COVID 19 - IS THE END IN SIGHT?

 EVERYONE KNOWS  where I got my medical degree from and what an expert I am in all things relating to medicine and health. ( Hint: its the same place where the Health Minister got his medical degree and scientific knowledge and scientific expertise from!) So, armed with this great knowledge and expertise I have been thinking about this Covid pandemic and how we have been dealing with it so far. To make a long story short, I have been looking at early 20th century history and in particular at the Spanish Flu epidemic that took place around 1920 and lasted for two to three years. 

My reading and my studies (don't laugh: remember that I went to the same place that Minister Deyalsingh got his qualifications  from) have suggested to me that the Spanish Flu was an epidemic that was very similar in every way to the present Covid 19 pandemic. About 50 million people died or were infected by that virus which raged around the world (well, Europe and North America at least) for about three years before eventually dying out.  It seems that the Flu (which actually started in the United States and NOT Spain) started to become less and less severe before eventually becoming nothing more than a serious cold and disappearing from our radars for the last hundred years or so. 

My reading (and please remember my medical qualifications  and expertise when you read this) is that the world probably achieved herd immunity and at the same time the mutating virus became less and less severe and therefore less and less dangerous.  If I am right then it would seem that we are entering now the final stage of this pandemic and that by next Christmas we should more or less be out of the woods, for we already know that the Omricon variant is less dangerous than the Delta variant. If this trend continues then we are indeed nearing the end.

I have not discussed this with my fellow expert (the Minister of Health) but I am fairly certain that if I am right he will not only agree with me but claim credit for the ending of the pandemic.  Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less whether he agrees with me or not. I just want this thing to be over as soon as possible.  (If I turn out to be wrong, then Mr. Deyalsingh will no doubt tell everybody why you shouldn't listen to me - and he'd be right!) So until we know one way or the other just stay safe and get yourself vaccinated. WE are on the planet for only a very short while, but we stay dead for a llooonnnggg time!!

Merry Christmas, everybody.

WHAT HAS CHANGED?

 

A lot of people (including my wife) will be pleased with the announcement that the beaches will now be open from 5am to noon every day. But the question arises: what has changed? Is it that it was never dangerous to open the beaches? Or is it that the situation is more under control than it was before? Or is it that it was never dangerous to open the beaches but the Government wanted to appear as if it was doing something and was taking this pandemic seriously? Or is it something else? What?

I have argued for a long time that we simply haven't been told the truth about this pandemic or anything associated with it. I defy anybody to answer the question raised here with an answer  based on evidence and absolute knowledge. Because if yesterday it was dangerous to open the beaches then why is it not dangerous today? And if the argument is that it is only a limited opening, then why was it dangerous to have this limited opening yesterday and not today? 

There are too many unanswered questions that lead the casual observer to come to one of three conclusions: the first is that the Minister of Health and his minions really don't have a clue as to what they are doing and are operating more by 'vaps' than from the science; or secondly that they have been lying to us; or thirdly, a combination of the first two.

The problem is that the matter is far too serious to allow these guys to operate and not know what they are doing. We rely on them to be up to date on everything to do with this pandemic and also to know what to do. we aren't that stupid and we do understand that bright minds abroad in the big countries are also struggling with the virus. But that does not mean we can't or shouldn't be told the truth, no matter how bitter it might be. And my complaint in one sentence is that we haven't been told the truth - or at least, not the whole truth.

And that is the beginning and the end of the whole story. the question: do these guys know what they are doing is answered by the first question. Unfortunately, there is too much evidence (whether circumstantial or not) that suggests to the reasonable observer that they don't know what they are doing.

I was taught that if you van't say something in one sentence then you can't say it at all. So, in one sentence, what has changed to allow the Government to open the beaches? In one sentence!

REALLY LOOKING HARD AT THOSE THA RESULTS

 Everybody (well almost everybody) is quite pleased with the drubbing that the PDP gave to the PNM in the recent Tobago House of Assembly (THA) elections. And most people are pleased that young (he's 36) Farley Augustine has become the new boss of the THA (his correct title is Chief Secretary).

But it is probably a safe bet that nobody has really thought past the fact that  "the new broom" has come in with promises to stop the t'iefing and to make things more efficient.  Pay attention: in the 2021/2022 Budget debate in September last the PNM government allocated the record amount of $60 billion for the THA. So everybody thinks that Farley will have some nice dollars to spend. They would be wrong! He won't have a cent unless and until it lands in the THA bank account. Personally, I expect Colm to give him just enough to run his show, but no more than that!

An allocation in the budget is just that: an allocation. It doesn't mean a thing until the money actually is transferred. So although in theory Mr. Augustine will have a lot of money at his disposal, in practice he will have nothing unless that which the erstwhile Finance Minister gives him. And do you think that Colm will be generous or will he cry poverty?

And don't forget about the boats ... and the planes. Even at the best of times the ferries were breaking down.  Do you think that theses ferries (under the control of the PNM) will be better maintained than they were before? do you expect that the planes to Tobago will also be properly maintained? 

No. It is not unreasonable to think that  a vindictive PNM government will turn the screws (not so softly) on Tobago and that it will take  all of Mr. Augustine's ingenuity to try and keep his boat (pardon the pun) afloat. 

The Opposition will have to ask questions and put the pressure on in Port of Spain, but they don't have a lot in this particular affair. They can't expect to win in Tobago and without the PDP offering them something there won't be much for them to be motivated to help in any way. Frankly, it looks like Farley is on his own here. All right thinking souls will wish him luck because it will mean that the people (of Tobago) will win. But, honestly, knowing how things really work it looks to be most unlikely that the people of Tobago are going to get any real relief any time soon. I'll be the first to sing 'thank God I was wrong'! But I genuinely fear that I am not.

BY ALL THAT IS NORMAL ...

 BY all that is normal, the results of the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) elections were predictable. But this is not a 'normal' country and voting in the country has more to do with race (Africans vote PNM and Indians vote UNC).  By all that is normal Keith Rowley's PNM should have expected to lose in Tobago big time! The not very subtle attempts to bully and/or bribe the electorate didn't work. And the attempt to link the victorious PDP with the Indian dominated UNC also didn't have the desired effect ... though what that rather blatant racial call will do in a general election remains to be seen.

The results simply reflected that the population in Tobago, unencumbered by race (Tobago is more than 90% black) thought about what they wanted and decided that they weren't going to be bribed or coerced into voting for unbridled incompetence. Oh! They will take the bribe money and run with it. Why not? But they had decided to give Watson Duke's PDP a chance.

Now, both the PNM and the UNC will try to put their own spins on it. But losing is often more important than winning and the PNM will not merely go into a corner and lick it's wounds, but it will spend a lot of time analyzing where it went wrong. The UNC will interpret the results as being that the population is fed up and their (the UNC's) return to power is all but guaranteed.  

If the UNC thinks that it will be making a big mistake. Trinidad, with it's 39 seats, is not Tobago with it's 2 seats, and they will be discounting Watson Duke who could well end up winning the 2 Tobago seats and holding the balance of power. If that happens, look for more political maneuverings downstream. 

Both sides will try subtly (and not so subtly) to play the race card. The PNM has generally been more successful in playing this card than the UNC, but that is no guarantee that the UNC can't learn. What is clear, as I have said, is that it is a whole new ball game and a lot will depend on how both sides deal with Mr. Duke. Because, if they are not careful the news will read "Prime Minister Watson Duke said today ... ..." And don't think that it can't happen or that it hasn't crossed Mr. Duke's mind. He is certainly p[roving himself to be cleverer than either Kamla or Rowley.

VERA BHAJAN v THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

    DONNA PROWELL has been a good friend of mine since 1986. Although we haven't spoken for a long time I would be more than surprised to learn that she had changed in any significant manner over the years.  She has always been very smart, well balanced, and 'clued in' to the country and to what was going on. Frankly, I wasn't at all surprised when I had heard that she had been made the Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and felt that she  was an excellent choice. 

Frankly, nothing that has happened recently has done anything to make me think that I should change my (obviously) very high opinion of her. That is why I was so surprised when I read that a High Court judge had been very critical of her and that there was even some speculation that she might be a little racist. Let me put that particular allegation to rest: Donna is NOT racist and even to suggest that remotely is a terrible defamation of her. but this is not the first time (nor, sadly, will it be the last) when a judge gets things wrong and in getting it wrong causes most unnecessary mischief. 

People need to understand that a law is simply a rule by which the society agrees to be bound; whether that rule is a good or bad one is beside the point. We put people in there to pronounce on these rules and to interpret them where necessary. But the fact is that the judges are by and large ordinary people who, while deserving of respect, can and, more often than not, do get things wrong. Just because a judge has pronounced on a matter does not make it right. It simply means that a judge has given an opinion on some matter. But then, that is why we have effectively two separate rights of appeal.

No. While I absolutely respect the judge's right to give an opinion as she sees it in this matter, I say unequivocally that, with respect,  she is wrong. Her judgement had nothing to do with the Donna Prowell that I have known over the years. I also think that her comments as reported were gratuitous and did nothing to address the root of the matter before her.

