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!!