DIVIDED WE STAND!!!!



I received the following e mail from a PP supporter last night which is self explanatory:


I received this YouTube clip and the sender captioned it as Kalipersad vs Ramlogan.
Kalipersad vs Ramlogan... I don’t think so! Now that I have seen/heard the interview (Youtube video clip attached below) I see it as a continuation of the PNM underground machine/war room which has always been aided and abetted by the Trinidad Express very active and very much at work.
The sustained attack by the Express Newspaper on the PM and the Government continues. This was not professional journalism, indeed, it was an abuse by Kalipersad of the electronic media, an abuse of the “freedom of the press” – he discarded all journalistic integrity!
Dominic Kalipersad should be ashamed and embarrassed by his unethical and unprofessional conduct!
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan must be congratulated for his very professional responses and for “keeping his cool” especially when from the very beginning it was evident that Kalipersad’s tone and intent were going to be confrontational and irresponsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2HRRhqwc1w&feature=share


Now, let me tell you what my problem is: Having watched the video I did not think that Kalipersad had "discarded all journalistic integrity" as stated by my friend above. I did think that he was tough and aggressive ... and could even buy the argument that he was totally unsympathetic to the Attorney General's (and by extension the Government's) position. On the other hand, I did think that the interviewer was wrong when he told the Attorney General of Trinidad & Tobago "don't be rude". Even if you don't like the individual who happens to occupy the office, you ought at all times to respect that office. At the very least, I thought that the comment was disrespectful. I also thought that it was certainly not at all nice to say that the AG had invited himself onto the program. That may have indeed been true, but to say it like that!? When I heard that my reaction was "ouch"! Put another way, I thought that this comment was unnecessary and added nothing to the quality of the interview. But overall I did not have a problem with the very tough questioning of the Minister.

I also thought that the AG could have done a better job in explaining things. For example, thePolice Service Commission (PSC) had come out and criticised the Commissioner of Police (CoP) for being out of the country when the state of emergency (SOE) was called. Dominic Kalipersad questioned the AG on this ... rather aggressively and the AG obviously did not have the facts at his fingertips that have appeared in this morning's papers. (What happened, it seems, was that the CoP had indeed written to the proper authority informing them of his travel plans. The PSC was informed on the Friday before (i.e., 19th August) and the PSC did not deal with the letter until Tuesday 23rd August! But the PSC on Monday 22nd August decided to slam the CoP for not informing them (when in fact he had) of his plans to be out of the country!) Certain questions arise as to whether or not the PSC was correct in all of the circumstances to make the press release as hastily as it did ... for it was clearly wrong ... but that could be the subject of another post. Suffice to say at this time that if today's newspaper reports are correct, then the apparent or perceived bias of one of the members of the PSC ought now to be called into question.

And this brings me to the central point of this post. In the last four days since the declaration of the SOE you can tell who is a supporter of the Government and who is a supporter of the PNM merely by listening to or reading the comments as to whether or not the SOE is a good or bad move. Let's all take a few steps back and a few deep breaths. These are trying enough times without us all being at one another's throats. First of all, let us all acknowledge that if this SOE works and the criminal elements in our society are "licked up" that will be a very, very good thing and that the temporary sacrifice of giving up our civil liberties will have been well worth it. Let us understand that the real enemies are the criminals, not the PNM or the PP supporters. Everybody should be united on this. And I am the first to acknowledge that there appear to be serious problems with the way that this SOE was implemented. At the moment, though, I am prepared (probably because I recognise how desperate and how serious the situation is) to put aside any misgivings that I might have and give this thing a chance to work. If it does not work then we can all revisit all of the issues. For now, at least, I urge everyone else to do the same.

THE STATE OF EMERGENCY: WHAT'S GOING ON?




Every right thinking member of society must want the Government to succeed in its war against the criminal elements in our society. And make no mistake: it is a war. There are many who have been calling for a state of emergency ("SOE") to be declared for just this purpose and there are great expectations that the criminal elements will finally be brought to heel. But will they? It is difficult to say at this time. I certainly hope so ... but hoping just ain't good enough!

Let me explain what I mean: The way that this SOE was declared was ... well, unusual, to say the least. SOE's are never usually declared in advance. They are usually declared quietly and when they are in force the Government then moves to pick up and detain those persons who are considered a threat to the society for whatever reason (planning a coup, crime, etc.). If an SOE is announced well before it come s into effect, that announcement will give time to the very persons who are targets of the SOE to run and hide.

