is also heavily biased towards the PNM. (This last is possibly the most worrying).


Can we fix this country? Yes. Do we want to fix it? Aaahh! That's the real question, isn't it? What do you think? Or, more importantly, what do you want?