MERRY CHRISTMAS

 I LOVE T&T. This is probably the only country in the world that where the Christian population is a minority,  just about everybody celebrates Christmas. Down here in this, the Southernmost island in the Caribbean, even people who are not Christians put up a Christmas tree in their homes and go to Christmas parties and indulge in other Christmas pastimes. (not to mention the delicious traditional Christmas foods). For the record, there is a very large number of Hindus and Moslems down here, but in all my years  I have never met one Trinbagonian that doesn't celebrate Christmas in one way or the other - and in a country where some 55 percent of the population is not Christian!  If the tolerance that we have for others (especially at this time of the year) was universal, the world, would be a much happier place.

Even in the hardest times there is still a certain "joi de vivre" and excitement in the country that is palpable and which seems to grow the closer we get to the big day. That a lot of people who are not Christian pay little attention (if any) to the religious aspects and overtones of Christmas is a given. But if I might suggest, the spirit of Christmas is much bigger than whether you believe or not that Jesus was born on the 25th December or that he was/is the Son of God, but  has more to do with love and tolerance.

And that's what I love about this place  - the Spirit of Christmas that is celebrated by just about everybody! Despite the best efforts of some politicians on both sides of the political fence who try to divide the country racially, the fact is that most people in this country are very tolerant of others and are even more so in this Christmas season. And this is what is so important!

Can life be hard for some - especially down here in T&T? Absolutely! But that still doesn't stop the excess of goodwill that is so abundant down here. Merry Christmas, everybody. And I wish you all that you desire in the coming new year.

THE DEFAULT PARTY IN T&T - THE DEVIL YOU KNOW

 Well, the default Party has done it again: the PNM is obviously counting on the hope that no matter how badly it screws up, people will still prefer it to the Kamla led UNC. And they might have a point! Certainly, poll after poll has indicated that the UNC led by Mrs. Bissessar is not a viable alternative to the Rowley led PNM and so the very narrow PNM electorate has reasoned that the Rowley led PNM can and will win again as Kamla obviously has no intention of moving and there is no credible alternative to her leadership. At least, that is probably the thinking.  So the PNM is obviously the preferred political Party by default and the UNC in its present carnation remains as not being a viable alternative.

Of course there is obviously the thought that there was cheating in the PNM polls and that this internal election that endorsed Dr. Rowley and his team was "t'iefed". Of course, this is a possibility that can't be discounted, but there is no justiciable evidence that there was "hanky-panky" and nobody can say that. Then there is always the very remote possibility that the rank and file PNM membership might revolt against this result- but this is obviously as possible as snow falling in Trinidad. (Although with climate change that may no longer be a good analogy!)  If this were true, then the polls are wrong and the UNC is back in with a chance as many PNM supporters will simply sit on their hands and not vote.

So? What happens now? Reportedly, the turnout of eligible voters was a little over ten percent of the PNM membership - hardly a ringing endorsement, but nevertheless, one that the victors can "take to the bank". Based on present performance, it remains that it is most unlikely that the wider electorate will be tempted to turn to Mrs. Persad-Bissessar and her team. Can Mrs. Persad-Bissesar turn that around? Yes, she still has time, but there would have to be a wholescale demolition of her present team and replacing them with really attractive and powerful people - something that the lady has been obviously reluctant to do. Clearly, she is hoping that the wider public will get so fed-up with Dr. Rowley et al that it will feel that it has no choice but to turn to her - hardly a winning strategy!

Dr. Rowley himself could decide, for example, to change his front line - the fact that the false report about his firing his Minister of National Security was greeted with such obvious joy from just about every section of the society before it was announced that it was false would hardly have gone unnoticed by him - and then call elections soon after that and before his new team had a chance to fail. In other words, Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's gamble that the PNM is screwing up so badly that the electorate will turn to her will have been for nought. The default Party will win again. "Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't"!

THOSE PNM LEADERSIP ELECTIONS

 Try to forget for a moment whether you are a supporter or not of the People's National Movement (PNM).  I know that it's hard, but try and look objectively at this political Party which has dominated T&T's politics for more than 60 years.  With its leadership elections drawing to a close this coming Sunday (4th December) I have been trying to view the Party and its leadership as objectively as I can. I know that half of you will think that I have been too kind to Dr. Rowley and the other half will think that I haven't been harsh enough in what I am about to say. There is an old saying about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread, but I have always looked with scorn on people who are afraid to voice their opinion on any given subject and so I devised a little test for myself which I have decided to share with you on how best to assess Dr. Rowley's leadership of the country. I asked myself nine questions about him and marked each question out of a possible 100 points. So, here goes with my so-called "survey". (I think that when you read it you will understand the questions; the questions are all based on the perception as to how well/badly he is doing today -not yesterday - and are not meant to  compare Dr. Rowley with anybody else):

Political persuasion score                                                     40

Crisis leadership      score                                                    20

Economic management score                                              15 

Moral authority              score                                              20

Industrial relations         score                                              30

Administrative skills      score                                              30

Vision/ability to set an agenda score                                    20

Pursued equal justice for all     score                                   10

Performance within the context of the times score              20

Total overall score                                       185 out of a possible 900 or 20.56 percent

Obviously, I am of the view that the result that I got is a fairly accurate impression of Dr. Rowley's performance as a Prime Minister. Equally obviously, your impression is probably very different from mine. But perhaps you might try and answer the criteria set out to yourself as honestly as you possibly can. After all, nobody but you will see the results and if you are a PNM supporter/voter in the leadership elections if I have made you think then I will have achieved my purpose.

It goes without saying from the above that I believe that Dr. Rowley has failed the country miserably.  If you agree with me, then the next question will be who to put as Party leader. There are two other choices: Ronald Boynes and Karen Teishera. I have already said who I think is the better of these two and why - and it ain't Karen!                   

PUTTING A CROWN ON THE HEAD OF A CLOWN

 It is difficult, if not impossible, to come to any other conclusion that the sole purpose of having PNM's internal elections spread over a three day period was for there to be an opportunity to cheat. Nobody has been able to give any logical reason why the one day voting for a new executive has been changed to three days and the resistance by the authorities in the Party to the proposal to change to three days of voting from one speaks volumes. I was always taught that if you can't say something in one sentence then you can't say it at all. And I defy anybody to explain how changing the voting from one day to three days will be cost effective and prevent cheating in one sentence.

A lot of people enjoy horror movies, though , for myself, I have never understood the attraction. But when you boil down all of the plots they always follow more or less the same line: in the final act, horror movie monsters that seem unstoppable - zombies, vampires, sharks - always shock the good guys who presumed that their terrifying enemies had been killed once and for all- or at the least, are set to be killed once and for all. Keith Rowley, like one of these monsters seemed to be about to be killed politically in the PNM's internal elections. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. Though he is gravely wounded, with the attempt to prevent or at least delay the expected efforts to cheat having been thwarted he is likely to threaten not just a handful of teens in the woods, but the PNM and, beyond it the whole democratic process in the country.

It is possible, of course, that the thinking behind putting the internal elections over a three day period and seeking to delay the local government elections for a year is that everything is 'hunky dory' and that there are no hidden reasons for the present actions - possible, but most unlikely!

The PNM is a major political force in this country. Its internal elections are therefore of paramount importance to the country as a whole - the result is obviously important not just to non-members, but to opponents of the PNM. It is most unlikely at the present time that Dr. Rowley's Government enjoys majority support in the country and that most members of the PNM are not happy with either him or his leadership - not to mention his team. If this is correct that would go a long way to explaining the two propose actions referred to earlier. And, of course, they would be acutely aware of their unpopularity. For example, the Finance Minister's bold claims of economic reform and development - which to date have not been backed by tangible and sustainable results - are they mere expressions of personal vanity and hype or are they real and substantial and something that we really can count on? And let's not forget the issue of runaway crime!

Let me put it this way: if you put a crown on the head of a clown you do not make him a king; you simply turn the palace into a circus.

THE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN

 Keith Rowley, the Trinidad & Tobago Prime Minister, emerged as a serious political force at the end of his predecessor's (Patrick Manning) term. But probably the most significant thing that we can note about him is the fact that he is not a creator. His talent lies in marketing (himself) rather than in any type of organizational leadership or in taking a novel concept from its inception to a premium place and thus benefitting the country. He has adroitly played to racist and xenophobic fears that attached to Mrs. Persad Bissessar's re-election bid in 2020. He has continuously lied  and pontificated on just about everything from emailgate to crime to corruption and every thing in between. He has made ridiculous statements and ran with them and has surrounded himself with weak, incompetent and ineffective people who are making ten times more money as Ministers of Government than they could ever earn in the world that the rest of us inhabit. Little wonder that they remain so loyal to him despite all the evidence that the country is falling apart!

Rowley did not single handedly inject the strains of intolerance, racism, belligerence and a durable sympathy for anti democratic behaviour into the PNM and there is no reason to believe that his absence would cause them to evaporate, UNLESS the PNM replaces him with a more moderate and tolerant leader - which is likely to happen IF there is no cheating in the upcoming leadership elections. Unfortunately for the country that seems unlikely at the present time.

