WASA'S 'DEVASTATING' DRY SEASON

Look, I'm the first to admit that we are in the throes of a dry season. I also have stopped watering my garden (thereby losing half of my plants and half of my lawn) and don't wash the car every week in an effort to do my own little bit to help conserve precious water. After all, if everybody cuts back on his/her water consumption there will be savings ... and every little bit helps. And no, I'm not some sort of hero ... just an ordinary person trying to help.


But what confuses me are the continuing reports in the mainstream media that this is a "devastating" dry season that is worse than usual and WASA has a real problem in keeping us all supplied BECAUSE of the dry weather. (No mention, of course, of the millions of gallons being lost on a daily basis because of leaky pipes!)


You see, I live in North Western Trinidad (Maraval to be precise). Now when we have a really bad dry season the hills in Maraval turn brown and by this time of year (the end of April) there are usually terrible forest fires raging in those hills. But ... guess what? This year I have seen no forest fires and the hills are still fairly green! Going into Diego Martin I find that the hills also look greener than they do during a really harsh dry season.  Now, the hills are not what you might call "lush" green, but they are certainly not brown ... which they normally are at this time of year.


In addition, there have been showers that have managed to keep lawns and plants alive in my neighbourhood.


So? What is going on? Are we really in the throes of a devastating dry season? Or are we being subjected to propaganda by the powers-that-be in order to "take in front" for the incompetence of those charged with providing us with a safe and secure water supply? Because, although I will readily confess to not having a PhD in meteorology my simple and most unscientific observation is that this particular dry season is not soooo bad ... which is what the authorities would have us believe.


So? Why are we getting these constant statements to the effect that this is the worst dry season for a long time? And why isn't the mainstream media reporting or questioning the statements about this being the worst dry season ever, etc.? Something here just doesn't add up. What? And why?

TO IMPEACH OR NOT TO IMPEACH

While the whole world is fixated on the Mueller report and whether or not President Trump should or should not be impeached, a lot of people have forgotten that we have going on in good old T&T our own little impeachment drama, which although not of earth shattering importance to the rest of the world, is of great importance to our democracy and how we govern ourselves. I am talking about the recommendation by the Law Association of Trinidad & Tobago  to the Prime Minister made some four or five months ago that he should trigger the provisions of section 137 of the Constitution which sets out how a Chief Justice might be removed from office. For the record, here is what the relevant parts of the section say:


"137(1) A Judge may be removed from office ... for misbehaviour, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with this provision.
        (3) Where the Prime Minister, in the case of the Chief Justice ... represents to the President that the question of removing a Judge under this section ought to be so investigated, then -
            (a) the President shall appoint  a tribunal ... ."


The section goes on to detail how the tribunal is to be appointed and is supposed to act or investigate. In other words, the Chief Justice is put on trial for the acts or decisions that may warrant removal from office. Eventually, the findings of the tribunal are sent to the Privy Council for a final decision.  It is important to note that triggering the impeachment process is NOT finding the Chief Justice guilty. It is simply saying, hey, there are a number of matters here that need to be answered which may or may not be a good reason to remove you from office if you are guilty of all or any of them.


There are a number of safeguards built into the whole impeachment process that can ensure that a Chief Justice is not dealt with unfairly ... and all right thinking peoples will agree entirely with these safeguards.  Our system of justice is sacrosanct. Without a fair system of justice that everybody buys into (regardless of one's political bias or interest) then what you have is a dictatorship ... benign or otherwise. And the safeguards are there to ensure that a politician just can't remove a judge or a Chief Justice just like that.


Now, there are, unfortunately. a fair number of questions hanging over the head of the current Chief Justice. Any fair minded person ought readily to concede that he may well be innocent of every single charge, just as he may be guilty of any or all of them. But what is clear is that there has been no open investigation and no opportunity for the embattled gentleman to put his answers. No matter how one might feel about the current Chief Justice ... whether he is good, bad or indifferent ... the point here is that both he and the country need to have the air completely cleared. If there is a stain then he ought to be removed. If there is no stain then he ought to be exonerated. But what we have now is that the current holder of that high office is operating under a very dark cloud of suspicion which is not good for him personally nor is it good for the country. One way or the other the air needs to be cleared.


