TRAGEDIES

 On Monday last a PNM Minister of Government and her family were tragically killed in an early morning fire. But then it was reported, when criticisms were levied against the Trinidad & Tobago Fire Service (TTFS) for their poor and inadequate response, that the TTFS were  defending themselves by saying that there was an inadequate water supply at the time. And then the argument started. 

The (PNM) Minister of Public Utilities,  defending the Water & Sewage Authority (WASA), said that it was not true and that there had indeed been an adequate water supply. then a  "senior official of the TTFS told the Express ..." newspaper that there was in fact an inadequate water supply and that the water pressure was too low and that was why water trucks had to be brought in.

Now clearly somebody is lying. The Minister cannot weasel out of what he is reported to have said by saying that there was a supply of water (as opposed to an 'Adequate' supply). And then it is clear that the "senior TTFS official" cannot say anything else as he could, at worst lose his job, or be disciplined for challenging the Minister.

But a citizen, And her Husband, And her Children all lost their lives in this fire. Left unanswered is the question that (assuming always, but not accepting, that the lie is with the Minister) would the family have survived if the water problem had not existed? Frankly, it sounds to me that both sides are to blame for this tragedy - and that is itself a tragedy. But we'll probably never know! And that is another tragedy!

TROUBLE AHEAD

The coming year is going to be a tough one for us in T&T. Take a look at what is happening around the world - at least with our biggest trading partners:

First of all , there is the incoming President of the United States. Trump has promised to levy import tariffs of 25 percent on all goods coming into the States. This will affect not only the Canadians and the Mexicans, but the Europeans as well. Every thing is going to cost more as a result - especially down here. Then there is the problem of the war in Ukraine: Trump has promised to end it immediately. But he has little or no leverage with Russia which has to mean that he will put pressure on Ukraine by cutting off American aid - which amounts to billions! 

But who will that hurt the mist besides Ukraine? Answer - the American arms manufacturers. Most of the money that America gives to Ukraine is spent in the States on military equipment, while a small portion of it is spent in Europe. Ending the war abruptly as Trump has promised will cause the many arms manufacturers to shrink their spending as well as their staffs. In other words, costs as well as unemployment will rise. 

The United Kingdom also is in some turmoil, which is set to get worse as the new Labour Government finds that it can't keep their election promises. And France too has its problems. They have just fired their Prime Minister because of his budget and the confusion in that country is enormous.

And back home in T&T the PNM Government is facing all of these problems together with some of their own making. For example the Prime Minister has just given himself an 85 percent pay rise while telling public service workers that they can only get a 4 percent rise in pay! Dr. Rowley seeks to justify this enormous pay rise by saying that he didn't do it - it was the Salary Review Commission1 Unfortunately for him, nobody believes that line. It is more likely that the Prime Minister believes that he stands a good chance of losing the elections due next year and therefore is probably 'padding' his pension - a Prime Minister gets his salary for life!!

Unfortunately for the country the UNC has so far been unable to convince 'floating' voters that it has the answers or the necessary leadership to fix the problems. Clearly, the PNM message in the next elections due next year (2025) and that the UNC under its present leadership will only make things worse. The UNC will counter that by saying that they do have both the answers as well as the leadership to fix things. We'll soon find out who is able to sell its product more.

In the meantime prepare yourselves for hard times regardless as to who wins next year. Unfortunately, both sides seem to have forgotten the injunction: there is only one reason for politics -  there is only one reason for Government: To make life better for the people. There is NO other reason.

THAT FOREX ISSUE

 The question of access to forex (foreign exchange) is now dominating the local headlines. Whatever the reason, it is clear to all that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Perhaps the biggest reason for this shortfall is probably the closure of Petrotrin and the failure of the Government to find a buyer for the plant. (Of course, the related issue of some 10,000 workers as a result of that closure is not a factor in this consideration.) But after this comes a whole host of other issues, e.g., the behaviour of the banks who seem to be making almost obscene profits and favouring their big clients for forex while "starving" the small ones. By the way, speaking of banks, has anybody noticed how difficult it has become to open an account? Or how long? In Canada, for example, it takes about an hour to open an account; here it can take weeks! Why? Whose fault is that?

There are other reasons such as, for example,  the amount of money going out every year for motor vehicles. I read somewhere I think it was in the Guardian) that the amount of foreign exchange for motor vehicles is somewhere in the billions (I can't remember the exact amount)! Now you can argue that the tax on cars is so high that the same car here in T&T costs approximately twice as much as it does in the United States. So, without a proper and reliable public transport system and therefore (the argument goes) the tax is already too high (if not high enough). But if there is a serious shortage of foreign exchange should we still be able to import new vehicles? 

I confess that I don't have all the figures in order to make an informed decision. I have, for example, heard arguments in favour of devaluation on the one hand and 'floating' our dollar on the other. Many of the arguments make sense; but what doesn't make sense is that we seem to be doing nothing about this crisis, choosing instead to ignore it. Is this a good way to handle it?

MAKING SENSE OF THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS

 

According to the National Literacy Institute(NLI) in the United States - a Federal Agency - approximately 54 percent of that country's adult population is functionally illiterate. And according to another US Government agency, the adult population of the USA is approximately262 million. In other words, a little more than 141 million people in the USA can barely read or write and have the educational capacity of a 10 year old. Of that number (141 million) approximately 24 percent is completely illiterate (or 34 million). 

It is hardly surprising therefore to see someone like Donald Trump win the election. For most people the big question was the economy. A functionally illiterate person could hardly understand all the other issues and nuances that the Democrats raised (eg., how a person convicted 34 times  of various crimes could still run for President). People were more concerned with their pockets and the amount of money they might or might not have at the end of the month. People weren't concerned about whether or not inflation had stopped causing prices to rise. All they knew or cared about was that life was less expensive in 2020. Put another way, it was no good trying to explain to them that Trump's policies had caused the problems in the first place.

Also the various pollsters got it wrong reporting a tight race when it became clear on polling day that it was anything but close! Here in T&T we could only listen to the news reports about the polls and draw conclusions from those reports. Except for the illiterate persons in our midst, we all would have been surprised by the Republican victory. Most of us would know and understand that politicians on all sides lie and don't always tell the truth; but most of us expect that the media will tell us fairly accurately what exactly is going on (with one or two exceptions). That didn't happen this time.  Clearly, the American electorate isn't ready - at least, not yet - for a woman to lead them, much less a woman of colour. 

So? What happens next? Its difficult to say. But Trump (or Drumpf, which was his grandfather's name) will shake up things - probably by going after undocumented immigrants first. This will cause adverse ripple effects that could destroy the American economy. Next, he'll probably give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Thirdly, he'll probably cause the devaluation of the dollar as well as cause Government borrowing to increase.

There is an old saying: 'when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold'. Stock up now on your "cold medicines", because sure as night follows day our economy is going to cash when America's does.

'

"HERE"

 I read a most interesting article today that basically opined that it is extremely difficult to get someone to change his/her mind on a particular fact or issue. The article went on to argue that this 'attitude' (for want of a better word) is not confined to ill educated people. Indeed, the article argued that the more educated you are, the more difficult it becomes to get you to change your mind on anything.

So, I decided that for today only I will not write anything that could remotely be construed as trying to change your mind about anything and will talk instead about the latest Tom Hanks movie "Here" which my 22 year old son took me to see yesterday. I must confess that I was not keen to go and see it. Although I like Tom Hanks a lot as an actor and generally  have appreciated his various movies, I thought that this one might not be very entertaining. I couldn't have been more wrong!

The movie deals with the site of a particular property/house and the various changes that have taken place around it over the millennia, especially over the last 200 years or so with an emphasis on the present. While the scene changes from time to time, the view or perspective does not. Everything basically takes place in the movie in one room.

This got me to thinking about my own home in Maraval and the changes that have obviously taken place over the last 400 - 500 years. Now, I have absolutely NO evidence about what I am about to say. And cannot support anything that follows here with any facts or figures to support what I think or believe. 

I remember reading somewhere that there was an Ameridian village called Maraval located on the banks of the stream that we today call the Maraval River. It was located just where  Pizza Boys is in  present day Maraval. I also read somewhere that the shamans (priests) in these villages also lived  just a little outside of these villages that they "serviced".  The movie got me to thinking: I live on a hill just above Pizza Boys, Maraval - about 1 kilometer away. What if the shaman lived where my house is located? Or even in/on my property? What stories could the site of my property tell? (My house, by the way, although it has been renovated many times, is about 80-90 years old). What was the area in which I have lived for as long as I have owned the house (about 44 years) like before it was built? When I first bought my house there was a prep school just opposite. I have no idea when this school was built or what was there before. It was there and in operation when I bought my home/

So, if you find this interesting perhaps you would also be interested in the history of your own home and its surrounds. For example, "Sangre Grande" comes from Spanish and means literally "much blood". So? What exactly happened there for the town in East Trinidad to get that name? I read somewhere years ago that the Ameridians rose up in rebellion against the Spanish conquistadores and were literally wiped out in this spot (Sangre Grande). Is this true? What do you know about the place that you live in, or have lived in? What would you like to know about it?

Go and see the movie. If you find these questions interesting you will find the movie to be much more so than anything I might write here. 

