OF DUCKS AND PUSSY CATS

The erstwhile leader of the People's Empowerment Party, Phillip Edward Alexander, and blogger Suzette Louwe, have both been asking some serious questions of UDECOTT about the cost of repairing both President's House (which was reported to cost some $89 million) and the Red House (which was reported to cost some $500 million).  UDECOTT has stonewalled their queries and have apparently threatened to sue Mr. Alexander whose posts on the subject do raise some serious questions as well as some very ugly suspicions.

Now, let's get something straight: repairs to an old property always cost more than if you were to knock down the old building and start afresh with a brand new one. Indeed, to my great chagrin I found this out the hard way when I bought an old house and have spent much more on repairing it than I would have if I had simply knocked it down and rebuilt a brand new house. But, you live and learn and that (for me) is water under the bridge.

My point is that I didn't really agree with either Ms. Louwe or Mr. Alexander that the reported costs of repairing both properties were exorbitant. On the other hand, the fact that UDECOTT has so steadfastly refused to be transparent about how the amount of  monies to repair the properties  were  arrived at  raised alarm bells in my mind. I mean, this is public money that was spent ... and it wasn't some small amount either! In the case of the Red House we are talking about  a half a billion dollars!! And this is at a time when we are in a very serious financial predicament!

It is my view that there is absolutely no good reason for UDECOTT to be silent on this matter and that the state enterprise should answer ALL the questions that both Mr. Alexander and Ms. Louwe have raised ... even if some might consider some of the questions frivolous.  If there was overspending we should know about it. But the truth is that there is another rather sinister aspect to all of this; the obvious reluctance of UDECOTT to be open and upfront can lead the reasonable person to conclude that UDECOTT is hiding something. And if the state enterprise is hiding something what is a reasonable deduction as to what they might be hiding if not some sort of  corruption?

Without the information being given to Ms. Louwe and Mr. Alexander it is impossible to say definitively that there is corruption. But the seeming reluctance to be open about the requested information can and does lead to very ugly and what ought to be most unnecessary suspicions that there is/was some sort of corruption being covered up. After all, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is most unreasonable to call it a pussy cat!

                                                 IS CAMILLE BELIEVABLE?


Okay. It's not only a new year but it is an election year. Before the end of this year there will be a general election in Trinidad & Tobago and a Presidential election in the United States.  For most people in the world the American election is obviously the more important and even down here there will be a lot of attention paid to everything that is going on in the world's most important super power. But, regardless of what happens up north the looming general elections in good old T&T will be uppermost in the minds of our citizenry.

And there is a lot to digest what with everything that has happened in the last four years; what with the closure of Petrotrin, the demonetization of the old one hundred dollar bills, the question of whether the police were right to descend upon an old lady who publicized a secretly recorded conversation with a sitting Member of Parliament that showed that the erstwhile MP was deliberatly refusing Government assistance to a citizen based on that citizen's alleged political support for the opposition UNC, the out of control crime situation, the collapsing health care system and the firing of a foreign doctor who publicised the terrible conditions in the San Fernando General Hospital, the flooding in South Trinidad and the apparent lack of any real response to the woes of thousands of citizens as a result, and the list goes on.

But what is more than interesting is the question of what exactly happened with the erstwhile former Minister of Planning, Camille Robinson-Regis when she deposited some $143,000 in cash and said that it came from another bank account. Unfortunately for the goodly Minister, the reports in the newspapers suggest that the monies did NOT come from the bank account that she said that it came from. Added to the mix is a statement from the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago when he said some two years ago that HE saw a letter from Republic Bank which said that the $143,000 in cash came from that bank.  Unfortunately, to date that alleged letter has not been produced.

The Express newspaper has published a report that raises some pretty serious questions over this whole affair. Mrs. Robinson-Regis has responded by effectively saying that she has done nothing wrong and that all of her critics, and especially the Express, can go to that proverbial hot place ruled by the Devil and not pass 'Go' or collect $200 while on their way!

I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then the odds of it being a pussycat are slim indeed.  And Mrs. Robinson-Regis should be aware that very ugly (and what should be most unnecessary) suspicions are being raised by her reluctance and seeming refusal to explain clearly her source of funds. The fact that the Prime Minister as well as the Attorney General have stood by her non-explanations hasn't helped the public perception that something is not right.  In fact, the public pronouncements of Dr. Rowley have only served to deepen the suspicion that there is some sort of cover up going on.

Look, Mrs. Robinson-Regis may very well have done nothing wrong and there may be a very simple explanation for where these monies came from. And this $143,000 may very well be entirely legitimate. But to date there hasn't been any good explanation of where the money came from. And that's the problem! Why can't we get an explanation? So? My questions to you are: in all of this do you think that Camille is believable? Do you think that she has done nothing wrong? Do you think that this matter is a relatively simple one and should have been brought to a conclusion one way or the other some time ago? Or do you think that there is something there that needs a proper explanation? Conversely, do you think that there is nothing there?