WILL THERE BE AN EARLY SNAP ELECTION IN T&T?

 The political state that T&T finds itself in today is nothing if not interesting. There are two main dominant parties - the PNM and the UNC. Both are very similar in almost everything; both draw heavily on the racial division in the country with PNM drawing mostly Black/African support and the UNC drawing mainly Indian/Hindu support. Both basically have the same economic policies - the argument here is that the PNM claims that the UNC steals more while the UNC claims that the PNM also steals just as much, if not more, but that they (the PNM) can't manage a children's party let alone the country's rather complex economy. On crime both parties declare boldly that they are against it. Here the PNM is at a slight disadvantage because they have been in power since 2015 and the situation as regards crime has clearly deteriorated. Unfortunately, the UNC has to date not shown how they can improve this situation and appear (whether true or not) that their co called forums on crime are simply just a PR stunt designed simply to produce no real solutions but to fool people that they have ideas to deal with the situation.

On foreign policy both parties tout the line of 'non-interference', but the PNM is clearly leaning more in favour of countries like Venezuela, while the UNC tends to view the United States more favorably. That this could or might have consequences for T&T is the subject of another discussion.

The contest at the end of the day is really one between the leadership of both parties. Dr. Rowley seems to be relying more on the racial vote with the gerrymandering that has taken place over the years than on his record, which is really rather dismal. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar seems to be relying not only on the Hindu vote, but on the fact that she was once the Prime Minister and that Dr. Rowley seems to be screwing up so badly that nobody in his/her right mind could ever vote for the PNM again. Neither leader appears to take into account the issues that ought to be discussed and on  how they plan to make the average person's life better. You simply don't hear falling from their lips exactly how they plan to improve things in the country for the individual voter if elected/re-elected in the next election. And neither leader has surrounded himself/herself with any competent,  politically attractive people. The criteria for belonging to either inner circle seems to be unquestioning loyalty to the leader. Rowley's man of business, Stuart Young, is perceived to be competent, but he is not popular either in the country or (more importantly) in the party. Persad-Bissessar has two competent persons on her side one of whom (Rudy Moonilal) has been so badly tainted by the PNM that he is now politically unacceptable to the broader electorate as well as a large portion of his own party, and the other (Rushton Parry) who has shown himself to be competent as well as popular; his sin is that his popularity makes him an acceptable alternative to Mrs. Persad- Bissessar, which means that she may very well decide to cut him as a candidate in the next election campaign. Both leaders can control who their parties put up as candidates.

This discussion is appropriate right now for all the signs are pointing to Dr. Rowley calling an early election this year - my bet is for May/June. I say this because the economy is looking to get worse between now and September next year (when the elections are constitutionally due) and, on the basis of all publicly available evidence, there is a real possibility that the Americans might conclude that the Rowley Government was actively trying to help Venezuela evade sanctions with that sunken barge off Tobago. Sanctions on T&T's economy would be devastating. (Again, this is a possibility and not a certainty, but certainly it is one that thinking people ought to be aware of.) Also, if (and it is a big 'if') the UNC changes leadership any  time soon, then he will not want to give the new leader time to settle in.

 That things can change overnight that could force a change in any prediction is a given. All we can do at this stage is to speculate on the possibilities. There is a lot going on that we simply don't know about. But, as I said earlier, based on the evidence that is publicly available at the moment, look for an early election. As to who will win? That is also very much up in the air also. By all that is normal, the UNC should be way ahead in the polls; but they are not. This is not simply  a reflection of the racial divide in the country, but it is also reflective of the rather negative opinion of Mrs. Persad- Bissessar that is held by many. Fortunately for her, on the other side there are roughly an equal number who also do not have a high regard for Dr. Rowley.

PNM v. UNC - WHAT DOES T&T NEED?

 For better or worse we are stuck with two main political parties - the PNM and the UNC. There are certain problems with both of them, the most glaring being that, at least economically, there are no policy differences. Basically, both sides are saying that 'we can do it better' than the other side. The PNM's basic mantra is that a vote for us will ensure business as usual and no 't'iefing', while the UNC's mantra is 'we must and can do better - and the PNM is full of thieves in any case'.