THE RISING COST OF LIVING

 I had looked forward to what was probably the last budget of T&T's present Minister of Finance before the next elections due  by September of next year. I had wanted to know how exactly he was going to try to protect us from the ravages of worldwide inflation and the consequential rise of living worldwide. Frankly, being the Minister of Finance these days is  a very unwelcome task; it appears to me that there is not much that he can do. (Probably, the only task more difficult than his is that of Minister of National Security.) Everything is going up rapidly. We have two dogs and the cost of their food since the beginning of this year has gone up by about 30 percent! Even dog food has gone up!

Having said that, I more than half expected the Minister of Finance to be like the pharisee at the gates of the temple getting rid of his sins by crying "Korban". But he didn't do that! To be fair, he acknowledged that things were going to be difficult, but he believed that we will weather our present difficulties  and that things would improve  if it weren't for the pesky Opposition (who he blamed for all of our problems from flooding to a lack of foreign exchange and everything in between) conveniently forgetting that he has been in charge of our money and finances for the last nine years.

I suppose that his budget speech was 'par for the course' for a politician, but is that what we need right now? Is it really too much to hope that our politicians on BOTH sides remember that we put them in office to make OUR lives better rather than theirs?

Everything is costing more these days. Everything! I thought that the Opposition's collective response was weak - almost timid - and did not address the underlying problem that we as a nation are facing: the cost of living is rising and seems to be out of control. The politicians (on both sides) seem to have forgotten the one cardinal rule: there is only one rule for politics - only one rule for Government: to make life better for the people! Full stop! With the obvious (few) exceptions, none of us are better off. And what do you think that they are going to do about it?

CLIMATE CHANGE

 After seeing the devastation caused by two hurricanes, one after the other, in Florida, it is only a completely unread person or one who willfully buries his head in the sand in the hope of getting some personal gain (like former President Trump) who will not confess that he/she is (or ought to be) concerned about climate change. 

All the experts are saying that a major contributor of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. And those experts are also saying that while the United States is a big contributor to this, every little contribution to prevent climate change helps.

Which comes to T&T and our contributions to this problem - which I understand to be a big fat zero! I say this because I haven't seen one locally written article about the danger that we are facing in the world about climate change. I say this because I haven't heard one politician of any party raise this issue . I say this because there seems to be a total unawareness of the problem in this country. I say this because all of our electricity is generated by the burning of fossil fuels. The attitude seems to be "we are too small to make any meaningful difference", which, of course, is nonsense. Every little bit helps but most people in this country are blissfully unaware of the problem facing the world as a whole , and T&T in particular.

Leadership is not always about taking popular positions on any particular matter, but also about trying to influence thought. Climate change is going to affect us soon - probably sooner rather than later. It will affect amongst other things, global food production, and temperatures that will be most unpleasant to put up with. It will affect rainfall -either too much or too little - and it will affect our children's ability to have a good life. Heck! It might even affect whether we or our children are able to stay alive!

No. the sooner that we start to make our own little contributions and sacrifices, the better. Climate change is a whole world problem, and the last time that I looked we were part of this world and not only affected by the problem, but have been actively contributing to it. The worst part is that not only do we seem to be doing nothing about it, but we seem to be totally and completely unaware of it.

IS T&T IN THE THROES OF A BRAIN DRAIN?

 My 22 year old son recently returned from Canada and asked me why there were so few young people his age in T&T. He said that he had noticed that there were very few young people his age in the country while there were a lot of kids aged zero to about 18. After he had told me this I decided to conduct my usual very unscientific survey and discovered that he was right; there is a dearth of young people here in T&T from about 18 to about 35.

While it is probably true that a lot of them have gone away to study, it is also probably true that a lot of these young people are simply not returning home preferring to take the cold and living far away from their families because they believe that they will be better off in, say Canada, then here at home in T&T. Put another way, it is likely that they believe that they will have more opportunities with a higher standard of living throughout, than here at home.

Now, if my analysis is correct then the logical conclusion is that we are in the throes of a devastating brain drain that will adversely affect the country because the best and the brightest of our young people are simply not coming back. We can't afford to keep losing our young people like this.

SHOULD WE GIVE MORE POWER TO THE PEOPLE?

 In 1919 a Supreme Court Justice in the United States called Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the well known phrase about shouting  'fire' in a crowded cinema or theatre. He was basically arguing that there has to be a limit to free speech and despite the fact that most democracies (like T&T) have a constitutional provision that guarantees free speech, this provision ought to have (and often does have) limitations. For example the law of defamation ensures that you cannot say something that isn't true (such as 'X killed Y') unless you can prove it even though you might believe it to be true.

But in the American State of Ohio they have a most interesting twist on this. In Ohio any citizen who feels aggrieved  about something (such as the lies that Trump -or Drumpf as his grandfather was called  before he 'Amercanised' his name- and his running mate J.D. Vance, have propagated against the Haitian community) that somebody has said can file a criminal complaint against that person asking a judge to hold them criminally liable. The complaint must show evidence of the untruths.

In case you might have missed it both Drumpf (I refuse to call him 'Trump') and Vance have said that legal Haitian immigrants are stealing people's pets and eating them! As ridiculous as this sounds both of these guys have repeated this outrageous claim. Putting it simply, this rhetoric is racist and ought to be condemned for reasons that (hopefully) are clear and obvious.

So? The question arises: do we have politicians (from both sides of the political divide) who use coded (and sometimes not so coded) rhetoric to fan the flames of racism?  Do we need a law, such as in Ohio, which would allow an aggrieved citizen to bring criminal charges against  a politician when the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions neglects and/or refuses to take action against persons who may be making dangerous comments? There have been quite a few complaints over the years about the DPP letting offensive and racist statements go by the board. Are these complaints with or without foundation?

Maybe it's time that we gave a little more power to the people.  Perhaps we should look at what Ohio has done. A lot of our laws were written by our former colonial masters. That doesn't make them right.

THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS FOR A CASHLESS SOCIETY

 The TT Government has proposed through its Minister of Finance that the country should go cashless. At first without thinking I thought that this might be a good idea. But then I started thinking, who exactly will benefit from the country going cashless? Answer: the banks. Let me give you an example: let's say that I go now to get my haircut and I pay the barber with a $100 bill. He puts it in his pocket and then uses it to pay, say, his grocery bill. The grocery store owner then uses it to pay a supplier - and so on, My original $1oo bill is used umpteen times.

So? What happens every time my original debt of $100 is paid via, say, Linx? Somebody (usually the payee - the person receiving the money) is charged 1.5% by his/her bank. If you multiply this out you will see that my original $100 has been consumed by the bank (or banks).

So again I ask: who benefits? Probably the question should be: who benefits besides the banks? And yet the very powerful Minister of Finance thinks that going cashless is the way to go! Why?

Makes you think, doesn't it? Why does he think that this is a good idea? Indeed, all sorts of questions and suspicions arise - some of them invite downright defamatory answers and some of the suspicions are (beside being defamatory) downright unreasonable. Yet the basic question "why'" remains unanswered.

If politics and government is about making life better for the people, in one sentence (because if you can't say it in one sentence you can't say it at all) why do you think that you will be better off by the country going cashless?

THAT PARIA "INVESTIGATION" - A QUESTION OF RACE?

 Tucked in a corner on page 15 of the Express of Tuesday 10yh September, 2024 was a story about the 3 divers who had lost their lives some 4 years ago while doing a job for Paria Fuel Trading Co. Ltd. in Pointe-a-Pierre. What struck me about this story is that the so-called "investigation" into the men's deaths is still going on! I mean, how long does it take to do such an investigation? From all the newspaper reports at the time it seemed that the facts were fairly straight forward:

Four men were on a job working for Paria under the sea. 

There war an accident and the men were trapped. One managed to escape.

No rescue mission was mounted or allowed to be mounted. According to newspaper reports authorities actually intervened to prevent a rescue.

The men died when their oxygen ran out some 4 days after the accident.

Now, all of this is from the newspaper reports at the time. So? It seems a fairly simple  matter. And yet, there has been no conclusion to the alleged "investigation" some 4 years after the accident and absolutely no compensation has been paid to the families of the men who died.

By the way, all the men who were killed as well as the one who escaped were of Indian extraction. All of the people who make  or are supposed to make  or authorize the "investigation" are black (or  of African extraction). Is that a coincidence? If it was the other way around would it still be okay that the "investigation" has taken this long and no compensation whatsoever has even been offered to be paid to the families of the victims? Putting it bluntly, is race behind what is clearly an unacceptable situation? If you think that this is a stretch, then can you offer a different and logical explanation? Is anybody responsible for this accident? Is it unreasonable for persons to conclude that race has played a part in the delay? 

Who exactly is responsible for the delay for concluding the "investigation"? Because, at the end of the day, it will be one person. What is his/her race? We are always hesitant as a society to cry "race", but sometimes if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck then its kind of obvious that it is a duck. 

"DON'T BLAME ME"

 The Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago, Dr. Keith Rowley, is reported in today's Trinidad Guardian as saying that he is not to blame for the high (and still rising) crime rate. Instead he says in essence that the ones to blame are the criminals who are committing the crimes. Anybody reading this is bound to say 'duh'. Of course the criminals are the ones committing the crimes and are the ones to blame. and in the end, whoever is doing the crime  (whatever it might be) is responsible for doing it.