Remember that the declaration of an SOE is an extermely serious thing. An SOE takes away certain fundamental constitutional rights that the citizenry has against dictatorship and virtually allows a Government (any Government) untrammeled access to powers of arrest and detention without access to the Courts. While it is sometimes necessary for a Government in times of peril to declare an SOE that declaration needs to be very carefully thought out and the SOE needs to be very carefully executed and removed as soon as possible.

So, my question is what exactly happened to cause this SOE to be declared? The second question is why was it declared in advance of it taking effect? I will readily admit that there may be another reason, or even several other reasons, but I can only think of two: The first is that there was a sudden and unexpected security threat that could only be met by the declaring of an SOE. This is possible, and it may also explain why the whole thing was handled in such an apparently rushed way. (More on this point later.) It could also explain why this happened when the Commissioner of Police and his deputy were out of the country! (That point in itself is curious too, don't you think?)

The next possibility is that it was done by "vaps". Eleven murders took place in a very short space of time and the Government panicked. This could also explain the rather haphazard way that the whole thing was presented. But then surely Brigadier Sandy should have known better?

Now, most democratic Governments have (or ought to have) contingency plans in place for just about every type of emergency, including (though not limited to) declaing an SOE. It would be disheartening to learn that such a contingency plan did not exist, and I for one would like to believe otherwise. But if it did exist, why was the SOE declared in the way that it was? That did not make sense at all!

The expectation of the population is that crime will drop radically after this (assuming always that it really was done to declare war on the criminals); but if that is going to be the case then it was reasonable to expect that (a) there would be massive arrests of known gang leaders and gang members, and (b) that there would be massive searches in the designated hotspots which would yield massive seizures of arms and ammunition. But neither has happened yet! And at the time of writing the SOE is almost 48 hours old! Usually the significant arrests and seizures are made almost immediately after the SOE comes into force! Everything after that is what might be called "mopping up" operations.

So? What has happened? Please don't get me wrong. I want this SOE to work. I want the criminals caught and put under lock and key. I do not want the Government to fail on this. You see, if after the SOE is lifted crime simply goes right back to where it was before then we will be in a worse position than we were in before the SOE was declared. It will mean that the SOE was totally ineffective and that the bad guys were able to outsmart the good guys. It will also mean that the Government has run out of effective means of controlling the criminals in this country. I honestly and sincerely hope that the Government wins this fight. It has to! There is obviously no "Plan B". And that can't be good for any of us.

CAPTAIN! THE SHIP IS SINKING!!


"Unless we find a way to either reduce our import demand and replace that with domestic production we are going to be struggling with maintaining a relatively stable TT dollar versus the US dollar,"http://www.trinidadexpress.com/business-magazine/T_T_revenue_under_threat-127916438.html


Put another way, what the Central Bank Governor is saying in the above quoted article that we look as though we are heading for an inevitable devaluation. More than one reader of this blog has in fact written we to tell me this. Well, the short story is that I agree with them. It certainly looks that way. The long story, though, is a little different in that it ain't necessarily so! A devaluation is not necessarily inevitable and can still be warded off.

What I mean is this: The sad truth is that in the 15 or so months that he has been Finance Minister Mr. Dookeran has done little to engender the necessary confidence in the business community that he has the financial situation under control. They look at the fact that there has beeen an extremely tight rein on Government expenditure and that promised projects and payments are inexplicably delayed, that there is suddenly a huge squeeze by the commercial banks on hitherto good customers ... which squeeze the banks say is being dictated to them by the Central Bank ... and the absolute dearth of clear information as to exactly what is the state of our finances. After more than two years the infamous Clico accounts, we are told, are still in a mess! Really? If that is true, then where in the name of heaven was the Regulatory Authority (better known as the Central Bank) in all those years previously when Clico and its executives were bestriding the world like a colossos (or is it 'colossi'?)? Where were the auditors? How come nobody has been charged with fraud?

It may very well be that Mr. Dookeran is doing a fine job in his Ministry and that he is indeed saving us all from an even greater calamity that could befall our tiny nation state in the global economic hurricanes that are blowing at this time. But he just isn't telling us a thing! And this is the man who preached transparency, new politics and open government all the while that he was in opposition! So, what happened? Was all that just a lie? Is he a hypocrite who says one thing but does another? What? Why can't he explain?

