AN ACT OF TREASON?



I don’t think that the importance of former NAR Minister Gloria Henry’s testimony to the Commission of Enquiry into the 1990 coup (COE) yesterday has sunk in to the national consciousness as yet. Basically, the former Minister is reported as saying that on the afternoon of the 1990 coup she saw then Leader of the Opposition Patrick Manning talking with some Muslimeen men. According to the ex-minister, shortly after this conversation Mr. Manning went to his seat in the Parliament, collected his brief case and left. About an hour later the Muslimeen (including the men that she saw talking to Mr. Manning) stormed the Red House … and the rest is history.

Now, the leader of the Jamaat al Muslimeen, Yasin Abu Bakr, has for a long time claimed that Mr. Manning knew about the coup in advance. Mr. Manning has always denied this. The Director of Public Prosecutions has deemed Abu Bakr to be an unreliable witness and as his (Abu Bakr’s) evidence has to date been the only thing in existence, quite clearly there has been (up to now) no justiciable evidence against Mr. Manning.

But Ms. Henry’s evidence to the COE may very well be the first of several pieces of evidence to link Mr. Manning to that dastardly attempt almost 21 years ago. Let’s face it: the inference of what Ms. Henry said tends to support the allegation that Mr. Manning knew in advance (even if it was only an hour or so before) of the coup attempt and that he deliberately left the Red House so as not to be caught up in it. While that is the clear inference of her evidence, any reasonable person will accept immediately that that is not necessarily so, and that to convict Mr. Manning on that alone (assuming always that what Ms. Henry said about seeing him talking to members of the Muslimeen is true) would be impossible. Any good lawyer could have a case built on that evidence alone to be thrown out so quickly that you wouldn’t even have time to say “Patrick Manning”!

On the other hand, and again assuming that Ms. Henry’s evidence is true, what if those men who she saw talking to Mr. Manning turn up after all these years and say ‘yes, we warned him to get out of the Red House and told him of the coup’? Add their testimony to that of Ms. Henry and that of Abu Bakr and all of a sudden Mr. Manning would have a very serious case to answer. For make no mistake about it; if he knew (and it has to be a big “if”) then he is guilty of an act of treason, or at the very least being an accessory to an act of treason. This is serious. Mr. Manning was at the time the Leader of the Opposition. He later went on to become Prime Minister. It would be a tragedy indeed if it came out that such a high elected official who is the longest serving Parliamentarian in this country’s history were to be found to be guilty of such a crime. On the other hand IF he is guilty then it would be an even greater tragedy if he was allowed to get away with it … even after so many years have intervened.

For me, at least, this latest development has been most unexpected. I honestly never thought that Mr. Manning would have behaved as it is being alleged that he did and I never really accepted Abu Bakr’s allegations in this regard. Now, I am not so certain. I do not know what to believe. For the sake of the country, I sincerely hope that the COE clears this up definitively one way or the other. It would not be fair to Mr. Manning to leave this obvious cloud over his head. On the other hand, it would be terrible if he was really guilty and was able to get away scot free!

PAIN vs. POTENTIAL PAIN Like most people, I had been looking at the recently concluded PSA dispute which was finally settled last Friday with a mixture of sympathy for the public servants and a strong desire for more information. I have been (and remain) very critical of the Minister of Finance for not giving us ... the general public ... the facts and gigures to justify his case for the 5 per cent. For make no mistake, the onus is on the Government side to justify the holding to the line of the 5 per cent, and in my view, they have yet to do so. What the Minister has basically done is to tell the unions and the rest of the population "that's it! We are holding teh line at 5 per cent, and those who don't like it can lump it!" It is an attitude that is unfortunate, to say the least, and one which no 21st century man or woman can condone or agree with. And, like most people, I am of the view that if we could afford to pay the public servants more then we should have done so. However, we ought not to let ourselves get bogged down in criticism of the Minister of Finance (no matter how justified that criticism might be), but should, as responsible members of society try to figure out and understand why the Government is hewing to such a tough line. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put the following words in the mouth of his famous detective, Sherlock Holmes: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". If you take the sense of those words you could say much the same thing when it comes to the behaviour of Governments in general, and of this Government in particular,i.e., that when you accept that teh Government is not made up of mad or crazy people that there must be a very good reason why it is holding so rigidly to the 5 per cent line. The only answer that seems to make sense is that the Government is not very optimistic about Trinidad & Tobago's future and is quite concerned about our future economic well being. Let's look at some facts: 1) Oil production is declining at a time when oil prices are rising thus preventing us from taking advantage of what would normally have been a very nice windfall. Our oil production is now less than 100,000 barrels per day! 2) We are now a gas based economy. But there are several problems: - America can now produce gas for less than we can; - gas prices are not rising in tandem with oil prices; - our reserves are dwindling and what remains is deep down and difficult to exploit; - when we called for exploration bids last year only one bid was received - then we put out what might be termed "a sweetheart" call for bids and ended up with none at all! It is clear that the foreigners are saying to us "you keep your gas - it is too expensive!" So, the very serious questions arise: how much time do we have? What are we going to do? The Government appears to recognise the problem. Right now it is making serious efforts to try and revive the manufacturing sector, and the nation's number one salesman (actually, that should be 'saleswoman'), the Prime Minister, is getting off of her chair and is going out into the world at large to try and bring business to our shores. So far teh Government's success in this endeavour has been limited, to say the least. It is clear to any interested and well informed observer that we are in dire straits - and the Government is nothing if not interested and well informed! Clearly, the Government's thinking is that the country cannot afford to take on future commitments that it may not be able to hold on to. We have only to look over to Europe and observe what is happening to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (the "P.I.G.S."). All of these countries let their spending get out of control with the result that their respective populations are being visited with great economic pain and not little humiliation. The time has come at last to pay the piper! Portugal is now in the process of going cap in hand to teh European Union for a bailout. If it doesn't come then the trouble that they will face will make their current problems look like a picnic! Basically, the problem with all of the "P.I.G.S." is that they let their expenditure get bigger than their income. Put another way, they 'bet the farm' on being able to pay their debts "sometime" in the future. The future is now here! England too has not been spared. The new (almost one year old) coalition Government has been forced to make radical and drastic spending cuts in order to avoid going the way of the "P.I.G.S.". Some half a million jobs have been cut! Can you imagine that?! Five hundred thousand people are being thrown on the bread line! Only Germany has managed to survive. The Germans look at their European counterparts with scorn and derision, saying in effect "you fools living in a fools' paradise". They held the line and refused to let their spending get out of control even when it was politic to do so. But today they are the only Europen country that is prospering! And just in case we forget ... remember that lending coumtries and institutions (like the infamous IMF) tend to impose very strict and/or serious conditions on lons that they make rto bail out a country. Ask the people of Greece! Ask the people of Ireland! I could go on, but you get the point. It lokks as if we are where the "P.I.G.S." and England were a few years ago. With oil production dropping and gas not as potentially profitble as it used to be, the Government would be very foolish to go easy now. The alternatives would be one or more of the following: - lay off a lot of people now; - devalue the currency (a temporary panacea); - move into mre debt ... but then what? We cannot let go. No! As I said, I am ver critical of the neo-colonialist attitude of teh Mnister of Finance who obviously does not believe either in transparency nor in open Government. But it is clear that his thinking is that we have to hold the line. And on that score I agree with him completely and give him full marks ... a hundred percent! Unfortunately we have been completely profligate with our good fortune in the past ... too profligate, spending as if there were no tomorrow. We need to take a page out of the German approach and hold the line. If you think that what is happening now is painful ... trust me! You ain't seen nothing like the pain we will endure if we don't!