BUT (and it is a big "but")  who is responsible for enforcing the laws against murder, rape, robbery etc. Isn't it the person who is ultimately in charge of everything? And under our system of government, isn't that person the head of the Government? Isn't Doctor Rowley the head of the Government? So, if he is not responsible then who is? Nobody?

Who appoints the sergeants, the captains the assistant commissioners of police, the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of National Security? and so on? Do you get the point? and if the chain of authority goes all the way up, where is it supposed to end? Isn't it supposed to end with the guy (or gal) in charge of the whole 'kit and kaboodle? And who is that supposed to be?

Instead of saying 'don't blame me' the Prime minister could and should be reporting on how many criminals are being caught and punished for their crimes. After all, isn't the absolute best deterrent against crime is the fear of getting caught? If not, what is?

HOW WILL AN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR AFFECT US? WILL THERE BE A CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED STATES??

 Believe it or not, the answer to these questions will affect not only citizens of the United States , but Canada, Mexico AND Trinidad and Tobago. As things stand at the moment , my bet is that Kamala Harris will beat Donald Trump in the Presidential election coming on 5th November - and that is where the trouble will start. You see, Trump (or Drumpf which was his family's name before his father changed it to sound more 'American') has indicated quite clearly that the only way he could lose the coming election will be if the authorities in the States all conspire to cheat him out of the Presidency.

And this is despite there being not one iota of evidence produced either by him or his supporters over his identical allegations over his loss in 2020. But the lack of any kind of evidence never stopped Mr. Trump (or Drumpf)  from making the allegations any way. And this time around he has a lot of people who are lining up to say he can't' lose! 

Normally, this type of stupidity wouldn't matter. Most people would dismiss the allegations for the nonsense and lies that they are and go about their daily business. But the polls in the U.S. are showing that a lot of people - too many, in fact - are buying into these totally unfounded allegations and are willing to believe them. 

So? How does this affect us down here in T&T? Well, if Harris wins and Drumpf -sorry, I meant Trump - loses, there could easily be civil war in the United States. This would result in everybody - Democrats as well as Republicans - being caught up in the ensuing confusion. This confusion in our country's largest (by far) trading partner will result in untold damage being done to us. For example, US dollars could lose much of their value overnight. And our dollar is fixed in value to the US dollar. If the US dollar loses value, so will ours. Both our imports as well as our exports will be affected.

War is never a healthy option and an American civil war could affect us adversely in all kinds of ways. The awful thing is that we can't do a damned thing about it.

FIXING CRIME (Part Two)

 In my last post I attempted to show as dramatically as possible the basic unfairness of our society and hoe an accident of birth could affect one's life. How to fix this and make life a little fairer is the major question facing us now. Perhaps one way of fixing our terrible crime problem and making life a little fairer would be to revise our education system completely.

In order to do this I would start by revising teacher's salaries completely. I think that a starting salary for a teacher is around TT$6,000. (I don't know this but believe it to be more or less accurate.) I would start by trebling all teacher's salaries, so that if you are making, say, $25,000 per month, your new salary would be now $75,000 per month.

But (and here is the 'kicker') this new salary would come with conditions. If you wanted the new salary you would have to sign a new contract that eliminated completely any of your old rights and benefits. Also, at the end of every school year you would have to undergo an assessment test which, if you failed, would result in your immediate dismissal with absolutely no benefits whatsoever. No extra monies for dismissal. Nothing. You either perform or you get thrown out - full stop!

Then, all teachers would get the same salary regardless of the schools that they were assigned to. In other words, no more 'prestige schools'. (Have you noticed, by the way, that the same teachers that are complained about now are the same ones who parents employ for private lessons?)

The whole idea is to create  a fairer system - one that gives everybody an equal chance.

I can hear you say that the union would never accept this and would 'kick brass'. My answer to the union would be that if anybody wanted the new pay then he/she would have to accept the new terms, The old terms would still apply and there would be no changes. But if you wanted the new salary, then you would have to guarantee your performance as a teacher. No guarantee, then no new salary. 

Well, that's my idea. What do you think?

FIXING THE CRIME PROBLEM ( Part 1)

It's kind of a 'non sequiter',to say that there is a link between (a lack of) education and crime. Let's take an example: there are two boys both born on the same day at the same time. They are both highly intelligent. But (and it is a big "but") one is born to a poor unwed mother who already has 4 children which she cannot support and the other is born to a relatively wealthy woman who is happily married to a man who loves her and takes care of her. The first woman is barely able to teach her child how to read or write. the second woman's child is blessed with all the accoutrements of wealth and receives a good education. The first woman's child is basically left to fend for himself.

So? What do you think happens next? The first woman's child (who you will remember is highly intelligent) grows up resentful of the basic unfairness of life and decides for himself that if life won't give him what he wants, he will simply take it. But he has no way of taking it other than through stealing and murder. So? What does he do? Answer: he steals and murders. The second child grows up blissfully unaware of the difficulties encountered daily by the first boy and joins with his parents in lamenting the fact that the country is daily becoming more violent.

The point here is that T&T's crime problem simply can't fix unless something is done now (and "now" must mean now). But that would mean overhauling the education system completely so that people like our first boy is given a chance to 'get his foot on the ladder'. But that will take at least 20 years to fix - and most governments think only in 5 year terms! So what do you think will happen? Answer: sweet nothing! Everybody will cry long tears and say how wicked and evil the first boy is and will completely ignore the fact that the system that we have put in place for decades suits only a small section of the population. The second boy will be held up as an example of how you can make it if you try while completely ignoring the basic injustices that are proliferating out of control.

I have an idea of how to fix this, but it will take at least 20 years. And we've already run out of time. 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 I happen to agree with just about everything that the opponents of the death penalty say about it: that it is a cruel punishment, that it is harsh, that mistakes can be made, and once made can never be undone, and so on.

I have often wondered whether or not it might be "fairer" to let the loved ones of the victim actually 'pull the trigger'. Certainly, I would find it impossible to pull the trigger' on someone that I didn't know. But then I thought of my dead cousin who was cruelly murdered almost 28 years ago and who I loved like a brother. The thing is, I know who killed him and why. I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but I really do know who killed him. (For the record, it was a drug lord aided and abetted by a policeman.)

So? What can I do about it? Not a damn thing! The killers have got away with it. Which brings me back to the death penalty. You see, there is (and can be) only one good and sufficient reason for it - the death penalty: REVENGE! There is no other reason. I could cheerfully 'pull the trigger' on my cousin's murderers and go home and eat a nice, big juicy steak afterwards. But I would find it impossible to 'pull the trigger' on somebody that I didn't know.

So? Do I support the abolition of the death penalty? If the choice is black or white then I would have to say 'yes'. But life is never black or white and is often simply a shade of grey. And therein lies my hypocrisy, because I could easily and cheerfully kill the two men who murdered my cousin if I thought that I could get away with it. As it is, I know I can't, so I shan't. Their deaths are not worth me giving up my life for.

TIME TO ABOLISH SILK

 One of the more prestigious prizes in the legal profession is the award of 'silk' or 'senior counsel'. It used to be reserved for those lawyers who had distinguished themselves at the Bar and whose opinions on legal matters carried real weight both inside and outside the courtroom. ( I remember a story about a well known and very able silk (who is dead now, poor fellow) Tajmool Hosein, who was asked by a client to write a letter on the client's behalf to someone who owed him money. Taj (as he was affectionally known) wrote the letter. The client then approached Taj a few weeks later to say that he had received full satisfation from the debtor. Taj then presented the client with a bill for his services which came to $10,000 (and this was at a time when $10,000 was like a $100,000 today). 

The clint complained. '$10,000 for a letter that took you only 5 minutes to write?'

Taj had two questions for him :'Did you get your money?' and 'Would you have got it if my name was not on the letter?'

The client then promptly paid the bill.

And that is my whole point. Tajmool was an excellent lawyer with a well deserved reputation. How many of these newly created silks have any kind of reputation?

The truth is that for the longest while the award is not based on merit but on "who you know". The award is based solely on the Prime Minister of the day wishing to reward whoever he/she wants, whether that person is a good, bad or indifferent lawyer. Also, we have tended to place this award 'before-behind' in that in the old days a good lawyer was invited to take silk. Now, if you want silk you have to apply, and provided that you are not on bad terms with the Prime Minister of the day you will probably get it. I know a number of lawyers who deserve the award but who will never apply. As a result, they'll never get it.

Perhaps it is time that we took a leaf out of the Americans' anti Imperialist playbook and abolished this award. Wouldn't it be better for all concerned to let a lawyer's reputation stand or fall on its own merits rather than a politician's opinion?

TIME FOR HONEST ANSWERS

 I consider myself an independent ... neither PNM nor UNC ... only wherever I think it is best for the country to go. In previous posts I had postulated that given the very dismal record of the Rowley Government's time in office that it would be surprising indeed if they (the PNM) managed to win the looming general elections. But from all accounts it appears that despite the Government's many failures both the UNC and the PNM are running neck and neck in the polls. So, if this is correct, then surely my thinking has to be wrong.

But then I read something that made sense ... at least to me: "If elections were decided by simple factual measures of whether the public is better off due to an incumbent's policies {Kamla} would easily be sailing into a landslide. But that's not the case." Why? 