For critical observers, it is apparent that everything Rowley has offered the country came slathered in Snake oil. That is either a statement about the willful blindness of the T&T electorate or a barometer of haw many Trinbagonians view these dangerous liabilities or assets. In either case, at least one other insight : fixating on the salesman, misses the point. The problem is, and always has been, the size of the audience rushing to buy what he is selling.

SUE ME IF YOU DARE, MADAM SPEAKER

 It is time to remove the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Parliament is supposed to be a place where matters of public importance are discussed and debated. But this Speaker, sensing that the present administration is vulnerable to some high profile licks, is almost continuously looking to use her office to protect the Government. She is SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL, for crying out loud! 

What could be more urgent for Parliament to discuss than crime? Flooding? Well apparently she doesn't think so either. She shut down a debate on crime last week and now has decided that the flooding that several hundred thousand people have recently suffered is not definite, nor is it urgent, nor is it a matter of public importance!! So, Madam Speaker, what is definite, urgent and of public importance in your book? You can't answer that and make sense, can you?

Look, I have court house clothes. I invite Bridgette Anisette George, the Speaker of the House to sue me for defamation for what I am about to write: You, Madam Speaker are not fit to be a Speaker of the House of Representatives in Trinidad & Tobago. You are incompetent, biased and awful at your job. You seem to think that you are the last bastion of defence for a failing and incompetent Government, and you are using your office  corruptly to stifle legitimate debate. And yes, by doing what you are doing that is corruption. Sue me for saying that you are corrupt. I dare you. But I would remind you of the case of Oscar Wilde more than a hundred years ago.

In that case, Oscar Wilde, who was a famous author and playwright, was also a homosexual at a time when homosexuality was a crime on the statute books of England. He (Wilde) was having an affair with the son of the Marquis of Queensbury (of boxing's Queensbury rules). The Marquis went to Wilde and begged him to leave his son alone. The Marquis said that he (Wilde) was a wealthy and famous man and could have anybody he wanted, but please leave his son alone. Wilde (rather arrogantly) sent the Marquis away with the proverbial flea in his ear.

But the Marquis wasn't done. He went all over London saying that Wilde was a homosexual (and remember, this was at a time when homosexuality was against the law). Wilde sued for defamation AND LOST! The truth and fair comment is a defence in defamation matters. The authorities took note of the civil case and launched a criminal case against Wilde. He was found guilty and sent to prison in the town of Reading, where he wrote what was arguably his most famous poem - The Ballad of Reading Gaol. After serving his time on being released Wilde went into a self-imposed exile in France where he died a few years later.

So just to be clear, Madam Speaker, I am saying that your refusal to allow urgent debates on either crime or flooding is motivated by your very obvious political biases rather than any reasoned thought. And I am saying that because your motives in refusing these debates was to protect the Government rather than to allow free debate in Parliament, In other words, your motives were corrupt and as a result you are guilty of corruption. 

Sue me if you dare. My defence will be the truth and fair comment. (But you already knew that.) And let us instruct our lawyers to fast track this case. I will readily agree to just about anything that causes it to be heard in record time. I hereby waive my right to a pre-action protocol letter. File your writ now. I will not apologize and will continue to say what I have said here all over the world. And if your lawyers decide to apply for an ex parte injunction to prevent me from repeating what I have said here, please show this article to the honourable Judge and tell him (or her) that I would like to be heard at the ex parte hearing. {For your information (although I shouldn't be giving you legal advice)  if you do not comply with my request I can go ex parte before the same Judge and have the injuction thrown out.} 

But I don't want to waste time. Let's get this show on the road. I challenge you. Sue me, if you dare.

P.S. I hope you don't use Government monies to fund this litigation.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF TRUST

It is clear to any unbiased observer that the real reason for postponing the Local Government elections which were due shortly, is because given the present state of disaffection in the country the ruling PNM has figured that they will lose. So, the PNM is gambling that things might turn around in 12 months time and if not they cacan always kick this particular can down the road again.

The problem with this strategy is that it starts to push the local elections that much closer to the general elections, and a massive loss in the local could create a kind of tsunami that would be impossible to hold back resulting in a potential major defeat for the ruling Party.

While I understand the reasoning in favour of delay, history has shown that the closer local elections are to a general election that the results of the local election can be mirrored in the general. Remember the massive defeat of the PNM in the local elections a year or two before the general election in the mid nineteen eighties? My own view is that the PNM might be better off in taking the licking now, rather than later. Because, the truth is that most voters are fed-up. People perceptions are that they are worse off today than when Rowley & Co. took power. And they feel that there has been more than enough time to fix things. Unless, of course, the Government is privy to certain information that it hasn't shared with us as yetwhich would or could change the picture completely.

Added to this perception is that a lot of people simply do not believe anything that the Prime Minister or his minions do not tell the truth. Most people, for example, do not believe that Dr. Rowley has contracted Covid for a seemingly unprecedented fifth time. While this may (or may not) be true, what is so sad is that people generally do not believe that their Prime Minister is telling the truth about this. And a photo of the Prime Minister  in social media allegedly taken just last Saturday doesn't help. The trust is simply not there for most people, and except for the diehard supporters, who would vote for a crapaud in a balisier tie, they simply don't believe anything that the Government says.

You have, for example, the ruling by what is probably the worst Speaker this country has ever had, who decided that the burgeoning crime rate is not urgent nor is it of public importance. According to her it is certainly not definite! And so, in the highest court in the land the ruling Speaker has effectively prevented the country from hearing what the Opposition has to say nor how they would fix it! It's not of sufficient public importance to be discussed in the Parliament! Unbelievable!! What in the name of heaven does she think Parliament is for?

Of course, the ever growing list of victims of crime might disagree with her, but their opinions won't count until election time when (she might hope) other matters can take prominence and this rather "piffling" matter of crime will be forgotten (or at least moved far enough away so that enough people might forget her idiocy).

But the mistakes and the missteps keep piling up. That the Opposition has so far failed to convince the majority of the voting population speaks also to their incompetence. and inability to get their message across. It is as if the politicians on both sides believe that running a negative campaign will pull more votes (' vote for us because the other side will do worse and you will be worse off') is better than admitting that there are problems and presenting positive solutions as to dealing with them. But at the end of the day, it is our fault, because we put up with the lies and half truths, not to mention the incompetence. And this is on both sides!

SOME REASONS WHY PNM HAS MANAGED TO STAY IN POWER

 I'm certain that many of my (few?) readers have wondered at one time or the other  as to why the PNM has managed to hold power for about 60 years. The Party retains considerable latent support, resilience and mobilization ability, even if the present regime is inept at capitalizing on those issues. There is a reason the PNM factors so prominently in the country's political history over the last 60 years: the Party frequently uses, misuses and eventually restores hard ground support. 

On top of that, the Party's founder, Dr. Eric Williams, laid down a blueprint  for a decision making system that is more of a pyramid, with all lines of authority flowing  or descending from the Political Leader's office. This means that all major issues are ultimately settled at the top. 

Of course, Dr. Rowley doesn't decide everything himself. He often kicks matters down to a level where elite factions bargain - or fight-them out. But on high priority matters- or when the bosses can't agree - Dr. Rowley steps in to impose "manual control", often with the television cameras rolling to show his decisiveness.

An overcentralized system can work tolerably well in quiet times. The clear lines of authority can help in solving minor problems. But the need for the Political Leader to weigh in personally becomes a serious issue when the more complex problems are fast developing. The centre is quickly overwhelmed, which can lead to cascading mistakes. The Prime Minister has  had to simultaneously deal with a pandemic, elite conflicts, economic failures, shrinking budget resources, unrest and unhappiness over crime as well as other issues.

Then of course, like all authoritarian rulers, Dr. Rowley's second area of vulnerability is the need for him to project strength. He tends to rely on an elaborate game - most of his supporters  are motivated by corruption rather than conviction, but they act out of faith that the system will survive, meltdown is certainly not inevitable. But if meltdown happens , how would it play out? As problems intensify they would likely tend to exacerbate each other.

What is happening right now in the country is that there is a general draining of confidence. Dr. Rowley has hinted that he might be prepared to throw in the towel and quit. But he would want to control not only who his successor might be, but also to control his successor. Of course events might just overtake him and he might find himself so hated by the electorate as being the person who brought the various disasters (crime, the economy, etc.) that he finds no way out.  On the other hand, he might just be able to hold on. Certainly, the whole situation is most unpredictable at the moment as the opposition UNC has been unable (for whatever reason) to capitalize on Dr. Rowley's many mistakes.

VOTING FOR THE NEXT PNM LEADER

 Striving for neutrality in a country as polarized as this one (T&T) is an almost impossible task. You are bound to offend one side or the other or could even end up offending everybody. There is an old saying about wise men fearing to tread where fools seldom differ. But I have always looked with scorn upon those persons who are unwilling for whatever reason to give their opinion and not back it up with facts, just as I look with the same amount of scorn upon those persons who try to argue a point without frontally dealing with the matters raised by "the other side". Frequently they tend to revert to insults and avoid the particular point or points raised in the particular argument.

But I had promised to say whom amongst the three contenders for the PNM leadership that I would prefer.  As I see it,  the race for the leadership, the PNM, being one of the two main political parties in this country, ought to be approached by every single citizen, whether he or she is a member of the PNM, as recognizing that whatever happens in that political party affects us all, whether we are PNM supporters or not. In other words, which of the three do you think, Rowley, Teishera or Boynes, is the best pick for the country? Your opinion matters. 