A Finance Minister has to lead ... and the only way to lead is to lead vigourously. He cannot stay in his ivory tower, drink coffee and hold meetings with the IMF boffins who tell him that he is doing a great job. He might be , but we don't know that!!! And therein lies the problem. Why can we not be trusted with the truth?

The TT dollar is sinking as against the US dollar. The US dollar is sinking as against many of the world's major currencies, so we are getting hit not once, but twice! And the main reason that our dollar is sinking is because there is a lack of confidence in Mr. Dookeran's management of the economy. And the main reason for that lack of confidence is because he simply will not explain to us what exactly is going on.

The time has come for Mr. Dookeran to be replaced as Finance Minister ... before it is too late. If the reality is that he is really doing a good job (which I will be the first to admit might be possible) then keep him on as a junior Finance Minister where from behind the scenes he can help. But put a person who can lead ... Vassant Bharath comes to mind for example, although agriculture is so important that I would hate to see him go from there. The problem is that the Finance Ministry is the most important ministry of all. Without good management and leadership there nothing happens! It is still not too late. The economic situation can still be turned around. What is needed is a huge dose of confidence to be injected into the national pysche. And it is clear that whatever his virtues (which may be many) Mr. Dookeran's ability to engender confidence is clearly not one of them. Because, mark me well, in the words of Gypsy's immortal calypso, Captain, the ship is sinking and without that confidence the very bad storms which are gathering on the not so distant horizon will strike to the detriment of all.

Isn't there a saying about who doh hear must feel?

"A PROUD 70 YEAR TRACK RECORD"?


There are, quite obviously, a lot of questions concerning the Caribbean Airline (CAL) crash in Guyana in the early hours of Saturday morning that can't and won't be answered until the investigation by the American National Transport and safety Board (NTSB) is concluded. One thing is certain, the Americans will not allow any cover up and we will all sooner or later learn the truth. I suppose that we ought to be grateful for small mercies!

However, one of the questions that can and should be answered right away is how come CAL says that it has "a proud 70 year track record" of being accident free? Let's start from the beginning: First of all, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) defines an aviation accident like this:

"An aviation accident is defined in the Convention on International Civil
Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an
aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft
with an intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, in which a
person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or
structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccesible."

So, it is quite clear that according to the best definition from the highest aviation authority in the world that the CAL aircraft suffered an accident ... and a serious one at that ... on Saturday 30th July, 2011 in Guyana. Also, it is also clear that BWIA never had an accident in its proud history. So, I can hear you say, what's the problem?

The problem is that CAL is not a 70 year old airline with a 70 year old track record! It is only four years old and as fledgling airline has had what you might call a "fledgling" accident. You can test this assertion fairly easily. If CAL is simply BWIA re-branded and is "a rose by any other name" then CAL would be liable for all of BWIA's debts and prior responsibilities. But CAL is not liable for BWIA's debts and obligations. Ask the former employees of BWIA, many of whom feel that they were unfairly shafted when the last Government shut down BWIA and threw many of them out on the street. These former employees were told that they could sue the defunct BWIA if they wanted, but that nothing from nothing was nothing and CAL was a brand new airline!
In other words, the Government took what it wanted from the old BWIA and created a new entity that was CAL. Heck! They even sold the BWIA landing slots in London! (And that's yet another scandal waiting to explode!)

Now, it may be that CAL's safety procedures are similar to, or even identical to the defunct BWIA. It may also be that CAL has taken a lot of good things from BWIA, including but not limited to some of its old employees (like pilots and engineers). But it is not BWIA re-branded. It is a brand new airline. It does have various different procedures and ways of doing business which may or may not be better than BWIA's. But it is disingenuous to say the least that it has a "proud 70 year old track record". It doesn't. It is not BWIA and those who are trying to piggyback CAL's safety record onto that of BWIA's are not doing that now defunct airline any service, nor are they being fair to the former employees of BWIA or the travelling public. Frankly, they are being dishonest! CAL's track record is only four years old! No more and no less!

And you know what? The people who have to make decisions concerning insurance and viability are not going to be fooled by the persons who are spouting this '70 year' nonsense. But then, I suppose those people, because they have no respect for us and believe that lieing to us has no consequences whatsoever, know that they can get away with nonsense like this. And you know what? Maybe they are right! That's what makes this all the more galling!