I'm serious; why isn't the UNC not way ahead of the PNM right now? The only answer that springs to mind is that the UNC leadership has failed to connect with the voters of this country. I can see that those who are stanch supporters of the present UNC leadership disagreeing vehemently with me. That's okay. I've never pretended that I have any sort of hotline to God and we will all know soon enough what will happen at the coming polls. But what will they say if events prove me to be right, i.e. that Kamla can't win and that it is clear that her leadership style just doesn't work?

 The stakes are getting higher and higher and the future welfare of the country and of our children is now at stake. And deciding on who you should support or vote for  is now critical. There is no room anymore for wishful thinking ... or even racial thinking.  It's time for some very honest, personal answers. And holding your nose and voting for "your party" (whichever one it might be) just isn't good enough anymore.

DETERMINING WHERE OUR BEST INTERESTS LIE

 There is a choice coming up soon within the next year or so ... do we go with the devil we know, or do we go with the other devil that we also know? I guess the answer is that we should go with the devil under whose rule we were better off ... even if we have serious doubts and have to hold our noses while voting.

It is unfortunate that our system of government only throws up two choices. Sometimes, these choices can be very stark and sometimes (like right now) the choices can be so mixed that it becomes very difficult to decide where your best interests might lie. I say this because, quite frankly, there is little or no differences in policy between the two major parties. Both sides effectively go to the electorate with the same message: "vote for us because we can do it better". I challenge you to tell me where the real differences are between the UNC and the PNM - where exactly are the differences in say, health care, education, crime, the economy? List them. Clearly, your best interests lie with whoever might make things better for you personally. But how do you determine that?

All politics is personal and it all boils down to the question of where you think that you will be better off. At the end of the day, nobody really cares about which side "t'iefs" more, so long as the person voting is able to live his/her life in relative comfort and at an acceptable standard of living. Sometimes (as happened in 2010) all those opposed to the Government in power come together and the combined force prevails. At other times (like now) personal ambitions get in the way and the natural opposition to a Government is fractured thus making it easier for those in power to remain despite massive 'screw ups'.

While it is a given that racial voting plays a part in our politics, it is a great simplification to postulate this as the reason why the PNM has managed to position itself as the "default" party. Self interest is the biggest motivator of everything. When we recognize this simple fact, we can then determine what our next steps should be.

So, if you think that you will be better off under the PNM then stay with them. And if you think that you will be better off under the UNC, then vote for them. At the end of the day, it all boils down to where YOU think that YOU will be better off.

A STARK CHOICE IS FACING US

 I have to tell you folks: Kamla ain't leaving. I know that I am often wrong and don't have a hotline to God, but here are some hard facts;

First of all, she said so. Even Rowley gets that. And in the confidential PNM and UNC polls, nobody is polling better in the UNC than she is.

Secondly, she will have the same chance and use the same arguments in this coming election as she did before, hoping that Rowley's screw ups will push her over into the winner's circle. In other words, the message is simply "vote for me".

I can see you shaking your heads and calling me an idiot. While that may be correct, let me ask you this: if the election was today, who would you be voting for: Kamla or Rowley?

 And there you will have your answer! The truth is that PNM has become the "default" party. In other words, people vote for it because, for whatever reason, they are not certain that their lives will improve under the alternative. The UNC has to show and (more importantly) convince the country that it can and will do better. This is not as easy as it sounds or as it should be.

FAKE NEWS IS KING

 Although the foreign press makes a big deal out of fake news and regularly calls out politicians (and others) for spreading lies and false information, that 'habit' has not yet shown itself to be very prevalent down here in T&T. Whether that is through sheer incompetence of our local media, or it is caused by political bias is impossible to say. ( Frankly, I believe that it is a combination of both, but that will have to be a subject of another post).

But what is crystal clear is that we are very often not given the facts of a particular situation and are forced to make our own opinions which are often based not only on incomplete information, but also on our own personal biases. Take for example. the whole matter of the closure of Petrotrin; first question: was this closure really necessary or did it have something to do with the disastrous multi million dollar loss that was created by a certain PNM 'jefe'  who was sued by the PP Government under Kamla but  whose case was withdrawn by Dr. Rowley's people when they came into power? According to Prime Minister Rowley and his boys , this accusation is not true. They say that Petrotrin was shut down because it was losing money and was a drain on the Treasury. But published figures from just before the debacle hit showed that Petrotrin had several million dollars in the bank. What is true? 

Next question: does Mrs. Persad-Bissessar really have the majority support of her party, or did her team cheat at the internal election? Were any steps taken to prevent any cheating? If so, what steps exactly?

Next question again: is it true that Dr. Rowley's Government had no idea that the Indian billionaire talking about buying Petrotrin was out on bail and is facing corruption charges? Is it true that there is/was some kind of deal going on with this billionaire and the Venezuelan Government that is/was designed to circumvent American sanctions?

You see, both sides have some rather big possible skeletons in their respective closets. The above is just a small sample of questions that require answers and where there have been none, or at least, no proper answers to questions that, without full and clear explanations, give rise to unnecessary and unfortunate suspicions.

But we don't know. There is an illusory effect to believe false information when it is regularly repeated and that it is true when it is repeatedly presented. People tend to judge truth  based on familiarity with existing knowledge. So, the more a statement is repeated, the more accurate it seems.

We have a real problem. There is little or no factual reporting on important issues, and depending on which political side you happen to fall, will depend on what your opinions are - and not what they should be.  Fake news is king down here in T&T.

IS THE PRIME MINISTER A FASCIST?

 A friend of mine told me that he thought that Dr. Rowley was a fascist. I replied that that seemed a little harsh and that I wasn't certain that the Prime Minister fitted that description. In any case, I decided to look up the definition of "fascist" because it can mean different things to different people. Perhaps the best definition that I found was from a speech made in 1940 by then Vice president of the United States Henry A. Wallace.

He said that a fascist was "One whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures or notices as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.  ... For democracy to crush fascism it must put country first and dollars second."

Certainly, by this definition one cannot call Dr. Rowley a fascist - though some might argue (without justiciable evidence) that he comes close. My point here is that we must be careful  with the labels that we seek to place on some people. They might not either be fair or accurate, though I wouldn't hesitate, for example, to call Donald Trump a fascist. What do you think?

THE OMLY ISSUE IN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION - COMPETENCE

There is some speculation that Prime Minister Rowley may go to the polls early - maybe in August of this year. (The elections are due by September of next year). The speculation is being fueled by various perceptions; the first one of these is that things (mainly the economy) are going to get worse and that now would be a better time for the PNM to go rather than later. The next perception is that the UNC is in disarray  and that it would be advantageous to take advantage of this disarray right now before the UNC has a chance to correct this perception. Both of these perceptions have some validity.

The third and final perception is that Dr. Rowley and his team are more competent than Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's team as well as the UNC leader herself. It is this last perception that the PNM will probably try to hammer home over the next few months. The fact is that the PNM has established itself as the "default" party that the country will turn to if there is no clear or viable alternative, and they will argue that whatever their faults the country is better off with them in charge. And this is arguably the most important perception of all.

 Most people believe that both sides have their share of corrupt people, so corruption will not play in the minds of voters. 

In order for the UNC to win Mrs. Persad-Bissessar has not only to present clearly a better and more viable team than Dr. Rowley's, But also (and more importantly) that she is better and more competent than Dr. Rowley. General elections in this country are always more Presidential in scope than Prime Ministerial - by that I mean that the person at the head of the ticket is always more important than any other particular candidate. 

And so, the question will boil down to who does the electorate think is more competent to run the country. Dr. Rowley will have the advantage of  a weak political opponent as well as the perception  that the PNM is really the "default" party, i.e., the party that people will turn to when the alternative appears to be less acceptable. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar will have the advantage that Dr. Rowley & Co. have screwed up so badly that they deserve to be fired.

But  nowhere will there be any type of debate about the competence (or lack of it) of the two sides. Instead the country will in effect be bombarded (both figuratively as well as literally) with race talk. It says a lot , doesn't it?

TIME TO RETHINK PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

It is probably quite fitting to write this article today - Labour Day in Trinidad & Tobago. Nobody who has a modicum of justice flowing through his veins or understands and appreciates history and the significance of this date can grudge this holiday. 

Indeed, I would argue that it is right and mete and absolutely necessary that we celebrate this holiday as well as others. But my argument is a simple one: except for those days that can't be moved (e.g., Independence, Christmas. Eid, Divali, etc.) for reasons that ought to be obvious, we have a  bunch of other holidays, like this one, that we can celebrate by making it fall on a particular Monday in a particular month. For example, why don't we celebrate Indian Arrival Day on the last Monday in May? And we can do so on other appropriate Mondays, (e.g. we can have Emancipation Day on the first Monday in August? Or Republic Day on the last Monday in September?) 

I was thinking about this because everybody I know (except those born on an actual public holiday) has had a birthday fall on a weekday but had the celebration on a weekend. The birthday party is still special but everyone can enjoy the party especially because they don't have to go to work the next day.

So? Why can't our country do the same as we all have done at one time or another? Research has shown time and again that the country's productivity falls drastically when a public holiday falls on, say, a Tuesday or a Thursday - greater than when it falls on a Monday or a Friday. People tend to make it a long weekend if this happens, with the resulting drop in productivity.

Let me be clear: I am NOT arguing for the abolition of ANY holidays. The abolition of any particular holiday (religious or otherwise) would be a whole other argument. I am simply arguing for a rethink or streamlining of certain non-religious holidays in the interest of making T&T (admittedly only a little) more efficient.