So with both sides claiming that the other will steal (translation: will steal more) and that they can do better the contest boils down to a leadership one: who do you like better? Kamla or Rowley? On the UNC's side you have a leader that is perceived as being weak and ineffective. She has surrounded herself with persons who are also perceived as being incompetent and who owe their loyalty to her rather than the people who support and vote for the UNC. This, they say, is  typically symptomatic of weak leadership. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's opponents also say that at a time when PNM is demonstrably very weak they seem to be running neck and neck with the PNM. Certainly, this last appears to be a valid observation and a good point for changing the UNC leader. 

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's supporters counter with the argument that this is not true and in any case now is not the time to change horses - that Rowley will call an election immediately if the UNC changes leaders, especially if that change was acrimonious.  This last point is a good argument as it is most unlikely that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar will gracefully step down. She obviously prefers to 'rule in Hell than serve in Heaven'.

On the PNM side, Rowley is also seen as weak and basically ineffective. Crime is now so clearly out of control that people hesitate to call the police. Rowley's Minister of National Security is seen as bumbling and incompetent as is his Commissioner of Police. His preferred method of doing any kind of business is through his Minister of Energy whose claim to fame is that he is supported by the big boss; without that support, Stuart Young would be yesterday's news. He has absolutely no support - anywhere!

So? Where are we? On the one hand we have an alternative Government which is led by a woman who, together with the persons that she has gathered around her, is widely perceived as incompetent and on the other  we have a Government which is led by a man that has demonstrated time and again that he hasn't got a clue about anything: crime, health care, the education system, the roads and more -  which are in a mess. And don't even mention the latest scandal about the shipwrecked barge in Tobago!

What is clearly needed is what we simply don't have: leaders who care more about the country and put what is best for the country first than about themselves. Anybody care to dream?

AND NOW THE STORY HAS COCAINE IN IT

It has now been reported that (1) one kilo of cocaine has been found near the Gulfstream barge - the one that capsized and caused the disastrous oil spill, and (2) that satellite tracking shows the barge was in Venezuela before coming here.

Now, this raises even more questions and makes it now most important that we find out who the individuals are that owned the barge and who stood to benefit from this cargo. Also, it is important to note that we still don't know where the crew is nor do we know exactly what happened. 

One thing is clear though: if we know that the barge was in Venezuela then the Americans do too. They probably have all the answers to our questions and are now biding their time to see what the Trinidadian authorities do next. Put another way, this ain't good news for us at all! You see, if there was Venezuelan oil mixed with Trini oil in the barge then reasonable conclusions to be drawn are that some person or persons high up was complicit in what was essentially a sanctions busting exercise. The story that there was a kilo of cocaine found near the barge seems to suggest that the ultimate beneficiaries are (or were) drug lords based here in Trinidad. Who are they? 

But there are now very ugly and what ought to be most unnecessary suspicions of both the Prime Minister and the Minister Of Energy. Were they involved somehow? If so, how were they involved? And why did it take so long for the news of the oil spill to leak out (pardon the pun)? And why is nobody in the Opposition asking any questions? What exactly went on? It can't be a good thing for this country to have the Prime Minister et al under this kind of suspicion. And let's be frank: the unspoken and unproven suspicions are that there have been a series of coverups stemming all the way from the top. Are any of these suspicions unreasonable?

What do the Americans know? Are we in danger of being sanctioned? If so, who was responsible for this? We need (and deserve) the clear evidence - one way or the other.

There was at least a loss of US$10 million. That is a lot of money. Who is taking that loss? Who were the banks involved? Put another way, was any local bank involved in the transaction? If so, which bank?And don't tell me something like ABC Inc. from Panama. Please state the names of the actual persons. I don't think that many people realize how precarious our position is. If this was in fact a sanction busting exercise and possibly coupled with drug smuggling we are going to be punished. Who would have brought this on our heads?

MORE QUESTIONS AND NO ANSWERS

The story of the half-sunken barge off Tobago continues to raise questions that ought to be answered. For example, there are reports that the barge was transporting Venezuelan oil. Is this true? If so, was this an attempt by Venezuela to evade American sanctions? Also, was T&T complicit in any way in this alleged attempt to evade sanctions? If so, who in T&T was colluding with the Venezuelans to do this? And, if this is true, then does T&T face getting on America's blacklist in helping Venezuela?