ONE STEP FORWARD...THREE STEPS BACK!



Let me declare my bias from the start: I voted for this Government; I want them to succeed; I do not want them to fail. Unfortunately, they are failing. There are too many unforced errors taking place and only the most biased or dishonest observers will not admit that we are in trouble. And by "we" I mean the country.

Let's look at the latest problem to hit the headlines: the imbroglio with the unions. The first question that I have is one that reflects my utter disbelief at the total incompetence of the Cabinet. How in the name of heaven could the Ministers responsible for the clash with the unions allow the Prime Minister to go into a meeting with the unions when it was clear from the start that the PrimeMinister's chances of getting them to agree to back down were slim to none?!? Ministers are supposed to defend the Prime Minister, and if anything "fall on their swords" for her (or him as the case may be). They aren't supposed to let the Prime Minister put her credibility on the line the way that they did! The best way that I can probably explain this is to borrow a sentence that I got from The Economist about a week ago in an article that it published concerning the phone hacking scandal in Britain: "Prime Ministers tend not to lose all their credibility in one go ... Rather it erodes in fits and starts amid accumulations of misstep and scandal".

And who are the Ministers responsible? Answer: The Ministers of Finance and Labour! Let us call a spade a spade and stop this neo-colonial type of nonsense where we continuously pretend that we can see the naked Emperor's clothes. Hello! The Emperor is naked! It is the responsibility of the Finance Minister to put the case for money squarely and fairly on the table. If the country cannot afford the wage increases that are being demanded it is his responsibility to explain to all of us exactly what our financial situation is and why we cannot afford to pay what the unions are asking for. It is the responsibility of the Labour Minister to help calm the stormy waters that his ministerial colleague finds himself in, to familiarise himself with the truth of what the Finance Minister is saying, and to convince the unions that the Finance Minister is indeed telling the truth. And if the Finance Minister is not telling the truth then it is the responsibility of teh Labour Minister to make it clear to the Prime Minister that her Finance Minister's position is untenable. But these guys cannot keep quiet and effectively throw the Prime Minister and her Government under the proverbial bus ... which is exactly what they have done!

I don't know about you, but I am totally fed-up. Like most people I believe that the country simply cannot afford the demands that the unions are making. I also believe that these demands are unreasonable given the existing economic situation prevailing not only here, but worldwide. However, the operative word in that last sentence is "believe". I don't know that we can't afford to pay and/or meet the unions' demands. I also believe that the workers that the unions represent are hurting ... and hurting badly! I also believe that they deserve much more than a measly five percent pay rise. And, yes, it is measly given the inflation that has ravaged the country over the last few years.

In other words, for me at least, the argument is not whether the workers deserve a pay rise in excess of five per cent, but whether or not we can afford to pay it? So, Mr. Dookeran, as always it is over to you. Show us! Tell us! Explain to us! We are not dummies. The threatened general strike will fail if you convince the country that we really can't afford it. It is also quite possible that even if you don't, most people are like me and believe that we can't afford it, which would mean that the strike will fail. But belief can only go so far. Sooner or later the population will start to demand proof. Take some good advice: Don't wait until then!

And Mr. McLeod, the only reason that you are in the Cabinet and hold the post of Minister of Labour is because of your long experience and your connections with the Labour Movement. Every single administration in every single democracy sooner or later locks horns with organised labour. What every single administration needs is a Labour Minister who can and will interface with the Labour Movement in a way that successfully diffuses the inevitable tensions that are bound to arise. If you can't or won't do that then leave. I don't care which ('can't' or 'won't') it is. It doesn't matter. What matters is that this job (Minister of Labour) requires leadership; and the only test for leadership is to lead vigorously. If you can't or won't, then get out of the way. The country does not need you if you are just going to sit on your hands and bleat about "process". And right now, you simply ain't leading!

And to Mesrrs. Roget and company, I say, look, most people are sympathetic to your cause. Don't hold the country to ransom over unrealistic demands. Show us that we really can afford to pay you and you will get our support without your having to threaten the society in the way that you are doing now. But you won't get it simply by demanding that we pay regardless of the consequences. No thinking or responsible citizen could ever agree to that. And remember, "jaw-jaw" is always better than "war-war"!