The Constitution provides a beacon of principle and  democratic values to the country. The Prime Minister must pick up the baton which the Law Association has sent to him and trigger the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. But it needs to be clearly understood that the Chief Justice may very well be innocent of the various crimes and misbehaviours of which he stands accused and we all should be most wary of rushing to judgment merely because the process has been triggered.


And the Prime Minister should be acutely aware that perception is often reality and that  there is a perception amongst certain sections of our society that his refusal to date to trigger the impeachment process is based more on perceptions of race and of tribal loyalty than of what is best for the country. These perceptions are as unfortunate as they are dangerous for our society and it is necessary that they be addressed head on. Our justice system requires it. Indeed, the survival of our democracy demands it.

DEVALUATIONS AND ELECTIONS

In the past few days there has been an increased commentary by persons on both sides of the political divide about whether or not Trinidad & Tobago will devalue it's currency. Right now the official exchange rate is hovering around US$1 equals TT$6.75. However, there is a dearth of availability of US dollars for any reason ... whether legitimate or otherwise ... and the black market rate is now hovering around TT$9 equals US$1.


The authorities from time to time issue stern warnings about black market foreign currency deals, which warnings are cheerfully ignored by the populace as a whole. Indeed, unless you have a contact getting any amount of foreign currency is difficult if not impossible. One mother that I know was the other day desperately trying to get US$2,000 to send to her son who is in university in the States. On the one hand, its not a lot of money, but on the other hand the money is desperately needed by the young man to pay his rent and buy food! She couldn't get the foreign currency in time from the bank so she bought the money on the black market. When the bank finally came through (after about two weeks) she took the money from the bank and promptly resold it on the black market to recoup her loss when she was forced to buy.


Of course, the problem is exacerbated by the local banks who buy the foreign currency at comparatively low rates and resell it at a huge profit! But, at least they are legal! In any case, the (mis)behaviour of the banks is another story. It is suffice to note at this time that they are not at all innocent in this mess and have actually helped to exacerbate the problem with their greedy and predatory way of doing business.


In the meantime the country is bleeding heavily. Our foreign currency reserves are falling at an alarming rate and we now have less than a year of import cover. So? What should we do?


The Government spokesmen (and women) talk about "diversification". Sounds good, eh? But in reality how serious are they? Let me give you an example: Trinidad & Tobago imports tomatoes. Now, I am ashamed to admit that I haven't a clue how much a pound of tomatoes costs ... my wife does all of our groceries! But let's pretend for the sake of example that a pound of tomatoes costs an importer US$1 per pound. Now, if T&T were to devalue (and let's be drastic for the sake again of example) to say US$1 now equals TT$20 it won't take a genius to realize that the importation of tomatoes would no longer be a good business. People just wouldn't be able to afford to buy the imported product. The end result would be that local farmers would finally be able to compete with the international product. In other words, and using this rather over-simplified example, the devaluation would have allowed a certain diversification in a part of the agricultural sector.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that a devaluation would also cause a tidal wave throughout the local economy. For example, motor cars and trucks would all of a sudden become prohibitively expensive.  I'm sure you get my point. A devaluation is a fairly classic device that governments can use to prevent foreign exchange from leaking out.


Which brings me to my next point: devaluations always cause hardships in the society ... especially amongst the poorer classes. Everybody's life becomes more expensive and it becomes harder to make ends meet. It is no wonder, therefore, that most governments try desperately to avoid this step.  But a general election is due by September next year. The Government can borrow enough over the next few months that will allow the standard of living to be held or maintained ... more or less ... for another year, but it's room for maneuver is going to become more and more restricted as time goes by. Put another way, there is nothing on our economic horizon, either in terms of some miraculous bailout (like  a massive oil discovery) or in terms of new economic proposals that remotely look like an end to the economic hurricane that is battering us right now.


