MERRY CHRISTMAS

 There is a lovely Christmas song which says that this season of Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year. I do agree. The season encompasses just about everything from the religious to the festive. And what is absolutely wonderful about our little country is that just about everybody joins in the festivities, the parties, the gift giving and even Santa Claus! You don't have to be a Christian to join in. Indeed, many people who aren't Christian join in enthusiastically.

Put another way, this season effectively achieves what we all mouth during the year: all inclusivity.  We are also reminded to have consideration for the poor, the weak, the infirm and everybody else who might not be happy (with good reason) at this happy time. That this is right and needed throughout the year is also true. But even this dark cloud doesn't take away from the genuine good cheer, especially in Trinidad & Tobago.

I want to use this opportunity to wish everybody (and I do mean everybody) a very merry Christmas and that all your Christmas wishes come true, and, of course, a very happy, prosperous and successful new year.

Robin Montano

I'll return in the new year with my usual commentaries.

MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

 

It is impossible to get any sort of accurate reading about life in Trinidad & Tobago from reading the daily newspapers. The various articles are usually skewed in favour of one side or another of the political divide or don't present an accurate picture of how people really feel. So, here are a few questions that need to be asked and answered:

1)   Are people in general satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in T&T?

2)   Do people in general feel that T&T is on the right track?

3)   How would most people describe how they feel about their lives in T&T? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Do they think that the country is going downhill or that life is getting better? Depending on who you ask, you would probably get a different answer to this question. Most UNC supporters  believe that the country is going downhill. Most PNM supporters have grown somewhat disenchanted since the last election, but are probably not disenchanted enough to switch their votes to the UNC.

4)   How have inflation and job losses impacted the picture concerning peoples' perception on the economy? 

5)   Is race still a factor in the collective minds of the electorate? If so, why has there been just about no discussion at all on this issue? The newspapers collectively seem to shy away from any discussions about this. Why?

6)    On the question of the murder/crime rate, how has this affected peoples' thinking? Is there  a discontent about this? Is that discontent shaped partially - and in many cases amplified - by peoples' fear of what the 'other' Party might or might not do?

7)   How many PNM people think that the economy might improve under PNM? How many UNC people believe that it will improve under the UNC?  In other words is "Its the economy, stupid" a major factor on most peoples' minds?

8)   What do people think of Dr. Rowley and how he has been leading the country? What do people think of Mrs. Persad Bissessar  and her aspirations to become Prime Minister?

9)   In 2020 PNM won the election by running "we are not the UNC". In 2025 the signs are already there that they will try  a reprise that theme (with possible modifications). Will that be enough?

With a little less than two years to the next election there is obviously a lot of time for opinions to change, but if you want to know what is going on the answers to these questions should help you.

ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING IN GUNS

 

It is now virtually impossible  to find anybody in Trinidad and Tobago who has not been affected either directly or indirectly by gun violence. There are several questions the answers to which might help our collective understanding of the problem that we are facing.

 Okay, so first question: we all believe that there is a massive amount of illegal trafficking in illegal guns. Is this really true? If so, what is the size of the problem? Certainly, it appears that there is a huge amount of illegal guns in the country with more coming in every day. Is this true?  If so, how are these guns coming in? Are they coming through the ports? Who is bringing them in? Whether this perception is so or not, what exactly are the authorities (police, customs etc.) doing about it? And when will we, the citizens, be able to see and feel some relief? 

If it isn't true, why does everyone and his mother believe that it is true? What exactly are the plans of the Government and the police to deal with the problem? And if they can't disclose these plans (confidentiality) then when exactly would it be fair to say that they have failed? Six weeks from today? Five weeks? When can we fairly say that the authorities (Government, police, etc.) have failed? And who has workable solutions? What exactly are they?

Next question: where exactly are the regulations controlling  the illegal trafficking of guns failing? Of course, I am assuming that I am correct in thinking that there is little or no real enforcement of the regulations.  But certainly, based on the evidence before us there seems to be massive evidence that the regulations dealing with illegal firearms are failing miserably. Why? Again, what are the authorities doing about this?

Third question: where exactly can one find easily all data relating to the illegal trafficking of guns? Where exactly is the data that can tell us whether or not our perception that we are in the middle of a crime epidemic is accurate? Who is responsible for keeping this data? The Government? The police? Customs? All of them? Who?

Fourth question: if the data shows clearly that there is indeed a lot of illegal trafficking in guns, then who is ultimately responsible for that and what exactly are they going to do about it? And when exactly can we expect some relief? Do the authorities know who is importing these illegal guns? If so, why have no arrests been made? And if they don't know, why don't they know? I do understand that justiciable evidence may be hard to come by, but if there is illegal trafficking in guns it should exist. Why are we, the citizenry, being kept in the dark about this?

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Without clear and concise answers to these and other questions we are "spinning top in mud". At the very least, the answers to these questions (and others) should help us to think more clearly rather than throw our hands in the air like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins by doing just that (throwing his hands in the air) and crying "Korban".

There are many other questions and this list is not intended to be a complete one. Please note that I am not talking about LEGAL guns; that is a whole other discussion. And to be clear, I believe that there is a massive amount of trafficking in ILLEGAL guns. And therein is where I believe that the problem begins and ends and that without asking and getting answers to the hard questions on the questions we will never solve the problem. Maybe the question should be do we really want to solve this problem?

Esequibo - Part Two

 

The news out of South America is certainly not good. On the one hand, you have a dictator in the form of President Maburro (and yes, the mis-spelling is deliberate) and on the other hand you have an ally, a member of Caricom, under a serious threat of war and forcible annexation of its territory.

While it is clear that President Maburro is extremely unpopular in his country - more than 10 million Venezuelans (from a total of about 30 million) have fled his awful regime - what is not so clear (at least here in the Caribbean) is what exactly is the claim on the Esequibo that Venezuela has and why does this claim resonate with most Venezuelans

Very briefly, it is because most Venezuelans believe that their country was cheated in the arbitration that ended with a decision for Great Britain (then the ruler/owner of Guyana). Their argument is that they believe that the decision was fundamentally unfair because at the time Britain was one of the most powerful countries in the world - if not the most powerful. Therefore, they argue, there was at the very least, the perception of bias and undue influence on the arbitrators, none of whom were South American. And this perception of bias, they argue, voids the decision of the arbitrators. 

Then there is the recent decision by the International Court Of Justice (ICJ). The Venezuelan argument (in a nutshell) is that Venezuela never signed up to the treaty that established the ICJ and therefore they are not bound by any decision that it makes. Indeed, that is their major justification for not taking part in the proceedings in the first place.

I have put all this out because it hasn't been clear from the many news reports as to whether or not there is any other side to the claims of that awful dictator, Nicholas Maburro other than those of the Guyanese.. Unfortunately, even the Devil may sometimes have an argument that should at least be listened to.

So? What is the answer? Certainly on the surface, at least, both sides appear to  have good  arguments that need to be settled without recourse to violence (war).

I have deliberately not set out the Guyanese arguments, but, in one sentence, they can be summed up by saying that they have been in possession of the lands for more than 125 years and the revival of the Venezuelan claim is not just bogus, but is intended purely to help Maburro who faces an election soon. It is a good argument.

So? What to do? Perhaps there might be another arbitration composed of  members from both Caricom and allies of Maburro in Latin America (to avoid any perception of bias).  And there should be an agreement that the decision of this tribunal will be final and binding on both sides.

It is absolutely clear that war should be avoided, and that should be the motivation for all right thinking peoples to try to help. And Caricom needs to help now! Today!

HOW MUCH IS A BILLION DOLLARS?

  Sometimes we can get caught up with numbers that few of us really understand. For example, if you heard the the Government had spent a billion dollars on X (whatever X is) you would (depending on your political persuasion) say that was a fair price or that was completely exorbitant. But regardless of your belief as to whether the amount was fair or exorbitant the truth is that you really have no true appreciation of how much a billion dollars is. So let me help you by putting it in context for you:

If I told you that I would give you one dollar for every second that passes as from now, it would take you about ELEVEN AND A HALF years before that amount reached a million dollars. Now, if I said I would give you one dollar for every second that passes as from now, it would take a little over THIRTY ONE AND A HALF years before you collected one billion dollars!

Let me put it another way for you: if I gave you a billion dollars on the day that they crucified Jesus Christ with the proviso that you spend one thousand dollars a day every day, and you lived forever;  today you would have about a hundred and ten years to go before you ran out of money!

And that is why we find it difficult to understand news reports that say that a project cost $X billion or that the Government lost $Y billion on it.  Unfortunately, very few people in the whole world will ever amass any where close to a billion dollars either in cash or in kind and there are fewer still who really understand or appreciate how much one billion dollars really is. Oh! We know that it is a lot, but we have no real idea as to how much it is.

Perhaps it is time that we pay attention to Government spending and ask ourselves whether or not we are getting value for money or is there too much waste?

THE ESEQUIBO: WHOSE CLAIM IS BETTER?

