"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?