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!

MAKING LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE

 All the signs point to Dr. Rowley going to the polls early. The general election is due in September next year, but the one who decides the date when it will be called ain't saying a thing! This is of itself not surprising. It is normal for Prime Ministers who have a certain discretion on matters such as this to keep absolutely mum on the issue for obvious reasons. So for everybody else we have to read the tea leaves and make our best guesses as to what the leader might do.

With that being said, the important question as to who you should vote for is: are you better off today than you were when there was the last election some 8 1/2 years ago? If the answer is 'yes' then it is obvious who you should vote for: the PNM. The next question that you will have to ask yourself is do you think that given the present circumstances and policies of this Government  that the good times that you have enjoyed will continue under this Government? If the answer is 'no' then you have to seriously consider voting for the UNC. But then you will be faced with the obvious question: do you think that Kamla and her team can make your life better? If the answer to this question is 'yes' then you should cast your ballot for the UNC. In many ways this question is more important than the first.

But here is where your difficulty comes in. Almost everybody - and certainly most thinking people - believe that the Rowley Government has failed miserably. They also worry -not unreasonably - that Kamla and her crowd simply don't have the wherewithal to fix what's wrong nor do they have the necessary ideas about  governing so that people (like you) can continue more or less happily with their lives. Which brings us back to square one : are you better off today than you were just before PNM came to power? Do you think that Kamla & Co. can make your life better or should you stick with the ''devil" you know?

There is only one reason for politics - one reason for government: to make life better for the people! There is no other reason.