In deciding on my choice I took a very hard look at all three candidates. Let's deal with Dr. Rowley first , probably because he is the easiest one to deal with. Frankly, I think that of the three he is the worst possible choice for the country. I honestly don't trust him and I believe that he doesn't tell the truth, or, put another way, tells the truth only when it suits him. He hasn't got the brightest "sparks" around him (with one or two exceptions) and the economy has gotten worse and not better over the last seven years. Indeed, most people will say positively that they were better off seven years ago than they are today. The buck must stop with the leader and he has to take responsibility not only for the good, but for the bad as well.  But he is notoriously ever unwilling to confess his mistakes. 

Then let's take a quick look at Karen Teishera. Her claim to fame is that she was a Minister in the Ministry of Finance under Patrick Manning. But her stint there was unremarkable and she has no real feats, whether good or bad, that she can point to as claiming solely that she was the one responsible. She wasn't even THE Minister, for crying out loud. Further, she seems to have adopted a "top down" approach in her campaign. What I mean is that she seems to be placing more emphasis on talking to the establishment media than in talking directly to the people. Put another way, she does not appear to be connected to the people at all and does not appear to really understand and empathize with them or their problems. While this may or may not be true, in politics perception is reality, and that is the perception.

And finally, we turn to Ronald Boynes. Boynes is a self-made man from very humble origins (his father was a policeman) growing up in the East and has a track record of putting the country first. He has built a rather successful law practice and has "dipped his toes" quite successfully in business, although, to be fair, he has made some mistakes along the way. But (and it is a big "but") he has always learned from his mistakes and has worked hard to correct them.

Trinidad & Tobago needs a political leader who is not afraid to admit that he is human and, more importantly, who genuinely cares about making the country a better place for all and not just for a few. We need a leader who can inspire us and hold out hope for a better tomorrow. Without that hope we are all :spinning top in mud". My money is on the person who gives me that hope. I think that he is Ronald Boynes.

HOW TO WIN (OR LOSE) THE NEXT ELECTIONS

 Perhaps we should start with how to win the next elections. Answer: change the leader! Whether you are talking about the PNM or the UNC the answer would be the same for both parties. Let's start with the PNM first (because they are in power):

For better or worse Keith Rowley is probably the most discredited leader that the PNM has ever had. This 'Nelsongate' business is  a scandal of epic proportions. How in the name of Heaven could an Attorney General purport to give a free pass - a 'bligh', as we say in Trinidad - to a man who is a self confessed crook? And he did so without the knowledge or agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions!? And the law in this country is very clear that the DPP is the only person in the country who has the conduct of criminal proceedings! And the Attorney General is a lawyer? And he says that the infamous indemnity agreement was approved by two senior counsel?

And the Prime Minister then says in essence that he didn't know anything about this matter!? But wait a minute! Isn't the Prime Minister the Head of the National Security Council? And doesn't the Attorney general report to him? And isn't the former Attorney General still in the Cabinet and drawing down a minister's salary and all the 'perks' that go with that high office? It is either that the Prime Minister is incompetent, or he's so lazy that he doesn't read a thing, OR (most likely) he's lying through his teeth when he says that he knew nothing about it.

In the meantime, (and I'm leaving aside the rather obvious question as to whether or not a criminal case against Messrs. Ramlogan and Ramdeen could have proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT on the 'say-so' of a whistleblower who has obviously benefitted from several million dollars of taxpayers' money) there are other questions to which we have never been given a satisfactory answer, e.g., the Petrotrin debacle, the visit of Maburro's Vice President ostensibly to discuss COVID, the visit of Dr. Rowley and Mr. Young to meet with energy executives in Switzerland who were  based in Trinidad, and much more.

No. The country really doesn't believe a word that falls from Rowley and his gang and in the meantime it is watching helplessly as its fortunes are going to Hell in a handbasket!

So, clearly, there is urgent need for a change at the top of the PNM. There are three contenders for that particular throne - Keith Rowley himself, Karen Nunes- Tesheira, a former Minister in the Ministry of Finance when Patrick Manning was there, and Ronald Boynes. I prefer not to comment right now as to which of those three that I would prefer (although it is admittedly kind of obvious that it would not be Rowley). But I promise that I will say before the internal PNM elections who I think will be better and why I think so.

Then we have the UNC. Unfortunately, the UNC's leader has a track record of losing too many times. Whether this is because the PNM has thrown so much mud at her that some of it seems to have stuck or whether there is another reason. But whatever the cause is, she has signally failed  to present herself to the country as somebody with ideas or the team necessary to turn this country around. Very unfortunately, the PNM has rather successfully thrown so much mud at her (by far and away) most able lieutenant, Roodal Moonilal, that the country will never 'buy' or accept him as its leader. Which is a great pity, because, if you listen to him you will find that he makes a lot of sense.

But Kamla's team, especially in the Parliament is very weak. None of her Parliamentary team inspires hope in the populace that they really can turn things around. And a successful politician is one who can make you believe that you will be better off if you vote for him/her. And except for those who are "UNC till ah dead" there are very few people who believe that the country will be better off with that crowd in charge. Put another way, the country ain't buying them ... at least not right now. And it is true that weak leaders gather weak people around them. Strong leaders gather strong people around them; and the country desperately needs both strong and competent leadership.

Perhaps that is why a lot of people believe that it really is time for  the latest new political party: the Free Democratic Action Trinidad & Tobago party, or F.D.A.T.T. for short!!!!

DONKEYS, MORONS AND CROOKERY

 Where exactly do we as a country want to go? this is a very serious question that requires everybody and anybody who professes to believe in democracy needs to answer. I ask this because when I look at what has happened in neighbouring Venezuela some rather serious questions arise in my mind that we are not so slowly heading down the same path that our unfortunate neighbours have gone down much to their collective chagrin. Somewhere in the vicinity of more than six million people (out of some thirty million) have fled Venezuela, most for economic reasons, but a sizable proportion of them fleeing political persecution.

That beautiful country has been ruined by Maburro (and yes, I know; the misspelling is deliberate. The man is a jackass of the highest order) and his good friends, the Cuban thugs who have ruined their own country as well. 

But here in good old T&T our Government plays 'palsy-walsy' with the Donkey on the rather specious ground of 'noninterference'. Don't you remember the visit by the Venezuelan Vice President some 18 months ago to discuss "a joint response to Covid?" And if you believe that our Prime Minister and the Venezuelan V.P. really did discuss that then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell to you.

But the Donkey went and destroyed the Venezuela equivalent of Petrotrin, causing a mass migration of highly qualified oil personnel, which in turn resulted in a catastrophic drop in oil production, which in turn resulted in an equally catastrophic drop in the standard of living for the average Venezuelan, which in turn resulted in a mass migration of persons to (amongst other places) sweet T&T. Can you imagine what it must be like to be so desperate that you believe that it is better to go to another country where they don't want you and where you can't even speak the language leaving every thing (family friends, etc.) behind?

 And you think it can't happen here? Have we ever got the real reasons, for example, why Petrotrin was shut down and 10,000 people lost their jobs? Have we ever got the truth about why it was better for us to close down the refinery rather than to upgrade it? What the heck! Can anybody explain in simple terms how we are better off with the closure of Petrotrin? Do you think that we have been told the truth about anything?

And in the meantime guns and drugs are pouring into the country. This, of course, is hardly surprising as the Donkey and his cohorts are making a lot - and I mean A LOT - of money from this trade. But do you think that there is anybody here in T&T benefitting from this terrible trade? If so, who? Do you think that these persons are in positions of any kind of authority ? If so, do you think that the reason why "Mr. Big" has never been caught is because of connections that go all the way up? Don't you think it a little odd that no drug lord, no "Mr. Big", has ever been even arrested and made to stand trial? Or is it because our security services are so very incompetent?  

Frankly, I don't believe that our security services are incompetent. My (admittedly very limited) experience with them has led me to believe otherwise. But the alternative is too terrible to even contemplate. Maybe there is another reason? In the meantime, take care of yourselves. The crime in this country is out of control - completely- and is likely to stay that way for some time yet!

A MORONIC BUDGET

Those who still believe in Dr. Rowley and his Finance Minister, Colm Imbert, were in for a rude shock on Monday last when Mr. Imbert presented his rather moronic budget.  For example, Mr. Imbert and Dr. Rowley shut down in September, 2015 when they came to power an Aviation school that the previous UNC Government had established a few short moths earlier. Please forgive me that the impression that i have is that Mr. Imbert, desperate for ideas, has been reduced to thrashing around looking for something that he can boast about and all the while hoping that nobody will remember that he and his boss discarded this particular idea seven years ago! And yes, the Prime Minister has to take responsibility for his Finance Minister's actions. I mean, that's how the thing is supposed to work. How many other ideas have these two scuttled? And what has been the cost to productivity? Remember the laptops?

But what is becoming increasingly clear is that this economy is being run by morons and the fact is that an economy run by morons carries with it a price tag that is usually hidden under all the hoopla and political rhetoric. This latest budget falling from Mr. Imbert's pen is nothing short of stupid. It will leave everyone - except the very rich - scrambling to make ends meet. Living will become harder and more and more people will find it harder to feed themselves as prices on everything goes through the roof.