KILLING THE MESSENGER? The famous English playwright, George Bernard Shaw, once said "The reasonable man adapts hinself to the world: the unreasonable one persists intrying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man". Like most people, I was surprised by the comments of the Chairman of the Police Service Commission made before a Parlaimentary Committee on Friday to the effect that there was a dearth of East Indians in the hierarchy of the Police Service. Mr. Mohammed quoted facts and figures to support his statements. The problem was that the way he presented his case clearly suggested that the fact that there was a dearth of East Indians at the top of the police service was because of latent racism in the Service and in past Governments, not to mention past Police Service Commissions. Because of this Mr. Mohammed has been pillioried in the local media. Indeed, many (black) politicians have been howling for his resignation and all three black members of the Police Service Commission (PSC) chose not only to distance themselves from their chairman's remarks but to disagree publicly with him. The Minister of Health (who is herself of mixed ancestory), sitting on the Committee at that time also chose to disagree with the embattled chairman who has found himself out on a limb almost completely on his own and looking very much like an unreasonable man. Indeed, it was this fact (i.e., the fact that he sounded so unreasonable) that caused me to pause and look again. Because, let's face it: either what Mr. Mohammed said was (a) true, or (b) partly true,or (c) completely false. Well, we ought to have no trouble in dealing with the erstwhile Chairman if the statements were completely false. He ought to be fired! Immediately, if not sooner! If the statements were completely false then they are dangerous, subversive and bordering on the seditious. There can be no argument about that. End of discussion! But, what if there was some truth in the statements? Certainly, the facts seem to suggest that there is a racial problem in the hierarchy of the police. The fact that there is almost a complete lack of Indians in the top ranks of the police service seems to suggest that Mr. Mohammed might have a point. Of course, there may be explanations other than racial discrimination that could throw light on this matter. But what they are, I, for one, certainly do not know. I can say, though, that what Mr. Mohammed has uttered so loudly and so passionately has been muttered about for at least the last thirty years in bars and private places by many East Indian policemen who have believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were being discriminated against. While this is the first time that I have heard these complaints aired in public it is not the first time that I have heard them. And by saying that I have heard them before does not necessarily mean that they are true ... it simply means that the complaints are not new. So, where there is smoke is there fire or simply a smoke making machine? As a society we should not be so ready to shoot the messenger, even when he comes with a point of view that on the face of it might seem to be unreasonable. (Remember Shaw's edict about the unreasonable man.) We should be prepared to listen carefully to the message and deal with it ... one way or the other. Mr. Mohammed has let this particular Genie out of the bottle. It cannot be stuffed back in so easily by simply firing him. If he is to be fired it can only be because what he has said is completely, but completely untrue. However, if, as unpalatable as it might be to contemplate, there is some truth in what he has said then we should be bold enough, and brave enough, and smart enough to deal with the problem head on. Or, we could go back to simply doing what we do best .... and that is shoot the messenger!

BALONEY for SURE



We all know the expression "B.S!" And we all know what it means ... "Baloney for Sure". (What? You thought it meant something else? Well, it doesn't! Not in this blog!)

Now that we have that little explanation out of the way for the benefit of those who might not have understood, I must say that I have never heard such absolute "B.S." as came out last week from certain doctors and other persons from the Southwest Regional Health Authority ('SWRHA') who were objecting to the suspension of certain persons following the death of an apparently healthy 29 year old young woman in the San Fernando General Hospital. The essence of the objections as expressed in the newspapers is that "proper procedures" for the suspending of the entire shift on duty at the time of the operation from which the unfortunate young lady died were not followed.

Talk about a Phd ('Piled higher and deeper') in unadulterated B.S.! Let's look at the facts:
1) There was an operation in which a 'C'-section was performed on the young lady;
2) She was apparently healthy at the time;
3) She died while on the operating table.

Now, it is fairly safe to assume (though certainly not to accept) that somebody may have made a mistake which resulted in the young woman's death. Who is responsible? That is the sixty-four million dollar question! It is also fairly safe to assume also that if anybody screwed up it would be one or more of the persons on the shift, i.e., the people who were on duty and took part in the operation. So, that being the case (i.e., that there is a distinct possibility that somebody messed up badly and as a result the young woman died) then quite clearly the thing to do is to have an immediate investigation into what happened. But, you don't want to mount an investigation into any matter, much less a matter as serious as this, and leave a possible guilty party in a position where he (or she, or they) could tamper with the evidence. You would want to remove any and everybody from the scene so that you could find out exactly what happened.