 

The dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the ownership of the Esequibo region has its origins in the distant past. In 1899 after an international arbitration the ownership of the region was confirmed to what was then known as British Guyana (the former name of the now independent country of Guyana).

The problem was that at the time of the award Britain was one of the most powerful countries in the world (if not the most powerful). Most Venezuelans believed then as well as now that the award was flawed and that Venezuela's claim was never properly or (more importantly) fairly adjudicated with the concept that 'might is right' dominating the decision. Certainly, there is a lot of justification for this belief that Venezuela's claim was  unfairly dealt with. Guyana has now said let the International Court of Justice deal with it. Venezuela has responded  with a simple 'why should we?'

It is fairly obvious that President Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) is trying to resurrect this dispute as a way to garner support both locally and (more importantly for him) in Latin America where the distrust of the European powers has never gone away. 

So the question really is, does Venezuela really have a good claim to this very rich (in oil and gas) region, or is Maburro simply 'trying a thing'?

Except for the names and a few other obvious changes this story is rather similar to the current war raging between Israel and Hamas. Basically, the Israelis claim that they have a right to the lands that they occupy because they were forced out of there some 2000 years ago. Hamas claims that the Palestinians were always there but were basically forced out by the Americans and the Europeans some 70 or so years ago.  Now there is vicious killing (on both sides) especially of women and children.

All this goes to prove the simple truth that 'might is right' (even when it is wrong).

But going back to the Venezuela/Guyana dispute it is now almost impossible to say who has the better claim. It would be very easy to argue for or against either side. And either argument would be as right as it could be wrong. Certainly, my Venezuelan wife believes strongly in the justice of Venezuela's cause and my sister equally believes in the justice of that of Guyana. Me? I really don't know where the justice lies or who has the better claim, but I want to sleep in my own bed tonight so I'll side with Venezuela.

PERCEPTION vs. REALITY

 

Something that I read somewhere once, has remained with me forever. It is that there is only ONE reason for politics - only ONE reason for Government, and that is to make life better for the people! Full stop! Punto finale! There is no other reason.

So, with this injunction in mind I have engaged myself in looking at all the major (and minor) national political parties in Trinidad & Tobago. I have left out Dr. Farley and his team from this exercise because they are not national in their aspirations, but are only concerned with Tobago.

  Looking at the ruling Party first, I have rather reluctantly come to the conclusion that it has failed the country miserably. Take the number one issue, for example, on everybody's mind right now: crime. My (very, very unofficial) survey tells me that we have reached a stage where everybody knows personally somebody who has been affected one way or another by this terrible scourge that is plaguing our beautiful country The next stage after that is when everybody has a family member who has been touched by this scourge in one way or another. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be very far away from that. It would be very nice to be wrong on this point, but I don't think that I am.

The PNM also has problems with its cadre of leaders. As a Prime Minister Dr. Rowley has failed to gather around him persons of demonstrable competence in their various Ministries. Take, for example, the disastrous performance of the current Minister of National Security. The lousy performance of the Minister of Health has been pushed out of the headlines by the crime situation, but the Health sector is still an absolute disaster. The clear message is: don't get sick in T&T! And so it goes on; the roads are a mess, the education system is failing and in a country which has plenty of rain there is a sizable proportion of the population that can't get a regular supply of water.

With Dr. Rowley and Co. failing so obviously then it would only be natural to assume that the opposition UNC would be an overwhelming favourite to win the next elections. But this is clearly not so. Even the most die hard supporters of the UNC are privately admitting that "things look tight". For better or worse, this is obviously a fault of the current leadership. Mrs. Persad Bissessar has failed in her bid to present herself as a credible alternative Prime Minister. Part of the reason why this is so is because she has failed to gather around her credible, strong and demonstrably competent people. Indeed, the perception is that anybody who MIGHT be able to present him/herself as a credible leader is unceremoniously booted out of the Party or "killed" politically. Unfortunately, in politics perception is reality, so it really doesn't matter whether this is true or not. What is true is that such a perception exists. And this perception reinforces the negative opinion that people have of Mrs. Persad Bissessar.

Then we have the two "hopefuls": Phillip Alexander and Gary Griffith. Again, unfortunately, neither of these two gentleman seem to have been able to garner support from strong and competent persons. To be fair, both of them have made some excellent points as to how they think the country should be run and how they would do it if given the chance. Their problem is that they are perceived (that word again) to be 'one man shows' and without any kind of party political infrastructure.

So we come back to the beginning of this post and the question that ought to be in the forefront of everyone's mind: are YOU better off today than you were 8 years ago when Dr. Rowley and his team came to power? If you are, then it is clear who you should vote for. But if you aren't better off then the question as to what you should do is still (rather surprisingly) up in the air.

TYHE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN DISPUTE - CARICOM SHOULD STEP IN

 A long career in law (more than 50 years) has taught me a few things: the first is that a bad settlement is always better than a good judgement. If the argument (to use an admittedly silly example) is about who owns a dog then it is better to reach a compromise of sorts rather than go through the time and expense of a major trial that could end up costing more than the dog is worth. Of course there will be an argument that X loves the dog too much to allow Y to have it (or vice versa) and the solution of King Solomon to cut the dog in half is clearly unacceptable. A compromise in this situation could range from one paying to the other the price of the dog or some portion of its value.  That there could be other solutions to this otherwise intractable problem is obvious. The point here is that both X and Y have equal but different claims to the dog and some sort of compromise is obviously essential.

The next thing that was drilled into me as a young lawyer is that if you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics, Without an understanding of the basics of the problem a solution will always elude you.

With these two self imposed injunctions on me I have found myself looking at the latest events in the long running Israeli/Palestinian dispute with a great deal of dismay. Clearly, given the whole history of this matter starting with 2,000 years ago and coming up to date it is clear that BOTH sides have rights and that neither side is innocent of wrong doing. I'm not going to get into the argument as to who is more to blame or who did what first. At the end of it all there is a serious dispute that requires  compromises from BOTH sides before there can be any resolution. 

Now, a compromise is just that: a compromise! In a compromise neither side will get what they want, but the basic question would be 'is this the best solution for everybody?' And such a settlement could be achievable if only there could be some sort of dialogue. "Jaw-Jaw" is always better than "War-War". And that is the third thing that I learned.

I hesitate to give my own ideas of what a compromise solution might look like. For one thing, this is not the purpose of this particular post. But I do have some ideas.

The purpose of this post is to criticize the leaders in Caricom for their failure to come forward and try to insert themselves  as a neutral third party to try and achieve a settlement. People (on both sides) are dying and obviously calmer heads are needed to try and bring some sort of resolution to this conflict. We (i.e., the citizens of Caricom) have nothing really to gain from trying to help but then, people are dying! If that alone was not a good reason to try and help stop the carnage then nothing is. There could even be some side benefits to us mounting  (or at least trying to) mount the world stage, but our basic aim should be to try and prevent more people who could be alive next week staying alive if they weren't killed today. The problem with dying is that if you are dead it will be for a lllooonngg time!

OF POLITICS, PRIME MINISTERS AND DECISIONS

There are a lot of people, it seems, that don't really understand the TT Constitution nor how much power  a Prime Minister wields under our system of Government - the Westminster system. Most people think, for example, that an American type President is more powerful than a TT Prime Minister.

And they are both right and wrong at the same time.

An American President is obviously a million times more powerful than a TT Prime Minister because he is the head of the most powerful country in the world. However, the constitutional checks and balances in the American system severely constrain him in a way that a TT Prime Minister isn't. He needs to get Congressional approval for just about every thing he does, and even when his Party controls one or both Houses of Congress an American President cannot be guaranteed that he will get his way. Powerful and influential Senators can (and often do) oppose a sitting President from their own Party. Of course, the President is there for a fixed term and cannot lose his job simply because he loses a vote either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, or both.

Compare a TT Prime Minister:

In theory he and his Government are subject to the control of Parliament.  But, (and it is a big "but") Parliament can only really control the Prime Minister by passing a vote of no confidence in him. If that happens then the Prime Minister falls. But the Prime Minister has a seven day grace period in which he can call new elections. If he does that then you'd better believe that none of those who combined with the Opposition to boot him out will ever be chosen as their Party's candidate for a particular seat as the Prime Minister is always the leader of the political Party that garnered the most votes in the last election (or at least, in the President's opinion can command a majority of votes in TT's Lower House). He (or she) who controls the Party controls everything.

But there has never been any Government M.P.'s in this country in the past willing to bring down their Government and face the polls. It just ain't gonna happen - ever!

So, the reality is that once a person becomes Prime Minister the only check on his power is the court of public opinion. Prime Ministers will bend when it becomes clear to them that a proposed course of action is opposed by a sizable and/or influential (read "money") majority in the country.