Certainly, the judgement as reported in the newspapers does not seem to have dealt with Ms. Prowell's affidavit evidence nor with the fact that  Ms. Bhajan had purportedly been appointed by the President without the knowledge or approval  of the EOC. Frankly,  It is surprising that a judge would choose to make the comments that this one did, without actually taking the 'live' evidence of witnesses and then coming to the conclusions that she did.  For example, Ms. Prowell's affidavit alludes to the fact that Ms. Bhajan, though required by the Act under which she was seeking appointment, did not have the necessary experience of at least 10 years as laid down by the statute.  And yet, this seems to have been completely ignored by the judge. 

There are other things that lead me to believe that something is dreadfully wrong here. But that is not the point of this post. My point here is that I think that the judge got it all wrong and has thoroughly screwed up her judgement. Do I respect her judgement? Absolutely, but do I think that she was wrong? Yes. Clearly.

TIME TO START THINKING DIFFERENTLY

 It is difficult to believe that most people understand the size of the mack truck that is careening down the road towards us nor the speed at which it is going. Certainly, I didn't, until I had a conversation with a friend of mine who owns a business that imports certain (essential) medicines. She told me that the cost of a 40 foot container a year ago was US$1,600. In other words, no matter what you wished to put in the container the cost to you before you begin to do anything or put anything in it would be US$1,600.

Okay, I thought. That's high, but I guess we are living with it. And that's when she hit me. Guess what it is now? Today? US$2,000? I guessed. Wrong! The cost of that same 40 foot container from last year is now US$16,000!! That is an increase of more than 100 times last year's cost!! Ouch!!

On checking the accuracy of this information I discovered that food and other  costs in the USA have also gone up exponentially this year!!

Put another way, if this information is accurate (and I believe that it is) then by March we are going to be facing a most serious crisis. Then what? Vote PNM? Vote UNC? This crisis will be largely external in nature, We can spend a lot of time blaming the government for doing or not doing what they could have or should have done. But instead of casting blame (which is easier than actually solving the problem) we should from now be thinking of exactly what we need to do in order to survive. And we ain't doing that!! In fact, nobody on either side of the political divide is doing that!! Its always so much easier to blame 'them'.

THE PRESIDENTIAL MESS

 

Just when you think that the politicians can't get any lower, they conspire to prove you wrong - again. Let's look at the mess of that debate that never was - the one dealing with the removal of the President. And don't worry, I'm not going to quote law at you or this or that section of the Constitution or the difference between a procedural motion or another type of motion. Nor am I going to give a 'learned' opinion on what the law says or what is the correct way to interpret it.

No. I'm just going to look at the whole mess and see if it could have been handled in another way.

In order to do that we need to start from the beginning. (I was always taught that if you want to understand a problem you always need to go back to the beginning.) Everybody seems to agree that the trouble started about a year ago when the Prime Minister (Rowley) let it be known that he had 'lost faith' in the Commissioner of Police (Griffith).  There were a lot of harsh words said in public passing between the two men, but it all seemed to die down and the country more or less went back to normal.

But CoP Griffith's term was ending this year (I can't remember exactly when, but I think it was around August). In any case, although the CoP's term was ending, the Police Service Commission (PolSC) did nothing to start the process moving to re-appoint either Mr. Griffith or to appoint somebody else until very late in the day. And here is where it starts to get messy:

The PolSC sent a letter to the President with three nominees for the CoP post. Now, under the Constitution the President in this case has no discretion but MUST simply forward the letter to Parliament. But before the letter is forwarded by the President to the Parliament she rather inexplicably returns it to the PolSC and effectively tells the Commission to think again. Here it becomes more than a little murky, but rumours start almost immediately that a 'high level public official' went to see the President and told her NOT to send the list to the Parliament. Incidentally, we don't know whose names were on the list but rumour hath it that Mr. Griffith's name was one of the three. We also don't know who the 'high level public official' was but the rumour is that it was no less a person than the Prime Minister himself. But neither the Prime Minister nor the President is talking so we may never know. The most that the Prime Minister has said is that he talks to the President about lots of things lots of times - which ain't exactly an admission of anything. Why he wouldn't come out and say 'it was me' or 'it was not me' is a question that is left just hanging there.  Of course, those who don't like the Prime Minister are saying that he won't say because he knows that he was wrong to interfere. Those who do like him simply dismiss it and say that it isn't relevant.

But the President rather curiously says that she returned the letter from the PolSC but doesn't say who asked her to return it or whether the request was in writing - to which any thinking person can only say 'hmmmmm'! Why would she ( a lawyer and a former Court of Appeal Judge) do something like that that is so clearly unconstitutional? In any case, who was this 'high level public official'? Was it in fact the Prime Minister? You see why it gets murky.

Then the Leader of the Opposition files a motion in the Parliament essentially asking the Parliament to remove the President from her office. That this motion was likely to be defeated  was clear from the outset, but that was never the point. Enter the erstwhile Speaker of the House who takes it upon herself (for reasons that could make lawyers rich by arguing them all the way to the Privy Council) to order that there was to be no debate on the motion.

What exactly would have been the harm in having the highest forum in the land debating the motion was never explained. All we were told was that the Speaker had decided that this was the right way to go and that she was banning all debate. "Vote and Go", was one headline in a daily newspaper.

Nobody  has bothered to explain exactly why a debate on this issue should not have been allowed. The answer to this question is hidden under a deadweight of legalese that would be the kind of stuff that late night comedians  love to sink their teeth into. So what? let us assume (but not accept) that the Speaker's decision not to allow debate was right in law, was it right for the country? We tend to speak about the Presidency in hushed, almost reverential tones that are oddly reminiscent of the 'good old days'  when any criticism of the Governor or the King was considered treasonous. But the defenders of the President essentially argue that there are two rules concerning the President: Rule One is that the president is never wrong; Rule Two is that when the President is wrong, refer back to Rule One.

We should have had a debate - even if there is legal authority to say 'no'.  The Speaker was wrong not to do so. And let's face it, the Opposition mishandled the whole imbroglio from start to finish. They could have, and should have, gone through all the possible scenarios and been prepared for whatever the Speaker threw their way. . But their reaction suggests that they were taken by surprise. The motion could have and should have been better drafted. The Speaker has badly damaged the appearance of independence so necessary for one in her position. And the Prime Minister has come across as someone who is quite comfortable with obfuscatory comments that tend to hide the truth more than letting the people know exactly what was happening or had happened. Finally, the President has also badly damaged her Presidency by her actions as well as her rather pathetic attempts at covering up.

Put another way, none of the main players in this little 'play' have come out of this unscathed. They all stink - some more than others.

THE PREMATURE ENDING OFTHE BUDGET DEBATE

 In Trinidad & Tobago there are 41 Parliamentary seats. The ruling People's National Movement (PNM) has 22 seats and the opposition UNC has 19 seats. An argument has erupted over whose fault it was that the Budget debate - arguably the most important debate in a Parliamentary year - was truncated and brought to a premature close. My answer is that it is the fault of both sides. We can argue over who might be more to blame than the other, but the truth is that both sides are to blame. And we (the people) are the losers.

Let's look at it as clearly as possible: a Budget debate is supposed to be about a government accounting to the people through the Parliament what it spent and took in over the last fiscal year and what it proposes to do/spend in the coming fiscal year. Therefore, it is a most serious debate and not one in which one should play games. If an opposition does not want to partake in the debate, for whatever reason, the Ministers should still account for their respective Ministries. Unfortunately, a lot of them didn't. One gets the most unfortunate impression that the Government was more interested in 'scoring points' than in accounting to the people. Either that or they were simply too incompetent to give an accounting.

As for the Opposition, while it is true that the Government has superior numbers and they were obviously trying to 'hold their fire power' for when the Ministers deigned to speak they could and should have put in a speaker with instructions to him/her to lambaste the Government for not putting in their Ministers to speak and risk being criticized. (Instead of Ministers, a lot of backbenchers spoke who seemed to delight more in politics than in getting a proper accounting for the people that they are supposed to represent.) It wouldn't have been difficult to do that and the Government's rather cowardly action could and should have been exposed. But the Opposition was also obviously more interested in 'scoring points' rather than looking out for Trinidad & Tobago. That they chose instead to 'play games' is deplorable. Two, or even three wrongs can never make a right. And the Opposition was wrong to allow the Government to get off the hook like that. And so I say that the time has really come to look at our whole Parliamentary system and fix the obvious problems before they get worse. And believe me, there is no 'bottom'. Things can get worse. (But that is a whole other discussion. I do have some ideas which I will put out later for discussion).

Right now we have a system that encourages division in the society rather than creating a country where everyone feels that he/she has a stake in it. But until that happens (or snow falls in Trinidad) we can at least be honest with ourselves and tell BOTH sides to stop playing the fool and get down to representing us. Because right now we are being very poorly represented by BOTH sides. I could write a book on everything that BOTH sides are doing wrong. Perhaps (despite the failures of the NAR and COP) the time really has come for a third political party?

TROUBLE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY

 We really do deserve an incompetent government. Yesterday (Saturday) Roodal Moonilal made some very damning accusations against the Attorney General. Basically, the Opposition MP accused Mr. Al Rawi of misleading Parliament. He backed up his accusations with facts and figures.  To my astonishment the Speaker then said that she would consider what he had said and would give her ruling later as to whether he (the Attorney General) should be referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament.