But it seems that Messrs. Rowley and Imbert aren't too worried as (to use Mr. Imbert's words) "they ain't riot yet"! Certainly nobody on the Government side seems either to understand or appreciate the very real hardships that the average person is facing. Can you imagine that the Prime Minister's solution to not spending money on  gas, to cut down the gas consumption, is to avoid going to work on time and to leave work early thus avoiding being in a traffic jam! If that isn't a moronic statement then what is? 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 Let's face it, there is only one good reason for the death penalty and that is revenge. It certainly is not a deterrent. The best deterrence for murder (or any other crime for that matter) is the fear of getting caught. And if the odds are something well over 90 percent that you will never be caught, what the heck? You'll get away with it. 

Let's be honest with ourselves: everybody who has a driver's licence has committed and will continue to commit the crime of exceeding the speed limit while driving his/her car. And we all do it because we know that our chances of getting caught are so small that we are hardly taking a chance. It's the same with murder. The people who are murdering people so brazenly by shooting them in bars and other open places are fairly certain that they will never be caught. If they thought for a moment that they would be caught you would see the murder rate plummet overnight. 

But they aren't being caught, and those few "unlucky" ones who are, know that their risk of being actually convicted because of lack of evidence is so small that it is almost not worth mentioning.

But back to the arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty. I understand all the reasoning that proponents of the death penalty put forward, but the truth is that the only valid reason is revenge (or "justice" as some might say).

Look, almost twenty-six years ago a cousin whom I loved like a brother was brutally murdered. The person who gave the order to kidnap and kill him is still walking the streets today as is the policeman who had been hired to do the job as are the 'jefes' in the police force who helped hide the evidence after the crime had been committed. (The evidence that I have is like saying to you prove that I was at your house at midnight last night. You know I was there. I know I was there, but I am going to lie and say that I wasn't, And nobody saw me there except you! So, prove that I was there!) But I would cheerfully hang all of them if I could and then go home and have a big, hearty dinner. But the truth is that although I will very readily concede that there are other very heartless monsters out there, the truth is that no matter what their actual crimes were I could not be the one to pull the lever to hang them even though I would probably agree that they didn't deserve to live.

So does that make me a hypocrite? Probably. But I do recognize that (a) I personally cannot deliberately kill another person and (b) I could easily kill somebody who killed a loved one. In other words, I would want revenge. And I do readily admit to the two very conflicting feelings that are inside me. I suspect that most people think like me too.

So? What do we do? The death penalty is a cruel , harsh and unusual punishment. It can't be justified with any reasoned argument ... except revenge. And revenge is a very powerful argument.

 Maybe the answer to the question of whether or not to abolish the death penalty is that if someone is found guilty of murder that person should have his/her freedom taken away for life. But we should be honest with ourselves and recognize that the ONLY effective deterrent against crime is the fear of getting caught. But sadly, in T&T today your chances of getting caught for any crime is less than your chances of getting a speeding ticket.

DOING BUSINESS WITH CHINA

 

What exactly are the terms and conditions that we have entered into with our loans from China? Why exactly was the recent loan of more than US$200 billion more advantageous to T&T than the terms offered by the IMF? The government has said that the IMF terms dictated (inter alia) that there would have to be significant reductions in the work forces in state enterprises such as WASA. Was this the only reason or the deciding factor? If it was the deciding factor does this mean that there will be NO reductions in the work forces of the various state enterprises? What happens if it is later found that unpleasant as it is that there has to be various reductions across the board? Does this mean that the rate of interest payable to the Chinese will be lowered to match that of the IMF? What guarantees (if any) are there that China will not seize any of our assets, like the port for example?

I am trying to understand the logic of our taking this rather large loan from China and not from the IMF.  No clear or logical explanation has ever been given and we seem to be going merrily along with simply the word of the Government that all is well and we don't have a thing to worry about. But the lack of information on or in our dealings with the Chinese gives rise to very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that range from total incompetence and being outsmarted by the clever Chines to bribery and corruption and everything in between.

Just recently Sri Lanka lost ownership of its ports because it defaulted on a loan from China. Is that possible here? And if not, why not? Because we will never default so there is no danger to us from something like that happening?

Think about all the rights that have been stripped from us over the years: the right to feel safe, the right to know what is happening in the country, the right not to be spied upon by the authorities without some sort of oversight, the right to know the identities of our diverse population, the right to proper and timely information as to our exact financial situation, the right to proper working conditions and the list continues.

We have been compliant in this mistreatment. We vote for people whose policies and politics are not in the best interests of the people but in themselves; and when there is a conflict, guess who wins?

The fact is that the zero sum discourse between the PNM and the UNC of the past several decades has served more as a poison than a fertilizer.

Which comes back to China; why is it in our best interests to do business with China and not know ALL the details?

GIVING UP?

 There is a palpable sense that many Trinidadians and Tobagonians have given up on their country. Those who can afford it are voting right now with their feet and leaving. Those who can't leave for one reason or another ranging from no money  to no visa and everything in between, are throwing up their hands in despair. 'Please somebody, just fix it' they beg. 

The problem really is that nobody who is in charge has any idea of how to fix whatever it is that they are in charge of ranging from the out of control crime situation to the health care system and onto the education system, not to mention the million and one other things that need fixing in between. 

Some people, like Phillip Alexander who quite blatantly says that he wants to be Prime Minister, focus on the "little things" (and yes, the inverted commas are deliberate) and either point out with observable delight how bad things are or they provide "solutions" which may or may not work, or they do both.

What is crystal clear is that the centre is certainly falling apart. There is an old saying that if you have a problem you should lead, follow or get out of the way. The present leaders in the Government are (or seem to be) ignoring this advice and falling into that other old truism that if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Every government's policies and survival depend upon support from key pillars such as the business community, business elites, political elites, the media, security firms, cultural and religious institutions, athletes, civil servants and the like.

It is impossible to predict where and when these loyalties will begin to shift. People living under dictatorships often hide their views of the government until they see sufficient safety in numbers to publicly resist. This is basically what happened in 1986 when the country voted overwhelmingly against the African based PNM in favour of what they hoped could put an end to the country's racially divisive politics. The problem then was that the victorious NAR had over-promised and the cost of fixing things was greater than what people had expected.

It's clear that the country needs fixing - and badly. What is not at all clear is whether or not the electorate is prepared to pay the price of fixing the country. But, if we don't pay the price now it will just be that much harder for all of us down the road. Haiti has already shown that there is no "bottom" for a failed state. 

A LAND OF RUMOURS

 All the signs are there pointing to a snap early election. Certainly, the Opposition is smacking its licks at the prospect, but is this a good thing for T&T? Why do a lot of people think that there will be an early election?

Starting with the second question first, the biggest hint is the fact that the budget is being held early - a month before it is due in fact. The argument is that calling a snap election for, say, December, would give the Government  a chance to proclaim a "sweetheart" budget with lots and lots of "goodies" so people will be distracted by how bad things really are.

The second hint is in the statements of the Prime Minister, where, for example, as was announced in today's papers, he is being reported as announcing a gratuitous payment to health care workers for their work during the Covid pandemic. The Prime Minister is obviously speaking to his base and is hoping to "bribe" it with some "goodies" so that during an election campaign he can say 'look at what we have done for you'.

The third hint is that the Prime Minister is scheduled to leave the country on the same afternoon after the budget speech is read to go to Switzerland (of all places)! Ostensibly the purpose of the visit to Switzerland has to do with oil and gas and the PM will be meeting some bigwigs there from those industries which have investments in the country. Some unkind souls have suggested quite openly that his visit to Switzerland has more to do with his personal business than with the country's. After all, they argue, to get to Switzerland from T&T one has to go through London and the people that he is supposedly meeting are based in London. So why go to Switzerland? Certainly, that is a good question that ought to be answered. Failure to answer gives rise to all sorts of rumours and unprintable speculations some or all of which might be true.

On the other hand, things really aren't very good in T&T right now. The roads are full of potholes, the crime rate is soaring and a lot of people simply don't have their jobs anymore. It certainly is not the best time to call an election. But if Rowley and Co. (who have access to information that the rest of us don't have) believe that things are going to get worse rather than better, now would be a good time to go to the polls. Crime is getting worse by the day and Dr. Rowley's acting Commissioner of Police is increasingly appearing to be an incompetent buffoon. And, assuming that Dr. Rowley was right to say that Gary Griffith was just about the worst decision that he ever made, one can't help but wonder how he feels about Mr. Jacob? At least under Mr. Griffith the statistics suggest that crime was falling!

Then there is the question of Dr. Rowley's health - which is shrouded in mystery. Another rumour is that he is planning to step down as prime minister and 'step up' to the Presidency (a la ANR Robinson) when the term of the current President expires. That would, of course, mean no early election.

There are too many rumours going around with not enough information being shared by the powers that be in order for anybody to make a guess. Any one or all of the rumours might be true as well as they might all be false. What is vital is that we listen carefully to each one, discard those that are obviously untrue (e.g. Dr. Rowley is a Martian) and store away the rest for future retrieval. Some rumours are based on things that somebody who ought to know has told somebody else and therefore are based on facts. But which ones are fact based and which are not is almost impossible to tell at this time.