Even then, a lot depends on when the particular controversial proposal is brought up. If the proposal comes early in the term a Prime Minister might be tempted to ignore public opinion and ride the storm of protest out. If it comes late in the term then he is more susceptible to pressure. A classic example of this was the controversy over (the infamous) clause 33 and Mrs. Persad Bissessar backing down and withdrawing it. Too much political capital was being lost and there are many who felt that that particular issue was a major reason for her Party's defeat in 2015

  

But Mrs. Persad Bissessar is not the only Prime Minister who has backed down on a controversial issue, or who can be accused of acting autocratically. The same can be said of each and every one of her predecessors and of her successor, Dr. Rowley. The system creates and allows it. Winston Churchill once defined  a Westminster type democracy (which is what we have here) as "a dictatorship punctuated by 3 weeks of democracy every 5 years."

That is why our general elections are much more "Presidential" than they might seem at first blush. Whoever we elect as Prime Minister in the next general election is going to have almost complete

power - no different from what now exists, but it is important to understand this. Further, for the second time in our history we will be dealing with 2 known entities: Mrs. Persad Bissessar and Dr. Rowley. (The first time was Messrs. Manning and Panday in 2007). Mrs. Persad Bissessar has been Prime Minister once before. We have her track record to look at and we know exactly how she she is going to behave and act.  Those who think we will get something different are indulging in wishful thinking. And as for Dr. Rowley, because he is of "more recent vintage" it would be absolutely mind boggling to believe that this particular "leopard" will "change his spots".

So, in the upcoming elections (which are constitutionally 2 years away) as the dust of battle begins to settle, we will know exactly what to expect from whichever side wins. Think about it!

DEALING WITH RISING PRICES

 If you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics. With this in mind I have been wondering why prices seem to be rising so quickly. Finally, a business friend explained it to me in simple terms. He said let's take dog food for example. You are selling 10 packs of dog food a week for $10 per pack. At the end of the week you therefore have an income of $100. However, you want to cut costs so you lay off 2 workers and save $1 per worker (i.e., $2 as the salary of each worker is $1 a week.) But it takes 7 workers to make 10 bags of dog food and now you are 2 down from the 7 that you had. So? What to do? You want to still make the $100 a week and 5 workers can only produce 7 bags a week. There will be an obvious shortfall.

So you raise the price of the dog food to $15 a pack. The 5 remaining workers are able to produce 7 packs a week. As it is, 3 buyers will not be able to afford the increased price so you will now be selling 7 bags a week at $15 a pack instead of 10 packs at $10 each. But when you were producing the 10 packs your gross income was then $100 a week. Now you are producing 7 packs but your gross income is now $105 a week So you are now $5 a week better off. 

But it doesn't stop there. Because you laid off 2 workers you are now $2 a week better off by saving on the salaries. And this has to be added on to the extra $5 a week that you are making from the price hike.

It is admittedly a little confusing, but if you do the maths from this very, very simple example, you will get the point.

Putting it simply, we are clearly being ripped off by highly unethical business practises and by the Government aiding and abetting them by not doing anything and allowing the argument that the inflation that we are all seeing is imported and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it. Like all arguments this has a little bit of truth in it. Frankly, this is happening not just here but around the world. But that doesn't mean that we can't do anything or shouldn't even try to do something about it. 

IS THERE A FOREIGN EXCHANGE PROBLEM?

 I was so glad to read that Conrad Ennil, a former finance minister in Patrick Manning's cabinet and now holding a big time chairmanship in one of the country's most important financial institutions,  has stated quite publicly that there is no shortage of foreign currency in the country. And because neither Mr. Ennil (nor indeed any PNM finance minister) ever lies then it must be true: there is no foreign currency shortage or crisis in T&T!  Full stop!

My only problem is that nobody seems to have told any of the banks who continue to limit the amount of foreign currency available to citizens. For example, Republic Bank just put out a notice to its credit card holders that the available amount in US dollars available to their card holders in any one billing cycle has been reduced from $10,000 to $5,000. But there is no foreign exchange shortage so clearly the bank has to be syphoning off all the available foreign currency for it's own nefarious needs. And when my bank (not Republic) says that I have to get special approval (which normally takes about three days) to send money for my son's education and living expenses, it is lying to me. Of course, this statement would be highly defamatory if there was really a shortage of foreign currency, but because Mr. Ennil et al never lie, we know that this could not be true.

But there could be another explanation: Mr. Ennil et al simply don't know what they are talking about when they say that the foreign currency situation is only in people's minds. In other words, the alleged shortage is simply a fiction of those persons who are just looking for something to criticize the Government and the Prime Minister for. Yep! That's probably it! Somebody somewhere is just completely incompetent! 

What do you think? Because something is dreadfully wrong here and we are not being told the truth by somebody! Who do you think is lying?

THE VERY DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY

 

It was with great surprise that I saw in the news this morning that Cuba, a 64 year old dictatorship, has . announced its candidacy to join the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2024 to 2026.  The election will take place in October. Really? And what countries exactly will vote for Cuba? Will Trinidad & Tobago vote for this brutal, dictatorial regime which currently has more than 1,000 political prisoners and routinely murders (literally) anybody stupid enough to oppose it? If T&T supports this what will that say about  the current T&T regime?

Cuba is, along with Nicaragua, the two places in the region where religious freedoms are brutally curtailed. And don't forget that at the beginning of this awful regime it promised a workers paradise! The only paradise in Cuba is enjoyed by those at the top. Everybody else can literally go to hell as far as the regime is concerned. Certainly, this "workers' paradise" is anything but, and is a place where nobody in their right mind would want to live.  PRISONERS DEFENDERS, a human rights organization based in Spain has catalogued practices by this terrible regime of prison torture, deprivation of medical attention, forced labour, solitary confinement, intentional disorientation as well as many other actions that any right thinking person would consider to be crimes. 

But then, this is Cuba, so I guess that makes it all right! Cuba gets rid of anyone who is an independent activist either by locking them up and throwing away the key or by murdering them. Ask Oswaldo Paya or Harold Cepero. Oh! You can't ask them because they are dead - murdered by the Cuban regime. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is my authority for saying this. Those two guys were killed in a car crash which the IACHR says was caused by Cuban State agents because they were highly critical of the brutal dictatorship.

I could go on. I could talk about the issue of modern day slavery in Cuba which sends its doctors overseas only to seize 80% of their salaries and prevent them from leaving wherever they are sent to by threatening to kill the families of the doctors. 

And the United Nations is seriously going to allow Cuba to put forward its candidacy to join the Human Rights Council? What is the definition of hypocrisy again?

And why is this not news in T&T? What is our Government's position on this? When are we going to stand up and be counted against brutal dictatorships?

PNM v UNC

 

The PNM has been able to put itself in the minds of the electorate as the "go to" or "default" political party in Trinidad & Tobago. This fact gives it a big advantage over every other political party and gives the PNM in the minds even of truly independent voters that the old mantra of "better to live with the devil you know than the devil you don't" is probably correct. The UNC in the meantime has failed signally to capitalize on the thousand and one screw-ups that the Rowley regime has burdened the population with, so much so, that what should be a runaway victory at the polls is now a dead heat between the two dominant parties with the PNM having the advantage of incumbency.

For the UNC to have a chance at the polls in any meaningful way it needs to present itself, not only as a credible alternative to the PNM, but also as a political party that has the solutions to the million and one problems plaguing the nation. And it needs to do this now -over and over again. It doesn't matter that the PNM might listen to the proposed solutions, like them and then implement them. What would happen is that the country would see that the UNC really cares about the ordinary man and is prepared to put country first whether or not it means depriving themselves of power. Because, for example, do you really care who fixes the crime situation, or do you basically care about getting it fixed?

On this particular issue (crime) I note with considerable alarm the fact that nobody on either side of the political divide is putting forward any real and workable solutions - except to say that the Minister of National Security and the Commissioner of Police are both grossly incompetent. While this is probably true it doesn't really give any solace to a beleaguered population that is desperately looking for relief to this multi-faceted problem.

There are two new political parties on the scene - one led by Phillip Alexander who has managed to use social media to his great advantage by highlighting the problems that plague us, and the other led by Gary Griffith whose basic claim to fame is that he was a very good Commissioner of Police which is evidence of his ability to lead.

For better or worse neither of these two parties have got any traction with the electorate and the race at the moment is a straight dog fight between the two major parties - the PNM and the UNC. Of course, there is a legitimate fear on both sides that either or both of these minor parties could cause a loss or a victory in highly marginal areas but at the end of the day this particular possibility, while being a legitimate cause for concern for both sides, really is not motivating either of the two main protagonists to change their modus operandi in any meaningful way.

A demonstrably new way of thinking is now more than ever necessary. Unfortunately, the country's past experience with third parties (e.g., the NAR) has been such that the electorate is understandably reluctant to take a chance with an unproven entity. So we are back with "the devil you know ..." syndrome.