That is why the behaviour of everybody from the dismissed SWRHA Chief Executive Officer on down is so inexplicable and nonsensical. Yes! The whole shift should have been suspended. And, quite frankly, the dismissed CEO should have done that immediately! A young woman is dead, for crying out loud! And you want to quibble about procedures!?!? So, if the proper procedure is that the suspension notices should have been on pink paper but were written instead on blue paper (being ridiculous to make the point) then they should not have been suspended?!? Pull the other one! It's got bells on it!

No! Some, if not all of those suspended may be quite innocent of any negligence whatsoever, but we will not know unless and until an investigation and enquiry takes place. They have been suspended with full pay and they will be given an opportunity to answer any allegations that may be made against them as well as to produce evidence to show that they were not to blame. But keep your eye on the ball: A young woman is dead! And it is more than likely that somebody (or "bodies") is to blame. The Minister of Health in this case is absolutely right!

WHY I QUIT MY RADIO PROGRAM



As readers will be aware, for the last three and a half months I have been doing an afternoon radio program on Talk City 91.1FM every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The CEO of CNMG, Ken Ali (who is a friend of mine), had approached me to do the show back in November of last year. They really couldn't afford to pay me so I agreed not to charge the station anything for my services but told them that they were to pay whatever they could afford and whatever they thought fair to the Cancer Society in my name, an arrangement to which they happily agreed. I called my program "Counterpoint" and began to broadcast around the 25th November. My idea was to have a program in which I would air my views on any given subject, but that persons would be free to call in and give their own opinions. The only provisos were that all opinions had to be reasoned and not be defamatory. I couldn't (and don't) care less whether or not a caller agreed with me, but I insisted that every caller would have to answer quetsions that were put to him/her and not be allowed to waffle when the questioning got tough. I apllied the same rules to myself.

Well, although no survey was done, I believe that we had become quite popular. When we first started the program we had hardly any calls. By Carnival Wednesday (2nd March) when I quit, as soon as we would open the lines the switch board would light up. Many persons would call me in my office the next day to say that they had tried for the two hours that the show was on, but couldn't get through. Many, many other people would approach me just about everywhere that I went (from the beach to the supermarket and everywhere in between) to tell me how much they were enjoying the show. Clearly, it was becoming quite popular.

On Carnival Wednesday my producer suggested that we discuss the calypso that the Calypsonian Crocro sang at the Calypso Monarch semi-finals. I hadn't up till then heard the calypso, but agreed that we could discuss it. I had heard that it was terribly racist and very offensive. In any case, we played a large section of the calypso on the show and then began to discuss it. I was absolutely horrified by the calypso. It was offensive and racist in the extreme. In essence, its theme was that any black person who did not vote for Patrick Manning and the PNM was a traitor to his race!! Indeed, the Calypsonian called out the names of several prominent African-Trinidadians in the calypso calling them traitors to their race!

In my view this was awful. It was promoting racial division and strife in a society that does not need this, and was racist in the extreme. If you changed a few words and had a white person or an Indian sing that calypso he would be called (quite rightly) a racist. I see no reason why what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce, as well, for the gander. Racism is racism no matter from where it originates, and I said so quite clearly. I condemned Crocro for the song, and I condemned the judges who put him into the Calypso Monarch finals.

I am pleased to say that every single caller to the program that afternoon agreed with me. However, my co-host, Justin Dookie, who has the advantage over me in that he controls the switch board (even though it was my show), took the view that it was a calypso, and that offensive as it might be, the calypsonian had the right to sing it. I couldn't disagree with him more! Indeed, one lady caller quite intelligently pointed out that claypsonians couldn't sing anything they liked. A child molester, for example, should not be allowed to sing a calypso about how much he liked to molest little children! According to my co-host child molestation and racism were two completely different things and therefore her comparison was invalid.

When the show had about half an hour to go somebody came in and said that Crocro had been trying to call in but couldn't get through ... the lines were jammed. My co-host decided that we should call Crocro and give him a chance to defend himself. I disagreed completely. My attitude is and was that I will not share any platform with a child molester, a drug dealer, a murderer or a racist. And my definition of a racist includes a person who will sing a racist calypso. I don't care to be associated with anybody who espouses views that ought to be condemned by right thinking members of society, and I refuse to debate with such a person.

Well, my co-host called my producer who said that she saw nothing wrong with having Crocro on the show. I then left the station. It's their station, but it's my good name. Several persons from the station did call me the next day, but the bottom line was that they refused to agree to my demand that this was my show and as a result I had the ultimate right to refuse to have on it any person that I considered undesirable. Their argument was that as a State owned radio station they had to include all views. My view is that this is fine ... just not on my show. They could give that person any time they wanted on any of their other shows ... just not one with which my name is associated. I will debate with anyone whose views are different to or from mine ... whether it's about politics, religion, or the weather! And I genuinely respect persons who hold different views from me on any given subject. But I will not now or ever descend into debating (whether publicly or privately) with one who espouses racial views! I quit!

LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!





William Lucie Smith writing in today’s Express puts forward a defence of sorts for Mr. Dookeran’s handling of the economy. In essence Mr. Lucie Smith says that we ought not to be worried that our dollar’s purchasing value is in steady decline against the US dollar and other major currencies as this is all part of a grand plan to keep the economy on track. And it is on track, he argues citing, for example, the good credit rating that Standard & Poors recently gave us.

With respect, I really cannot agree with Mr. Lucie Smith. From where I sit the economy appears to be completely stagnant. Nothing is happening … and if it is, it appears to be a well kept secret. Nothing has been settled … CLICO, the PSA dispute, Petrotrin, and other major problems … are all still up in the air. The average person is no better informed today that he was on 23rd May, 2010 (the day before the last general election) about the state of our finances or even the truth about the state of our finances. And it certainly is not good enough to try and pass off this serious lack of information by saying that Mr.Dookeran is not the most articulate person in the world. We know that, but surely he (or his minions) could write a speech which he could read! (He can read, can’t he?)

What defenders of the Finance Minister have to understand is that many people are concerned over the apparent drift that is taking place in the economy. If what is taking place now is deliberate then at the very least we have a right to know why you (“you” being the Government and in particular the Finance Ministry) are doing what you are doing. We have a right to information which will assure us that you really do know what you are doing. But you aren’t giving us any information at all! And the insult is that you were the person who since 2007 campaigned up and down the country preaching transparency and open government. It is insulting to treat those of us who have the temerity to ask “what are you doing?” with contempt and to ignore us. Where is the “new politics” in this?