But, we can look at straws in the wind. And the current straws floating around do suggest that something is going on behind the scenes. What that "something" is, is of course, another story altogether. Would an early election be good for the country? Hard to say at this time.

 What a pity that the media in this country is incompetent! If they were not, a lot of these questions would be answered. But then (as Sparrow once sang) 'we like it so'.

'YOU'LL DIE OF OLD AGE, WE'LL DIE OF CLIMATE CHANGE'

 I got the title for this post from a photograph in a news article online of a young climate activist carrying a placard. It got me to thinking: she was right! Most of the readers of this blog are well over thirty and most of us here in Trinidad pay minimal lip service to the matter of climate change. In fact, a lot of us tend to think that we can't do very much, if anything at all, that might affect the climate so there is no real urgency on any of us to do anything that might help to lessen our climate footprint. Our collective attitude is that this is the responsibility of the big polluters, the United States, China et al, and there isn't a heck of a lot that we as individuals can do.

You've only got to look at that statement to see how wrong it is. Climate change is everybody's business and whatever little contribution that we as individuals can make is important. Of course, this doesn't mean letting our own big polluters or the Government off the hook. It just means that we all have to bear some responsibility.

My children are now all grown (my youngest is 20) but I do have a few grandchildren whose future, thanks to climate change, is definitely not clear. We have to do something. Perhaps we can start with a drive for conservation in the schools and let the ideas of the young people percolate slowly through the society. Perhaps we can do things like making people separate their garbage so that waste food goes in one bin and plastics in another and so forth. I certainly don't have the answers, but I do think that we all need to be more aware.

On a recent trip to Montreal I noticed that at almost every corner downtown there was a garbage bin so that you could safely dispose of your litter (waste food paper, plastic bottles, etc.). Perhaps we can do something like that.

The climate is definitely changing. We've all seen and heard on the television news the devastating heatwaves in North America and Europe. And back down here in Trinidad we seem to be getting more rain than usual which is resulting in more flooding. Of course, the entity best placed to help make people more aware is the Government. Unfortunately, whatever efforts they are trying to make just ain't cutting it. Look, I don't want to criticize the Government, certainly not on this issue. But the problem is bigger than politics; it goes to our very survival on the planet. And in any case, as I've said before: there is only one reason for politics - only one reason for government; TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE! Full Stop! There is no other reason.

Of course, we can squander whatever time there is left and worry about other things like who 'horn' who and who t'ief more. And we can kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road and let our children and grandchildren deal with the problem that we are creating for them.

WAS HE "HORNED"?

 Poor Dr. Rowley, the man can't get a break. With the country collapsing all around him and monies running out, his credibility is now in complete shreds. Of course, it can be argued that he brought all this down on himself. He has signally failed to face the country and give a frank account of where exactly we are financially as a nation and things that he used to criticize the former UNC Government for are now coming back to bite him in his "nether regions". For example, we still haven't had a proper explanation of why those four divers were allowed to drown back in February and we still haven't seen any prosecutions, much less suspensions, of anybody associated with children's homes following the Judith Jones report on abuses in those homes. (The answer from some of his surrogates seems to be that because the UNC did nothing about the Robert Sabga report he doesn't have to deal with the Jones report. But, wait a minute, didn't he criticize Mrs. Persad-Bissessar for basically not fixing things that ought to be fixed?) 

Then he gets Covid for a THIRD time! While this is obviously possible, I haven't heard of anybody having Covid more than twice and nobody that I have spoken to has heard of that as well! With his luck he'll probably catch it a few more times! But it says something about his lack of credibility when so many believe that this is not true that he has got Covid three times!

Then  before he gets Covid again, he gets sick in the United States and doesn't come home for three weeks while allegedly getting 'tested'. The rumour mill went wild with all sorts of speculations ranging from he was simply taking a holiday or was more ill than has been let on, to being arrested by the US authorities for bank accounts with millions of dollars unaccounted for and everything in between. Of course, he didn't help his case by refusing to release any of his medical details. Not releasing details of one's medical condition is , of course, the right of every person, but there is a strong argument against that when the affected person is a Prime Minister or a President. One can only imagine what he might have said if Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was missing in action for three weeks and absolutely no information was forthcoming other than she was "doing medical tests"! He would probably have at the very least made some pretty scathing remarks!

Then, as a final blow to his manhood and personal self esteem, the country is awash with an unsubstantiated rumour concerning his wife and her fidelity. It is unsurprising, to say the least, that his political opponents have seized on this rumour to mock him: "the horner man get a horn" is the refrain. (Translation: in the Trinidadian dialect a person gets a 'horn' when his/her boyfriend/husband/wife/girlfriend cheats on him/her with another).

One of the worst things that can happen to a politician is that he is ridiculed; that the ridiculing can backfire and create sympathy for him is a given, but is usually unlikely when people believe that whatever he is being ridiculed about is probably true. Hypocrisy is a big "no-no" in politics and in this particular case, too many people believe (as opposed to know) that Dr. Rowley has been unfaithful to his wife on multiple occasions and therefore deserves to wear the horns of a cuckold; and in politics, perception is reality. In other words, the perception is that he got well and truly horned. Perhaps now that he is on the receiving end of the type of rumours and allegations swirling around him he might consider it wise just to keep quiet and say nothing, and now knowing how it feels may just stop his own unsubstantiated attacks. On the other hand, his history suggests that he won't. We will all see what happens in the fulness of time.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POLITICIAN AND A LEADER? -AN EMANCIPATION DAY MESSAGE

 Think about the question carefully. The best definition I heard was from a preacher that I saw on the internet (and whose name I cannot remember) who said that the difference was that a politician only thinks about the next election while a leader thinks about the next generation! So? How many of our political leaders really think about the next generation? Forget whether you support the UNC or the PNM. Do you believe that either Dr. Rowley or Mrs. Persad- Bissessar, for example really care about the next generation? Why do you think that?

Let's take Mrs. Persad-Bissessar first. What  evidence do YOU have that she cares? What has she said or done, for example, about those children who are still being abused in State run facilities? And I know that she is not in power, but she doesn't talk about it, or at least not every day. So? where is the evidence that she cares more bout the future of the next generation than the next election?

Now let's take Dr. Rowley. He IS in power and therefore can do something about it. The Judith Jones report was submitted in December LAST year. But all that has happened is that several committees have been established and everyone (including the Cabinet of the country) is waiting for the reports. In the meantime, nobody has been fired or even suspended while the "investigations" are going on and one gets the most uncomfortable feeling that abuses against the children are still going on. But nobody really seems to care! So? Where is the evidence that Dr. Rowley really cares about the next generation more than he cares about winning the next election? Why hasn't he at the very least caused certain people to have been suspended since he got the Judith Jones report? 

Look: there is only one reason for government - only one reason for politics : TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE!! Full stop! There is no other reason. And the reason for government is certainly not to make life better for the politicians! But that thinking is what seems to prevail in this country. Certainly, if you are in  a high office in Government the perquisites are fantastic. Its no wonder that all sorts of people are attracted to politics. But the vast majority of them seem to display more an attachment to themselves and their bank accounts than to the people whom they are meant to serve.

Emancipation Day was originally intended to honour those African slaves that had suffered terribly under the simply awful bondage of slavery. But perhaps the time has come to add a new meaning to this historic day (without, of course, forgetting or minimizing the original intention) which is to emancipate ourselves from selfish politicians. Maybe that is our way forward.

MRS. PERSAD-BISSESSAR WAS RIGHT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW ASSOCIATION WAS WRONG

 Has anybody noticed the apparent hypocrisy in the way that Dr. Rowley's Government deals with ethical matters?  Let me explain: nobody (except for a few people), including the Council of the Law Association (which body never bothered to consult its membership over the unfortunate behaviour of the Attorney General over his misleading, or trying to mislead a Judge in Miami) has seemed to think that it was all right for Mr. Armour to apparently "forget" that he had once represented Mr. Brian Kuei Tung in a matter that had to be one of the biggest cases of his entire career BUT when Mr. Armour's predecessor, Mr. Al Rawi, is reported in the Sunday express of 24th July as having said that he recused himself "in every case" in terms of clients whom he previously represented . Mr. Al Rawi  is reported in the same newspaper  as saying that "in accordance with the law and principles of good governance" he recused himself from time to time in Cabinet meetings.

Well, nobody can argue with that point although there are other matters that arise that can be discussed at another time concerning Mr. Al Rawi. The point here is that clearly Dr. Rowley knew or ought to have known that it is simply an extreme "no-no" for a lawyer to act even remotely in a matter against one of his former clients. And while it might be acceptable for a lawyer to say 'look, it was a small matter and I really don't remember all of the people that I acted for or gave advice to some 14 or 15 years ago, in the instant case it is simply unbelievable for Mr. Armour to say that he "forgot". And in the next breath, it is hypocritical of Dr. Rowley as Prime Minister not to call for Mr. Armour's resignation, especially given the Prime Minister's penchant for shouting about the lack of ethics on the UNC's side of the fence.

Apparently, "do so ent like so". And that can be the only reason for his deafening silence.