What can break this static state of affairs? Probably we could start with a change of leadership on both sides. This is more likely to happen with the party not in power (UNC) but there are some rumours floating around that Dr. Rowley plans to retire before the next elections due in 2025. Depending on who the PNM chooses to lead it then (assuming that this happens) PNM will probably win. There is a rumour that Stuart Young, Dr. Rowley's "Mr. fix-it", will be the replacement. If this were to be true then the situation will be back to square one. Mr. Young does not enjoy widespread popularity and is too closely associated with Dr, Rowley.  If there is an acceptable (to the electorate) change of leadership on either side and that change happens soon, then the party that enacts the leadership change will stand a better chance than the one that doesn't. But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Politicians rarely act in what is the best interests of the country unless those interests happen to coincide. Put another way, meaningful change on either side remains most unlikely.

FIXING CRIME

 UNC politicians tend to treat it as an established fact: when PNM is in power crime rises; when UNC is in power crime falls, But party rule does not drive crime. Crime tends to rise when the economy is doing badly and falls when it is doing well.

This doesn't mean that PNM leadership drives crime per se nor does it necessarily lead to more crime. To put it another way, UNC politicians are misrepresenting our country's crime problem. That also doesn't mean that they are entirely wrong in what they are saying. It just means that focusing on crime by itself is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic problem. And, I'll say it again, the basic problem is that the country's economy has tanked. Almost (but not quite) everybody is worse off today than they were at the beginning of the Rowley regime. 

The truth is that there are a few (very few) people who are better off today than they were eight years ago. The truth also is that crime worldwide tends to be higher in urban areas than in country areas and in the cities and towns there tends to be a greater African population than in Indian areas which are largely in the country areas. That is why the general perception that most of the criminal element is largely African rather than Indian. But that is not the whole story.

Poverty and race play a major part in crime. But also affecting the problem is access to guns - which, apparently, is very easy. I am aware that  not a few UNC supporters will read this post and think that I am making excuses for the PNM. Far from it. Crime is a complicated issue driven by the economy, social issues, personal disputes, drugs and almost every other issue. And while a few issues can make a big difference partisanship is not one of them, I believe that fixing the economy is THE major issue, just not the only one.

No. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and the first step here is to define ALL of the problems and to put down clearly and succinctly the solutions to each one. If this has ever been done, I am unaware of it. Remember always: 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.

P.S. Happy Independence Day

THE DUTIES OF NEWSPAPERS

 It is striking, to say the least, how the three daily newspapers are failing to describe to their readers - who count on them and often pay them - in clear eyed terms what is going on in the country and fail completely to remind their readers about what ought to be important to our democracy. Take, for example, what can loosely be described as the Brent Thomas affair.

The reported facts are that Mr. Thomas had been charged with dealing in arms and ammunition illegally. Now these are serious charges, especially given the high incidence of violent crime. However, there seems to have been no restriction on Mr. Thomas who was out on bail. Now, bail is a common law right based on the principle that unless and until a man is found guilty of a crime his freedom cannot or ought not to be restricted.

Mr. Thomas, however, was arrested in Barbados by a combination of Trinidadian and Barbadian police and brought back to Trinidad. The problem here is that there was no warrant of extradition and the Trinidadian police had obviously gone to great lengths to bring Mr. Thomas back. They had even commandeered a special plane owned by the State for this purpose. 

This raises the rather obvious question as to who made this order to have Mr. Thomas arrested and brought back and why were the proper channels (such as obtaining an extradition warrant) not complied with? The erstwhile Commissioner of Police promised that there would be an investigation into what happened and why and that a report would be made in two weeks. This promise was made on the 17th May - more than three months ago! And yet, there hasn't been a single solitary peep out of the media! Nada! Nothing! Its as though it never happened and that page has passed. And meanwhile?

And yet it did happen! Why is this important? Because the facts - which are probably very uncomfortable- need to be spelled out and exposed. Who ordered this illegal action? Who got the Barbadian authorities to comply? Who in Barbados participated in this illegal act? Is any politician involved either here, or in Barbados, or both? If so, who? Why has no report ever been made? Why has the media seemingly dropped this matter? Why can't we (the general public) know what happened here.

Either the country's media lack the understanding of how serious this matter is or they lack the spine to investigate this properly, or both. Neither of these options is particularly comforting given the current state of this country's politics. Ignoring uncomfortable truths affect our democracy  in all sorts of terrible ways. Put another way, the country is not being served very well by its media and our very democracy is at risk as a result. Unfortunately, there are many other examples of the newspapers not doing their job.

Perhaps the best way to describe the duties of a newspaper was written by a man called C.P. Scott who published the following in the Manchester Guardian on theb6th May, 19328:

           "The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly and its first duty is to shun the                 temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred."

QUESTIONS

 On May 17th 2023 the Commissioner of Police promised an investigation and a report on the Brent Thomas affair. Readers will recall that Mr. Thomas had been charged with possession of illegal firearms and had travelled to Barbados where he was arrested by Barbadian police and brought back to Trinidad by Trinidadian police on a plane especially hired/commandeered by Trinidadian police for the express purpose of carrying out this act. The problem was that the arrest in Barbados was done without a warrant. In other words, no Court whether here or in Barbados had given the police any authority to extradite Mr. Thomas.

Put another way, on the face of it the T&T police appear to have acted illegally.

Now, today marks exactly three months from the date when our erstwhile Commissioner of Police promised a report on this matter "within two weeks". Well, in most people's minds two weeks is  a lot shorter than three months. So? What could the reason (or reasons) be for this delay? Incompetence? That is possible. Indeed, that would probably be the kindest reason. Because it is not beyond the bounds of speculation that some senior person, either in the Police Force or in politics, has indicated that the matter be quietly swept under the carpet so that everybody will simply forget about it.

Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that this second possibility is the real reason that nothing has been done, that would be a most worrying conclusion as it would mean quite clearly that a certain person or persons  can act with complete impunity and break the law whenever he/she/they feel like it.

The fact that the print media has not followed up on this suggests that the affair might have political overtones. While this is by no means certain, assuming (though again not accepting) that this is so, then the question should be what politician had been so offended by Mr. Thomas that he/she would have wanted him to be so punished and humiliated? Alternatively, who in the police service might have had something to gain by this? There are too many questions arising out of this matter, and all the reasonable answers that one might think of relating to this are very ugly. Indeed, there are a lot more questions that could be asked that haven't been asked here, but the basic question is why? Why did the police do what they did?

T&T's BEST PRIME MINISTER?

 

I ran a very unscientific poll last week. I listed all of our Prime Ministers (including the present one) and asked several of my clients who did they think was the best. (I didn't ask why they thought so, though I should have). To my somewhat very mild surprise, Mr. Manning came in first followed extremely closely by Mr. Panday. (One point separated them.) Unsurprisingly (to me at least), Dr. Rowley was at the bottom of everybody's list. But that wasn't good news for Mrs. Persad Bissessar as she was not very far ahead of Dr. Rowley., though she did rank ahead of ANR Robinson who came in second to last.

For everyone's information here are the results of MY poll (which is MOST unscientific): Mr. Manning came first followed very closely by Mr. Panday; next came Dr. Williams then Mr. Chambers and then came Kamla followed by ANR Robinson and finally Dr. Rowley. I noticed that most people tended to put their ethnic differences aside when confronted with my poll. I tried to run it by trying to include as many ethnicities as possible in (very roughly) the same percentages as there exist in the general population. But I probably asked more genuinely independent voters than  really exist percentagewise. Just about everybody that I asked said almost immediately that Dr. Rowley was definitely the worst before they went on to list their preferences.

I was mildly surprised at how low Dr. Williams came relatively speaking. (He came third way behind Messrs. Manning and Panday). But I put that down to the fact that he was Prime Minister a long time ago and few people really remember him. I am very aware that I have no experience or knowledge in how to conduct a proper poll and don't offer my results  as any sort of definitive statement. But I thought that it was an interesting question and so decided to share it with you. So, the question is: who do YOU think was the best Prime Minister Trinidad and Tobago has ever had? I'm not asking why you think so, because I didn't ask it in my "poll". But why you come to your conclusion might be interesting, no?

REFORMING THE CONSTITUTION - Part Two

 

I had promised to set out my ideas for reforming the Constitution as I tend to look with a great deal of scorn upon those who just criticize but do not put forward their own solutions. The premise that I have based my ideas on is that I am looking for a way to give more power to the ordinary person in controlling his/her life, and therefore controlling the politicians.

Looking at the various systems in place around the world, I have come to the conclusion that there is really no need to 'reinvent the wheel'. With  a few tweaks here and there the American system could work very well for us and achieve my goal of controlling the politicians. Let me explain:

There are 41 constituencies in the country (39 in Trinidad and 2 in Tobago). What if we divided each seat in two and abolished local government. Why do we need so many local councils in any case? The mayor of Miami presides over about 4 times as many people that we have in a land area that is roughly twice as large as ours! We could the elect (let's call them) Congressmen who would face the polls on a given day once every two years. The Congressmen would have all the responsibilities of the present local councils (garbage collection, etc.) but because they would be in Parliament they would have a modicum of control over their own budgets. And because they are only elected for two years if anyone doesn't perform to the satisfaction of the voters then he/she can be bundled out of office fairly quickly.