THE APPROACHING ICEBERG



Everybody knows that most of an iceberg is under the water. So if you are in either the Arctic or Antartic oceans and you see an iceberg towering, say, some fifty feet over the water, you know that there is at least three to four hundred feet hiding beneath the surface. I say this because I sometimes feel like the guy on the foredeck of the Titanic who on seeing the huge iceberg which the illfated ship was heading straight for, tried to warn those on the great ship's bridge ... but of course, they were too high up, too far away to hear the shouts and too "experienced" to listen to some unqualified peasant on the foredeck of the ship peering through the fog. What could he possibly see that they couldn't!?

Like the Titanic, the good ship S.S. Trinidad & Tobago seems to be heading directly for a large economic iceberg that is roughly the same size as the one that struck that great ship a century ago. By that I mean that I can see that the economy is shaky, that the slightest "tremor" can sink us and that the Ministry of Finance either doesn't have a plan or does not want to share the plan with the rest of us peasants.

Pay attention: The unions are threatening a general strike and the police are threatening a five day strike if the Government does not resile from its five percent cap on wages. The Government says that the country cannot afford to pay more. The unions say that this is nonsense! And here is where the rest of us come in. Like most people, I tend to believe that the Government is telling the truth, i.e., that the country really can't afford to pay more. But, like most people, I personally don't have the evidence before me that will prove that this is indeed so. Further, Winston Dookeran, if nothing else has to be just about the worst communicator in history! This is a man who for years preached transparency and open government, but on getting into power has practised secrecy and an absolute refusal to tell the nation exactly what is going on with the country's various economic problems. All we have got from him over the last year has been "this is what we are going to do whether you like it or not" attitude instead of "look, this is what is going on and as a result this is what we think is the best thing to do".

I have complained about this before; I call it the neo-colonialist attitude that has crippled our country since Eric williams came to power in 1956. In the "good old days" of the colonial period there were two rules: Rule 1 was that the white man or massa was always right. Rule 2 was when massa was wrong refer back to rule 1!! Just about every single Prime Minister from Williams to date has adopted these two rules as if they were gospel. The end result has been that instead of the country having a modern twenty-first century outlook, we have remained mired in outdated, out moded, unoriginal, old fashioned 1960's type of thinking. We continue to try and solve the same old problems with the same old solutions, Albert Einstein, what did you say was the classic definition of insanity?

In addition to Mr. Dookeran's obvious failures, we also have the image of a so-called Labour leader in the person of Errol McLeod who appears to be doing absolutely nothing to head off this most serious approaching crisis. I can think of only two reasons why Mr. McLeod will not intervene forcefully: Either he is totally and completely incompetent and is occupying a position that he is really not qualified to occupy, or he really doesn't believe his Ministerial colleague and believes that the country can pay more. If anybody can give me a third, or even a tenth, reason then please do. But this is all that I can come up with. And yes, I am aware of the neo-colonialist B.S. (Baloney for Sure) that I have heard Mr. McLeod spout about "process"! Please!! Don't come with that claptrap! When a house is on fire you don't wait for the "process" of the fire department to come. You start to throw water on the fire immediately. At least, that is what a modern twenty first century person would do.

We are heading for a period of potentially serious and possibly fatal social instability caused by the inability of those responsible in the Government to communicate effectively. The "iceberg effect"! In other words, once trouble starts there is no way that we will know how deep it will go. It is still not too late. Things can still be turned around ... and the best way of doing this is to tell us the truth. We aren't stupid and we see what is going on in the rest of the world. But people, especially working class people are hurting badly. The Government has to come forward and show all of us that it not only understands and empathises, but given the circumstances is doing the best that it can. But it will have to explain what these "circumstances" are exactly. Telling us that Moody's has given us a good credit rating means nothing to the man at the bottom. Explain! Explain! Explain! That is one way that you can serve the people! Serve the people! Serve the people!

TRUTH, LIES AND THE INTERNET (part 2)



In my last post (below) I exhibited an e mail that had been circulating that I said if true was absolutely awful! I have now received absolute confirmation that the story is indeed true! Serious questions now arise: Firstly, why did the mainstream media not publicise the story? no doubt there may be any number of reasons, any one of which I would be prepared to accept if it made sense, but frankly, the only reason that I can think of that makes sense is that the mainstream media are not prepared to go up against the rich and powerful. So, if this is correct, the newspapers and the radio stations (forget about the television stations) will not publicise a story that is obviously as newsworthy as it is important.