But then enter the Council of the Law Association who without consultation with its membership decides to issue a scathing rebuke of Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's  commentary of Mr. Armour's behaviour  ignoring completely the rather terrible things that the Prime Minister has said in the past about those who support Mrs. Persad-Bissessar. In other words, no reasonable observer  could fail to come to the conclusion that the Council of the Law Association was quite happy to support those who "sang for their supper" when they supported Mr. Armour at the extraordinary general meeting of the Law Association (which fact, of course, raises other very serious questions about the ethics of the Council.)

 And yes, they did "sing for their supper". How else would you explain their support for a lawyer who lied to a Court  and pretended that he couldn't remember one of the biggest (if not the biggest) cases of his career? And remember how his story changed when the facts came out?  And that, my friends, is what you call lying. And that is why if you really believe that he didn't then I'd like to sell you a bridge.

But the Council of the Law Association thinks that the bigger sin is that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong to say publicly what any reasonable person would conclude: that those who voted in favour of Mr. Armour were not motivated by ethics but by pure greed and self interest. But they don't say a d@#$%^& thing about when the Prime Minister attacks Opposition lawyers and they don't comment at all about the deceit or hypocrisy  of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General. 

No. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was right in her criticisms and the Council of the Law Association was not only very, very wrong, but also so hypocritical in its criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition that it has lost all credibility. And this is not a good thing for Trinidad & Tobago.

"PRIME MINISTER KAMLA PERSAD-BISSESSAR SAID TODAY ..."

 

Okay. I had promised to say why I think that the UNC will win the next elections, so here goes: it is tempting to sum it up in one word - race - but that wouldn't explain all the nuances that are at play here. First of all, race is a factor; most Africans as well as Indians  - especially the uneducated ones - will vote according to their ethnicity. This is the main reason why in 1986 the then ruling PNM under George Chambers was able to garner almost 300 votes when it was clear that the overwhelming majority in the country had felt that the Chambers' Government had screwed things up so badly that they felt that they could take a chance with the new-born NAR. Put another way, both the UNC as well as the PNM have rock solid bases of approximately 30 percent each of the electorate. Of the remaining 40 percent about 30 percent lean one way or the other and we have only about 10 percent who are genuine "floaters".

And this is why most political observers believe that the situation will stay as it is with the very small minority of genuine floating voters leaning one way or the other depending on the performance and what their guts tell them about the two sides. The PNM has a psychological advantage in that for most of the floating voters it is regarded as the "default" party, in other words, where both sides are viewed as equally bad, the majority of the floating vote traditionally goes with the PNM. Certainly, this is what happened the last time in 2020. But because Dr. Rowley & Co. have been screwing up so badly in recent times, this is likely to change. Please note that the two most important words in that last sentence are "likely to" and one would be foolish to make a bet on this so early in the game. A lot can happen in the meantime that could make them swing one way or the other.

No. The real 'flea in the ointment' (or whatever the saying is) is Mr. Watson Duke's party, the PDP. Take a look at why I'm saying this: as things stand at the moment PNM has 21 of the 41 seats in the country; the UNC has 19 which is why it is in opposition. But Mr. Duke's party looks set to win the 2 Tobago seats in the next election, which will bring the PNM down to 19. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's UNC is likely to hold on its 19 seats. So? Why am I saying that UNC will win? These numbers would suggest a minority government.

Because Mr. Duke has signaled that he intends to come to Trinidad as well as staying in Tobago. If he does come where do you think that he will get his votes from? Aaaahhh! You got it! He'll by and large get his votes from the poorer or lower class Africans  - the PNM's traditional base. The UNC's traditional base will not move in favour of another black party. So? What do you think will happen in marginal seats like Barataria or St. Augustine for example? The PDP will more than likely take enough votes from the PNM that will cause the UNC in our first pass the post system to romp home to victory even if the combined votes of the PNM and the PDP are greater than the UNC's in the particular constituency. Mr. Duke is most unlikely to pick up any disaffected UNC voters.

And so folks, if (and it's always a big "if" this far off the date for the next elections) things stay more or less the same, the lead story on television the next time around after the elections will likely begin with the words "Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said today ...".

GREED AND SELF-PRESERVATION

 

While most right thinking citizens would be surprised by the mental gymnastics that the lawyers who voted against the resolution to criticize the Attorney General for his part in  a case in far away Miami, for  a minority of observers the outcome was most predictable and could be summed up in three words: "Greed and Self-Preservation".

You see, like everybody else lawyers have seen their business shrink with the Covid 19 pandemic. For some, the shrinkage of their business has been so bad that they have been forced to close down their offices and work instead from home. And as for the rest, there is hardly anybody who hasn't seen his/her business shrink, often to unacceptable levels. But (and as usual there is always a "but") there are a fortunate few who get regular briefs from the one client who always has money and who never (or hardly ever) complains about the size of the bill: the Government. And guess who hands out these rather lucrative briefs ... and your first two guesses don't count! Aaah! You got that right! It's the Attorney General!

And do you think that any Attorney General would give any work to any lawyer who spoke out against him? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. You see, it was always a given that the present Attorney General would not resign. The Prime Minister had already signaled that he wouldn't accept any proffered resignation, so short of a general election (which ain't on the cards at the moment) it means that voting against Mr. Armour would mean that you were potentially cutting yourself off from any potential briefs that could come your way.

Of course, those implacably opposed to the PNM Government will point out that out of a membership of some ten thousand only a little over five hundred turned out and  that those who voted in favour of Mr. Armour numbered less than three percent of the membership. And those who support the PNM will say that the ten thousand who didn't vote could have and should have.  And they'd both be right. But they both would drift away from the central point with these rather esoteric arguments. The central point was that every single person who voted for Mr. Armour and against the resolution did so for personal reasons. Oh! The less honest ones will deny it and present all sorts of arguments to prove that they acted on the highest principles. Some will even say that they don't get Government briefs. but none would say that they would turn down a Government brief if one happened to come their way.

And as for those who voted against Mr. Armour? They were right to do so, of course, even though being right was secondary to the knowledge that they would never get a Government brief, at least not under this Government. In any case, as the old Trinidadian saying goes: 'time longer than time' and a general election is due in about two years, so they can wait. And as things stand right now today (and a week is certainly a long time in politics so things can change) the UNC will win the next election. Why do I say that? Watch this space and I'll tell you another time.

AN ELASTIC APPROACH TO ETHICS

 So Dr. Rowley is back in the country and is operating as if his 3 week absence was no big thing and does not merit more than a line ("I was undergoing medical tests") of explanation. There was no report on his medical condition that necessitated a three week sojourn nor was there any attempt to say why these "tests" could not have been done in Trinidad. And a Prime Minister is no ordinary person. The country is entitled to know exactly what is or was wrong with him and what exactly caused his long absence.

In the meantime, and while he was away, it was revealed that one of his ministers was prevented from getting his Master's degree because he (Foster Cummings) had plagiarized certain content in his thesis. Mr. Cummings has said that this was simply an "oversight" on his part and that he had already explained that. But the fact is that he was still denied his degree and plagiarism is just about the most serious offence that one can commit in the academic world.  

Then (again while the Prime Minister was abroad) his brand new Attorney General is prevented from acting for and on behalf of the country in a case in the United States because he had acted for one of the defendants in a related matter some 14 or so years ago. The Attorney General offers as reasons that he did so was because he couldn't remember (although this had to be one of the biggest cases of his career) and he was abroad on holiday and didn't have his files with him and that he was prevented from filing an explanatory affidavit in the matter even though the Court records do not show that there was any explanation or attempt to file a supplemental/explanatory affidavit. An appeal has been filed, but one gets the most regrettable impression that this appeal is a losing one. But, we'll see.

Then there is the problem of abuse in children's homes across the country. This is being  (and has been for months) "investigated", but nobody has been charged as yet much less fired. And the PM's silence on this is deafening.

Then there is the problem of the investigation into the deaths of those divers at the beginning of this year. So far nothing has happened and there has been no explanation except that we are being told that the commission of enquiry will begin "soon". How soon is "soon" is, of course, another question altogether.

I could go on, but surely you the point: there seems to be in all of these matters (and more) a common thread which is a most elastic approach to ethics. The Prime Minister refuses to answer a journalist because of a 14 or 15 year old report and will not answer the reasonable question as to whether or not he had done due diligence on Mr. Armour which ought to have raised Mr. Armour's potential conflict of interest.

It is as though Dr. Rowley's ethics are governed by "do as I say, not as I do". If this is true then we have a serious problem because it would mean that the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago is a big hypocrite. In the first world he would be fired for his most elastic approach to ethics.

SHOULD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T&T RESIGN?

 I have known Reginald Armour for a long time - more than thirty years - and although I can say that we are not, and never have been, friends, I can also say that I never had any reason to doubt that his integrity was such that he would not lie, and certainly not so as to attempt to mislead anybody deliberately, much less a Court of Law, whether in Trinidad & Tobago or in any other part of the world. At least, not until now, because the revelations coming out from that Miami court room are , to put it mildly, most disturbing.