But because two years is a very short time we could have, say 41 Senators who would serve for six years in the original constituencies. But  one third of the Senators would face the polls every two years. So (to use a rather ridiculous example) if as a Senator I campaigned for a new law to make all men have to wear green pants, what would you say? When I face the polls this year I go down in a rather ignominious defeat over this stupid green pants issue, which, of course, would not be surprising. In the meantime, as a fellow Senator who will be facing the polls in two years after I have been defeated  and who has been supporting me on this issue (whether it is for loyalty to me or the political Party to which we both belong) seeing my defeat on this issue, you will quietly drop it. In two short years you will certainly not want to lose your seat and therefore would probably abandon it. And guess what? The voting public would have won!

I would have an executive President elected once every four years and a Cabinet that was appointed by the President but which would have to be approved by the Senate.

This system (which is basically the American system) admittedly has its flaws. We are witnessing some of them right now with Trump's refusal to accept his defeat and his appealing to the baser instincts of the American people. But, as I said in the beginning, we can 'tweak' it to suit us. Certainly, it would be better than what we have now which is (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) an effective dictatorship punctuated once every five years with democracy.

You realize, of course, that this proposal would effectively eliminate much of the powers of a prime minister under our present system. This proposal as a result will, more than likely, never see the light of day.

TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT REFORMING THE CONSTITION

 

If somebody came down to Trinidad today from another planet he would be forgiven for believing that a general election campaign was in progress and not just a local government election. On both sides there is a clear discussion of national issues (crime, the economy, corruption, etc.) but there is little or no discussion about local issues. To be fair, there have been some minor criticisms about the state of the roads and the potholes that litter all of the country's roads, but other than that there has been nothing. We have all heard the criticisms of the leadership of the two main parties and some have even tried to turn this local government election into a referendum on who is more popular - Kamla or Rowley.

Perhaps it is time to start thinking AND talking seriously about constitutional reform. Seriously. Why do we have Local Government? All the councils are effectively under the control of the Minister of Finance, who is effectively under the control of the Cabinet, which is effectively under the control of the Prime Minister, who is effectively a law unto himself/herself. So? Why do we, for example, have a Port of Spain City Council or  a Siparia Borough Council? 

And if it is true that there is ONLY ONE reason for politics and Government: to make life better for the people - then why is it that most people when they go to the polls, simply vote for exchange rather than real and substantial change? What are the substantial PHILOSOPHICAL differences between the PNM and the UNC - apart from the belief that this one or that one 't'iefes' more?

Again, for example, in the last debate on procurement in both the Senate and the House of Representatives NOBODY, not even any of the Independent Senators, provided any clear and workable solutions that could effectively help to stem corruption. I challenge anybody to tell me in clear and simple terms what  an outside observer would say on listening to the debate in Parliament as to what the differences in PHILOSOPHY are on this issue between the PNM and the UNC. I tried and failed. Essentially, the debate boiled down to 'stealing is wrong and we're against it'. And that was it! From all sides!

It is now definitely and absolutely clear that our present Westminster-type constitution just ain't working. Put another way, if something were to happen tonight that eradicated and destroyed everything so that when we woke up we had to start from scratch would you be happy to put the exact same system back or would you want to do something else? Most people vote for the 'something else' option. But we are not doing that!

Because I tend to be scornful of people who just criticize and provide no solutions of their own, in my next post I will give my ideas as to how the Constitution should be changed. Here's a teaser: abolish local government. I'll say why I think so and with what and how I would replace it. In the meantime, do you have any ideas? Or are you satisfied with what we have?

THE BANKS AND THE POLITICIANS

 If there is one sector of the business community in dire need of reform it is the banking and financial sector. In developed countries like Canada and the United States there is serious bank legislation that effectively prevents collusion and and absolute control of an individual's finances. For example, if money is sent to you from abroad very often the bank will charge you the same amount as it cost the person who sent it. Why? What cost has the bank actually incurred for receiving YOUR money? Answer: none! But it is a nice way to make an extra buck, isn't it?  Do you know that if the banks did what they are doing down here in, say, Canada, that the directors would all go to jail? But, dream on! That ain't gonna happen here. 

Again, if you have a mortgage which you have paid off in full, the bank has to execute a release of that mortgage which has to be registered. Now, tell me, in whose interest is it to have this release done? Yours, right? but if you get your lawyer to prepare the release the bank will send it to THEIR lawyer for approval. And YOU have to pay their lawyer for this service. Why? Why should the bank care if your lawyer made a mistake on the title to your land? They've got back all of their money with interest! So if they want to hire a lawyer for that, shouldn't that be  for their account?

These are just two examples of how the general public is being ripped off every day by these greedy dogs. But the list goes on and on. Why was it so very easy for my son in University in Canada to open a bank account there before he started attending the school but down here you have to jump through hoops in order to open an account? Why do we have to provide all kinds of personal information when we want to do some business through a bank down here? And don't tell me that its because of the Financial Institutions Act (FIA). Other countries have the equivalent legislation but they don't make it difficult for the general public. So? Why? Why are the lines so long at the bank? They don't exist in the big countries.

A local government election is coming up next month. But neither of the two main political parties are putting forward any proposals to make life better and easier for the people. Instead, it is clear that money talks. Bank profits have gone up in this guava season but not one politician has asked why! Why haven't the politicians tackled this? Isn't the only reason for government is to make life better for all of us? Who is going to make our lives better? What EXACTLY are they promising? and yet, we continue to vote for them and the banks continue to rip us off secure in the knowledge that neither side will interfere with their conduct which is downright criminal.

ARE YOU BETTER OR WORSE OFF THAN YOU WERE 8 YEARS AGO?

 At the end of the day, self-interest is the biggest motivator of all. Wouldn't it be great if that statement was true? Unfortunately, like so many things  in this country it is heavily nuanced by external factors. Take the coming elections on August 14th for example: if you are better off under the PNM then you can be expected to vote for that Party. If you are worse off then you can be expected to vote for the UNC. That is why I used the word "unfortunately", because things are not necessarily what they might seem.  Many PNM voters feel worse off under the Rowley regime but the available evidence suggests that they are not ready to decamp 'en masse' but instead will voice their displeasure by simply not turning out to vote.

You might think that this then would be a great time to be a supporter of the UNC. After all, your Party should win. But this is far from being a 'done deal' for Kamla and her supporters. There is a great deal of rumbling and discontent in the ranks of the UNC (although  it seems that the discontent is not as high as with Dr. Rowley). In addition, that crucial element in T&T politics, the swing voters, do not seem to be enamored with either side. A careful reading of the newspapers  shows that the various editors (answering to their bosses, the owners) seem to understand this and are betting that the PNM will survive this election, although it will be a close run thing; closer than it would  or should be if the issue of race was not a determining factor.

Let's face it: the country is (generally speaking) worse off than it was 8 years ago. In any normal political environment, the Government of the day would be blamed unless it was so very obvious that it wasn't the fault of the Government. That's more than a little hard to do when you have been running the show for 8 years ...  because things aren't good at all  Even though it is not being discussed openly, a devaluation with all its adverse consequences is looming on the not too distant horizon. But the PNM certainly appears to be stronger than one might expect and a cursory reading of the newspapers doesn't appear to show much concern about the crashing economy. If anybody can give a reason other than race, I'd love to hear it.

For the record, I understand why the newspaper reporting is as incompetent as it appears to be. The editors have to answer to their bosses ... who are heavily invested in the PNM. Therefore, there is very little 'wiggle room' for these editors, even when they see things going down and crashing all around them. Money talks and you know what walks!! So we come back to the age old question: are you better or worse off than you were 8 years ago? The answer to that question should dictate what you should do. What you will do is  a different story.

ELECTIONS - Both Local and General

 Human beings love arguing. There's something gratifying about pointing arrows and playing devil's advocate. It seems to bring a sense of satisfaction that outweighs the sense of harmony that stems from agreements. Most Trinbagonians are in a tricky mental space, brought about by poverty and huge doses of lies and propaganda that sow hatred, fear and a simultaneous sense of superiority and helplessness.

With the economy in freefall is a UNC general election victory certain?  The short answer to that question is 'no'. There are too many rumours coupled with racist suspicions, accusations and innuendoes from both sides. For example, the very recent resignation and crossing of the floor by this fellow Tabiska Obika. He is a black man who occupied a high position in the UNC until very recently. He resigned his position and immediately declared his support for the PNM barely two months before  a local government election. That a black man would leave the UNC for whatever reason is a big thing and going across to the PNM in the way that he did sends a very clear message: "There is no place in the UNC for anybody who is not Indian." 