Again, I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. The matter has become even more curious by the visit of the Minister of Energy yesterday to Caracas. What was he doing there? Don't we deserve some kind of explanation? Because an inference to be drawn if there is no explanation is that he went to collude with the Venezuelan authorities  in order to make sure that everybody's stories lined up. Now, if that is true, then it would mean that this matter is much more serious than we imagined and that we here in T&T are probably exposing ourselves to American retaliation.

Countries don't have friends: they have interests. So it is possible that if America decides that somebody in authority colluded with Venezuela to break their sanctions then unless we deal with that person or persons ourselves America may decide to punish us for helping Venezuela to breach their sanctions. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' and America could decide that T&T's helping the Venezuelan regime is evidence that we are on their (Venezuelan) side. So? Is it worth our while to help Venezuela if they were indeed trying to evade American sanctions?

And don't forget that the crew hasn't turned up yet! Why not? Who was the ultimate owner of this oil? Where was it going and who was buying it? And I am asking for the names of the actual persons who stood to benefit from this transaction. Why is this a secret?

Bottom line: is anybody in T&T involved in this matter? If so, who? And what was/is their role? What happened to cause the barge to break loose from whatever was towing it? Was it some sort of violence? An accident like a tow rope breaking? What? And if it was an accident when was it reported and to whom?

I could go on all day, and frankly the media should. But the evidence suggests that this "accident" (for want of a better word) is being covered up? If this is true then, why? We really do deserve a complete explanation. These suspicions are not healthy and there may be reasonable explanations for everything, But we deserve the truth. After all, if sanctions are to flow from this they won't come immediately - they'll come later, probably after the coming general election - but when they do, we will all hurt, and badly.

TOO MANY QUESTIONS - NOT ENOUGH ANSWERS

The news about a ship full of oil being wrecked off the East coast of Tobago raises more questions than answers. For example, take a look at some of the questions that need to be asked and haven't been answered:

1) Who is the owner  or owners of the ship?

2) If it is a company who are the shareholders, i.e., the actual individuals? I ask this because a company can be owned by another company and so on, but ultimately there has to be a group of persons or a single person who owns the company that owns the ship.

3) Did the oil come from Trinidad? It should be easy to check this. After all, how many ports are there in Trinidad that can load up a ship with oil?

4) Where was the ship going? 

5) Who was buying the oil? Again, if it was a company the same subsidiary questions as in (2) above apply.

6) Did the oil come from Venezuela? If so was this an attempt to evade American oversight? And if so, was anybody in Trinidad complicit in this?

7) There were some reports that about 14 seamen were found dead in Tobago waters. Was this report true? Because this particular aspect seems to have disappeared from the narrative. Assuming (though not accepting) that it was true, did these dead seamen come from the ship?

8) Assuming that the report was not true, where are the crew members and the Captain? They seem to have simply vanished.

9) A ship of this size is worth a lot of money as is the oil that it was carrying. Together I 'guesstimate' that some where in the region of US$10 million (if not more) has been lost. Who lost this money?

10) How did this ship get wrecked? There were no storms off Tobago - no unusual weather. So? What exactly happened?

11) How could this ship get itself wrecked without the coast guard being aware of that?

12) Can a boat or ship pass through our waters without being detected? If so, didn't we spend a lot of money to prevent this from happening? And if it was detected by the national security people, do they know where the ship came from or where was its last port of call? If they don't know, then why don't they know?

13) I've asked this already in a slightly different way: did the voyage that ended in disaster start in Trinidad? If so, are there any records in Trinidad listing the names of the captain and crew as well as who the owner(s) is/are?

14) who insured the ship? Who insured the cargo? What  amounts was the insurance for?

15) What type of person(s), firm(s) or corporation(s) can afford a loss like this and everybody just keeps quiet about it?

16) What was the name of the ship? And where was it registered?

17) Does or did Venezuela have anything to do with this?

18) was this a drug deal gone wrong?

I could easily go on, but hopefully you get the point. There are too many unanswered questions and the longer that they remain unanswered  the more that ugly suspicions will arise, which suspicions ought to be totally unnecessary. 

STANDING BY MY RIGHTS

 I have received a report that my last post (headed ' An Interesting Year') has annoyed Mrs. Persad Bissessar so much that she has given instructions to try to have my post removed from Facebook. Now, I have no way of knowing if that is true or not, but assuming (though certainly NOT accepting) that there is some truth in that report then all I can say is that assuming the report is true surely the proper thing to do would be to get in touch with me directly and ask me to remove it giving reasons why it is considered offensive.