Of course, if Mr. Lucie Smith is one of the privileged few who actually do know what is happening and why the Finance Minister is allowing the dollar to slide, why he is not paying the contractors (although he once said that they had been paid), why he is not keeping the original promise to pay the CLICO policy holders, why he is allowing the PSA dispute to drag on, why he is not bringing Mr. Errol McLeod into the settlement talks, why there is this big silence over Petrotrin, why (if all is indeed well) the private sector is shipping money out by the plane load and why the plan is to allow the dollar to devalue, then perhaps he would like to share this information with the rest of us uninformed ones.

One of the reasons that the country got into the admitted mess that it is in today is because although there were persons outside of the then ruling PNM who were critical of what was going on, there was nobody inside raising a whisper against Mr. Manning and his policies and plans. And anybody who tried to do so (Keith Rowley comes to mind) was quickly isolated, received no support whatsoever from his colleagues and was “killed” (politically, of course).

In early 1986 I was then a member and supporter of the PNM. At a cottage meeting in or about April, 1986 I criticized certain things that certain Ministers of the then PNM Government was doing and warned that if they did not correct their course the PNM would face defeat at the coming polls. To my great surprise not little annoyance, Tony Jacelon who was then a Minister in the Ministry of Finance stood up and said that he had not come to the meeting to listen to criticisms of his ministerial colleagues. I replied that all I was saying was what was being said “on the street” and if we were not allowed to discuss it “in house” we were certain to lose the elections. Unfortunately, they did not listen, and the rest is history!

It is stupid, myopic and foolish just because you voted for and support a particular political party not to criticize it when you see it going off course. It is just as stupid, myopic and foolish for the leaders of that particular political party not to pay attention to what their supporters are really thinking. I am not today a member of any party, but I say quite openly and frankly that I voted for the Partnership Government. I want them to succeed. But they will not succeed if they continue as they are going, and if they do not want to listen to this message from their friends, believe me, they will certainly be given the message later on from their enemies. No. It’s all about the economy, and the Finance Minister has to deal with us squarely and up front . If he fails to do that (and so far he is failing), then he will fail. And if he fails, the country fails. The only test of leadership is to lead, and to lead vigorously. So, once again I would appeal to Mr. Dookeran: Lead, follow, or get out of the way!

WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?



This Rishmi Ramnarine/SIA affair has me troubled at a number of levels. First of all, let me put my own personal cards on the table. I voted for this Government. Like so many of my fellow citizens I was absolutely fed up with Patrick Manning and his PNM on a plethora of levels or issues and I welcomed the promise of change, transparency and open government, and an end to"business as usual". 'At last,' I thought, 'we would eventually move or begin to move our little country out of the grip of the neo-colonialists and into the 21st century. At last we would begin to be truly independent in our thinking and the tribalism and not so covert racism would begin to be a thing of the past'. That is why I voted for the People's Partnership. You could say that all my reasons could be summed up in one word: Hope!

Further, as if to reinforce the correctness of my decision to vote for the Partnership, since the general election the PNM has done nothing to convince me that it has learned anything from its defeat. Keith Rowley has (so far) been living proof of the Peter Principle ... where a man is promoted and promoted until he is promoted out of his level of competence. Dr. Rowley may yet show that he has the capacity to grow into a national leader, and one can fervently hope that he does ... it is not in the country's interests that we do not have a competent opposition. Sadly, though, almost from day one he has proven to be a huge disappointment as far as national leadership is concerned. Some (unkind) wags have even said that he makes Patrick Manning look good!

But this post is not about Dr. Rowley and his failings. That can be discussed at another time. I merely mentioned it in passing because this is one of the factors that have me most concerned, i.e., that there is no credible alternative to the People's Partnership at this time. And that is most worrying! A country gets the best from its elected Government when the politicians know that if they mess up there is a credible alternative ready and waiting in the wings. Perhaps the best example of this is the Panday regime (1995 to 2000). At all times Mr. Panday and his boys knew that one false move could and would have Mr. Manning and his PNM charging back! (Which is, of course, exactly what eventually happened).

But the Government's handling of the "Reshmi Affair" has been awful to say the least. the biggest problem with the affair is that it has damaged very badly not only the Government's credibility, but that of the National Security Minister as well as the Prime Minister herself. Brigadier Sandy's reputation is in tatters. He may or may not resign. The truth is that is exactly what an honourable man would do. How can he possibly not? And if he stays, what would the country think about any future contraversial pronouncements that he will most certainly have to make? Talk about damaged goods!

But the most serious (as well as the most worrisome) damage has been to the Prime Minister's credibility. She has not emerged from this matter without some serious wounds to both her image as well as her credibility. And her PR advisers clearly have neither the political knowledge nor the political experience to help her over this particular hump.

Oh! She'll get over it. And this will pass. But the Partnership is going to discover very soon (if they haven't found out already) that political credibility is something that once lost never quite comes back. Put another way, if, say, the Partnership's credibility the day after the general election was at one hundred percent, and the "Reshmi Affair" has caused its credibility to slip, say to eighty-five percent, they may (if they work hard) restore some of their lost credibility to, say, ninety percent. But it will never come back to one hundred. The problem is that if their credibility gets another sideways blow that reduces their credibility by, say, another fifteen percent, then they will only be able to claw back five percent, which means that they would then be down to eighty percent. And so it goes on until their credibility falls below the critical level ... and then they are finished!

And the tragedy is that it was a self inflicted wound that was not only completely unnecessary, but the result was completely predictable. What in the name of heaven were they thinking?

NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES AND THE COMMISSION
OF ENQUIRY INTO THE 1990 COUP




So, almost 21 years after the event we are finally getting a Commission of Enquiry (CoE) into the 1990 coup. It is going to be interesting to see what comes out of it. So far, there has been nothing that we didn't already know ... then Prime Minister A.N.R. Robinson was shot, the policeman outside police headquarters was murdered in cold blood, the Muslimeen stormed the Parliament and took the Parliamentarians hostage, then Minister of Planning Winston Dookeran was mandated to "negotiate" with the Muslimeen, and so on. But the really serious issues which have been kept out of sight and not discussed are what we need to know, for these unanswered questions can help us understand the past and plan appropriately for the future.