Unfortunately, he watered down this news by immediately joining the PNM in a very public way giving rise to rumours that he had been bribed away from his position in the UNC by the PNM who has promised him the mayor's seat in Point Fortin (which, of course, they hope to win in the upcoming local government elections.) Well, it's going to be a very short time  when we will know for certain whether or not Mr. Obika will get any sort of "reward" for his crossing (whether its a mayoralty or otherwise), and if he does then people will draw their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, "back at the ranch" Kamla Persad Bissessar's best chance/hope for the Prime Minister's chair rests on her ability to present herself as a capable, caring technocrat capable of solving the country's economic woes. So far, she has been unable to show to the general public that she indeed has that capability. People look at her team and with only a few notable exceptions, regard them as weak. Unfortunately, the racial division in the country will dictate that if you are an Indian you must vote for the UNC, and if you are an African you must vote for the PNM and ability (perceived or otherwise) is not as important as it should be.

The PNM's big problem in the coming general elections (which are some two years away) is whether or not they can persuade enough of their supporters to come out and vote for them today. Many of their supporters are saying that they are fed up and simply will not vote. With the gerrymandered seats in the Parliament this then should be the UNC's best chance as most of the UNC supporters know that there is a great deal of disillusionment with the PNM at the moment. But all indications are that the local elections that are to be held on August 1th will have a very low poll. The problem that Mrs. Persad Bissessar has, is that the UNC, at the very least, has to ensure that it comes out with the same number of seats that it had going into the election. To this end, control of Sangre Grande's council is crucial. Control of this Council is currently with the UNC, but this is very "iffy" for both sides. If the PNM can take the Council at this time that will be an epic disaster for the UNC. Conversely, if the PNM more or less is able to maintain the status quo that will not be good news for Mrs. Persad Bissessar either. Her detractors (of whom there are many) will say with some justification that if in these bad times the UNC cannot improve it's position then the UNC can never win. In other words, the UNC has to do well in these local elections in order for Mrs. Persad Bissessar to be able to present herself as a credible alternative to Dr. Rowley. 

SHOULD TELEVISION AND RADIO BE ALLOWED IN COURT?

 Looking on with great interest at the circus that is the Donald Trump trial it occurred to me that the bedrock of the criminal judicial system - both in the United States as well as here in Trinidad & Tobago - is that the system is designed so that trials can be held in public. Indeed, anyone can enter a courtroom at nay time during a criminal trial and sit and listen to whatever is going on. But this system evolved over the years long before television - or even radio, for that matter - was ever invented.

So if the 'raison d'etre' of criminal trials includes the fact that we all agree that criminal trials ought to be held in public because we (the public) have an inalienable right to know, then why shouldn't television and radio be allowed in our court rooms? It seems to me that the fact that modern technology has made it possible for us to "attend" an event even though we are not actually physically present, then we should go with the times and allow radio and television into our courtrooms as a matter of course. Naturally, there would have to be some rules about this. For example, the cameras and microphones would have to be static (i.e., not capable of being moved). Also, there would obviously be no commentators allowed inside the courtroom. Obviously, nothing should be done that would create a distraction.

If we all agree that criminal trials should be held in public in keeping with the public's right to know, then there is absolutely no good reason why cameras and microphones should not be allowed. It is only our innate conservatism that prevents us from moving boldly with the times into the twenty first century.

What do you think?

QUESTIONS - PART 2

 I had such a good response to my last post that I thought of some more questions for you to think about. The same rules apply: this is for you only to answer to yourself and nobody else. Here goes:

11) If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

12) Is there something you've dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven't you done it?

13) What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

14) What do you value most in a friendship?

15) What is your most treasured memory?

16) If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way that you are living? Why?

17) What does friendship mean to you?

18) How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

19)When last did you cry in front of another person? By yourself?

20) If you were to die this evening without having an opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you regret most not having told someone? Why haven't you told them yet?

Okay. That's it! Next week I'll go back to discussing politics and the world as I see it. I do hope in the meantime, though, that my questions have helped you a little to think about who you are and about your life. I know that some of the questions as well as the answers may be uncomfortable for you, but if my questions have helped you a little bit to think about who you really are then I will have achieved my goal.

QUESTIONS

 I think that I once read a list of rather interesting questions somewhere (but I can't remember where). But thinking about it again I thought that you might like to answer them to yourself and for yourself only. So, here goes:

1) Given the choice of anyone living or dead in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2) Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3) What would constitute a "perfect" day for you?

4) When last did you sing to yourself? To someone else?

5) Do you have a secret hunch about how you would die and when?

6) Name three things that you and your partner have in common.

7) For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

8) If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any quality or ability, what would it be?

9) What do you value most in a friendship?

10) If you knew that in exactly one year from today that you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way that you are living? Why?

I hope that you find these questions interesting. Life ought not to be only about politics.  I thought that these questions were interesting and that you might enjoy them. I'll try and think of some more.

JOINING THE RANKS OF THE INSANE

 I came across this saying from the ancient Roman philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, the other day: "the object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Thinking about the political situation here in Trinidad & Tobago, I felt that this particular saying was most appropriate. This country is dominated by two distinct political tribes. If you are Indian you must vote for the UNC and if you are African you are a traitor to your race if you don't vote for the PNM. And that's it! Punto final!!

There is no discernible philosophical difference between either of the two parties. You can't say that one is better than the other in anything - except perhaps on the issue of corruption, and even there you will find members of both tribes saying that "they" are more corrupt than "mine". But I challenge anybody to lay out clearly and concisely exactly how the two parties differ from each other in policy. Both say that they are better at governance than the other and both cite all kinds of statistics, whether true or false, to justify whatever issue they might be on at the moment.

But in the meantime, the average citizen is suffering. Crime has reached unprecedented levels of violence and our economy is crashing. Haiti has shown that there is no "bottoming" out for a country, The descent is unending and things simply get worse. Put another way, there is no brighter tomorrow on the horizon.

Why do I say this? Take, for example, the latest imbroglio for the as yet to be announced Local Government election. (And take note that the Privy Council ruling on this matter was more than 10 days ago at the time of writing this post.) In other words, it is not unreasonable to assume that "things" are being put in place to ensure a certain result at the polls before the election is called. The Leader of the Opposition has called for international observers for the upcoming poll. Isn't it reasonable to assume that a Government committed to the Rule of Law would have reacted and obeyed immediately?  The Prime Minister says that it is insulting to us as an independent nation to have independent international observers, despite the fact that HE made a similar call at the 2015 general elections, which, incidentally, his party won. So? Why is the call insulting today when he is in power but it wasn't yesterday when he was not? Because he would never cheat at elections and the UNC would?

As we like to say in this country, you can't play mas' and  'fraid powder. And if the Leader of the Opposition really believes that there is a real possibility that there might be cheating, then SHE can invite international observers here. But she hasn't done that  - at least, not yet - and she hasn't threatened to do so. Why not?

And finally, the media is simply avoiding calling these two leaders to account. Why not? Isn't this something of importance to the country? And we are quietly putting up with all of it! And you say that we are not finding ourselves in the ranks of the insane?

DICTATORSHIP ANYONE?

Looking at the present political landscape in Trinidad & Tobago many people have expressed the fear that we are heading the same way as Venezuela did under Chavez and Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) and we soon will be under the crushing heels of untrammeled dictatorship. Certainly, there are rather disturbing signs that this may be so. For example, the recent Judgement concerning Brent Thomas who was arrested in Barbados and brought back to Trinidad without a warrant of extradition and the rather strange defence being put out in the public space that he was involved in rather nefarious criminal activities as justification for this action although no evidence was ever led in Court about these alleged "criminal activities". Whatever happened to the old adage: it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang?

 Then there is the rather blatant attempt to interfere with the democratic process by postponing local government elections for more than a year and (so far) refusing to acknowledge that the matter has been dealt with by the country's highest court and that should be the end of that. Instead we have had no less than the country's Attorney General saying in effect that the Government was not wrong because five judges agreed with him (the AG). It didn't matter that the system dictates that the decision of the highest court is the one that counts. Instead it seems that the decision of the highest court is only valid when the Government agrees with the verdict! And the list goes on.

But the question is: are we on the road to a dictatorship? And the answer is that there are certain signs that we are indeed heading in that direction. There are still some judges who fiercely fight for their independence, but certain judgements falling from certain judges are not only clearly wrong, but carry with them the appearance of being heavily biased towards one side or the other.  It is becoming so that one can almost predict which way a decision on a constitutional matter will go until it reaches the Privy Council. And whether it is true or not some judicial decisions seem more to be based on race than on law, at least, that is the perception. And in politics perception is reality.

And if that wasn't bad enough we are witnessing the death of truly independent journalism. Independent journalism insists on showing us what we learn - fully and fairly - regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be. Independence calls for plainly stating the facts. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is under reasonable dispute, letting readers grasp and process uncertainty for themselves. Somebody once said comment is free but facts are sacred. And we get a lot of comment masquerading as fact from our newspapers.  But a free and independent press is an absolute requirement for a democracy.

Put another way, if we are indeed heading towards a dictatorship like Venezuela then the newspapers are helping greatly in that regard. They are neither truthful nor neutral. Drawing false moral or factual equivalence is neither objective nor truthful. You can also ask (if you think that Maburro is such a great leader or that a dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing) why has approximately one third of Venezuela's population of some thirty million people fled that unfortunate country. 