THE UNC INTERNAL ELECTIONS

 Well, the UNC's internal elections are over and (surprise, surprise) Kamla's slate won. The fact that it was such a complete wipeout of Rushton Parry's slate raises more questions than answers. The first (and probably the most important) question is what safeguards were in place to assure that there was absolutely no cheating at the polls and that this result is something that can be relied upon? Does this result actually and accurately reflect the opinion of the wider electorate?

The next question that comes to mind is that does this (honest?) result mean that the UNC faithful are 100 percent behind Kamla and have absolutely no qualms about her and her people leading the party in the next general election?

The third question is, will those who so overwhelmingly voted for Kamla's slate admit that they were wrong IF Rowley & Co. are victorious in the next general election? And as a 'sub-question' (if that is a word) what will they do if they discover that Kamla & Co. do not have the support of the majority of the population?

One of the big problems that most people have is that they are very often most unwilling either to admit that they were wrong or that their choice was wrong. If those who voted for Kamla's slate were right then glory halleluiah, don't bother listening to me ever again. But what if they were wrong?

WHY?

 In a book by a man called Robert Paxton Called "Anatomy of Fascism" he quotes Mussolini (Adolf Hitler's good friend and the dictator of Italy) who answered a question about how he planned to govern after he became Prime Minister as saying in effect that his plan was to destroy any and all opposition to him. (He actually said "The democrats of Il Mondo ( a newspaper in Rome) want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better." Authoritarian movements don't just hate truth telling journalists, they also want to destroy any knowable truth other than that which the leader insists on. When you come across someone who is not just wrong but proudly irrational, they are simply looking for a fight.

So, let's look at the fight that is going on inside the UNC for control of that Party. On the one hand you have Rushton Parry's slate which has noticeably refrained from any type of personal attacks  on their opponents while on the other hand you have Kamla Persad Bissessar's team which has chosen to ignore the fact that Mrs. Persad Bissessar has lost just about every election that she has led the UNC in since the general election of 2010 (which she won).

You might say that the Persad Bissessar faction of indulging a little bit of "head-in-the sand" complacency because the general feeling in the country right now is that it is split right down the middle between the UNC and the PNM. And this is at a time when the ruling PNM has screwed up very, very  badly. By all that is normal, the UNC should be way ahead of the PNM right now. But its not. and the supporters of Mrs. Persad Bissessar are not asking the critical question: why?

P.S. Are there  safeguards in place to prevent either side from cheating at this Sunday's internal election? If so, what exactly are they? Don't you think (regardless of who you would like to win) that this is important?

ARE ELECTIONS CONSEQUENTIAL?

 Do you believe that elections are consequential? Will your life change depending on who wins the next general election? If the answer is 'yes', then what changes are you hoping for? If the answer is 'no' then why are you bothering to vote at all? Put another way, if 'your side' wins the election how will that affect you personally? And what happens to you if you 'side' loses?

You see, the only reason for politics - the only reason for Government - is to make YOUR life better. Full stop! There is no other reason. You can understand why those who are offering themselves want the job - they will certainly become better off if they win. But how will YOU benefit?  Okay, you will prevent 'them" (whoever 'them' are) from having a better life. But what's in it for you? This is a very serious question that I don't think that a lot of people think about. We all get caught up in the hype - 'vote PNM' or 'vote UNC'. But do you ever stop to think about what's in it for you? Of course, the reality is that the answer to this basic question is often overlooked in all the excitement surrounding an election - whether it is an internal or a general one.

Have you noticed, for example that most people are worse off today than they were ,say, 10 years ago? And yet, the PNM seems to be running neck and neck with the UNC. Why?  Certainly, one can look at the UNC's leadership and say that it is falling short, but isn't the PNM leadership also wanting? The UNC has some internal elections about to take place that will almost certainly impact how that party is perceived by the wider electorate. So the question for a UNC supporter is do you think that your party has done a good job of keeping the PNM Government on its toes? If you do, then why is your party doing so badly in the polls when by all that is normal at this stage the party should be preparing for Government?  And they are not!

And if you think that its all the fault of those who oppose the current UNC leader, do you think that she can heal the party enough to persuade non UNC people (the floating voters) to vote for her in the next round? So? Do you vote to change things or are you happy with the status quo?

 The last 9 years of PNM rule have been marked  by a series of disasters - the closure of Petrotrin, austerity, the pandemic and a series of other vague, but just as troubling, marks of failure. It has been argued that while the State withers the charlatans take over and you give up on progress and simply hope that this particular chapter of all this nonsense will end. But a country cannot move forward without honestly reckoning on where it has gone wrong. There is enormous social inequality and exasperation with corruption that is generating massive discontent. Which leads back to my original question: do you believe that elections are consequential?

THE BANKS

 While existing legislation is supposed to keep the banks in check, the balance of power has swung far in their direction and they are acting with deepest impunity. Don't believe me? Have you seen how many millions the banks are reporting in profits every year? Their profits are up - way up - not down - in a time when people are catching hell to make ends meet. 

For example, how many people have noticed the small bank charges that seem to proliferate just for the privilege of having an account? And I thought that computerization was supposed to make things quicker and easier and less expensive; it hasn't. Why does it not in Trinidad & Tobago? In Canada, for example, my son reports that it took about 10 minutes for him to open an account when he went to university. Compare how long it takes down here. The banks in the North are very efficient, but they actually provide a service. Down here they operate as if they are doing you a favour by taking your money and holding it. Most diplomats report that it takes them about two days to open an account. Why? And  then they ask you all sorts of rather intrusive and personal questions.

And yet the big banks and their big clients are reporting record profits. But more people are being pushed into poverty than ever before. Why? Is there no co-relation? Why is no politician talking about this? Is it because  'money talks and you-know-what walks'?  But I have always thought that the only reason for politics was to make life better for the people! I guess that the old saying about money talking is very true - at least in T&T! Certainly, unless you are a 'big-wig' in a bank or a big company, but just an ordinary person, you are not better off. Is this right? Is it fair?

IS RACE BEHIND THE SEDITION CHARGE?

 I looked up the Sedition Act Cha. 11:04 to see if I could find the meaning of the word "sedition". I couldn't. The closest thing that I could find was in Webster's dictionary which defined 'sedition' as "1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. 2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion."

So, going back to the Act  the law says in effect that until the contrary is proved, anybody knowingly in possession of a seditious publication is guilty of sedition. It goes on to define  a seditious intention as an intention "(a) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against Government ... ."

It would seem therefore that the charge of sedition under this rather antiquated British colonial law MIGHT have a chance of succeeding against the Canadian vlogger who seems to have been caught up in the politics of this country. (I have emphasized the word "might" because I haven't seen exactly what he posted or said.)  Certainly, if he was advocating the violent overthrow of the government of our Republic then I have no problem with "throwing the book" at him. 

But if he didn't, what then? Certain very nasty and most unfortunate suspicions would arise. In any case there are certain questions that need to be asked and answered, e.g. how come a Canadian can find alleged gang members IN POSSESSION of guns and the police can't find or charge them? Are these charges racially motivated?

You see, it is interesting that the person who has been charged is the reporter while the people being reported on are left to go free. And the person being charged is a white foreigner and the people being reported on are black. And the present Government is black. Is it unfair to notice this? Why? It has been hinted that a senior black PNM politician was behind this charge because what was said was embarrassing to the Government. Is there any truth to that rumour?

Let's see what happens next. But unless this whole imbroglio is settled soon there is going to be a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

THAT MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR MISTAKE!!

 Have you any idea of how much a billion dollars is? Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that in your lifetime you will ever come near making that amount of money. Most people find this sum hard to even  conceptualize. After all, it is not an amount that they can ever even dream about making.

So let me help you: if I gave you one billion dollars on the day that they crucified Jesus Christ, and you lived forever and didn't get any interest on that sum and you spent one thousand dollars a day - every day; today you would have something like 110 years to go BEFORE you ran out of money! Unbelievable, eh? Check it out yourself.

My point here is that we see that there is a multi billion dollar mistake in the country's accounts as presented by the auditor general. Most people will have seen this news and shrugged their shoulders and asked, "so what?" Those who are rabid supporters of the Government will say in effect that nothing has been proven and in any case it is just an accounting error that anybody could make. Those who are rabid supporters of the Opposition will say that this is highly believable and is just another example of 'thievery' in the ruling PNM. Just about everybody will quietly say that they don't think that anything will come of it and that nobody will ever have to give an account that will be acceptable to all. In other words, whatever is reported, nothing will happen.

And yet, there is a mistake reported on the country's books that comes to several billion dollars! Is anybody concerned? Does anybody really care?

WHAT ABOUT US?

 I had been hoping against hope that I would have been proven wrong in my last post and that the Prime Minister, when he came home, would have given us at the very least, a full account of his trip, how much it cost and why he took with him whoever he took (apart from his wife), and what benefit to the country did they bring to the table, and so on.  Instead his press conference yesterday was just the usual 'blah-blah-blah' in which no useful information was given and we learned nothing. Whatever happened to the old maxim: "if you have nothing to say, don't say it!"?

I keep trying to make the point: there is only one reason for politics - one reason for Government; to make life better for the people! Full stop! There is NO other reason.  I was also taught that if you can't make your point in one sentence then you can't make it at all. So? in one sentence, how did Dr. Rowley's last trip benefit T&T? How did it make your life better? Did it bring the cost of living down? What exactly did it achieve? Can anyone answer this question in one sentence?