First of all, there is the very, very serious question that has not been addressed, i.e., the terrible lapse in the State's security apparatus that allowed the Muslimeen not only to import into the country the terrible firepower that was so obviously in their hands, but actually to be able to use it with such devastating effect. Prime Minister Robinson was head of the National Security Council (NSC). What reports was he getting before the coup? Did he have any information on teh activities of the Muslimeen? If so, what information exactly did he have? What steps did he take to deal with that information? And if he took none, then why not? The buck for national security at the end of the day stops with the Prime Minister. Mr. Robinson has got a lot of explaining to do and the CoE has a duty to extract that information from him regardless how sympathetic (or pathetic) a figure he may cut at the age of 84 where he is clearly weak and fragile. No right thinking person can approve in any way the treatment meted out to Mr. Robinson by the Muslimeen. he did not deserve to be shot, nor did he deserve a boot in his face, nor any of the other indignities suffered by him at the hands of these men. But that does not take away from his responsibilities to the nation for this very obvious lacuna in the nation's security. He is/was ultimately responsible for the breaches and we need to know how these breaches in security came about. For if we don't know, they can happen again ... and again, and again, and again!!

There are other obvious questions as well: How did the guns for the coup get into the country? Who facilitated the entry? Were they brought in on regular containere ships and smuggled through Customs? Were they brought in by small boats from Venezuela? How did they get here? There must have been agents for the Muslimeen buying these guns in the United States. We know that one person has already been convicted in the USA for purchasing these weapons. Were there others? If so, who? This was before e mail, Facebook and Twitter. How did they communicate with their co-plotters back in T&T? Were the Muslimeen's communications being monitored back then? If not, why not? If so, then what reports were going up the chain of command to the regular autorities?

It is important to remember that at the time of the coup the Jamaat al Muslimeen were being closely monitored by the State and there was an army outpost at the Jamaat's lands in Mucurapo. How the Muslimeen were able to leave their compound on that fateful Driday afternoon, under the very noses of the army, armed to the teeth, and be allowed to go into Port of Spain unimpeded is a serious question that has never been answered to date.

There are also peripheral questions which need to be answered, for they too are most serious. For example, both Messrs. Manning and Panday were not in the Red House when the rebels stormed in. This could well be coincidence and certainly over the years there has not been one iota of evidence to suggest that either or both of these men had foreknowledge of the crime of treason that was committed by the Muslimeen. But rumours persist that both men knew in advance of the Muslimeen's intentions. This is most unhealthy for everyone, not least Messrs. Panday and Manning. The CoE has a duty either to clear the names of these two men ("they had nothing to do with the coup and had absolutely no foreknowledge of it" or "they knew about it in advance and that is why they absented themselves. In the circumstances, they ought to be charged with being an accessory before the fact to treason"). The fact is that asuuming (though certainly not accepting) that either or both men knew about the coup in advance and did not alert the authorities then they would be guilty of being an accessory to the crime of treason. Treason and murder, by the way, carry the death penalty in T&T!

If the hard questions that have remained unanswered over the years are not answered now then this CoE will have been (like so many before it) a total waste of time and money. If the CoE does ask and get answers to these questions then it will have done a tremendous service to the country and the Caribbean as a whole. All of this comes at a time when national security is in the spotlight with the imbroglio over the appointment of Ms. Reshmi Ramnarine. In other words, it underscores the critical importance of competent persons being at the reins of the nation's security apparatus ... which, of course, is the reason why there has been such a fuss made over the appointment of the unfortunate Ms. Ramnarine in the first place!

WHAT PART OF "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!" IS
IT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?



There have been 'rumblings and a'tumblings in the atmosphere' coming out from certain quarters in T&T that seem to indicate that there are a lot of people in decison making positions that just haven't got it. I am specifically referring to the Minister of Finance and his cadre of advisers as well as the Minister of Labour. I will readily admit that there may be others, but these two gentlemen are the chief culprits in the crisis that is slowly approaching us.

Let's deal with the Finance Minister first: He just doesn't seem to get it! The economy is at a standstill and there is serious capital flight. Why? The newspapers reported on Saturday that last year (2010) some $700 million TT fled the country. And yet, Trinidad 7&Tobago has ample foreign reserves and international rating agencies such as Standard & Poors are giving us an excellent credit rating. So why is there a shortage of foreign currency and why are wealthy persons preferring to convert their money and send it abroad stashing it in banks where the return on investment is barely 1%?

The answer has to be a ringing lack of confidence in the Finance Minister and his ability to handle the various problems that beset the country. Enter the Minister of Labour. He too has to take a major part of the blame. His absolute refusal to intervene in the ongoing PSA dispute has been noticed by the private sector. And they (the private sector) have voted with their dollars. "Let's get them out of here", the private sector has said, "at least until we are satisfied that things will settle down again". The Minister has categorically refused to use his considerable influence and credibility with the labour movement to help to settle this dispute, preferring instead to leave his colleague, Mr. Dookeran, spinning helplessly in the wind while the economy goes down the tubes. And you can talk until you are blue in the face! The private sector's first (and last) loyalty is to their own personal bank accounts. The wealthy did not get wealthy by "putting country first"!

The Prime Minister is trying to tiptoe around this problem. She has sent a clear signal that she is unable to deal with Mr. McLeod by putting another trade unionist, Mr. Rudy Indarsingh, in the Ministry of Labour, obviously hoping that Mr. Indarsingh's labour credentials will be enough to be able to talk to and appease Watson Duke, the head of the PSA. We can only hope that this move will solve the problem ... but Mr. Indarsingh will still only be a junior minister in the Labour Ministry, and my personal guess is that the unions will all look for a signal from his substantive boss, Errol McLeod. And Mr. McLeod and his sidekick, David Abdullah, have both made it crystal clear which side they are coming down on and that no such signal to settle will come down any time soon!

