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.