Isn't it about time that we start to hold our so-called leaders to account? That they are all living well is understood. But what about the rest of us?

DEALING WITH INCOMPETENCE

 It is almost an unwritten rule: when things are going bad for the country, then Prime ministers like to travel - especially on official visits. After all, there is no daily barrage of bad news, you are unreachable, and any media coverage of you is almost always favourable, You are often treated like a hero and as the "greatest thing since sliced bread". You have very few problems to deal with other than which school are you going to open today, or what colour tie will you wear tonight at the cocktail party in your honour. The problems at home are far away and your trip is often most relaxing and enjoyable. There will be no awkward questions at any press conference and your hosts will be anxious to please you.

But all good things must come to an end and sooner or later you will have to go home and face your own electorate. Your first line of defence will be to keep quiet; your second line of defence if keeping quiet doesn't work, will be to blame the Opposition for the country's problems - whatever they might be. Another line of defence (but not the main one) will be to report on how "successful" your trip was and how much the country will benefit from your travels.

T&T's Prime Minister is reportedly off on yet another foreign trip - this time to Ghana. Why Ghana? Well, the obvious answer in one word is race. Oh! It will not be presented as plainly or as bluntly as That! No! Dr. Rowley will return with a lot of hot air and empty promises about how Africa is a huge untapped market and one which we have ignored for too long. There will be promises of new business and more jobs - all of which will be brought to us by Santa Claus on his sleigh. And by the time that those promises do not materialize he will have beautifully segued onto some other issue and we will all have forgotten not only the empty promises but not even how much of our money that his little jaunt has cost us.

Of course, this will continue to happen time and again until we learn the obviously difficult lesson that the present load of politicians (on both sides) are simply in that business for themselves and not for us. After we learn this lesson, the next question will be what are we going to do about it? 

FIX THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM - CATCH THE CROOKS

 Following on this last weekend's shootout and murders (where 12 people were wounded and 4 killed) unsurprisingly there have been renewed calls for harsher penalties. However amidst all of the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth nobody has hit on the simple fact that the criminals and murderers are simply not being caught.

I remember reading somewhere a few years ago that for every 100 murders the conviction rate was somewhere in the vicinity of 7 percent and that most of those convictions related to what can loosely be called 'domestic disputes'. The arrest rate for what might  loosely be called 'gang related' murders and crimes were somewhere around 3 percent and the conviction rate for these types of crime was less than 1 percent!

My guess is that the arrest rate percentages are even lower now, and as for the conviction rate!  Well that is just about non-existent! 

So? Think like a criminal: if you had a less than 3 percent chance of getting caught would you hesitate to commit the crime? My bet is that you wouldn't give it a second thought. And if by some chance you were actually arrested and charged, your chances of being actually convicted are so close to zero that no threat of any penalties will deter you!

Think about it! We don't really need more stringent, "hang-em high" laws; what we need is for the police to actually do their job and catch the crooks. Then we need for the justice system to work quickly so that between an arrest and a verdict from a trial, less than one year has passed instead of the very long wait - sometimes/often more than10 years - that pertains now. 

Until we fix this we are simply whistling in the wind! Politicians can give us as much "basket" as they want - and we can all cheer lustily while they hold expensive meetings in first class hotels (which we pay for, by the way) that come up with all kinds of fancy rhetoric that make them sound as if they know what they are doing. But nothing that ANY politician has said has ever provided ANY solution as to how they propose to catch the crooks. And until the crooks start getting caught our crime situation will just get worse. Watch!

CAN THE UNC WIN BY ITSELF UNDER KAMLA?

 A friend of mine has written to me saying that Mrs. Persad Bissessar and her supporters are concentrating on the upcoming internal UNC elections and are pushing the line that those who oppose her are simply trying to divide the party. Left unspoken is that a divided party cannot defeat the PNM in the general elections due next year.

While that last sentence is obviously true, it really does beg the question as to who is dividing the UNC?  You see, by all that is normal the UNC should be way ahead in the polls right now of the Rowley led PNM.  The only people who are better off than they were some 9 years ago when Rowley et al came to power, are the financiers of the PNM and a handful of party insiders. Everybody else has seen his/her standard of living fall and become more expensive. There have been seemingly countless errors of judgement that have cost the country dearly. And yet, the UNC is running 'neck and neck' with the PNM! Something is obviously wrong somewhere.

And yet, Mrs. Persad Bissessar and her supporters cling to their diminished power and influence, proving the old adage about it being "better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven" It is as if the theme of the UNC in the next elections will be 'they have screwed up but we can do better'.  Left out of that equation is exactly how they will do better. No real policies have been defined and Kamla's crew is blatantly incompetent (except for one or two able people like Roodal Moonilal). Her leader of Opposition business in the Parliament, for example,  screws up time and again, but is very adept at getting Mrs. Persad Bissessar to blame others for his mistakes.

Look, the ONLY reason for politics - the ONLY reason for Government - is to make life better for the people! Full stop! Punto finale! There is no other reason! Mrs. Persad Bissessar seems to be operating on the premise that the only reason for politics and Government is her personal well being.  She has made countless statements that she is prepared to lead again, but she has failed to lay out a clear path to victory for the UNC or how she will make your life better. She has also failed to excite the wider electorate that she will need if she wants to win. A dispassionate observer can be forgiven in concluding that she is just interested in just herself and not the wider community that she wishes to represent.

So my answer to the question asked at the beginning of this post is that if an election were to be called tomorrow, UNC will lose if it does not make an alliance with the smaller parties - and even then it will be a toss up. They look very much at the moment that they will lose.

Having said that, it should be noted that there are competent potential leaders waiting in the wings (unless, of course, the UNC leader "kills" them first - which seems to be happening).

CROOKS AND MOOKS?

We are constantly bombarded with political promises that promise dramatic life improvement for us and/or relief from our troubles. These promises all come to us saying in essence that "if you vote for me/us then productivity will improve and you will live a happier life". In short, the promise is in one word - Nirvana. We also get pundits telling us that we will be better off if we vote for X instead of Y. Sometimes these pundits give us their reasoning - which is often faulty, but in the end simply goes back to the promises of Nirvana.

Don't buy it!

I was reminded of these promises and pundits this morning when I saw a newspaper article that reported a very prominent former (now retired) banker, Ron Harford, whose opinions I have always respected. Mr. Harford was reported as saying that if you have a choice in voting for a crook or a mook, then it is better to vote for the crook. Now, I can understand his reasoning: while you can be fairly certain that the crook will steal, the mook simply won't have any idea on how to fix things and because of his/her inefficiencies,  inabilities and total incompetence, the mook will simply make things worse. The crook, on the other hand, while stealing, will probably do somethings right, and therefore we will all benefit - not as much as could if the crook wasn't a crook, but still we would get some benefit. The erstwhile Mr. Harford did not identify anybody who he thought might be a crook or a mook.

So, in keeping with the erstwhile Mr. Harford's non-identification of anybody, I have only one question for him: what if the crook is also a mook?

THOSE FOREIGN TRIPS

 I have said it over and over again: there is only one reason for politics - only one reason for Governments : to make life better for the people! Full stop! There is no other reason!

So when Dr. Moonilal told his political supporters that following a Freedom of Information request it was revealed that between 20th September 2020 and 29th February 2024 - a period of a little over 3 years and 5 months -  the Prime Minister, the erstwhile Dr. Keith Christopher Rowley, had spent $10.6 million on foreign travel a reasonable question that needs to be answered is what benefit or benefits did Trinidad & Tobago get out of all these trips? There are some rather obvious supplementary questions such as how much money did T&T make on this $10.6 million investment, and who in the society  (apart from Caribbean Airlines which I presume is what the  Prime Minister travelled on) benefitted directly from these trips? Who benefitted indirectly from these trips? Indeed, did anybody in the country benefit from these trips? And if so, who and how did he/she benefit? What exactly was the return on our investment of more than $10 million?

You see, I consider myself reasonably well informed as to what is going on on T&T but I really can't say what tangible benefits were received by the country - whether in cash or otherwise - that might justify such a huge travel bill. And I certainly don't know who benefitted from these trips. Of course it is always possible that the country or some persons did benefit from these expensive trips. It is just that nobody seems to have answered (or even asked until now) the very basic questions. Isn't it time that our political leaders (on BOTH sides) account to us for everything that they say or do? Or should we be just content to let them do whatever they want? 

EID MUBARAK

 Eid Mubarak to everybody. On this rather auspicious and most important day, it might be a good time to consider a more rational approach to our public holidays - and Carnival Monday and Tuesday are included in this. You see, there are a lot of holidays that are purely secular (e.g., Indian Arrival Day and Emancipation Day). It is also obvious that certain religious holidays can't be moved (e.g., Today, Eid ul Fitr - which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan - Divali, and Easter. However, for all the rest - the secular, non-religious ones - why don't we celebrate the holiday on a particular Monday? 

Take, for example, the holiday of Indian Arrival Day which celebrates the arrival of the first Indians in Trinidad; this holiday is on the 30th May in every year. But when the 30th May falls on, say, a Tuesday or a Thursday, the country's productivity is adversely affected as many people make it a true long weekend by taking the Monday or Friday off. 

