ARE THE RECENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS BY THE NEW UNC GOV'T RACIST IN NATURE?

 The Chairman of the Opposition Party - the PNM - is quoted in the newspaper as saying in essence that the recent appointments to State boards are  racist in nature in that only Indians have been appointed. That this is patently not true, it is also a very careless and potentially dangerous mistake.

It is careless because it is simply not true. Any check on the names of the appointees will show this, not to mention the photographs, one of which was published in the very pro-PNM newspaper,, Newsday. 

But it is also dangerous because this country is almost equally divided between the blacks and the Indians (45% to 55%) with the Indians very slightly in the majority, The statement tends to lend itself to stirring up racial feelings. Is the erstwhile chairman saying that the recent State board appointments do not reflect the real numbers and divisions in the society? Or is he saying that while the PNM did so, only the PNM is allowed to do this? Or is he saying that now that the shoe is on the other foot that only PNM supporters and Africans can be appointed without any adverse comments? Or is he saying or implying that the firing and replacement of the old boards is racial in nature? Or is he saying or implying all of these things?

One would expect that the State board appointees would be dominated by supporters of the particular Party that won  (or wins) an election. To pretend that this is just wrong and should be otherwise - is just that: a pretense! Even in countries where there is no obvious ethnic division the winning Party's supporters are "rewarded" with State appointments.  We can discuss whether this act is right or wrong. But how are we going to prevent this - especially when it can be argued that the PNM was guilty of this when it was their turn?

'INDEPEDENT' SENATORS?

 Question: what exactly is an "independent"  Senator? Webster's dictionary defines "independent" as being 'free from outside control' = 'not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence' By this definition we cannot truly say that we have any "independent" senators  -  any or all of them can be removed at a moment's notice by any President.

We have come to mean  that our 16 "independent" senators - (and yes, it is 16. One of the "independents has always served as the President of the Senate since Independence) - are really supposed to be without any political affiliation and thus are entrusted with enormous constitutional power when matters become very political. By convention, the presiding officer - the president of the Senate - is SUPPOSED to cast his vote in the event of a tie, with maintaining the status quo. indeed    , the few times that  such a vote has been cast in the Senate this has always happened, but there is no constitutional provision that it HAS to happen. Indeed, this is not the first time that an "Independent" Senator has been appointed by a PNM elected President.

I mention this because the President of the Republic has appointed as an Independent Senator  a former PNM Cabinet Minister. Clearly this particular Senator will have a bias in favour of  her (presumably) former party, assuming that she will vote with the PNM Opposition on matters that come before the Senate, this would mean that the President of the Republic has in one fell swoop managed to negate the  overwhelming mandate that the UNC Government got at the recent polls.

Do I agree with President Kangaloo's decision? No! Do I understand it? Yes.

Perhaps the best way to fix this from the UNC's point of view might be for the Constitution be changed whereby the President;s term is limited to the shorter of  either wnen there is a general election or five years,

KAMLA"S PROBLEM

 The Prime Minister has a serious problem: her credibility is at stake.

Her problem stems from the promises that were made before the last election. In one sentence, the UNC under the (now) prime minister basically promised that they would make life better and less expensive  for the people. A large majority of voters decided that they had had enough of Dr. Rowley and the PNM  and decided either not to vote or to vote for the UNC.

The Prime Minister's present problem stems from the fact that ,so far, she has been unable since she took power to show or even tell the population exactly how she will make things better for the people.

Oh, we are hearing about fixing the easy things, like stamping out corrupt contractors. But we aren't hearing about the difficult things like creating more jobs, bringing down the debt, lowering interest rates, making things easier for the ordinary person when he/she goes to open a bank account, and so on. (This list is not meant to be exhaustive.)

If there is only one reason for politics, one reason for government: to make life better for the people - who can say honestly that his/her life is better right now than before the election?  Of course it's "early days" and there was a lot that needed fixing - some might even say with a great deal of justification that there was too much - but The Prime Minister's problem is  that she is running out of time. She gave the impression that she would and could  fix all that needed to be fixed in a relatively  short time. So far, there is no sign that things are going to get better. Of course, there are arguments that since our general election that things overseas have gotten worse and that President Drumpf's (the mis-spelling is deliberate) tariffs things are now set to make things worse - to which I can/will only say that it is really a good thing that Rowley and his minions aren't running the show any longer. 

 All I am saying now is that both the Prime Minister and her ministers need to come to us now to tell us what exactly they are going to do to fix things and when we can/will see that their ideas  are indeed working. We understand that it is more difficult to fix something that is broken and that fixing things could take  more time  than it took to create the problem in the first place - but we need to know when we can expect to see some "daylight". Vague promises are not enough. We need to have a clear path to things actually getting better.