AWARDING SILK

 A big thing in the newspapers this morning has to do with the awarding of the title 'senior counsel' to a group of 18 lawyers, which group includes both the President's brother and her husband. The title of 'senior counsel' is meant to be a recognition that the lawyer who receives 'silk' (as it is sometimes called because the robes that lawyers wear in Court are made of cotton, but the robes of senior counsel are supposed to be made of silk) and entitles the lawyer to charge more for his/her fees.

Let me deal with the nepotism charges first: I don't know the President's brother, Collin Kangaloo, but I have had a professional acquaintance with her husband, Kerwyn Garcia. In my opinion Mr. Garcia is a good lawyer and deserving of the title 'senior counsel'; I don't know the President's brother at all and therefore cannot comment fairly on his abilities as a lawyer or lack thereof. But I do know the Kangaloo family from San Fernando and although I don't agree generally with their politics I do believe that they are honourable people. And if a senior counsel is supposed to be honourable then certainly on this score Mr. Kangaloo qualifies.

The problem comes in because of their relationship with or to the President of Trinidad& Tobago. There is a not unreasonable perception that their being awarded silk has something to do with their relationship with her. That this perception is most unfair to the goodly gentlemen is a given. They shouldn't have to turn down an award just because of birth or a marriage that took place a long time ago. And yet the perception lingers whether it is fair or not or true or not. And in the world of politics perception is reality.

The problem really comes in because (despite how some might choose to dress it up) the fact is that there is only one person who really appoints silk - and that is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. If he/she decides that a person should or shouldn't be awarded with the accolade then that person will (or will not) get it. Full stop! So nobody can get silk if the Prime Minister says 'no'. And anybody can get silk if the Prime Minister wants that person to get the award. And no explanations need to be given.

In other Commonwealth countries they have dealt with this by removing the politicians from the process and having the appointment being made by a non political committee (appointed either directly or indirectly by the politicians - but at least they recognize the problem).

I tend to prefer the American system where a lawyer's worth is measured by his/her reputation and nothing else. The Americans have even done away with the anachronistic and colonial robes that our lawyers have to wear. Let's face it: there are some silks who have done nothing in their legal careers to get this award and there are others, who because they have offended a Prime Minister whether deliberately or not, will never get it. The reputations of these attorneys are irrelevant. Put another way, the appointment of senior counsel is heavily tied into politics. Oh! Sometimes a lawyer from the Opposition might be appointed if only so that a Prime Minister can pretend that he/she is not politically biased. but when last did you see a prominent  Opposition lawyer being appointed as a senior counsel?

Let me put it another way: ALL judges in our jurisdiction are lawyers. I am not aware that any of them have ever been awarded the title of senior counsel. But is it right that a person who is a senior counsel should have to bow before a person who is not? In other words, you are smart enough to be a judge and sit in judgement but you are not good enough to be a silk! What's wrong with this picture? If you are good enough to be made a judge surely you are good enough to be made a senior counsel?

But when that happened a few years ago with no less a person than the present Chief Justice there was a hue and cry resulting in the Chief Justice returning the award!

Then again, the head of the country's Bar is the Attorney General. If a lawyer is good enough to be the Attorney General surely he/she is good enough to be made silk on his/her accession to office. Actually, I think that any person who becomes Attorney General should automatically take silk. But when that happened with Mr. Anand Ramlogan  a big fuss was made. (The fact that Mr. Ramlogan has since demitting office proven time and again that he definitely is senior counsel material has been rather conveniently ignored by his former critics.) Let me put it to you this way: the first row of desks in an open Court is specifically reserved for senior counsel. You aren't supposed to sit there if you are not silk. So if you are the Attorney General of the country and therefore head of the Bar but you don't have silk you can't sit in the first row even though you are head of the Bar! But a person that YOU helped to be made a silk yesterday can sit in the first row and you have to sit behind him/her.

It is time that we cut the remaining ties to our former colonial masters and become truly independent. We should stop trying to mimic them and to act like pseudo Englishmen. We are not. We are Trinbagonians and should be proud of who we are. I agree that we should stand and bow to the judge when he/she walks into the Court. That is not only good manners but respect that the office deserves. I don't agree with calling judges "my lord" or "my lady" and prefer the American "your honour". But I'm going off topic here.  Left to me I would abolish the title of 'senior counsel' or 'silk'. It adds nothing to the justice system and sometimes even causes divisions where there ought to be none. And sometimes it can even cause unintended damage to a person's reputation.

THE BRENT THOMAS AFFAIR

 This whole affair raises more questions than answers - which, I suppose, is par for the course. The first question is how could the police effectively commandeer a coast guard plane WITHOUT anybody in the National Security Council, which is headed by the Prime Minister and whose members INCLUDE both the Minister of National Security (NSC)  AND the Attorney General, knowing about it? Assuming that the reports in the newspapers are correct, neither the Attorney General nor the Minister of National Security knew about this matter. We haven't heard yet from the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knew about it. Indeed, it would be very, very worrying if he didn't for reasons that ought to be obvious. He is the head of the NSC, for crying out loud!

But, assuming that he joins with his two Ministers on the NSC and says that he too knew nothing about it, then we have a serious problem. It would mean that somebody in the National Security apparatus is operating outside of his/her legal authority. It would mean that the NSC, the ultimate authority for the defence of the Republic, can plot a coup and the NSC would never know about it until it was too late. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister didn't know about it ... and yet here we are with two members of the NSC saying that they had no idea that a Trinidad &Tobago aircraft had been dispatched to Barbados to collect an alleged fugitive and there is/was no Court Order or other authority given by anyone who should have known about this, as having a clue as to what was going on.

As if that wasn't serious enough, we haven't been told why Mr. Thomas was targeted in this fashion. Was it because somebody high up had a grudge against him? Was it because there was (or is) some kind of evidence that for security reasons hasn't been produced? If so, what kind of evidence? And why was the Judge not told about this in camera?

Then we have the rather unusual statement from the Attorney General of Barbados that he knew nothing about it. But, we haven't heard yet from the Prime Minister of Barbados. Did she know something about it? If so, that could be an explanation for her rather curious silence as she might not want to embarrass her Trinidad counterpart. But if so, then it would mean that the Trinis are lying. Why are they lying (if indeed they are)?

Look, this whole affair raises more questions than answers. A national of Trinidad & Tobago is arrested and held by Barbadian police, presumably at the request of the Trinidadian police. There is no Court Order either from Barbados or Trinidad authorizing the detention and extradition of the Trinidadian and when the Trinidadian sues in the Trinidadian Court for his arrest, extradition and detention there is absolutely no credible defence proffered on the part of any person in authority. All we have got so far is "Not me! I didn't even know about it!" So? Who does? Or, who did?

This matter is dangerous and the issues that it raise need to be fully ventilated. To just let it pass without the story coming out does not augur well for anybody, much less our democracy.

FIXING CRIME - post script

 I had intended writing only three posts on the subject of fixing crime, but last night as I got into my car at the airport and tuning the radio to BBC I got the tail end of a story whereby it seems that some women in Europe have filed a claim in court against certain European politicians for failing to take appropriate action on Climate Change. I apologize for my own scanty report on this, but I didn't hear the BBC report properly. But it got me to thinking: what if some persons sued the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Security and the Commissioner of Police personally for failing to do their jobs and keeping the country safe?

If you take your car for a check up to the mechanic and he does (or doesn't do) something that he should or shouldn't have done and this failure on his part was his fault and damage to your car was the end result, your mechanic would ne liable to you for the damage that you have incurred. If as a lawyer I give you bad advice or I was negligent in failing to file a document on time or something else, I would be liable to you.

In other words, when somebody fails to do his/her job properly and damage results from that failure, in the normal course of things the person responsible would have to pay for the resulting damage.

So? The Prime Minister is the head of the National Security Council which is the ultimate authority for the security of the Republic. He appoints the Minister of National Security who also has responsibilities in matters of this regard. And the Commissioner of Police also has responsibilities.

So? These people are allowed to pontificate month after month saying in effect that they are not responsible for dealing with the terrible scourge of crime. But if they are not responsible, where then does the buck stop? Who is ultimately responsible? In law if I fail to do something that I am responsible for and you suffer damage, then you can sue me! Perhaps a law suit against those office holders in their personal capacity making them personally liable for the damage that you have suffered might just wake them up and we might get somewhere.

And, no,  I am not offering myself to do this case, and neither can I be involved in it in any way (though I can still cheer it on from the sidelines). That would be touting and the rules of my profession strictly forbid me from touting. But if you or anybody you know has suffered damage as a result of this scourge then perhaps you should encourage them to go and see their lawyer and pursue it vigorously. Surely somebody is responsible and should be made to pay? In any case, you better believe that if I am right on this point that you would see some action very quickly! Nothing motivates an office holder like money, especially if it will cost him/her personally!