I have reread the post and must confess that while it might appear critical of Mrs. Persad Bissessar I can see no reason why I should withdraw it. If there is anything ... ANYTHING .... that is remotely untrue then I do most humbly apologize and withdraw the offensive remark(s), whatever it or they might be. But the last time I looked, giving an opinion (whether offensive or not) was certainly not illegal so long as it was not defamatory. And I must say that I don't see anything remotely defamatory in my post. Put another way, I stand by my absolute right to have an opinion and share it subject always to the law of defamation.

AN INTERESTING YEAR

Of course you can't always tell anything from a television report. But sometimes the tv report might show something that might be usually unintended. (And please note the two "mights" in that sentence.) What got me to thinking was that on the news report on Ish Galbaransingh's funeral there were some clips of UNC leader Kamla Persad Bissessar. Although there were a lot of people there the clips on television showed her largely being ignored by the crowd that was there. This was more than a little troubling for a UNC supporter who hopes that his/her party will win the next election  ... at least, it should have been!

So the question is: was this deliberate on the part of the television editors or does it in fact tell the unintended truth, i.e., that the erstwhile  Opposition Leader does not enjoy great popularity? Assuming (though obviously not accepting) that this latter might be true (another "might") then this would mean that the rumors of a general election this year might (again) have some validity. You see,  things are crashing all around Dr. Rowley right now. Crime is rising - or at the very least perceived to be rising - and the economy looks set for a major crash with no bottom in sight. Every where he turns there seems to be bad news.

By all that is normal, this would mean that the Government is on a path that will surely end with its destruction at the polls. But things are not normal. The UNC leader is not very popular with the rank and file supporters and looks set for a third defeat at the polls. Dr. Rowley, who is nothing if not a clever politician who knows how to appeal to his base, may very well figure that this year will be his best chance to make it three times in a row and call an election early. One can expect some subtle (and some not so subtle) hints to be thrown out on race by both sides when the 'action' starts.

That a lot of Dr. Rowley's base is disillusioned is clear and he should be worried as to whether or not he will be able to get his people to come out and vote. At the moment it certainly looks like they won't, but hey, that can change. On the other side of the coin The UNC base is (perhaps understandably) not too thrilled with their leader either. The main difference between the two sides is the UNC hope that enough people on their side will come out and vote, even though they are unhappy with their leader, because they figure that they just can't take it any more. This seems to be what Mrs. Bissessar is counting on. And once she wins .... well, that's it! She's 'home'!

Its going to be an interesting year!

WILL THE UPCOMING US SANCTIONS ON VENEZUELA AFFECT T&T?

 I was always taught that if you want to understand something you first have to go back to basics. I was somewhat confused by a report in the media that the United States has confirmed that Trinidad & Tobago will not be directly affected by the US's upcoming reimposition of sanctions on Venezuela's energy sector. This assurance was apparently given to Prime Minister Keith Rowley during his recent trip to the US.

So? Going back to basics, the question that arises is what does this mean for the Dragon Gas deal upon which the whole country is depending?  What exactly does "will not be directly affected" mean? Because when I read that to me it means that the Dragon Gas deal will not be included in the upcoming sanctions. 

To me "not be directly affected" has to mean that because if that particular deal is included in the upcoming sanctions either directly or indirectly then it sure as heck is going to affect us directly. and is not a true statement.  And it could be included in the sanctions by the use of indirect language such as 'any energy project from which Venezuela will benefit one way or the other.

So? What exactly is this "assurance"?  Did Dr. Rowley deliberately try to mislead us with that rather equivocal so-called  "assurance"? If so, why did he do that? Is he planning on calling a general election before the sanctions are put on his good friend in Venezuela, Maburro, and reimposed by the US thus putting our deal in jeopardy? Because that is one possible explanation for his deliberately trying to mislead us if to mislead was his intention. Of course, if it was his intention to mislead us there could be other reasons. And if he was not trying to mislead then surely he could have used language that was clearer, e.g., 'the Dragon Gas deal will NOT be affected'.

But then, we would not be kept guessing, would we?