An early election would avoid the Government having to devalue the currency ... they could always do it after. But the truth is that a devaluation is beginning to look more and more like the only way out for us. I would love to be wrong on this, but I have a very real fear that if we don't bite this particular bullet soon our delaying "taking in front" will be even worse for us when our reserves finally run out and we are forced to go ignominiously cap in hand (as we did in the late eighties) to the IMF.

THE UNEXPLAINED WEALTH BILL

The principle that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty has been a bedrock principle of our law since almost the beginning of time.  It is also enshrined into our Constitution that no one shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. There is also the old adage that our legal system promotes that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang.


That is why I was most shocked and dismayed when I read Mr. Faris Al Rawi's latest attempt at closing loopholes that allow all kinds of criminals (especially white collar ones) to escape from the long arm of the law. Basically, the erstwhile Attorney General is saying that this Bill is necessary because there are too many people who have unexplained wealth and that  this proposed law is a way of catching them. Well, to be fair, he has a point there. I mean, for example,  does anybody remember the report of Planning Minister Camille Robinson Regis depositing some $143,000 in cash in a First Citizens Bank and there never being a satisfactory explanation given for that?  Was that transaction suspicious in your opinion? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so? Will the Honourable Attorney General explain where he and his wife, for example, found the money to buy a property in St. Clair which they are renting to the Government for some $23 million over the next three years? And if they inherited or were given that property is it reasonable to ask where the donor(s) of that very expensive property got the money in the first place? Is that suspicious in your view? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so?


I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Would it be reasonable (using these two examples) to launch probes into these matters? If not, why not? And if so, why? Continuing the use of these two examples, what if there was a change of Government tomorrow morning and the new Attorney General uses his position from behind the scenes to have these two politicians have their property frozen?  Would you say that this was politically motivated? If so, why would you say so? If not, why not?


And although the Attorney General points to safeguards in the Bill whereby persons such as the Director of Public Prosecutions have to sign off on any application to freeze the assets does anybody believe that the DPP, for example,  is really politically impartial? If you do, then why do you believe that? If you don't, then why do you believe that? Certainly, from where I sit there are certain questions that make me wonder about the DPP. For example, why has the infamous emailgate affair not been brought to a conclusion? Why hasn't the matter involving the drugs at former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar's home been cleared up? There are other matters to which no clear and reasonable answers have been forthcoming from the DPP or his office. His signal failure to deal with these matters gives rise to most unfortunate and unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed as to why he hasn't acted. And that's really the point. We have to be even more careful than the larger societies that our basic rights are not trampled upon because everybody knows everybody else.


The Bill is draconian. If you are accused your property can be frozen 'ex parte' , i.e., behind your back and without you getting any chance to say why this shouldn't happen. All of your assets are frozen! Full stop! And it is up to you to go and defend yourself. But (and here's the catch) if you hire a lawyer to defend you he has to be very careful that any monies that you use to pay his fees are free and clear, because if they are linked to you, his fees, that you have paid him to defend you, can be seized! Talk about a Catch 22! What lawyers do you know will want to do matters like this whereby simply for defending a client the lawyer can find himself being investigated and his assets being frozen as well?


So, you are put in the unenviable position of having your assets frozen ...and that includes your home, by the way ... and having no means to defend yourself (unless you have some wealthy relatives who love you very much) and having to fight the State with its comparatively unlimited resources. A really fair fight!


I am personally of the view that this proposed law will not be able to stand up in Court. But that will take years to be fought out and in the meantime a lot of mischief and expense can and will take place. That there is an abuse and that some people are getting away is readily admitted.  But the Bill as it stands is clearly an abomination. It sweeps up everybody ... not only the guilty. Our only real hope is that the nine Independent Senators vote against this Bill when it reaches the Senate. But it will only take one Independent senator for the Bill to pass! Will each and every one stand and vote against this Bill? Because you should know that they are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.