Unbelievable, I thought. But then I consoled myself by the thought that at the very least this would be headlines in the Sunday papers. It wasn't! In the Express the story was relegated to a minor headline, and in the Guardian Mr. Moonilal's accusations weren't even reported, but the headline was that the Prime Minister was backing his Attorney General over the indemnity issue. The Guardian also in a minor story simply reported that the Attorney General was being accused of making "false and misleading statements" in Parliament  on Friday 4th October. In none of the papers was there a laying out of Mr. Moonilal's accusations. As a result, the average person will have difficulty in forming any sort of reasoned opinion.

So? Why is this a big thing? Let's start from the beginning: Parliament is the very top of our democratic system. Misleading Parliament, whether deliberately or not, is very, very serious and all citizens should look at this accusation with great concern. Because, if the accusations (or any part thereof) are true and there is absolutely no sanction it will mean that we do not have a democracy and are being ruled by a dictatorship. That ain't good at all! 

So when the newspapers seem to play down the accusations against the Attorney General and when lying to the Parliament is not seen as a "big thing" by the 'Fourth Estate' (the media) it is not unreasonable to assume that we are in deep "doo-doo". 

The average person will not worry about this. 'That's politics', he/she will say. Unfortunately, it is not 'just politics'.  When Hitler rose to power and started targeting the Jews there were very few people who worried about it. 'I'm not Jewish so that doesn't affect me', was the prevailing sentiment. One world war later together with six million Jews murdered we have a clear example of why 'just politics' simply isn't good enough.

If Mr. Al Rawi is guilty of what Mr. Moonilal accused him of doing and (more importantly) he lied to the Parliament about it then as a matter of urgency he ought to be dealt with in a most serious manner. And the Speaker should be aware that many people will view her delay in making a ruling immediately on Mr. Moonilal's excellent presentation was because she wanted to liaise with the political leaders in the Government as to how she should deal with this. While this impression may not be accurate, certainly there are a lot of people who believe that it is. And that's the point! She should be jealously guarding the independence of her office. Sadly, there are many who believe that she is not doing so.

Perception, in politics, is often reality, and this is certainly the perception of way too many people.

As for the print media, I guess they don't really care. They are making money and who cares if they are biased or not? 

No. We are in deep trouble and at the end of the day we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

THE LOST OPPOSITION OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

 Keith Rowley's government has been a complete failure almost from the word 'go'. But the opposition UNC hasn't offered a convincing alternative. While it can be argued with justification that Rowley's PNM government has had a lot of bad luck come its way (the fall in oil prices, the COVID 19 pandemic, etc.), the truth is that their handling of the various crises that hit them have been so badly botched that most ugly and what should be most unnecessary suspicions have arisen. Take for example, the A&V oil scandal. The truth is that most people believe that this was or is a cover up of mammoth proportions and that somebody somewhere took a huge bribe. Is this true? Certainly, there is no clear cut evidence showing that it is, but a lot of people will say 'hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck you are going to have to prove to me that it is really just a pussy cat'. And Dr. Rowley has admitted that the head of that company is a good friend. Curry duck anyone?

Then there has been the Government's handling of the pandemic. Certainly (according to the Government) they have been reporting recently the number of COVID cases and deaths, but was this so from the beginning? We didn't cancel Carnival 2020 and then we had a general election in August 2020. Only later the general election did we start to get reports about so many people being sick with the virus and then so many people having to go to hospital and that the hospitals were being overwhelmed and so on. But why does a right thinking person get the impression th we weren't told the truth from the beginning and why is the Minister of Health surprised to discover that a lot of people simply don't believe a thing that he says? Because, if you check back between February and August of last year you will find that this virus was certainly not on the Government's front burner - or it didn't appear to be. And Mr. Deyalsingh cannot be surprised if people believe him to be incompetent.

Then you have the terrible imbroglio with the Police Service Commission (PSC) which is still going on. Apparently some high up person went to see the President about this problem. But nobody seems to know who that person was nor what was discussed. And all the while you have Gary Griffith sitting on the side lines like a leopard waiting to pounce. And there are many, many other questions coming out of this.  But it is the latest scandal and it is still occupying the front pages, so there is probably a lot more to come.

There is really only space to highlight these three matters. Each one could take a whole book to discuss thoroughly and to present possible solutions and/or theories. Certainly, these are not the only scandals that we should be concerned about. 

But the point here is that by all that is normal the Opposition UNC should be riding high in the polls and they are not. Why? Maybe it is because they do not attack the Government with anything remotely resembling credibility nor do they deal frontally with issues (such as the radical foreign exchange shortage) with anything that offers hope to a beleaguered and battered population as to how they might fix things. It is almost as if they are saying 'vote for us. We can do better than these characters. Certainly, we can't do worse!'

They say that a country gets the government that it deserves. But I really feel that we've been hit with a double whammy:  a completely awful Government and a hopeless Opposition.  We don't deserve the two together.

TO VACCINATE OR NOT TO VACCINATE (that is the question -with apologies to Shakespeare)

 Full disclosure: I was one of those who had vaccine hesitancy. Frankly, I felt that we weren't being told the truth by ANYBODY - including those who are in authority abroad. And, my basic question -why- simply was not being answered.  Or, not answered in a way that to me made sense. So, I sat on my decision to vaccinate or not and waited until I could be satisfied one way or another. After all, the best advice always is 'when in doubt, don't'! And I wasn't about to put anything in my body that I wasn't sure about. 

So? What changed? The truth is absolutely nothing. But after reviewing time and again all the arguments both for and against, I came to the conclusion that perhaps the safer way to go was indeed to vaccinate. I had spoken to a lot of doctors - all of whom said yes, vaccinate. I had also read all the arguments both for and against vaccinating and had noticed that every argument that I could find against vaccination was based either on anecdotal evidence or on so-called 'reports' that I could not find anywhere else other than from the persons who had sent them to me but the arguments in favour were almost always backed up by science.

Put another way, the evidence that the vaccines were/are safe greatly outweighed the evidence that they were/are not. Now, I am fully aware that an argument that I find compelling is not one that you might consider in that regard. In other words, for an argument to convince the other person, it must be presented in such a manner that he/she finds compelling, not what the proponent of the argument believes to be the truth. I am also aware that if you cannot say something in one sentence then you cannot say it at all. You may need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain your sentence, butif you cannot make your point in one sentence then you cannot say it at all.

So in one sentence, my point is that all the scientific evidence (to me) points to the fact that it appears safer to get the vaccine than not to get it and that the stories (like those of Nicki Minaj about swollen testicles, etc.) ought to be discarded unless and until scientific evidence is produced that proves the point. You have every right to disagree with me on this. After all, it is your body! And for the record, this does not mean that I agree with the T&T Government's response and how it has handled this crisis. But that's another story.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF ENERGY

Dear Mr. Young,

 In recent times a story started on social media which (rather surprisingly because it was potentially very critical of the Government) found its way into the main stream media. Basically the report was that NGC (the National Gas Company) had lost or was about to lose more than $400 million and that the company's board of directors had asked for, and received, a full indemnification of this loss/potential loss from The Government (GORTT).

You will not be surprised therefore when I tell you that this report stirred up a heck of a lot of questions - none of which have been answered to date except for a very bland statement that talks were on-going and the matter was at a very sensitive stage. Translation: 'we ain't sayin' nothing at the moment for reasons that we are not prepared to give other than confidentiality'.

Somebody has forwarded to me  today a press release of yesterday's date supposedly made by you, our erstwhile Minister of Energy, Stuart R. Young (we mustn't forget the 'R' - it makes you seem more important - and yes, I do know that it is an initial probably for your middle name - but it does seem more than a little pretentious.). In this press release you say that any troubles the NGC is having was caused by the Kamla regime (why am I so surprised?) and  that there has been a 'mis-characterization (sic) of information that  was leaked in a surreptitious manner[and] was not surprising and was expected.' You, Mr. Minister, go on to say that 'at the appropriate time we will provide the accurate information ...' But, you say, 'due to the current stage of discussions and the sensitive negotiations that time is not now.' Of course, there is no hint of when 'the appropriate time' will be.

You then take a not unexpected swipe at the opposition (after all the best defence is always offence) and re-affirm your faith in the NGC board and the President of NGC.

To which I say, 'okay. Let's take the honourable gentleman (you) at his word, for he would never lie to us, would he?' But a whole set of questions arise: The first is, Mr. Minister, do you have any idea when the issues may be resolved and we can learn the whole truth? A week? A month? A year? Indefinitely? If the last, then when would be a good time to raise this matter again? a week? A month? A year? Because, I'm sure that you will agree that the possible loss of $400 million plus is much to serious to be left alone indefinitely and we (the general public) deserve to know what in the name of heaven is going on. Put another way, if tomorrow the shoe is on the other foot and you and your party form the Opposition would you be prepared to accept such an answer? (Forgive me if I say that I'm sure that you wouldn't.)

Then I think that  while you can confirm or deny (as the case may be) those parts of the report that are true and those that are not, the real question is will you? You see, Mr. Minister, most people believe that there has been/will be a huge loss. and most people are looking for answers - which (for the sake of argument - I am prepared to concede may not be available right now. But 'right now' cannot mean never and there has to be some sort of reporting/accounting in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Put another way, has the NGC lost a bucket load of money or is it in danger of losing it?

We can't operate on the old 'trust me. I will never do anything wrong' line. All of the voters in this country are legal adults. We deserve to be treated as such. And the deflecting of arguments by attacking those that dare to question you just ain't working any more. We need the truth! Now!