But the facts which have come out since a Miami Judge basically said that Mr. Armour should not be a plaintiff in a matter relating to allegations of corruption involving his (Mr. Armour's) former clients concerning the construction of the Piarco airport have given me cause for deep concern.  The code of conduct that governs lawyers in this (T&T's) jurisdiction includes an injunction that a lawyer must never mislead a Court.  But it seems that Mr. Armour has done just that. Whether he did so knowingly is another matter. He says that because it was almost twenty years ago he couldn't remember.  But this had to be one of the biggest cases in his career and this explanation, while it might be true, certainly appears to be unbelievable to the ordinary observer. It was one in which the whole country was extremely interested in and whether he was a junior lawyer confined to taking notes (which he says, but which has turned out to be untrue) or a senior lawyer leading in a defence in a preliminary hearing (which is what appears from the Court records) his position is certainly untenable. 

One of the leading cases in apparent bias comes from a case in the 1920's, R v. Sussex.  In that case three judges found a defendant guilty of whatever he was accused of (I can't remember what).  But it turned out on appeal that the clerk to the Court was in the room when the judges were doing their deliberations. The Court of Appeal held that there was a possibility that the clerk might have influenced the judges in their deliberations although there was no record that he had. But, the Court of Appeal decided,  it was dangerous because he MIGHT have done so. So they overturned the conviction. Put another way, a lawyer cannot give advice to Mr. X today and then act for Mr. Y against Mr. X tomorrow in the same matter. (Indeed, a lawyer having advised Mr. X in a matter years ago (and been paid for that advice) ought not to take a case against Mr. X in a different matter today.)

Well, using that logic one can honestly say  with hand on heart that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Armour did use his knowledge from his former position  to benefit his new client, the State. But (and you knew that there would be a "but, didn't you?) the POSSIBILITY exists that he MIGHT have. Personally, I doubt that he did, but that ain't the point! The point is in the word "might" and one would expect that this point would be impossible to prove one way or the other.   But an Attorney General as the titular head of the Bar must ensure that at all times that nobody can accuse him (or her) in circumstances such as this, of behaving improperly.   

So? What should Mr. Armour do? In one word: resign. At the very least there has been a dreadful mistake the responsibility for which must stop at his door. And at the worst? Well, let's not go there.                                                                                                                                                                                   

THE ABUSING OF THE CHILDREN HAS BEEN FORGOTTEN

 Well, it looks as though I will win my bet with myself that absolutely nothing will be done for those children at risk in the children's homes across the country. Their stories have been pushed off the front pages (indeed, of all the pages) in the print media by the rather stupid obfuscations of the Attorney General  as to whether or not he lied to a Miami court and by other things. Frankly, I believe that the AG is guilty and can't understand why it is taking so long for people to see that or for him to be fired. But this post is not about Mr. Armour's  (or anybody else's) machinations, it is about the children.

These abused kids are facing individual crises of unimaginable proportions and need help right now. And "now" must mean NOW! Look, if we want to build a country that can be "a shining city on the hill" we have to look out and help the youngest generations. They need our support. Most of them are facing hunger and poverty and some of the most unlucky ones are facing unspeakable abuses ranging from vicious beatings to rape and everything in between. It might be too late to save the older ones, but it isn't too late to save the younger ones. In any case, we should not give up on trying to help the older ones. For crying out loud, they definitely don't deserve to be simply ignored. We MUST HELP.

I am an opinion writer. My purpose is to try and inform the public and maybe change minds. But ultimately I hope to make a difference on important issues and realities. I recognize that it is very difficult to sustain public interest on almost any issue for long enough to make that difference. But I can dream, can't I?

THE ABSOLUTE INCOMPETENCE OF THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE POLICE

 What exactly is going on with the so-called investigation into the abuse of CHILDREN in state owned/funded children's homes? I have written about this problem until I'm sick of it. I have said that I didn't think that anything will come of it, but I did believe that the police might at least pretend that they were treating this matter with urgency. To my absolute dismay I see that they are not!

R9obert Sabga is a friend of mine. He wrote to me this morning (Thursday 8th June) that someone in the Trinidad & Tobago Police Service (the TTPS) had  (finally) called him last night (7th June) and asked him for a witness statement for everything that is in the 1997 report! Can you believe that!? Come on Mr. Acting Commissioner of Police. Come on. Get off your big, fat tail and put down the cup of coffee and DO SOMETHING!  What are we paying you for? The bottom line is that children are being abused. And only now your people are approaching Mr. Sabga for a witness statement!?!? Apart from the fact that the 1997 report has Mr. Sabga's signature on it, don't you, McDonald Jacob, think that this is the height of incompetence?  And this is what you call an investigation? And there is a very strong possibility that children are still being abused?  When are you going to do something to save the children? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? Never?

This would be something for a comedy movie if it weren't so serious. It is a little like the joke that is going around the country: a man telephones the police to say that there is  a burglar in his yard. The police tell him that they can't come right now because they don't have any cars available. Five minutes later the man calls back the police to say don't bother to come. I just shot and killed him with my unlicensed gun. Five minutes later the police show up but there is no gun and no body. The police then say "I thought you said that you shot and killed a man'. The guy then replies 'I thought you said you had no cars'!

My message to the Acting Commissioner of Police is: move, follow, or get out of the way. This is way past a joke now and you clearly have done sweet nothing. If you don't know what to do then get out of the way. And Mr. Minister of National Security you deal with it. Put somebody in charge who at least pretends to care about the children. There are enough people in this country who have good ideas about what to do. SAVE THE CHILDREN NOW! And stop messing around.

"SLOWLY PROGRESSING"

 You will forgive me for returning AGAIN to this nasty problem that exists in the country of children being abused in State owned/funded children's homes. This morning's Trinidad Guardian (7th June, 2022) reports that the Assistant Commissioner of Police Sharon Cooper in charge of the investigative team that was appointed by Acting Commissioner of Police McDonald Jacob  on 16th May (some 22 days ago) was in the process of "currently interviewing persons"  and "are presently at the point of acquiring statements to obtain evidence". She also is reported as saying that "presently there is no need to relocate anyone" because "at this time none of the persons  interviewed is in harm's way". But on 25th May the Acting Commissioner of Police told the Parliament some NINE days after he appointed the investigative team that the team was in the early stages of its investigation and, "up to that time, they had not identified people within the children's homes that they can recommend being removed from the institutions immediately".

So? What the heck is going on? Is the Assistant Commissioner of Police saying that after more than THREE WEEKS that no evidence has been found or that there are NO REASONABLE suspicions that anybody MIGHT be guilty of some sort of abuse? Because if this is the case then Mr. Sabga's and Ms. Jones's respective committees are going to have to do a lot of explaining as to why their reports are false.

Frankly, I don't believe that the reports are false and I do believe that there has been some serious abuse which is still continuing, And this is where my problem begins: if the abuse is still going on don't we owe it to the children to take action IMMEDIATELY? NOW? And 'now' must mean 'now' - today, not tomorrow, not next week, but today! What is better? To suspend an innocent man or woman from his/her job, or to risk having an innocent child being abused? And that is the choice! We can pay the innocent man/woman to stay home while the evidence is being collected. But we can't pay for the abusing of an innocent child.

Right now there is a very real possibility that children are still being abused. But the police investigation is slowly progressing and a confidential report will be made "soon". And the authorities  are "investigating"! And we wonder why the crime rate is so high? Nobody is ever caught and prosecuted. Nobody! I have a bet with myself that absolutely nothing will come of this "investigation". Perhaps one or two very small fry might be caught, but this whole mess will be like the Akiel Chambers thing. No charges at all! But, we must be happy because the investigation is "slowly progressing".

 

INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND SNOW JOBS

  There is only one test for leadership: to lead, and to lead vigorously.  But just as important is effective  leadership. Of course, if a person (0r a group of persons) aspires to be a leader then one would hope for his/her leadership to be effective. A good example of ineffective leadership is the donkey that is in charge of Venezuela right now. More than six million of his countrymen have fled, most for economic reasons, and some for political ones, but this has taken place in what is potentially one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But Maburro stays in power with the very competent help (in staying in power) of the Cuban dictatorship. Without the Cubans and their very efficient security system which takes out (either by murder or lock up or both) any potential opponent the idiot would have been toppled long ago.

But this is not about Maburro and his incompetence, nor is it about those hypocrites who are clamoring for Cuba et al to attend the Summit of the Americas but are refusing to criticize Maburro and company as vigorously as they do the United States. This is about Trinidad & Tobago and the total and complete ineffectiveness of our leaders in dealing with the crisis concerning children's homes in this country. And this is about the snow job that those in charge are trying to pull on us  on this issue. A 'snow job', by the way, is defined as "an effort to deceive, persuade or overwhelm with insincere talk". And that is exactly what the Government is trying to pull on us: a snow job.

But let's deal with their ineffective leadership first. As this is being written (today, Saturday 4th June) nobody has yet been removed from his/her post or even suspended. And yet the evidence in the public domain suggests strongly that last night and the night before, and the night before, and so on, that a child was abused and that she/he will be abused tonight.  In a million years you cannot argue that "appointing a committee" and leaving everyone in place for the time being until the committee reports is an example of effective leadership. Look, I'm not going to argue about the ineffectiveness of the Government's economic policies nor am I going to argue about the proposed sale of the Petrotrin refinery or anything else for the time being. While all these issues (and more) are important they pale in comparison to this one.  My overriding concern is for the children - and the sad fact that abuse is still taking place and NOBODY has been charged or held accountable.