FIXING CRIME - Part Three

 I have always looked with scorn upon those who criticize but have no solutions of their own to a particular problem and refuse to admit that they don't know how to fix whatever "it" is.  I hope that I have made it clear in my last two posts on the subject of fixing crime that I have no short term answer for this scourge. Frankly, I believe that what is required is a long term fix that will probably take about 30 years before we see any results. But if we don't start now the problem will only get worse. And I do recognize that there are few (if any) politicians that think beyond 5 years.

As I said in my first post on this subject that the answer lies in education. But we have saddled ourselves with a system that hasn't been revamped for about 60 years (although successive administrations have fiddled with the system during that time). In the meantime, except for the brightest kids or those whose parents can afford private schooling (either by way of private lessons or expensive private schools), the vast majority of the children continue to receive a substandard education.

I would fix this by immediately trebling the salaries of ALL qualified teachers. Right now, the starting salary of a qualified teacher is less than US$1,000 per month. If we pay peanuts to what are probably the most important people in our society what do you think we'll get?

But (and it is a big "BUT") no teacher will get this increase unless certain things happen: Anybody (meaning any QUALIFIED teacher) who wants the increase will have to sign a contract:

1) Agreeing to a yearly performance review; if he/she fails that performance review then he/she will be immediately dismissed without any claims whatsoever for backpay or any monies whatsoever. That would be final.

2) In order to get this increase he/she would have to be properly qualified. By this I mean that at the very least the teacher would have to have an undergraduate degree as well as a teaching diploma/certificate. If someone has been teaching for a period of time, say, 30 years or more, then the requirement for a teaching certificate/diploma would be waved, but not the requirement for an undergraduate university degree. This is to ensure that only properly qualified people would be accepted as being qualified to teach our kids. You can't fool around with this.

Some people may argue that TTUTA (the teachers' union) would never agree to this. My answer is that no teacher that has a job today will lose his/her benefits under the agreement with TTUTA. But anybody who wants the increased pay will have to sign my contract. And no new hirings will take place unless the person signs on with the new contract. I am not interested in what TTUTA might or might not want unless they can show how the children will benefit. It seems to me that this significant fact has been ignored by everybody.

It has been suggested to me that TTUTA might call a strike over this. My answer is let them. I firmly believe that the country will not support the union on this. I also firmly believe that this suggestion will eliminate our system of so-called 'prestige schools' (which are NEITHER prestigious NOR world class) and will forcibly create a system that eliminates bad teaching (including the nationwide curse of absenteeism on the part of teachers nationwide). The name of the game is performance.

Okay. That is my suggestion to fix the problem. As I have said, I honestly don't have a clue how to fix this problem in the short term. But I firmly believe that if we take the proverbial bull by the proverbial horns that we can fix it. I should also say (if it is not already clear) that part of our problem is that our teachers are woefully underpaid. I think that my proposal would fix this.

FIXING CRIME -Part Two

 I had promised to give a solution to the crime problem that we are experiencing here in Trinidad & Tobago. I don't hold out my solution as the only one or even the best one. It is simply a proposal for you to consider. I just want to use first, by way of example, how and why things are so bleak that we need to step back and think - think very seriously - as to how we can fix it.

The crime problem has been created by the fact that we have one of the worst education systems in the world. Take for example, the plight of a young man, say 19 years old, born and raised in Laventille, one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country. He was born to a young 20 year old mother who already had 3 children before him from 3 different fathers. Although he is highly intelligent, his education has been do awful that he can barely read or write. His mother went on to have 2 more children besides him. None of his siblings (including him) know their fathers. Because he comes from crime infested Laventille and is functionally illiterate he can't get a job. The prejudice is too strong. In any case, because of his illiteracy people tend to think that he is stupid. But he is anything but stupid!

So at 19 years old he finds himself cast upon the rubbish heap of life - unable to better himself through conventional means. But, as I said at the beginning of this post, he is highly intelligent. He sees young people his own age driving fancy cars, going to universities and generally having a bright future. He, on the other hand, has no future. No job. Nothing. He burns with resentment as to how unfair life is. Had he been born into a family with some means his whole future would be different.

So, what do you think he should do? What would you do in order to have a good/better life? If you said 'turn to crime' you are beginning to understand the problem. Just because a boy can't read or write properly doesn't mean that he is stupid; it just means that he has been constrained by society to spend his life in a box! But he is highly intelligent! So? Are you surprised that he turns to crime and violence? Do you know of another way that he can break out of this awful hell hole that he has been born into?

In order to understand a problem we have to go back to the beginning. And the beginning here is that the education system in T&T is so poor that unless and until we fix it crime will only get worse. Next time I'll give you my solution. You will already have understood that my answer is fixing the education system. And yes, I am aware that this fix will not take effect for 25 years or more. I am also aware that politicians don't think for more than 5 years at a time (and less as elections draw closer). But a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The longer we don't take that first step the worse the crime will get. 

FIXING CRIME - Part One

 Yes. The crime situation in Trinidad is clearly completely out of hand. And the symposium on crime involving the leaders in the Region that took place over two days this week did nothing except fatten the wallets of those who own the Hyatt hotel in Port of Spain where the symposium was held. There was absolutely no original thinking or any original solution presented by anybody. Instead all that we heard was "hang them high" and "throw away the key". And that is (sadly) the quality of what passes for leadership here in the Caribbean. Talk about a total waste of time and money!!

The truth is that there IS a solution to the runaway crime that we are experiencing. The problem is that it will take about 20 to 25 years to take effect - far longer than the shelf life of any of the politicians currently in office. Let me spell out the solution for you

                         E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N

And therein lies both the answer and the reason why our 'great' leaders won't fix it. Because if they fixed it and educated our populations then they wouldn't be able to pull the nonsense that they pull on their blind and uneducated supporters with such great electoral success.

Let me put it to you like this: Question: Where in the world (i.e., what countries) is crime the lowest? Answer: In those countries which have the best education systems.  Next question: Where in the world is crime the highest? Answer: In those countries where the education system is poor or practically non-existent. 

Kind of obvious when you think about it, ain't it?  But fixing the education system (and the resulting crime) is a long term fix. But as my old mammy used to say, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." And we simply aren't taking that essential first step! So? Take the pressure!

I have an idea of how we might fix our broken education system and will write about it in a future post. Let me say, however. That I don't hold out my solution to be the only one - or even the best one. But if I can get one person to start thinking of a workable solution to this terrible scourge that we are experiencing then I will have achieved  a lot! In any case, as I said at the beginning of this post, my solution is a long term one. Sadly, short of a State of Emergency (SOE), to which I am opposed, I really don't have any short term solution. (And why do I oppose an SOE? Because it is an anti-democratic device that can be horribly abused and it will have to be for far too long in order to be effective, thus giving would be dictators a beautiful chance to run amok.)

WE HAVE LOST THE DIVISIVE RACIAL WAR

 It is too painful to admit it, even to yourself if to nobody else, but it's true. We have lost the war against racial politics and the racial divide that plagues this country. Maybe in about a hundred years from now things might - in fact, probably will - change. But for the foreseeable future, and certainly in the lifetime of anyone reading this post right now, the war is effectively over and the right thinking peoples of this country have lost it. 

I put a large part of the blame on BOTH political parties who draw their support from either the African or the Indian side of the divide. If you are Indian you are a traitor to your race if you have the temerity to vote for the PNM and vice versa if you are an African and vote for or support the UNC. It is easier to make the racial appeal than it is to actually make policy proposals, and that is what BOTH sides do with absolutely no shame, even where the racism is blatant and in your face.

For example (as if I needed to prove this point), can anybody tell me clearly and succinctly what are the policy differences between the two major parties? Because basically the UNC seems to be saying (when all the verbiage is stripped away) simply that they can do a better job of running the country than the PNM. And conversely, the PNM seems to be saying that they are not the UNC.  And that's it! There are no arguments (intellectual or otherwise) except for race that differentiate the two parties.

Left by the wayside are the real decisions and arguments about the economy, health care, education and so on. For example, if the PNM (who is in government right now) were to take what many economists believe to be necessary by trimming the workforce in, say, WASA they would probably be voted out of office immediately because most of the overstaffing in the public sector economy comes from or is made up of their supporters. The UNC is acutely aware of this problem of overstaffing in the public sector but is appropriately silent on this issue. In other words, the UNC (probably correctly) assumes that there is no profit in that issue of overstaffing because they allowed it when they were in power and have signally failed to point it out probably reasoning that there is no profit in exposing that particular issue.

So? All politics is (are?) personal. And because those who offer themselves for leadership (on BOTH sides) are singularly devoid of any ideas on how to make things better other than don't vote for "them" because "they" are African/Indian and "our" people will suffer, we are clearly doomed to suffer the terrible consequences of racial divisiveness for a lllooonnnnggg time to come. Maybe we can yet save ourselves by forming  a new political party and calling it the Free Democratic Alliance of Trinidad & Tobago - FDATT for short!