Yours faithfully,

Robin A.G. Montano

(As I have two middle names and on the off chance that it is not pretentious - I think it is - I have signed off like you but with my two middle initials.)

THE S.O.E EXTENSION

 For most people, their lives don't change when a new government takes power. Let me put that another way: their lives don't change noticeably. They still have to go to work, their day-to-day problems still exist and the only noticeable changes are the faces of the new ministers on television. When the government doesn't change then even this small change in the faces of the ministers (X is moved to Y Ministry and Z is brought in to replace him/her) is hardly noticeable.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that except for a very, very small minority, life goes on much as it did before.

However, (you knew a 'but' was coming, didn't you?) all this changes when some sort of crisis hits (a war,  a crash of the economy, a pandemic, etc.). Then people start to look more carefully at who they voted for and to think about whether or not the 'other side' might have managed the crisis better. The longer the crisis goes on and the more people that are adversely affected by it the more unpopular the regime will become.

Sometimes the government makes the wrong decisions, either through inadvertence or because of incompetence, but whatever the reason you will never get a politician admitting that he/she made a mistake. Instead they will jump through hoops to try and prove that it (whatever 'it' is) was the fault of others, especially their political enemies whom they had defeated at the polls.

It has always been a source of great wonder for me as to why, when things have not gone according to plan, that we as an electorate do not hold the government's feet to the proverbial fire and insist on getting answers to the hard questions that are not asked - much less answered. Instead, if you have voted for X party and they are in power, you usually accept blindly whatever stories they might tell. And, of course, if you voted for Y party you will believe even the most outrageous things and call the X party dishonest and corrupt. But you ain't gonna get answers to those pressing questions that need to be answered.

Don't believe me? Check out the political news over the last 10 years. Except for the names and a few other changes the stories are the same. For example, a young lady called Reshmi Ramnarine gets appointed to a high level post for which she obviously had no experience for. And a few days ago another very young lady got appointed as this country's ambassador to China. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she has absolutely no diplomatic experience, but she is now our country's ambassador to China - a VERY important diplomatic post. It is interesting that the Opposition hasn't made s similar fuss as was made over Ms. Ramnarine's appointment. But that is another story again.

But (and you knew that there had to be another 'but') we are now in the middle of a huge health crisis with this COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from the dangers to the personal health of persons the present Government's response has effectively decimated the economy. There was a debate in Parliament a few days ago on whether a State of Emergency (SOE) (first introduced at the beginning of May) should be extended to the end of November. As a concerned citizen I had hoped that both the Government AND the Opposition would have used the opportunity to educate the population as to the actual science and whether or not it is still necessary to have an SOE,  for example, whether or not it is still necessary to keep in person dining banned in restaurants, and so on. I had hoped that whatever their political leanings BOTH sides would realize that the population is reeling under the threat of this virus and people have lost/ are losing their jobs as a result. On top of that more than a thousand people are reported to have died. So to talk about it being serious is more than mere hyperbole.

Put another way, what I saw in Parliament was a lot of 'grandstanding' on both sides with nobody seemingly concerned about the citizens who are catching hell. The Government's attitude seemed to be 'this is what we are doing and if you don't like it get to hell out of here'. And the Opposition's stance was 'we don't like it, you haven't convinced us, but we are going to play it safe and abstain so if by chance what you are doing actually works then we can say that we didn't vote for the extension because you didn't answer our questions. And if it doesn't work then we can say that we told you that it wouldn't but you didn't listen.'

And you wonder why we are in the state that we are in?

ARE WE APPROACHING FAILED STATE STATUS - OR HAVE WE ALREADY REACHED THERE?

This is a serious question. In thinking about it I took note of the following:

- We have been relegated effectively to just above junk bond status by the world renowned body, Standard & Poors. Oh, the erstwhile Minister of Finance tried to put a spin on the S&P report but a plethora of respected economists basically told him that he was talking through his  ..., well, not his mouth! So he shut up!

- Unemployment is rising uncontrollably. People are literally out of work and have absolutely no hope of getting a job anytime soon. It is most interesting that reliable figures are not being published on this (or indeed, on anything else!). I simply can't imagine how people at the bottom of the economic pile are surviving.

- One gets an impression that the Prime Minister simply doesn't have a clue as to how to deal with the economic situation. This may very well not be so, but in politics image is everything and the image is one of a leader and his team of ministers floundering hopelessly and helplessly getting fat on their generous salaries and 'perks' while the people are catching hell.

- Prices are rising - not so slowly, but inexorably. We don't know when this will end, or indeed if it ever will! But the reality is that prices are rising - especially at the grocery - and rising faster rather than slower.

- Foreign exchange is scarce and hard to come by. If a person is lucky enough to have a few US dollars in his bank account he simply can't get it out. First of all, he has to "order' it and then he will probably be told he can only get a portion of it in cash.

- There is now open speculation that there will be marches and/or riots when the existing State of Emergency (SOE) comes to an end on the 30th August.  If the Government manages to get the Opposition to support an extension of the SOE then there is open speculation that there will be serious social unrest. Either way, trouble with a capital "T" is coming - and soon!

- Crime is rising. Need I say more?

I could go on, but surely you get the point. People are hurting and there is little trust that we are being told the truth - about anything Certainly, I am one of those who believes that we have been lied to for the longest while. There is too much that simply didn't or doesn't make sense. And the fact is that when somebody is telling you something that you don't understand, 98 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 talking about.

No. I can't say that we are yet a failed state, but if we continue on the path that we are currently on, we most certainly will become one very soon.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Let's say that you have a prosperous business that is making you a million dollars a year. But you discover/believe that the manger is stealing a hundred thousand dollars from it so you fire him. Then you hire another manager, but this one is so totally incompetent that instead of making a profit he actually is losing a million dollars a year. Then, although you have no justiciable evidence you have good reason to believe that your new manager is also stealing a hundred thousand a year from you. In other words you are way in the hole by more than a million dollars! Now, what do you do?

Obviously you get rid of the second manager. But the problem here is that the only other available manager is the first one whom you fired because you thought he was stealing from you. So? What do you do? Here are the stark choices facing you: (1) you keep the first manager because you believe that he is at least more honest than the first; (2) you fire the second manager, hold your nose and rehire the the first manager knowing full well that he will steal from you again - but at least (you reason) he will put you back in profit; (3) you say to hell with both of them and look for a third manager who you believe/hope will not steal - although at the moment there is no one on the horizon in whom you can place your trust. But time is working against you. You can't take too long to take a decision.

And that, my dear friends, except for the names and a few other changes, is the conundrum that we find ourselves in. So? I ask you: given the choices available, quite seriously, what would you do? Let's not argue about it. Let's answer this hypothetical question.

"WHEN IT COMES TO PINNING BLAME - PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEYS"

 The tile of this post is a quote from the American Senator Mitt Romney. When you think about it, you will realize that this piece of advice is followed to the letter by our local politicians. We have on the one hand, the erstwhile Leader of the Opposition criticizing, for example, the Prime Minister's COVID advisers and on the other hand the Prime Minister dissembling to the point where it is almost impossible to ascertain exactly where the truth with him ends and the lies begin. Often one is left with the impression that he didn't say something earlier that was in direct contradiction to what he might be saying now, when in fact that is exactly what he is doing. And yet, he not only gets away with it, but continues to get away with it. Unbelievable!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm in a state of despair over the state of affairs in Trinidad & Tobago. On the one hand it is absolutely clear that we haven't been told the truth about this virus from the beginning (and I'm talking about from February last year). On the other side of the coin the Opposition really seems to be totally incompetent and completely incapable of doing anything other than talking to its supporters who will vote for them no matter what. Then on the third side of the coin (and, yes, I know that a coin only has two sides) we find ourselves with persons who are supposed to be independent but clearly aren't - like the Speaker of the House who really is an absolute disgrace and doesn't even seem to try to be even handed any more. (I guess that she has decided that it really doesn't matter and that nobody gives a damn what she says or does so long as she pleases her boss, the Prime Minister. The problem, of course, is that her boss is really the people of T&T, but then they appoint her in a very indirect way and she has decided to pay more attention to the real decision maker - the Prime Minister - and what he wants.) And the sad truth is that she just happens to be one of the more visible examples of the wrong person in the wrong job.

Perhaps in about fifty or so years from now we will break out of this racial voting. Apart from the fact that I can barely hold by breath for fifty seconds let alone fifty years, I certainly don't expect this pattern to break any time soon. Instead I see it continuing for a very, very long time.

But we have a habit of blaming the 'other' side (whoever the 'other' one may be) and completely ignoring the faults on 'our' side. If you support either the PNM or the UNC your answer will usually be something like "well, they (the 'other' side) are worse. They 'tief' more, they don't do what is necessary and we are (or would be) better off with 'our' people in charge." And there you have it, folks! How do you argue with that? My father used to say "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".

But one thing is certain, you will very, very, very rarely get a supporter of one side saying that he/she thinks that the country would be better off with a third party. Instead, he/she will point out the two rather spectacular failures of the two attempts at a third force and will argue that there is all the evidence that you need as to why it won't work. And you know what? They may well be right! Isn't that sad, if they are? In the meantime, at least we have plenty of donkeys to pin tails on!