And here is where we come to the various snow jobs. Although, one can say with a great deal of justification that BOTH sides of the political divide have clearly dropped the ball on this one, the fact is that the Rowley led Government has been in power now just a few months short of seven years. And yet in that time the only thing that appears to have been done to save the children has been the appointment of several committees. Dr. Rowley's ministers, like Camille Robinson Regis and Ayanna Webster Roy, have tried to say that this Government cares, to which I say: really? But nothing has been done. People who were there yesterday are still there today. Let's not even talk about the millions that have gone down the drain. So? What exactly is being done RIGHT NOW to prevent further abuse? And don't tell me that you are "investigating". 

Mr. Prime Minister, the house is on fire and instead of arguing about who started the fire, use your office to put it out - NOW! We can argue later about who is really to blame. Of course, you needn't bother if you really believe that these kids aren't worth saving. But most right thinking people (including me) think otherwise. ACT NOW! SAVE THE KIDS!!

PRIORITIES

 It would be a joke if the consequences weren't so serious and tragic. In this morning's newspapers Camille Robinson Regis spends her time in castigating Robert Sabga for allegedly doing nothing when he submitted his report on the abuse being suffered by children and alleged that he (Sabga) was "rewarded" for his report by being made High Commissioner to Canada. Of course, the minor fact that the process of appointing a person as an ambassador starts about six months or more before the appointment is actually made is ignored; that and the fact that within a very short time after handing in his report Mr. Sabga was sent to Canada. But somehow it is his (Sabga's) fault that no action was taken and that it is to the credit of this Government that this has come to light now and that they are doing something about it now such as holding meetings and drinking coffee.

But leaving all that aside and assuming (though not accepting) that the goodly lady is right to castigate Mr, Sabga, Mrs. Robinson Regis defends the Government's seeming inaction by saying that a meeting has already been held and actions will be taken and the Prime Minister really cares about the children and , in any case, the wicked and evil UNC sat on its hands for twenty-five years and did nothing about it until the PNM came along.

Oh crikey! This woman can't be serious! First question: in the last twenty-five years who has been in power and when? Did the PNM at any time know about the report? Didn't the good lady herself refer to it in Parliament, or is the Hansard wrong?

Next question: what is the Government doing NOW to save the children who (it seems) are STILL being abused up to today as you read this?

You see, it is as if a house is on fire and the Government instead of trying to put out the fire is appointing a committee to discuss the best ways to put out the fire. The fact that the house is burning down is less important to them than trying to put out the fire. In fact, they seem to think that it is more important to find out who is to blame for the fire in the first place rather than putting it out. And when somebody asks them to put out the fire FIRST and then argue afterwards, that person who made the unreasonable suggestion of putting out the fire first is totally ignored and regarded as some sort of crazy person who doesn't understand how the thing works. If somebody is removed (much less arrested and charged) then, heaven forbid, the whole ugly story might come out and we  (whoever 'we' are) might be blamed for it.

But, the abuse in the children's homes is continuing. And now, twenty-five years later nobody is doing anything about it other than sitting around a conference table and drinking coffee. But the people in charge care. At least, so they say!

CRYING 'KORBAN'

 The Judith Jones report on the continuing abuse of children was laid in Parliament a month ago and NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.  A few days ago I took a bet with myself that nothing would be done ... and unfortunately it looks as though I will have won (or lost) my bet.  The Guardian is reporting  the Acting Commissioner of Police  today (Thursday 26th May) as saying that  "the investigative team is in the early stage of doing the investigation and yes some persons have come forward and given statements, but have not identified persons within these homes that they can recommend to be removed immediately from the homes, that is ongoing".

Really? So what exactly are the police doing? Because it sounds like they are sitting in their airconditioned offices waiting for people to come to them. It doesn't sound as if they have visited any of the homes in question nor conducted any confidential interviews with any of the victims, nor  does it sound as if the ACP is overly concerned about this. Certainly, there are many who have very, very strong suspicions that children are still being abused. Now, assuming that this is true, what does it say about those whose responsibility it is to put an IMMEDIATE STOP to the abuse? I would use words like monsters, hypocrites, criminals, crooks, selfish and self-centered, dishonest, along with a host of others that are unprintable. But a whole week has passed and nothing has been done! Why? Do you want to bet if some big wig's child was involved that somebody would be in custody by now? Is it that 'little people' don't count? Or is it that children don't vote? Or is somebody high up protecting somebody? What is it? Don't we deserve an answer? My bet with myself is that absolutely nothing will happen.

It is absolutely incredible and most unforgivable that almost two weeks have passed (not to mention twenty-five years) since this scandal exploded into the public consciousness and NOTHING has been done as yet!! What are the names of those who have the responsibility? What are the names (all the names) of the people who work in these homes? What are their positions? Why don't we publicize all the names and then let's see what happens next? 

And it is very wrong that the politicians on both sides continue to throw stones at each other and ignore the festering sores created by the abuse instead of dealing with what is happening now! I am of the view that after we have fixed the problem then we can throw blame at this politician, or that politician, or the other politician. But we need to fix the problem first. This is what is urgent!  And , unbelievably, what seems to be more on the minds of the politicians on BOTH sides is that it is YOUR fault (whoever 'your' might be). Oh crikey, just fix it! You don't argue about who started a fire when it is raging out of control. Your first move is to put it out. After the fire is out then you can argue about whose fault it was. And if the Acting Commissioner of Police can't fix it then get somebody else who can and who will start protecting the children immediately. But let's not be like the pharisee who gets rid of his sins by standing at the gates of the temple and crying 'korban',  because that is exactly what we are doing! And the abuse is not stopping.

TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

In the Sunday Guardian of today (22nd May, 2022) the Acting Commissioner of Police is reported as saying that he only got a copy of the Sabga report on Thursday last (19th May, 2022) and that his "investigation" has begun and he has ordered it to take place within a very short time - three months or less!! To which I can only say a loud 'WHAT'? Three months to "investigate" this report is a reasonable and short time? Before I start to curse, tell me, does anybody reading this believe that children are STILL being abused? Or do you think that the abuse has stopped? 

If (like me) you still believe that children are being abused, do you believe that we should have to wait for another three months for Mr. Jacob to complete his "investigation"? Do you believe that anything will come out of this "investigation"? Do you think that anybody of any significance is going to go to jail for his/her part in this scandal? Or do you believe that Mr. Jacob is simply kicking the can down the road in the hope that it will simply go away as so many scandals have done before? Do you, for example, think that it was reasonable for the Acting CoP to receive the Sabga report only on Thursday 19th May when the scandal erupted with an Express newspaper report some four days earlier on Sunday 15th May? Who was supposed to send it to him? And why did it take FOUR days to be sent? Is this what we call in this country "acting with dispatch"? 

Why does everybody that I talk to believe that nothing will happen? Why does everybody that I talk to believe that the abuse of children is still going on in these homes? Why is the Acting CoP dragging his heels over this one? In any case, why is this 25 year old report now being "investigated", seemingly for the first time, by the police? Why?

There are too many questions and too many obvious 'cover-ups'. But nobody is asking the hard questions. I guess they just don't want the hard answers. So Trinidad & Tobago will continue with no accountability for or by the well-connected. And nobody will be blamed for anything. And as for the children? Well, they simply will never get justice in this life. You can be sure of that!

THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: TO BOYCOTT OR NOT TO BOYCOTT

 

I would have a lot more sympathy with those who are calling (rather loudly) for a boycott of the Summit of the America's  if Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are not allowed to attend or are not invited. You see, these three countries are ruled by bloody and ruthless dictatorships, and if the Summit of the America's is to mean anything, those loudly calling for a boycott should also be calling for these three countries to become proper democracies and to free their peoples from the nasty boots of the dictators. But the critics of the Americans are keeping very silent on this point ... which, at the end of the day, is the only point.

You can't have it both ways: either you are about freedom and justice for everybody or you are not. It is very easy to sit in your comfortable, airconditioned office and drink coffee and criticize the evil United States and then jump on a plane for Miami to enjoy the so-called evils of the world's strongest democracy and go shopping or whatever else you might want to do. 

It is very easy to criticize the Americans. They are far from perfect, make a lot of mistakes, and at the end of the day they are really about their own interests. But the fact is that however bad you might think that they are and whatever sins you might wish to ascribe to them (of which they are probably and more than likely guilty) the fact is that if given a choice of whether to live in the States or, say, Cuba, you will ten times out of ten opt for America. Nobody wants to live in a dictatorship (unless you are the dictator.

But those who are so loudly critical of the USA keep amazingly silent on the ills of the brutal regimes that are inflicting so much misery on their citizenry and they certainly don't want to live in any of those places where their citizens have been fleeing in the millions. 

 And it is clear that what is sauce for the goose simply isn't sauce for the gander. I would be in favour of admitting the Cubans et al to the Summit, BUT I would in the next breath demand that all those who are threatening a boycott in the name of freedom apply that sentiment to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela and criticize them as fiercely as they are now criticizing the United States. Any bets that the critics will say absolutely nothing about the lack of freedom in these countries?

And although it is not a "big thing" for most people who live in this part of the world, it is a big thing for those unfortunate enough to have to live in those countries because they have absolutely no choice. But you don't see that in the headlines, do you? Talk about dishonesty and hypocrisy!!