Now, how many of you have had a birthday fall on, say, a Wednesday but have had a party celebrating your birthday on either the Saturday night before your birthday or on the Saturday night after? In other words, what is important is the celebration which you have  to mark the occasion rather than the actual day itself. And I believe that just about everybody has done this at least once.

The point here is (and continuing with the example of Indian Arrival Day) why don't we have it on, say, the last Monday in May?  Or the first Monday in June? The whole idea of this holiday is to celebrate and honour the first people who arrived here and whose descendants have made a sterling contribution to our society. The honouring of our ancestors will be no less if it is not done on the exact day and will create  for everybody a long weekend.

And, please, I have only singled out one national holiday for the sake of brevity; but the point applies to every other secular holiday.

THE DEATH PENALTY

 With crime on the rise perhaps now is a good time to revisit our laws on the death penalty. So, question: what is the best deterrent for crime? Answer: the fear of getting caught along with the fear of being punished after you are caught, Both of these fears go together because if you get caught and you know that there will be a punishment of some kind then you are more likely not to break the particular law

You can test this hypothesis by looking at the behaviour of drivers when they know that the police are timing people who are speeding. Everybody slows down!

But we have on the books the draconian  death penalty for certain crimes, e.g., murder (although we haven't executed anybody recently). Yet still, despite this penalty, murders are on the rise, so the obvious question is why? The answer is equally obvious: if you commit a murder you have less than a 90 percent chance of being caught (and here I am talking about the "hits" and other similar types of crime and not those related, e.g., to murdering your spouse). And then, if you are caught the justice system is so inefficient that you can spend 10 years or more in jail before your matter comes up for trial and by then some of the witnesses could be dead or forgetful or unreliable. As a result, you get off and then might have a claim against the State for damages for wrongful imprisonment.

No. Our entire justice system needs a major overhaul - beginning with the police. If they can't (or won't) catch the criminals then what good are they? Why do we need them? Then the court system needs to be ramped up so that a person charged with a crime faces the court quickly - e.g., within 3 months, although I think that is probably too long. I mean, how would you feel if you were locked up for 3 months for a crime that you did not commit?

As a person who has had a beloved family member murdered and having full knowledge as to who at least 2 of the killers were (they were never caught or even charged - but that's another story) I know and subscribe unequivocally to the principle of the presumption of innocence - even for my cousin's murders. But, hey, his murderers effectively got away with it because of corruption and inefficiency in the police service.

We cannot bring down the crime rate to any kind of "acceptable" level unless we really tackle the 2 problems that I have highlighted here. Then we can look at the other problems.

RUSHTON PARAY - Part Two

 Since Mr. Paray's announcement last week that he was throwing his hat in the ring for the leadership of the UNC he has rather predictably come under a fierce attack from the supporters of the status quo and the present leader, Mrs. Persad Bissessar. It is almost as though she has indicated that anyone who doesn't openly and vigorously support her will be deemed to be against her and will, as a consequence, lose the chance of sharing in the country's largesse when - they hope - that she becomes Prime Minister again.

The attacks on Mr. Paray have ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, one of the attacks on him is that he used to be a member of the PNM. Unspoken, but clearly intended, the message is that as a result of this he cannot be trusted and a vote for him will obviously be a vote for the PNM. Actually, some sycophants have even gone so far as to articulate that thought.

But those pushing that line have not bothered to say that as the Member of Parliament for the Mayaro constituency Mr. Paray had to go through the party's screening committee - not once, but twice! If this was such a bad thing then what does that say about the screening committee which is under the control of --guess who? - Kamla Persad Bissessar! If this is such a bad thing then does that mean that previous membership in a political party that opposes the UNC is a good reason to bar that person from the leadership of the UNC?  Is that implied in the UNC's constitution? In other words, if you made a mistake once in joining another political party  you always have to pay for it?

But, wait a minute! Didn't Mrs. Persad Bissessar actually not only belong to another political party (the COP) but actually ran against the UNC as a candidate for that party? So? Is this a case of "do as I say but not as I do"?

Of course, it has to be noted that absolutely no evidence - whether real or fabricated - has been produced to support this allegation. But Heinrich Himmler's injunction about 'the bigger the lie the more people will believe it' is what is important here. (For those who don't remember, Himmler was Adolf Hitler's Nazi Minister of Propaganda.)

It would be a nice thing if the UNC (and especially those who support Mrs. Persad Bissessar) would deal with the issues rather than making personal and often baseless attacks. A proper debate on the issues surrounding the leadership is most necessary at this time. And these issues begin and end with the economy. Then we have other issues like health care, the water supply and crime. What are the proposals from Mrs. Persad Bissessar? What are they from Mr. Paray? Who comes across to you as a person who can lead the UNC to victory at the polls? Who has a history of losing?

Is it possible, do you think, to have a calm and rational debate on the issues rather than the hurling of brickbats at those with whose opinions we don't agree with?

P.S. In my last post I misspelled Mr. Paray's name many times. I do sincerely apologize for that mistake.

RUSHTON PARRY

 Rushton Parry has announced that he is going to throw his hat in the ring for the leadership of the UNC. His presentation when making this announcement was free of the usual bombast of politicians, unemotional and was never about himself but all about his country and his political party. I found myself agreeing with him on all of his points and while he made it clear that he was a party man what came across  (to me, at least) was that he cared deeply about his country - which is what politics should be about.

Frankly, I had been looking at the UNC's leadership contest with rather a jaundiced eye. It seemed that although Mrs. Persad Bissessar had already lost twice to Keith Rowley in a general election the UNC membership was determined to make it a hat trick and lose a general election three times in a row! I mean, how many chances should you give someone who keeps losing and has done absolutely nothing to make you feel that she really does have your interests at heart over her own personal ambitions? Why should anyone continue to support someone who, in the face of the worst Government that this country has ever had, has her party running neck and neck with the PNM in terms of popular support?

No. It is clearly time for a change and Mr. Parry's opening salvo in the present UNC leadership contest demonstrates clearly that he could be very good for both his country as well as his party. One can't help nut wonder what will happen if the PNM and Rowley win again! The UNC membership now has a most important choice to make as well as a great opportunity to fix what has gone so dreadfully wrong. Opportunities lost usually never return.

ROWLEY, THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA

 Keith Rowley is stuck in a hard place - between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand he needs to call a general election now. The economic outlook for the country is only going to get worse and if he doesn't go the polls immediately his chances of winning the next elections are just about zero. His chances of winning now (and 'now' means now) are marginally enhanced by the leadership confusion in the Opposition UNC, but if he waits too long even that very, very slight boost will disappear.

On the other hand, he is faced with a highly disillusioned electorate. Recently, the PNM lost the local government elections and in Tobago, despite efforts to gerrymander the last House of Assembly results by increasing the number of seats from 12 to 15, the PNM managed to win only one seat! One wonders if there had been no gerrymandering if PNM would have been totally wiped out?!

But that's another story; what is relevant here is that based on present information Augustin Farley's party will win the two Tobago seats in the House of Representatives. And if the UNC manages to hold on to its 19 seats and the PNM doesn't lose any of its seats in Trinidad- a feat that looks most possible in the present climate - then, hey, presto! PNM loses and Farley becomes a kingmaker with his two seats! Of course, if PNM loses any seats in Trinidad then that will be it! They are out! And this last point looks increasingly possible.

So? Back to Keith Rowley's problem: he can't wait in the hope that things will get better  - they will not - and he will be taking a huge risk if he goes to the polls now. Thinking about it he will very likely wait. While there's life there's hope and he may very likely figure that things could change in his favour tomorrow. I know that I said in an earlier post that it looked as though Rowley was setting up to call an early election. But, hey, I'm entitled to change my mind and I have never pretended to have a crystal ball.  But trying to look at the situation as dispassionately as possible it does seem as though our erstwhile Prime Minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. What will he do? Your guess is as good as mine! There are other matters not in the public domain that , if they become public, could affect an election result, but it isn't likely that this will happen any time soon.

DEALING WITH OUR CRIME PROBLEM - Part Two

 It is abundantly clear that most of the crime - especially the violent crime - is being committed by badly educated young men (together with a few women). Our education system is a mess - the last time it was completely overhauled was by Eric Williams around 1962. Since then successive Governments have tinkered with it  but nobody has had either the courage or the "smarts" to overhaul the system completely. The result has been the massive growth of an underclass who can barely read nor write, but who are smart enough to see that they are cast upon the rubbish heap of life with no way or means of getting ahead except through a life of crime. "Live fast and die young" has become their motto.

Clearly, this is totally unacceptable - or should be - for everybody. But how to fix it? My solution would take about twenty years before we see or feel any benefits. but  the sooner we start the sooner we reach our goal of creating a more just society.

I have heard criticisms of the teachers. In my view these criticisms are unjustified. What I think is that we are woefully underpaying our teachers. I believe that a starting salary for  a teacher right now is in the region of about TT$5,000 per month. Thereafter there is a scale that increases the salaries of teachers with time and experience. I would keep the various grades BUT I would treble the salaries of all qualified teachers now. And for the record, I would consider a teacher to be qualified if he/she held a teaching diploma or certificate and had an undergraduate degree. If a teacher had been teaching for 30 years or more this requirement would be waived. But for everybody else this would be non-negotiable.