ON THE REAL JOB OF AN OPPOSTION

 

I will readily confess that I have paid little or no attention to what I will call in this post 'the Tobago fracas', so much so that when a good friend asked me whether a special majority was needed I wrongly told him 'no' that it could be passed by an ordinary or simple majority.

I have no intention of going into the 'whys and wherefores' of the proposed legislation. But (like a lot of other people) I am interested in the politics. It seems to me that Dr. Rowley has once again outmaneuvered the erstwhile leader of the Opposition and that he really couldn't care less if the legislation fails or not. If he had been really interested in passing this legislation there would and should have been a lot more consultation. The fact that there wasn't speaks volumes for the game being played.

 If I had been asked (which happens as often as snow falls in Trinidad) I would have had my first speaker make a very short speech in the parliament. He/she would have said  that the Opposition intended to give the Government enough votes to pass the legislation but was requesting that the Government go on the record as to exactly what benefits the COUNTRY would get. In other words, was the legislation narrow in that only Tobago would benefit or was it broad enough so that the entire country would benefit? Then if or when things go wrong we will know who to blame. 

Then my speaker would have sat down and I would have asked no one else on my side to speak.

You see, we suffer a problem in this little country of ours when we refer to the Opposition as 'the opposition'. Everybody assumes that the real job of the Opposition is to oppose anything and everything that the Government of the day brings to the Parliament. That's not the job of the Opposition at all! In fact a better (though more cumbersome) title for the Opposition might be 'the Alternative Government'.  Then we might more clearly understand that their job is to provide another alternative - a better or different way from doing whatever is being proposed. Because at the end of the day "the Opposition will have its ay, and the Government will have its way" (to quote former Speaker Hector Maclean).

Look: it is either we all want a better country for EVERYBODY or we just want a better country for a select few. But I must confess that I have a very sad feeling in the pit of my stomach that there are very few of our present Parliamentarians who I believe are there genuinely to make life better for the people. I would give anything to be wrong on this and if thereis anybody out there who can name  a current Parliamentarian that he/she feels or believes is genuinely thereto make life better for the people then I invite you genuinely to name that person or persons. As for me, well dreamer that I am, I genuinely want a better country for everybody. Doesn't look that we'll get it any time soon though. 

HOW TO CREATE A DICTATORSHIP

 For some time now I have had the most uncomfortable feeling that:

(a) We aren't being told the truth about anything;

(b) The mainstream media is in cahoots with the Government and that it/they will do almost anything to protect the Government;

(c) The Government simply doesn't have a clue how to solve our problems.

Let's start with the second one first: there are most unnecessary and disturbing rumours that certain journalists, namely Urvashi Tewarie-Roopnarine and Adesh Samaroo have beens suspended/ fired/ sidelined from their jobs because they had the temerity to ask the Health Minister certain uncomfortable questions. Also, that the host of TV-6's 'Morning Edition', Fazeer Mohammed, has also been sidelined basically because he was/is too critical of the Government. Is any of  this true? Because if any of it is true this will be of great concern. Essentially it will mean that there are some very dark forces at play and that the so-called "independent" press is deep inside the pockets of the Government. You don't have to be a genius to understand that.

What also is of concern is that all of the journalists allegedly sidelined are Indian. If it is true that they have been sidelined then the very ugly suspicion of racism will come to the fore.

Unfortunately, the longer this goes on the more difficult it will be to deny and the more the perception of race will raise its ugly head. We simply cannot afford things like this to happen. If the journalists have been suspended then this is legitimate news and we ought to be told why. If they haven't, then equally, there has to be some sort of explanation that can put to bed these ugly and unnecessary rumours. We simply cannot afford for rumours like this to take hold. 

As for the first and third points, well I have already written what feels like a million words on the two issues. Readers will know where I stand on them.

JOURNALISM 101

 To be a good journalist you have not only to ask the questions that politicians (and others) would prefer to ignore, but you also have to show when the person being questioned is dissembling (i.e., lying) and put forward reasonable theories for the lies. You also have to leave your political allegiances at the door and report everything as honestly as you possibly can  As C.P. Scott said in the Manchester Guardian in 1926 "comment is free but facts are sacred".

So here are some questions that either haven't been asked or to which there has been no clear reporting of the answers:

1. When exactly were the candlelight vigils held? Were they at least 14 days before the spike in Covid-19 cases began? Put another way, when was the last candlelight vigil?

2. How long does it take to be tested positive after being exposed to the virus?

3.How many days after the Easter weekend did the current spike begin?

4. How much exactly are we paying China for the Sinopharm vaccines?

5. Countries like Canada are NOT accepting vaccinations from the Sinopharm vaccine. What exactly will this mean for a person who has got the Sinopharm vaccine but needs to go to, e.g., Canada? Will he/she have to get re-vaccinated with a vaccine approved by the other country? What happens if a person is vaccinated by different vaccines?

6.Why does the death rate seem to be still climbing although we have been in lockdown for what feels like forever?

7. Why are citizens still being locked out from their own country? What exactly is the criteria to be allowed to come home? (This question could also be asked another way: what is the criteria used for some people, e.g., the Prime Minister's and Attorney General's children, to be allowed to come home?)

8. Why are public utilities (e.g., T&TEC) still sending out bills and threatening disconnection? 

9.Why exactly has the Prime Minister failed to show up in Parliament to answer questions? Why was he given permission to skip the sitting of Parliament on Wednesday 16th June? 

10. Why was it considered necessary to have an extended curfew for the weekend of 19th and 20th June?

11. Who or what were the Farmers Associations that the Government said that it approached to discuss the extended curfew for 19th/20th June? There are several who are reported as saying that they were never approached.

12. How many people -exactly- are now out of work and have no income coming in?

 There are many other questions. Indeed, they can go on for a lllooonnnnggg time. But hopefully, the point is made. We are simply NOT being served by the mainstream media. And the question is why? Is there a political agenda? If so, shouldn't they say that they are biased?

DISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH

Although the big news this week is the royal screw up with the distribution of vacinnes to the elderly, I think that it can best be summed up by saying that the Minister of Health should either resign or be fired. He can't say that 'it wasn't my fault'. If it had gone well wouldn't he be claiming credit? He can't have it both ways  and it is time that we in this little country of ours start to call a spade a spade and to hold people accountable. It's either we do that or we continue to accept third and fourth world standards  and give up all hopes of a better, fairer society.

But this latest screw-up by the Minister of Health is simply another distraction from the real issue, which in one word is economics.

Labour's share of the nation's income has been falling for a long time now. We see it and we feel it and we see wealth slowly (and not so slowly) increasingly falling into the outstretched hands of a few as opposed to the many. When we talk about economic prosperity, when that prosperity is accruing to -everyone or just an elite few - that should increasingly become a big part of the debate.

What is taking place now is simply a continuation of the Thatcher/Reagan trickle down theory from the eighties, i.e., that if you let rich people get richer some of that wealth will trickle down to the masses.

I disagreed then with that theory and I am sorry to say that subsequent events have events have justified my skepticism. We need to start thinking very seriously about how we want to distribute the wealth that our country generates and exactly how we are going to do it. Because it is clear that the wealth of our country is NOT being distributed in anything approaching an equitable manner.

THE JOB OF A PRESIDING OFFICER IN PARLIAMENT

 Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been thrust back into the limelight with her latest ruling  that effectively protected the Attorney General and prevented the country from learning where, to whom and how much money was paid by the State to lawyers hired by the Government  to deal with the myriad legal matters that need to be dealt with every day. In essence, the Attorney General's argument was that some of the information being requested ought not to be divulged because of privacy and other issues.

The only problem here with the arguments raised by the Attorney General and endorsed by the Speaker was that in October 2016 the same Attorney General with the same Speaker in the chair gleefully went to town with details of how much his (UNC) predecessor had spent on lawyers and even went so far as to give complete details of the amount of fees paid to each lawyer. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it seems that the exact same type of information being requested is not to be allowed and the Speaker (who has the final say in these matters) appears to be only too happy to side with the Government.

The other problem is that everybody remembers when at the end of January 2020 a UNC Parliamentarian (Dr. Tim Gopeesingh) tried and failed to have a motion to discuss the looming COVID pandemic heard as a definite matter of urgent public importance. The Speaker said that in her opinion the matter did not qualify; in other words, there was nothing urgent for the Parliament to discuss. Of course, subsequent events have proven how tragically wrong she was! 

Traditionally a Speaker is supposed to be above partisan politics and  is there to guide the deliberations of the House in a fair and equitable manner, She/he is NOT there to protect a Government from any thing that the Government may or may not want to do. But one gets the most unfortunate impression that that is exactly how Mrs. Annisette-George (the current Speaker) sees her role. Certainly, her performance as Speaker has given rise to multiple impressions and accusations of bias.

As the presiding officer the Speaker is the interpreter of the rules and procedures of the House, and has the authority to control and regulate the course of debate and to maintain order.  But when the general population gets the overwhelming impression that the Speaker is a mere puppet and will do anything that the Government wants, our democracy is in trouble. Because when the PNM loses (and it will one of these days) and the UNC put in an obviously biased presiding officer it will not be good enough nor will it be acceptable for them to say to the PNM "well all yuh did it". And that is exactly what they will say.