So the bleeding of foreign exchange continues; the currency continues to devalue; the Minister of Finance continues to dither and his advisers seem hopeless and helpless to deal with the deteriorating situation. And the economy remains stalled with inflation climbing and jobs being slowly lost!

If you were to ask me what to do, I would say to the Prime Minister that she has to have a very serious talk with Messrs. Dookeran and McLeod and tell both of them that they have a very limited time to perform or "get off the pot". Their mutual dithering (for different reasons, no doubt) is causing serious heartache. We haven't got a long time again to solve our problems and get the economy moving.

WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE?


My wife asked me a very good question this morning: "If you were the adviser to the Government for one day ... and they would listen to you ... what would you advise them to do?"
"That's easy", I thought. "I would ...!" And then I stopped. What the heck would I advise them to do? There are a host of problems to deal with. And all of a sudden it was my responsibility to solve them?! It's really easy to fix the problems of the country from the luxury of your armchair ... or computer, but when you actually have the power, what would you do? What would I do?

So I stalled for time. "Why are you asking me that?" I said. "Because', she replied, "You are always so critical. What would you advise? How would you fix things?" Well, I don't really think that I am so crititical, but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if my wife of all people thinks that I am ... well, maybe there might be something in the criticism. (Just 'maybe' ... the lawyer in me says never admit anything!). And she was right! You shouldn't criticise unless you really believe that you have a solution to whatever you are being critical about.

I must confess that I found this a very difficult question to answer. But here is the summation of the advice that I would give to the Government (who, of course, in an ideal world would listen to these 'golden nuggets' of wisdom and act on them):

First of all, I would deal with crime. At the end of the day the solution to crime does not involve more laws. It involves catching the bad guys and locking them up. This involves better policing. We have had about a million crime plans, all with varying catchy names like Operation Anaconda and so on, but none of them making so much as a dent in the terrible statistics coming out day after day and week after week. Let's face it, if the system of policing that we have now involves an inexorable rise in the crime rate, the solution does not involve making excuses for the rise, the solution lies in changing the system. So far, all we have done is tinkered with the system. But we haven't changed it! The Police Service is badly trained, badly paid, badly equipped and badly educated! Deal with it! Nothing! Absolutely nothing is going to change until we deal with that problem head on.

Next, I would deal with the economy and what Indira Sagewan-Ali called the biting issues. For example, I would tell the Minister of Finance that he had to settle with the Clico policy holders now. What exactly the settlement would look like, unfortunately I can't say today because I do not have the necessary figures from the Treasury ... but if I were the adviser ... well, I would have them, wouldn't I? But I would tell the Finance Minister that he had to start practising what he preached for so long ... transparency and open government. Trust the people with the truth.

Then I would turn to the Minister of Labour and tell him to get off his fanny and intervene in the PSA dispute. Either the Government has the money to pay the public sector workers or it doesn't. If it does then he should come out and say so and force the Minister of Finance to bend. If it doesn't then he should do the same thing and use his credibility with the Labour movement to convince them that the Government simply can't pay. But this sitting on the sidelines and coming up with the neo-colonialist bleating of "There is a process to be followed" is just so much ... I almost wrote a four letter word beginning with 'c'. Let me just say that it is so much rubbish!

I would then call all the Ministers together and tell them that even though their Government is a coalition and they all come to the table with differing agendas, they are going to have to understand that they are the Government of Trinidad & Tobago. In this regard they have got to learn to speak with one voice and to control their respective mouths and their respective Parties. This squabbling in public has to stop. It ain't good for anybody, not least the country.

Finally, I would tell the Prime Minister that she still has a lot of goodwill left. But she is squandering it uselessly. There are too many events which the public recognises as 'PR' and too little action taking place on the ground where it counts. I would tell her that she has got to be seen to have a firm grip on the reins and to be leading her fractitious MP's in a manner that engenders confidence. I would tell her that it was time to take the velvet glove off of her iron fist.

By then my day would be over and as there would be no second day for this adviser, I would have to go quietly home and see if any of my ideas actually worked! (Which is, of course, the big test!) Of course, there would be many, many more issues that I had not had the time to deal with ... but, maybe if my first ideas worked they might come back to me for a second day! (Yeah! Right! But I am dreaming, so I have the right to make comments like this.)

But being serious again, that's what I would advise. What would you advise? Think about it. It's not nearly as easy as it looks. And although I have been a little facetious in places in this post, the question is a most serious one.

IT'S THE ECONOMY,STUPID!!!!


On my radio program on Monday afternoon ("Counterpoint", Radio 91.1FM, Mondays to Wednesdays from 4pm to 6pm) I had the good fortune to have as a guest on the show the noted Trinidadian economist, Indira Sagewan-Ali. I asked her several questions including what did she think that economy will look like come December of this year? Ms. Sagewan-Ali replied that she could not answer that question with any degree of certainty as everything depended on what happened with the economy by the end of the first quarter. If things did not get better by then, she said, we would face a bleak end of year ... things would not get better! But, she went on, in order to fix the economy there were six major issues that the Government had to deal with ... and deal with them quickly ... or face a continued 'backsliding' that will have us all worse off.

1) Crime: The economist pointed out that crime not only was affecting the personal lives of everyone, but that it also was affecting the economy in that investments that otherwise might be made by both local as well as foreign investors were either not being made at all, or plans for such investments were being put on hold. Further, the extremely bad publicity being given to our local tourist industry because of crime was seriously and adversely affecting our tourist industry. Put another way, crime was making us seriously un-competitive in just about every area of the economy that requires investment.

2) We need to get a clear sense of direction from GOTT: Just about everybody has been complaining about the lack of a sense of direction from the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (GOTT). Those sympathetic to the Government (including me) have pointed out in its defence that the new government inherited a heck of a mess and has had to spend an inordinate amount of time 'putting out fires'. The answer to this from the economists is that this is all well and good, but there has to come a time when you come to the country with a clear message of the way forward. I agree with that. The truth is that there is only one test of leadership, and that is to lead, and to lead vigorously.

3) All Government Ministers must "speak the same language": Well, just about everywhere you go you hear people complaining about this. The sad reality is that too many Government Ministers have been making contradictory statements that have led to confusion in the minds of people as well as ill will between the various factions that make up the People's Partnership. The truth is that this cannot be allowed to continue. It simply does not make for stable government.