Then, in order to get the new salary the teacher would have to agree to certain conditions. First of all, the teacher would have to agree to an annual performance review  based on how effective his/her teaching had been over the last year. If he/she fails this performance review he/she is fired with no severance. I am aware that the teacher's union will not like this at all. My answer would be all the original terms and conditions of the person's teaching job INCLUDING the original salary would apply, but once you take the new salary you give up your rights to the benefits under the original contract of employment and will be governed by the new rules. But "no money, no love" will be the rule and if you want the new salary then you will have to give up something. 

Crime is as a result of a failure of the education system. We simply can't afford not to pay first class salaries if we want to get first class results. Obviously, a young person who has just graduated from high school would not be a qualified teacher. But yet we continue to employ young, unqualified people as teachers and somehow expect our children to learn!?!

Well, this is my idea. Why do I say it will take about 20 years? Because I believe that it will take about that long to effect the changes that are so badly needed. Obviously, what has been set out here are simply the bare bones of the idea. There will have to be a great deal of "fleshing out", but hopefully you have got the basic idea. We need to have a system in place that gives EVERYBODY the belief and the hope that he/she can improve his/her life without resorting to crime. And we don't have that now.

But a better educated population will result in (amongst other things) a better and more effective police force. A better and more educated police force will result in a reduction in crime. The best deterrent for crime is the fear of getting caught and punished. And right now this just ain't happening! Its high time that we create a system based on performance. We simply can't afford to continue on the road that we are on

DEALING WITH OUR CRIME PROBLEM - Part One

 Two boys were born at exactly 1:10am, sixteen years, three months and two days ago. Both boys are black and both boys were their mothers' third child. Both boys are very bright with a natural inborn intelligence. 

 But that is where the similarities end. They were born approximately one and a half miles apart. The first boy was born in am upscale private nursing home while his mother was attended by a private doctor. The second was born in the Port of Spain General Hospital. No doctor was present. The father of the first boy was a lawyer; the mother was a real estate agent with a university degree` in sociology. The mother of the second boy never graduated from High School and doesn't know who is the father of the second boy. While she knows who the father of her first child is, she has no idea who the father of her third child is. She is living off and on with a man who beats her and her previous two children regularly. She hooked up with him just after she became pregnant with the second boy in this story. She too can barely read or write; indeed, she has never read a book in her life. She has had  four more children after the second boy was born - making a total of seven children. The last two were fathered by the same man. The mother of the first boy in our story had no more children after he was born.

The first boy was brought home to an upscale neighbourhood by his proud and loving parents and given the best education that money could buy. The second boy was taken home by his mother to a very poor neighbourhood and more or less left to fend for himself as he grew older. He sometimes went to a public school and barely learned how to read or write. By the time he was eleven he had started to roam the streets at night where he learned how to steal and he learned how to fight. At age thirteen he joined a gang and began his life of crime.

In the meantime the first boy had moved on with his life. His father had promised him that if his grades were good enough and he got into university that the father would buy him a car. The first boy wants to become an engineer. The second wants to have enough money by the time he is twenty-five to be able to buy anything that he wants from a nice house and a luxury car to nice clothes. He also wants to live long enough to enjoy all these things and sometimes in his darker moments rails against the injustice of being born poor and effectively cast upon the rubbish heap of life. He sees quite clearly that his only hope of escape from his present existence is in a life of crime. In any case, he doesn't know how to do anything else.

So, take this story and except for a few changes here and there you will find that most of the crimes being committed in this present crime wave plaguing our country are being committed by boys who are of a similar age (give or take a few years) and a similar background to the second boy in this story. So? What can we do? How can we help?  How can we fix this? That it needs to be fixed is clear. 

Because I tend to look with scorn upon those who see a problem but offer no solutions, I should say that I have an idea on how to fix this, but my idea will take about twenty years to fix - from when we start. In one word that solution is "EDUCATION".  In my next blog I will spell out as clearly as I can what I mean by this.

THE PNM'S MESSAGE

 

The PNM is a master at playing democracy against itself. The party always presents itself - no matter what it does - as representing the will of the people of Trinidad & Tobago. In some ways this trust is justifiable; the PNM has won more general elections and been in power and lasted longer than any other party in the country.

But the playing field is far from even. The PNM has been guilty of gerrymandering and allowing voters to register - even where they are not citizens or don't live in the districts. At the moment the big thing about Venezuelans coming over here is opposed by the party mainly because it is perceived that most of the Venezuelan immigrants do not favour the PNM and are brown - not black. Of course, this was different when the PNM let a lot of people in from the small islands. The PNM also spies on citizens.

The PNM has also learned  how to use the Government to shape and skim public opinion. One example: the Prime Minister's  recent program on all three major networks at prime time "Conversations with the Prime Minister". They have learned how to carefully control the message which is always that the Government represents all but a tiny minority of the people - and the underlying question is whose side do you want to be on? The vast majority, or the troublemakers?

Media freedom has,  until now, been carefully controlled by the PNM. The party has relentlessly squeezed the space for critical voices in the traditional media by getting business cronies to buy up independent media and not sharing and starving the few others of advertising revenue. A classic case in point is the recent shipwreck of that oil barge in Tobago. We still have had no explanation as to why reporting on this took so long - more than a week - to make the national news. Even now  it has become a bit of a 'nine day wonder' and we still don't have the full story. 

The 'canary in the coal mine' responsibility has fallen to social media which is not always exactly reliable - much to the detriment of our society. But the Government has completely failed to give any proper explanation and the traditional media has failed to "hold the Government's feet to the fire" in order that we, the citizenry, can know what happened in that case. 

So? Should we just turn the page and get on with our lives?

ALL THE SIGNS ARE POINTING TO AN EARLY ELECTION

 If anyone paying attention to the political scene was in doubt he/she should take careful note of Dr. Rowley's latest pronouncement on Thursday last (7th March) when he said that elections were "coming soon". The Government-in-waiting (aka the UNC) still hasn't got it's act together and its leader seems to be living in another universe. Dr. Rudy Moonilal and Senator Lutchmedial together with M.P. Rushton Parry are the only ones who seem to be trying to keep the UNC flag flying. But if the others are working they are not being reported, and for any politician that is tantamount to being seen as irrelevant. 

In the meantime Dr. Rowley is continuing with his version of what happened  and why, for example, Petrotrin was shut down. He also said that the UNC was only focused on crime and nothing else. Now, this isn't exactly true. To my knowledge the UNC has criticized the failure of the education system (which by the way is a major cause of the present crime wave - but more on that later), the absolute failure of the country's health care system, the dismal state of the roads with potholes everywhere, along with the lousy state of security in the country. But whose message is getting across? Dr. Rowley's or Kamla's?

But while Dr. Rowley stands head and shoulders above any other politician in the country, the facts just aren't there to support his increasingly wild (and mostly untrue) accusations against the Opposition, nor do the facts support his allegations that his team has done a very good job. Of course he is being ably assisted by the rather obvious incompetence of those holding the leadership reins in the Opposition - and here I am not talking about Mrs. Persad- Bissessar alone. Her entire leadership team is hopelessly and helplessly incompetent, unable to sell an ice cream cone to an eskimo in the desert. They seem to be banking on "vote for us and not the PNM who have dragged the country down" -  not a bad line, but it obviously needs more - much more - if they want to win.

The UNC needs to say how they are going to fix things - and to say it now, over and over again. Politics and Government is ONLY about making YOUR life better. If they can't or won't say that then a reasonable question to ask is what's in it for you? Why should you vote for them (whoever "them" are)?

THE OPENING CAMPAIGN SALVO

 I must confess that I felt as if I had wasted my precious time when I listened to Keith Rowley's "Conversations With the Prime Minister" last night. On the positive side I had to admire his presentation. He is nothing if not an excellent salesman and listening to him, even though I knew that what he was saying was either simply not true or was absolute rubbish, I couldn't help thinking that an uncritical or unthinking listener would have been persuaded that he was doing a good job and that everything that had gone wrong was the UNC's fault. Certainly, I found myself more than half believing and accepting his arguments and had to remind myself constantly that what he was saying was a gross distortion of the facts.

For example, when he touched on the closure of Petrotrin I thought that we might at least have gotten some sort of apology or admission that it was a terrible mistake. Instead he brushed it off by saying in essence that it was in the country's interest that the company was closed down and rather conveniently ignoring the GTL project and the fake oil scandal which had been exposed immediately before and had saddled Petrotrin with billions of dollars in debt. Also he rather conveniently ignored the fact that some 10,000 workers had lost their jobs but that the persons responsible  for that disaster had gotten away Scot free and that there has never been any type of public  (or even private) accounting for what had happened. Nobody (except the taxpayers) has ever had to pay for that mess.

On another note he placed the blame for the delay in the implementation of the Property Tax squarely on the UNC and even had his erstwhile Finance Minister give a (rather garbled) `explanation of how the UNC had screwed things up.

Again, while he has to be admired for his salesmanship, unfortunately for him, the facts and matters about which he spoke do not quite line up with what he was trying to pitch. 

But all that will be for the UNC to deal with. What I want you to notice is that his presentation clearly resembled an opening salvo in the looming election campaign. The fact that he used his Prime Ministerial office to make that presentation (and presumably not pay for the prime time on the 3 major television networks) is something that should be carefully noted and put in the back of your mind. How Mrs. Persad Bissessar will deal with this, is, of course, another matter. But it does need to be dealt with - by her personally - and soon!