No. This nonsense must stop, and stop now. Mrs. Annisette-George has debased her position as Speaker and for the sake of our little democracy she ought to be replaced immediately with a more neutral Speaker. Don't do it and see what happens with this little democracy of ours. And this has nothing to do with PNM/UNC politics but everything to do with OUR country. There are many ways to arrive at the door of a dictatorship. One of the ways is to have a biased presiding officer in the House of Representatives - and we simply cannot afford that.

                                                      

TROUBLE IS COMING

 Are we heading for social unrest?  All the signs seem to suggest that we are. People are losing their jobs left, right and centre, and there are (admittedly rather muted) reports that people are going hungry. I have already said that I don't think that we have been told the truth about anything. Certainly, we have been misled about the COVID pandemic and there is a lot that doesn't make sense. For example, why was it such a big deal if somebody had imported some Pfizer vaccines into the country? Was it because the only organization that can give permission to import a vaccine is the Government and it had given no such permission to anybody? Okay. One can see the sense in such an injunction, but assuming that the report was true (it turned out to be fake news) was there any real reason for the rather obvious anger from the authorities about this? Surely, any action that helps defeat this virus ought to be welcomed? Or was there another reason why the authorities were so obviously upset? If so, what is/was the reason?

Put another way, shouldn't any action that can help defeat the virus be welcomed?

And back to social unrest. There is an almost surreal calm in the country right now. Everything seems to be quiet and people are going about their business as best they can. But things are tough. Restaurants are closed and people are out of work. So? Will there be rioting? If so, when? Will there be some sort of trigger that just lights the proverbial match to a very tense situation? If not, then do you expect that things will just gradually deteriorate until the people can't take it any more? But, things are quiet and by and large (except for the gangs) the population is dealing with the current adversities with a rather admirable stoicism. 

But life is not static and the population will not accept many more platitudes. It has been my experience that people will generally accept hard times IF (a) they are given some credible form of hope that their leaders can and will get them out of the trouble that they are in AND (b) the people are told the truth.

I am very, very concerned that we are not being told the truth and that no hope of a better tomorrow is being offered by our leaders. In the circumstances, my advice to you is to watch out. Trouble is coming.

IS IT UNREASONABLE TO ASK FOR COGENT EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE BACKED UP BY PROVABLE FACTS?

 

Perhaps the most hyperbolic narratives we've seen over the last year are the endless portrayals that the Government is doing a good job in handling the COVID crisis. It started with some little known company in England trading on the fact that it was out of Oxford, home to one of the most prestigious and well respected universities in the world, although research showed that it had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the university, saying that we were number one in the world in our handling of the then rapidly burgeoning pandemic. We don't hear anything about this now, do we? Interesting, don't you think? Was this all a publicity stunt?

But the uncritical reporting has continued. Ministerial as well as Prime Ministerial press conferences are held and the hard questions are never asked - or at least, they are never reported on. In a rational world journalists would give at least as much attention to the facts as well as Government pronouncements and not allow seemingly inconvenient facts to just be dropped. For example, why exactly did Delci Rodriguez come here a year ago? Was it really to discuss a joint response to the pandemic? There are very ugly and unsubstantiated rumors that it had to do with sanctions busting. Is there any truth to this?  Would it not be important to put this to bed one way or the other? If it was about a joint response to COVID what was the result? What is the agreed joint response? And why was this not reported?

If the media don't (or won't) report what is going on, should we really be surprised that people resort to flights of alleged fantasy? Is it really unreasonable for people to question how photographs of the unapproved Chinese vaccine SINOVAC being off loaded from a Chinese plane in Toronto were really being transshipped elsewhere when we are not told where? Is it unreasonable to question when there are NO  photographs of the approved Sinopharm vaccines arriving in Trinidad? And if such photos are now made available would it be unreasonable to believe that they were 'photo shopped'? Is it unreasonable to question the Government about this? Is it unreasonable to require an answer to this?

But the media seem unable or unwilling to pick up on this story. Is it unreasonable to ask why? Is there some monstrous conspiracy afoot? No matter how well meaning we fantasize or want the Government and the media to be, what do we really know? I mean REALLY know? Why are seemingly straight forward questions never answered or, if they are, the answers are simply clever (and not so clever) deflections? Is it unreasonable to ask why?

THE BIG LIE

 The Big Lie is everything right now and the mainstream print media seems to be doing its level best to continue to metastasize it and to paper over any criticisms that might legitimately arise over the Government's handling of this Covid crisis.

For example, I haven't met a Trinidadian (or Tobagonian for that matter) who believes that Prime Minister Rowley had tested positive for Covid. The absolute dearth of information was palpable. For example, if he did test positive who was the person that administered the test and why? Was it administered because he was due to get the vaccine the next day or was he feeling ill? If he was not feeling ill then did he feel ill at any time? If so, when?

Dr. Rowley is over 70 and has several comorbidities. It would be most unusual for such a person who was tested positive not to have some symptoms at least or to feel ill. So? Did he? If so, when? And who was the attending physician? After all, Dr. Rowley is no ordinary person, but is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. His health and well being is (and ought to be) of vital concern to the country. And yet, we were told nothing more except that he tested positive, was in quarantine and there were 35 other people affected. Who were these 35 other people? Were they all tested and quarantined? If so, when and where?

Then we have the question of the Brazilian variant supposedly brought here by an illegal immigrant. Do we know who this immigrant is/was? If so, when did we find him/her? What did we do about it?

Then we are told that this virus is spiking, but many health professionals are telling their friends that the situation is much worse than is being reported. So/ Why? What are the newspapers doing about it? Instead of simply parroting unquestioningly whatever they are being fed by the authorities, what are they doing to find out the truth? It can't be that hard to find out. And yet, it seems to be. If you want to know what the Government wants you to think or believe simply read the newspapers. If you want to know what is really going on you will have to do a lot of digging.

Look for example at the question of the vaccines coming to the country. Now we are being told that we are getting a huge quantity of the Chinese vaccine which has been approved by the WHO. Well that's great! But is it true that the Chinese vaccine is not as effective as the other vaccines (Astra Zeneca, etc.)? If so, are we buying second or even third best? The question has relevance because one (unfortunately) remembers Dr. Rowley rather angrily dismissing the Indian offer of free vaccines saying that we weren't beggars. (Although nothing stopped him apparently from later asking President Biden for help - but I guess that wasn't begging!)

When the mainstream media so blatantly abdicates its responsibilities to keep the general population properly informed but appears to help the Government in covering up it's missteps then we are in serious trouble. There is more - a lot more! But hopefully the point is made. 

And we should all be aware that history has proven that a country never gets out of trouble when the truth continues to be a victim.

WE STILL AREN'T BEING TOLD THE TRUTH

 In my last post I said that we weren't being told the truth and I set out my reasoning for coming to that conclusion. Now, I have to ask the same question again. Put another way: are we still being misled? Take a look at what has happened recently. 

It was reported that somebody had been tested positive with the dangerous Brazilian variant for Covid 19. As soon as this report came out social media lit up with two questions: the first was how did this variant get here if the borders were locked down? And the second was who is the patient/victim? Is he/she an illegal immigrant?

Surprisingly, it took the authorities several days to answer these rather simple questions. Eventually we have been told that it came from an illegal Venezuelan immigrant.

Okay. That's believable, but why did it take so long to tell us? 

In the meantime another rumour surfaced on social media that a young (18 years old) Syrian boy in Westmoorings was tested positive for this Brazilian variant about the same time that the initial report about the Brazilian variant was said to be here. Also, the rumour is that this variant is literally ripping through and devastating the Syrian community in the West. Is all this true? I haven't a clue.

But you realize that the delay between announcing that the Brazilian variant is here and identifying that it allegedly came in through an illegal immigrant needs to be properly explained. The erstwhile Minister of Health tried yesterday to avoid giving proper information saying that questions on this should be directed to the Ministry Of National Security. To which I say why? What the heck is really going on? Why is there this apparent spike in Covid cases? Is there under-reporting? Was there under-reporting? Why do so many people simply not believe what we are being told? Why, for example, do so many people believe that the Prime Minister did not have Covid? Did he? I honestly don't know. But I do know that many, many persons simply don't believe that we are being told the truth - about anything!

And don't get me started on those guns which were found last week! Those announcements alone raise all sorts of troubling issues. Is it too much to ask of the Government that when their people talk to us that they tell us the truth?

WE AREN'T BEING TOLD THE TRUTH

 

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than we have not been told the truth about COVID 19 in T&T by the authorities. Why they should lie to us is, of course, another question. I can think of a few reasons, but they would only be guesses on my part and I wouldn't want to say anything that I couldn't prove. But why do I think that we haven't been told the truth? Consider the following:

First of all, when the whole world was locking down in February last year we held our Carnival. And then after Carnival there were reportedly very few cases  of the virus in the country, but we locked down on March 23rd of last year, about a month after Carnival had come and gone. Then after the lockdown  the rate of infection was supposed to have dropped so precipitously that some (little known) organization in England ranked us as number one in handling the virus. And even though we remained on lockdown we held a general election in August that allegedly did nothing in that there was no significant spike in new cases. But that didn't matter, we were number one in the world in handling the virus! (By the way, have you noticed that this claim is no longer being made? What do you think happened to stop the claim being made? Are we still number one? If not why were we knocked off our perch? And if we are still number one then why are we not being told this?)

But, (and here we go) apparently many of the symptoms of the deadly virus are very close to those of pneumonia. When I looked up how many people were reported to have died from pneumonia in the whole of 2018 it was less than half of the reported pneumonia deaths for March 2020! To which one can only say 'HUH'? That doesn't make sense - unless, of course, we were not told the truth in the first place.