The next question that comes up is what exactly is Movie Towne going to do when it "revises" its security procedures? Clearly, there was a dreadful failure of security. But why? Was the security guard fired? Did the closed circuit television cameras work? If so, what have the tapes revealed? If they weren't working, then why weren't they working? What can the owners of Movie Towne do to ensure the safety of all of their customers? What are they doing now? Is it too much to ask for a "zero tolerance" attitude towards any kind of misbehaviour in places like Movie Towne which are privately owned but where the general public gather in large numbers?

Another question that we should be asking ourselves as a society is given that we are so apparently reluctant to criticise private enterprise for failing dreadfully to protect the citizenry from crime when citizens visit the premises of private enterprise is it fair to criticise the government for its failure to do anything about crime? In other words, if we are prepared to accept the failure of Movie Towne for its obvious lapse in security and are not prepared to demand of that private enterprise that it do something then is it fair to criticise the government for its obvious failure? I ask this question quite seriously, for it has to be a lot easier to make Move Towne a crime free zone than it would be to make the whole country crime free. And the biggest deterent to crime is the fear of getting caught. The criminals have obviously "sussed out" the security (or lack of it) in Movie Towne and have realised that they simply ain't gonna get caught!! So, they go where there are "rich pickings". Bad news for the rest of us! But are we prepared as a society to demand that private enterprises also "step up to the plate"?

Since this story went "viral" on the internet I have heard other horror stories coming out of Movie Towne that are almost as dreadful as this one. But the mainstream media are completely silent ... and for their silence I criticise and condemn them roundly and put the label "hypocrite" on them. I challenge them to show that they are not hypocrites by making this story as important as it ought to be.

One thing is certain: the internet is now such a powerful tool that we need no longer be beholden to the media and press barons as we were in the past for information. The truth can and will come out ... even when those "at the top" don't want it to. We are living at the dawn of a new age. Thank goodness for the internet and those persons brave enough and smart enough to use it. If the mainstream media wants to survive ... at least in T&T ... it will have to come to terms with this new reality and understand that its credibility (which is already in trouble) will go the way of the dodo bird if it continues to try and suppress important truths.

TRUTH, LIES AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET





I have received the e mail below from a variety of sources. The story (if true) is absolutely dreadful. The problem is that I am not certain that it is true. There are a few points that I would like to bring to your attention:

1) In every e mail that I have received, the name of the sender does not exist. Why? If this is a true story and it had happened to you, wouldn’t you put your name to the e mail? I would!
2) This story has not been reported in the mainstream media? Why? If it is true this is a very serious and important story? But I can’t find it anywhere? I can’t believe that the mainstream media would conspire to keep a story like this out of the news!
3) I happen to have a friend who was at Movie Towne that night and who had gone to pick up his children who had gone to see X Men and came out at 11:55pm. He was in the area and saw nothing. Admittedly, this does not prove that it didn’t happen, but it is curious that neither he nor his family saw nothing, or you don’t think so?
4) The account of the incident has a “ring” to it that creates a lot of questions. For example, how was the sister able to shout into her cell phone “they killing him” and apparently suffer no consequences? If a robber saw/heard somebody using his/her cell phone while in the middle of an attack, wouldn’t he turn on that person … especially if the person was a woman? Why would the brother-in-law put his window down?

There are other questions which lead an impartial observer to wonder about the veracity of the story. But I do readily admit that the account might be true. I also readily admit that logical answers could exist for what is clearly a poorly written account. But I am not criticising here the lack of articulation in the narrative. The problem is that there is also a distinct possibility that it may not be true. We are not well served by false information being disseminated on the Internet. On the other hand, we should all take note, because none of us can afford to take the chance and ignore this warning, especially as it could just as easily be true. You might say that it is better to err on the side of caution than complacency. I certainly will be taking extra care even though I personally have some serious doubts that the story is true. But just as 'all that glisters is not gold', all that appears on the Internet is not necessarily true!