4) A quick resolution to "biting" issues: Probably the biggest "biting" issue is CLICO. And the need for a quick resolution to that particular matter is (or ought to be) obvious. But there are other "biting" issues as well. Ms. Sagewan-Ali pointed out that the ongoing PSA dispute needs to be settled quickly, again for reasons that ought to be obvious. There is also the question of the Petrotrin $18 billion debt, which is receiving no publicity at the moment, but which nevertheless is a most serious matter that is bound to rear its very ugly head sooner rather than later.

5) Approach to social intervention: Although the Prime Minister has appointed a young and energetic Minister of Social Development who seems to be always at the ready at the drop of a hat or the coming of a flood to be on hand to give out hampers and blankets, there does not seem to be any real approach or policy behind the Government's actions. 'You have a problem? Well, here's a hamper', seems to be the Government's approach to the social problems of the society. Okay. I agree that the foregoing appears to trivialise the Government's approach, but the exaggerated example was given in order to emphasise the perception that there really does not seem to be any policy or philosophy driving the Government on this very important matter.

6) Capital flight: For most of last year there has been a steady flight of capital with many wealthy Trinidadians and business people betting that things will get worse economically instead of better. Indeed, our floating dollar now trades at around TT$6.40 to US$1.00 ... down from its peg of $6.30 to $1.00. This slow but steady slide is not being halted ... indeed, the only thing that can and will halt it is a return of confidence in the economy. But nothing seems to be happening. There is no payment of past bills to the contractors who are owed several billion dollars. There was no big capital investment program announced in the last budget (which unfortunately can best be described as "wooly"), and the Minister of Finance is not projecting the confidence that investors need to feel secure. The truth is that many, many people (and I am certainly one of them) want this Government to succeed. And most people are still prepared to give them time to get their act together. But the truth is that time is running out and the Prime Minister is soon going to have to make a very serious decision as to whether or not she has got the right persons in the right job or as to whether or not a re-shuffle of her Cabinet will bring about the changes in the economy as well as a return of investor confidence that is so clearly needed. In thinking about her options I would remind her of two old adages:
- Doing nothing is not an option!
and
- The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again
while expecting a different result! (Albert Einstein)

TOURISM AND TOBAGO

The story of the British couple who were viciously attacked in Tobago several months ago is a tragedy for all parties in this terrible drama. It is an obvious tragedy for the Greens. Here was an elderly couple, not wealthy, who invested their retirement monies (or a substantial portion of it) in what they thought was an island paradise only to be viciously attacked and almost killed by a young Tobagonian who clearly couldn't care less as to how badly he hurt them or as to whether they lived or died. It is a tragedy for the attacker who has been caught and is now languishing in jail. A wasted life! It is a tragedy for Tobago and all those who depend on the tourist dollar for a living ... the taxi drivers, the hotel workers (from the desk clerks to the maids) and those who own hotels and restaurants. And one of the biggest tragedies is the T&T society, the majority of whom simply don't get it.

I have seen comments in the press and on the internet from Trinis who can't understand why this country should have to compensate a white English couple (with all the obvious racial overtones in that attitude) who apparently have more money than most Trinis. These mis-guided souls simply don't get it. And so, I will try and explain what has happened and why we should compensate the Greens.

If you are one of those who are of the opinion that we do not need tourism at all, then don't bother reading any more. The arguments in this post are valid only if you think that we do need tourism in Tobago.

To answer those who say that the Greens are not deserving of any compensation I would like to point out the following:
(1) There is on the Statute books of Trinidad & Tobago a Criminal Victims
Compensation Act ... and it has been ther for a long time. But, (and it is
a big "but") no Government has yet appointed a Board to administer
the compensation. So no monies can be paid out that is properly due
to victims of violent crime under the duly enacted laws of Trinidad &
Tobago.
(2) In the United Kingdom (where the Greens come from) there is a law
which is enforced where victims of violent crime are compensated by
the State. (This is addressed to those who say that a Trini would not
receive compensation from the British Government).
(3) Even if there was no such law on our Statute books, the Tobago
House of Assembly made a promise at the time to do so. It sits ill in
the mouth of the THA leader, Orville London, to try and deny this
now.

In other words, on the one hand there is the law to justify such a payment. On the other hand, there is the question of a (broken) promise ... or at the very least, the perception of a (broken) promise. Under our laws, if a Government makes a promise to pay for something (whether the Government was laible or not) then the person at the receiving end of the promise to pay gets a legally enforceable right known as "legitimate expectation". And tell me, don't you think that it would have been better to have dealt with the Greens in such a way that they did not complain to the Daily Mail rather than have to pay for damage control?

But the issue of compensation to the Greens, in my opinion is almost a red herring. Far more serious are the allegations of racism and the Tobago Minister's reaction to these allegations. Stop a moment and look at the facts: Two white English people talking to a very widely read English newspaper have made some terrible allegations of racism and bad treatment received by them while in hospital. Now, tell me: What do you think that the average white English reader will believe? That the allegations are true or false? No prizes for the correct answer! And in those circumstances, what do you think that the average English reader will believe when the Tobago Tourism Minister who has announced that an investigation into these allegations reveals (and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that this will be her report) that she has found no evidence to substantiate these allegations?!

And, do you think that this report will calm the fears of those who are thinking about taking a vacation in some sunny spot in the world and encourage them to come to Tobago? Do you understand the old adage about perception being reality?

I'm sorry. My own view is that this tragedy has been terribly mis-handled from start to finish. Further, tourism in Tobago has effectively been killed for at least ten years ... if not longer. The tragedy of the Greens is symptomatic of a much deeper seated problem. The average Tobagonian does not understand the difference between "service" and "servitude" and does not want tourists in his island. (Indeed, there are too many Trinis who don't understand that difference either.) No! Tourism in Tobago is dead. The Tobagonians and the authorities have made it crystal clear by their deeds as well as their words that they really do not want a Tourist industry. If and when they do, you will see a sea change in attitude. Until then, we should stop wasting money in pretending that we want such an industry. We clearly don't!