Then we are now being told that there are two new cases of the British variant in the country. Okay. But it begs the question how? I thought that nobody but nobody can enter the country without (a) a negative test taken in the two weeks before arrival and (b) going into quarantine for two weeks after arrival and (c) getting an all clear at the end of the quarantine period.

So? How come this new British variant got into the country? Who screwed up? What has been done to correct the screw up? Do we know who the two victims were in contact with? Do we know who the persons that were in contact with the two victims were in contact with? And if Nobody screwed up what are we doing about finding Nobody or are we going to just give him a free pass -again!??

Then we are now being told that the virus is spreading and there are many new cases being reported every day. How and why is this happening?

Now, the authorities are tightening the restrictions. Okay. That is probably a good thing, but does anybody understand exactly WHY this is happening right now? 

And then there was the issue of the vaccines from India and Africa and the brouhaha with the Indian High Commissioner. It is probably best to leave my opinion and my very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions over that particular episode unexpressed at this time. except to say that it (that episode) has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

And finally, we had the news that Dr. Rowley was found to be Covid positive literally just before he was scheduled to get the vaccine. Many people do not believe that Dr. Rowley is indeed ill. Most certainly, the news reports as to how sick he is are conflicting and leave a reasonable observer to question as to what exactly is the truth about this. But it is more than interesting to find that there is a large number of persons who simply do not trust the report that Dr. Rowley is indeed ill.

And so, we come back to the beginning, which is that we have never received a clear and cogent report from the Health authorities as to what exactly happened and is happening. This has resulted in very ugly rumours of favoritism and a bending of the rules depending on who you are. For example, the Prime Minister's daughter and her family can get permission to visit her parents for a Christmas holiday but ordinary citizens remain stranded abroad and not able to come home. Why? No. Things simply don't make sense and when something doesn't make sense 98 percent of the time it is because the person who is telling you about whatever it is doesn't WANT you to understand; two percent of the time it is because HE is a fool and doesn't himself understand what he is saying.

So? Who is the fool, or who is trying to fool us and why?

 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - FIXING OUR PROBLEMS PART 3

 As previously posted, I firmly believe that the root of all of our problems here in Trinidad & Tobago begins and ends with race. So? How can we solve this seemingly intractable problem?  I think that the answer lies in our British made/copied Constitution. You see, there are 41 seats or constituencies in T&T. Both major parties have a real lock on approximately 18 each with about 5 seats really in play at each general election every 5 years. And because of the demographics in each constituency that ain't gonna change any timesoon. Put another way, there is every incentive to vote race and so prevent "them" (whoever "them" might be) from gaining power.

But what if there was another way? Look: the reason for a 5 year term is fairly simple -it takes about 5 years (more or less) for any government policies to begin to work. Less time than that and a regime will not necessarily be able to do what is the right thing especially where that might entail unpopular policies; more time than that can lead to dictatorship.

But here is where the Americans seem to have got it right. (And, yes, I am aware of all the problems that they are having right now and the history behind those problems). They have a Lower House which is elected every 2 years, an Upper House elected every 6 years with a third of the Upper House facing re-election every 2 years, and a President/Chief Executive elected every 4 years.

What if we did a variant of that here? We could, for example, double the number of seats in our Lower House to 82 and elect them every 2 years. They would be full time parliamentarians with the responsibility in their districts for all that our current local councils have to do (lights, garbage collection, etc.) as well as legislative responsibilities (which would include things like budgets and other legislation). But because they would only be there for 2 years a lot of voters would be tempted to vote for a candidate from the "other side" if "their side's" candidate was simply a party hack and totally inefficient. The electorate then would have more reason to vote for somebody who would and could perform than for a hack. And if truth be known, we've got an awful lot of those on BOTH sides right now. 

Then we could have a full time Upper House of, say, 41 Senators with one third facing re-election every 2 years but with every Senator having a full term of 6 years. This could prevent stupid legislation from getting through. For example, let's say that the Government wants to pass a law that all men must wear green pants. Then the President gets the support of the members of his party in the Lower House along with a few in the Upper House. But at the elections held every 2 years those politicians who supported this absurd 'green pants' law are booted out of office including those Senators who supported it and voted for it. Now, if you were one of those Senators who rather blindly supported your leader in this stupid law, and you were facing the polls in 2 years time, would you quietly drop your support for this stupid law knowing that it will lead to your political demise or will you go down with that sinking ship? Put another way, this system returns power to the people.

Then we could have a Chief Executive whose election and period in office is not linked to his party have a majority in either house. He/she would face the electorate every 4 years and could have a term limit placed on him/her (e.g., 2 terms as is the case in the United States).

I could go on, but hopefully the point is made: that this system would effectively reduce , if not eliminate, the reason to vote race. What do you think? If you don't like it what idea(s) do you have? Because, like it or not, our problems begin and end with race. We need to do whatever we can to make it unprofitable to vote race. If we don't it will only get worse.

P.S. An added bonus would be to reduce the power of those small cliques who control both main parties.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - FIXING OUR PROBLEMS Part 2

 

We inherited our constitutional system from the British. After all, the reasoning was, it had worked for them for the last thousand or so years and had been successfully transplanted around the world from Canada to India and everywhere in-between. It was therefore quite reasonable to assume that it would work for us. Reasonable, but it ignored one crucial element: race!

As I have said before, we are hopelessly divided by race with the African element of our population voting one way and the Indian element voting the other. Both sides ignore issues such as competence and who might actually have better programs until the one in power screws up so badly (or is perceived to screw up badly) that it is voted out. There was an experiment way back in 1986 when a political party, the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR), purported to have all the answers and not be race based. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, not the least being the incompetence of its leaders, the NAR failed and in 1981 the country reverted once again to its comfort zone of race based politics.

Today this has so become the norm that it is almost impossible to find  anyone who is not influenced by it. The PNM gets its funding from wealthy "nons" (non-black/non-Indian) and the UNC gets its funding from wealthy Indians. As the newspapers are owned by the nons you will find that generally speaking to a greater or lesser degree they tend to favour the PNM (although, to be fair, the Express more than the other two daily newspapers tends to to a more neutral line). The truth is that the UNC simply does not need the money from the "nons" who generally find that they are simply not needed. The PNM though, needs their cash quite badly.

And, no, I'm not advocating any type of press censorship. My own personal view is that a person ought to have complete freedom of choice in following whatever political path he/she believes to be the best for the country. Of course, this doesn't mean that I have to agree with him/her or say nothing about his/her beliefs. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander and while I reserve the right to change my mind on anything, I also reserve the absolute right to hold whatever opinions that I may have, so long as I do so honestly.

But we are talking about constitutional reform and how we might fix our very serious problem caused by the racial divisions in our society. In looking at it I have come to the conclusion that perhaps we ought to start with a blank sheet of paper. For example, we are a nation of some 1.4 million people. And yet, we have Regional Councils, District Councils. Town Councils, City Councils and even a Tobago House of Assembly with its own 'Secretaries' and Chief Secretary. Why? The Mayor of Miami, for crying out loud, presides over a larger population and a larger land area than we have. So? Why are we indulging in the expense of having all these Councils complete with all these 'wannabe' politicians clogging things up.

Perhaps, the first thing that we should do is to ask the simple question: why?

Next week I will set out my proposals for how I think we can solve the problems that we have. These last two posts have really been trying to set the ground for my proposals as well as to encourage my one or two readers to start thinking about how they would solve the problems. Because one thing is crystal clear: by continuing to ignore our problems we will never fix them.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - FIXING OUR PROBLEMS PART 1

 

Probably the biggest problem that we have in T&T today is that we are hopelessly and seemingly helplessly divided by race. We don't like to admit it, but the truth is that we are no where near being a truly "rainbow country". If we can fix this we would be well on our way to fixing everything else. 

 Most Africans blindly support the PNM and most Indians equally blindly support the UNC. The "nons" (non-Black/non-Indian) stuck somewhere in-between tend to go with whoever they think will run the country better, but as they (the "nons") tend mostly to live in areas that are heavily pro one side or the other, their vote (they number about 15 percent of the total electorate) is more often than not so diluted as to be almost meaningless in real terms.

The result is that the leaders of both sides often and not very subtly basically say to their supporters 'vote for us because we can't let them get power'. Who 'us' and 'them' are depends on who is saying it. But the sad truth is that both sides are saying the exact same thing. Sometimes, admittedly, one side is more blatant than the other, but you know what? It really doesn't matter. Because when one side says something like this ('vote for me because ...') the supporters of the other side are equally galvanized. In other words, there is an incentive on the part of the leadership on BOTH sides to play the race card, and they both do - all the time! Although they will both undoubtedly protest that they never do that!

So? How can we fix this?

Perhaps the answer lies in reforming our Constitution in such a way that it makes it ultimately unprofitable to vote race. Can this be done? I think so, but it would mean starting over with a completely blank sheet of paper and thinking completely outside of the box.  To do this, it would also mean changing things so that the Head of Government is not as powerful as he/she now is. (Did you know that a Trinidadian Prime Minister is more powerful in his own country than an American President is in his?)