SPYING AND KAMLA'S HOUSE



Being one of the persons whose name was called in Parliament some 10 days ago as one of the citizens whose telephone conversations and e mails were tapped and spied on, you will undoubtedly appreciate that I had more than just a passing interest in the debate on the new wiretapping legislation that began in the House of Representatives on Friday last. I was particularly interested when I heard that former Prime Minister Manning was going to speak and as a result I made it my business to tune into Channel 11 (the Parliament channel on TV) in order to hear for myself exactly what this man had to say.

My "flabber" was completely "gasted" however, when I realised after a little while that the former Prime Minister had absolutely no intention of dealing with the very serious issue of the terrible breach of the rights of all those individuals who had been spied on so callously and illegally. Instead, the man spent some time in justifying the existance of the SIA and the history of how it was originally set up during the Panday regime. (In this regard he seemed to be making the extremely questionable argument that as Panday had started the spying, his regime should not be blamed for continuing it!).

Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that everything that Patrick Manning said about the history of the SIA was true, he never touched even lightly on the illegal spying on citizens by his regime. Instead, he succeeded in pulling the wool over a rather gullible press by producing large glossy photographs of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar's new home under construction for the last 8 years or so, and making the terribly outrageous suggestion that not only did it cost a fantastic amount of money ($150 million), but that the Prime Minister had financed this palatial mansion from contributions of Drug Lords! And the press fell for it!

Speaking for myself (and many others who have expressed similar sentiments to me) I do not for one minute believe any of the outrageous allegations of Patrick Manning as regards Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's new home. I do not believe that it cost any where near $150 million or even 10 per cent of this sum. I do not believe that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar has ever had any dealings with any Drug Lords, much less taken money from any of them. I consider Manning's allegations as scandalous in the extreme and extremely dangerous in that it appears that he is prepared to say and do anything that might take attention away from his own terrible actions. This is awful, and quite frankly beneath the dignity of a former Prime Minister. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

The wiretapping scandal is outrageous. Ramesh Deosaran was right when he said that it was more dangerous than the 1990 coup attempt because of its insidious and secretive nature. The persons responsible should be made to pay ... and pay dearly. There is a great suspicion that Manning himself was involved in the spying. After all, just about every name on the list (including mine) were persons who either opposed and continued to oppose Manning, or who at some time or the other had opposed him. There was absolutely no justification for spying on those persons on the list.

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar has caused a pre-action protocol letter to be written to Manning for his terrible and defamatory remarks about her. Good! I hope that she sues him for every penny that he has got. I will sue him too ...as soon as I get the evidence that will stand up in Court that proves that he caused my phones to be tapped.

SHUBH DIVALI

The deep significance of Divali and all that it stands for ... the ultimate triumph of light over darkness is a beautiful and universal message for all mankind. May I extend to all of my readers a happy and holy Divali. I pray that Mother Lakshimi may shower you with her choicest blessings, now and forever more.

ANALYSIS: SHOULD THE PEOPLE'S PARTNERSHIP BE
PAYING ATTENTION TO THE U.S. MID-TERM ELECTIONS?


The short answer to the above question is a definite 'yes'! President Obama came to power in the November 2008 Presidential elections preaching change (sound familiar?). The American electorate was war weary and justifiably terrified at the economic precipice that their country (and the world) was falling into. They were looking for new leadership, a new direction, and above all, hope that Obama would "deliver them from evil".

Enter Kamla Persad-Bissessar at the beginning of this year with a very similar message to a Trinidadian/Tobagonian electorate that was simply fed up with the leaders of both of the main political parties. The electorate basically felt that the leadership of both the PNM and the UNC was arrogant and out of touch with their needs, wants and desires. If you had asked almost anybody of whatever race, creed or religion in the street this time last year whether he thought that either Manning or Panday genuinely cared for him and his family you would have been met with a resounding 'NO'! And it wouldn't have stopped there. If you had asked whether either of the two leaders had his feet on the ground, his finger on the pulse of what was going on, again you would have got a shouted 'NO'. (Nobody was really taking any notice of the COP which was whithering on the political vine until Kamla handed them a lifeline.) It was therefore (especially in retrospect) hardly surprising that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's message of hope and change would resonate so resoundingly in the country or that she would win so convincingly in the May election.

People were worried about almost everything: Crime, the economy, their future, corruption! You name the problem and you would have found a sizable segment of the population concerned about the particular issue.

But the new Government has now had some five months "to settle" and you are beginning to hear concerns that nothing is happening. Everything seems to be at a standstill and there is a lack of direction ... a lack of leadership that is disturbing to say the least. And most of it is emanating from a lack of movement in the economy. The banks are reporting that borrowing is way down and that everybody is in a 'wait and see mode'. The budget that was presented in September was long on rhetoric but very short on specifics, and the failure to get the new State boards up and running has crippled many businesses who are depending on getting paid monies that are now long overdue. Real estate values are declining by the week and the 'engine of growth' that has traditionally been the government seems to be in the repair shop for an unduly long length of time.

Like most people I voted for the People's Partnership. Like most people I genuinely want them to succeed. Unfortunately, like most people I am now beginning to become concerned. The appearance or perception is that they do not have their act together, that they do not understand the basics of governance. I genuinely hope that this is not so. I do not want them to fail. It is not in this country's interest that they fail. On the contrary, it is in all of our interests that they succeed. But if they continue in the direction that they are heading they are going to find (as Obama is now finding) that the people who supported them and voted for them will turn against them as sure as night follows day.

What is causing the "dithering" (for want of a better word) is not yet in the public domain ... although we are all hearing the rumours which are daily gaining strength as well as credibility. And the "boys" ought to be aware that effective opposition to a government rarely comes from within the Parliament ... it usually comes from outside. Therfore they should not count on the fact that Keith Rowley is proving himself to be an ineffective opposition leader. Dr. Rowley's lack of leadership potential will not save them. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the same can also be said about politics. In fact, the lack of a credible alternative often leads to greater instability.

Let me repeat: It is in our collective interest that this Government succeed. But they need to get the message early, rather than late, that they have to "get off the pot" and begin performing. Their honeymoon is over. And they have only to look at the U.S.A. to see what can happen when you don't deliver on your promises!