But I'm getting ahead of myself. This post is intended to be the first part of a series on how to forge a path forward and to get out of the terrible morass that we now find ourselves in. After the zealots on both sides have calmed down a bit over what I have said about both sides being equally guilty of racism, I am hoping that I may have started people thinking about how to fix this. 

And, for the record, I do have an idea on how to fix things. And I do realize that what I will have to say may not be the best solution, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and we need to take the first step by calling a spade a spade.  Because, if you listen to the other side ('other' depending on your perspective) it is always 'their' fault and never 'ours'. 'We' are definitely not racists nor are we racial.

And given that there is only one reason for government; one reason for politics: to make life better for the people - I am putting in my "two cents" here in the hope that we might all consider the problem seriously enough to think about possible solutions.

I will write again soon with my ideas.

ROWLEY AND MABURRO - SANCTIONS ANYONE?

 

Prime Minister Keith Rowley in his capacity as Caricom Chairman has called for an end to the sanctions on Venezuela and for negotiations to bring both the Opposition in Venezuela and the ruling regime to some sort of settlement. With great respect to the Trinidadian Prime Minister he has so badly mixed apples with oranges that it is crystal clear that either has hasn't got a clue as to what he is talking about or (to put it as plainly as possible) he has some sort of interest in helping to perpetuate the illegal Maburro regime  ... which raises suspicions that are as ugly as they ought at this time to be left unexpressed as to why he would choose to do so. Instead of pressure, Dr. Rowley argues, what is needed is that everybody sits down and talks the problems out. 

Take, for example, Dr. Rowley's assertion that the sanctions have caused the Venezuelan economy to collapse. While I hesitate to say that this assertion is an outright lie, it is simply not true. The sanctions were installed in 2016 AFTER the economy had collapsed and after some three million Venezuelans had fled the country. (it is now about 5 million, or 15 percent of the population). And assuming that Dr. Rowley is telling what he perceives to be the truth, the fact is that he is being extremely naive ... Maburro & Co. have absolutely nothing to gain from negotiations with anybody. They have fraudulently destroyed the electoral process and have locked up, tortured and murdered their opponents. Further more, they are in charge of the guns and the probability of their being overthrown in a coup is as remote as the probability that snow will fall in Tobago next week. So? Why should they agree to any sort of compromise with anybody? Oh! It is true that the ordinary Venezuelan is catching his tail BUT (and it is a big "but") THEY (i.e., Maburro & Co.) are not! So why in the name of heaven should The Donkey and his friends agree to anything?

The arguments that Dr. Rowley and his friends seem to be advancing are strangely reminiscent of the arguments of those who opposed sanctions on that ruthless and racist apartheid regime of South Africa almost a generation ago. And yet, all agree that it was the sanctions that eventually helped to bring that terrible regime down.  Sanctions are one of the few tools available to bring that illegal Venezuelan regime down. And the fact that most Western countries have refused to recognize Maburro's regime has prevented The Donkey from getting his hands on Venezuelan assets abroad. Hurray for sanctions! If they weren't there does anybody really believe that the ordinary Venezuelans would have benefitted as opposed to Maburro simply getting fatter? (Have you noticed how much weight he has put on while the average Venezuelan is reported to have lost more than 20lbs in the last year or so?)

It cannot be in the interests of either Caricom or Trinidad & Tobago to have a ruthless, narco fueled State (and yes, the Drug Lords are getting free rein in Venezuela right now) sitting right on our doorsteps. Venezuela is too large and too important to the Region as a whole to be treated with naivety or to be allowed to be ruled by terrible men and women who are simply thugs. And for all the pious bleatings of the Trinidadian Prime Minister that we should talk to The Donkey it is to be noted that apart from some pious platitudes he doesn't ever say what exactly he hopes to achieve by these so-called "talks" other than leaving The Donkey in power. Oh! He will say that he wants to bring to an end the suffering of the Venezuelan people, but  according to him that can best be achieved by leaving Maburro & Co. in untrammeled power. Really? If you buy that rubbish then I still have that bridge in Brooklyn that I have been trying to sell for the longest while! Offers invited!!

And as for "talking" with The Donkey's regime, all I have to say is that there is absolutely no incentive for Maburro to agree to any compromise. But there are plenty of incentives for him to continue just as he is doing now.

NEANDERTHAL THINKING

 It is difficult, if not impossible, to be happy about the direction that Trinidad & Tobago seems to be heading these days. Some wag suggested to me that the Government's thinking seemed to come straight out of the playbook from the Neanderthals - the close cousins of ours who went extinct so many thousands of years ago. Certainly, I understood his point. For example, while the Government and our erstwhile Minister of Health beat their respective chests about how well they have managed the COVID-19 crisis there is a worrying (and lingering) suspicion that we haven't been told the truth. There has been a dearth of testing for the virus. It was reported, for example, that little Grenada with approximately five percent of our population had actually done more tests than we had.  But we are supposed to have done a good job! Really? How do we know? We don't have all the facts.

Then there was this business about getting 200,000 vaccines from the African Union. Why does one get the uncomfortable impression that this was made out to be a big deal because India has been in the news about providing vaccines to poorer nations? In other words, it is all about race! Oh! Those who defend the Government will say that this is simply not true. But the suspicion persists. Why? Is this a case of where there is smoke there is fire?

There is the matter of a recently appointed Government Minister releasing a report about WASA saying what we all knew already: that this State entity was hopelessly and helplessly overstaffed, needed a radical overhaul and had too many 'managers'. Put another way, it is completely inefficient.

And then there is the rather curious (not to mention offensive) behaviour of the presiding officers in both Houses of Parliament who give the (obviously unintended) impression that they are completely biased and whose rulings call into question constantly their so-called independence.

But the 'Granddaddy' of all our problems begins and ends with the economy and the Government's handling of it. There was the rather sudden closure of Petrotrin shortly after serious reports of alleged corruption on the part of a contractor whose principal was alleged to have been a close friend of the Prime Minister. It is interesting that this allegation (of corrupt practices) seems to have all but disappeared. We have had closure after closure of plants at Point Lisas with thousands being thrown out of work. The Heritage and Stabilization fund is reported to being depleted on what feels like a daily basis and foreign exchange is now in such short supply that for the first time in almost thirty years there is a thriving black market in that commodity. The banks continue to make money though, and there is reportedly a lot of excess liquidity in the system. But business is bad.

There are whispers of reports that many economists are saying that if we don't take action soon then we will be forced to turn to the IMF. But it is noticeable that there is no denial of these whispers from either the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister.

In the meantime prices, especially of food, are rising. And there is talk of reducing the number of public servants! If that happens will social unrest be far behind? So far the bulk of the unemployment has been in the South of Trinidad. And most of the recently unemployed persons have received severance packages thus cushioning the blow. Right now there are many public servants who only report for work on a one week on one week off basis, but they continue to draw a full month's pay. How long can this continue.

No. We are stuck with what my friend calls 'Neanderthal thinking'. But the Neanderthals went extinct and the Homo Sapiens took over.  The rest is history. Makes you wonder where we'll all end up if this kind of thinking continues to dominate.

TWENTY FOUR YEARS

   TWENTY-FOUR years ago yesterday my cousin Monty was kidnapped. His skeleton (that's right: his skeleton!) was found two days later in his burnt out car. The police told me at the time that the burning of the car was done using "an accelerant more flammable than gasoline". 

It took me two years to find out what exactly had happened to my cousin, how it happened and why it happened. Frankly, the story reads like something out of a crime novel. It involves a local as well as a foreign drug lord and police corruption going from the bottom of the Police Service all the way up to the top. I know everything, but, unfortunately, can't prove a damned thing! I know who kidnapped my cousin and I know who pulled the trigger of the gun that ended his life. But, I can't prove it.

At one time when we had the Canadian CoP and his Canadian Deputy I went to see the deputy who knew why and what I was coming about. The deputy met with me and a lawyer friend of mine whom I had brought as a witness. He (the deputy) was surprised that I had somebody with me but hadn't bothered (by his own admission) to read the file. Instead he seemed more interested in finding out what I knew. I told him that I knew a lot but that it didn't make sense having any kind of discussion with him unless and until he had read the file. He promised to do so and also promised that he would call me ... very soon! He never did. Frankly, his attitude raised very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions in my mind that are probably better left unexpressed.

I an very close to a girl that was raped more than 10 years ago and saw for myself up close and personal how devastating that experience was for her. I followed up with the police every day for 6 months after the deed and then on a weekly basis for another additional 10 months, but it was to no avail. The rapist was never caught.

Why am I raising all this now? Because, like most Trinis I have been appalled by the brutal murders (especially of our women) that seem to be climbing almost daily. I felt it when Ashanti, for example, was murdered and I was most upset about Andrea's terrible ordeal. But I also feel for their loved ones who are left with the terrible scars of knowing how absolutely horrible their last hours on the planet must have been.

It is a truism that there is no grief which a length of time will not heal. But it is also very true that when a tragedy (such as the brutal murders of these girls) takes place that no matter that you have no more tears to shed you never forget the injustice meted out to your loved one and you thirst for revenge, i.e., you want their killers to be caught and found guilty and punished. When this doesn't happen you are left with a huge void in your psyche that you fall into again and again ... even after 24 years! The tears go, but the pain never does.

We can pass all the laws we want. We can bring back the death penalty and castrate the rapists. But if we don't catch the criminals everything that we say and do is just so much dust and doesn't mean a thing.