Dear Friends and Family,
This is what unfolded at Movie Towne P.O.S. on Saturday 18th June 2011 @ 11.55pm. My bother-in-law and sister were almost brutally MURDERED on the western side of Movie Towne car park. As the evening unfolded, I had a dinner party to attend however my son called me up and asked me to join him, my sister and my brother-in-law at Movie Towne POS to view the movie "X-men" at 9.15pm. Without hesitation I did. Excellent movie by the way.

The movie ended at 11.40pm and we all walked out towards the car park. We first walked my son to his vehicle to make sure he was safe. Then I turned to my sister and said "let me drop you to your vehicle." We were busy talking and without realising it I existed Movie Towne. My brother-in-law then said to me "don't worry we would walk back inside, the car is just over there opposite Excellent Stores on the western side," (a stone throw away from the security booth). I pulled to the side and they exited my vehicle and proceeded to theirs. I then called my sister on her cell phone while they were en route to their vehicle as I was feeling very uneasy for some reason. We chatted as they walked and as they got into their car she said "ok, we're in the car, everything is cool". I said ok, hanged up and proceeded towards the traffic lights.

In that fraction of a second as we both got off the phone and she turned towards her husband, she saw a very thin, young negro chap pointing a 38 calibre long nose at her husband's head. The criminal shouted "open your f****ing door or ah go shoot all yuh!" On her side of the vehicle were two more negro men trying to open her door and diagonally behind was a White B-13 with a driver. My brother-in-law at that instance put his glass down only to receive a gashing blow with the gun to his forehead. The bandit then pushed the gun into his chest and he (my bother-in-law) grabbed it placing one of his finger behind the trigger and holding the barrel securely. With death facing both of them in the face, the bandit continued to hit him continuously with a metal object bursting his head open in several places. While this ordeal was taking place, my sister some how managed to call me on the cell screaming hysterically "they killing him, they killing him... help...help!" I immediately spinned my vehicle around and drove straight over the median towards Movie Towne exit. As I approached the guard booth I saw my bother-in-law's vehicle approaching and as he came to a stop there was blood everywhere. Blood was gushing out of his head and my sister was still screaming hysterically and shaking. He was then hastily taken to West Shore Medical.

The security at Movie Towne was of NO HELP. One security guard said to me "these things does happen sir!" Another security guard when I asked if they were not going to ward off the area said "them fellas gone already, sir!" CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? Then when I asked about the surveillance tape(s), they said "I not sure that working nah" I could not believe my ears. Is this the kind of security that Mr. Derek Chin provides at Movie Towne, P.O.S? The safety of people that puts dollars in this man's coffers apparently seem to be insignificant to warrant proper security facilities to protect their well-being. The restaurants and shops that are so well patronized means absolutely nothing. Should the new branding be "Come To Movie Towne, P.O.S. At Your Risk !"

Is this the kind of place we're going to let our children and wives go too ? Are we going to wait until one of our family members are brutally raped and murdered to do anything about this situation ? Do you want to be brutally beaten like my brother-in-law was ? Please ask yourself these questions before venturing there !

It is obvious that the current security are either involved or not equipped or trained to ensure the safety of its patrons. Chin needs to do something NOW about this, IT IS RIDICULOUS !!! MY SISTER AND BROTHER-IN-LAW WAS ALMOST MURDERED . The police indicated to me that this is a regular thing that happens there and they try to keep it on the down low.

Then check this out, the very same night about one and a half hours later in the said car park when security should be on high alert due to what just previously happened, a young man is abducted at gun point, brutally beaten, tied up and thrown out of his vehicle in the Chaguaramas beach area for dead. His car that was stolen was taken to Cocorite, to be stripped and sold I was told.

I've been informed that a group comprising of nine young men that target the Movie Towne P.O.S. is supported by a well organised "King Pin". ALL YUH HEAR WHAT I SAYING, YOU MEAN CHIN COULD NOT GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS ! WHO NEXT ? WHO NEXT ? CHIN THIS IS YOUR "BREAD AND BUTTER", DO SOMETHING NOW !!!!!

I simply ask my family and friends to forward this e-mail to everyone they know so that this never happens to them at Movie Towne, P.O.S.

THE HANGING OF JACK WARNER




Just about everyone in the entire world is familiar with the terrible scandal that has engulfed FIFA, the controlling body of world football and the accusations against arguably the most powerful of FIFA's vice-presidents, Jack Warner. Very briefly, the facts that are in the public domain are as follows:
1) The United States and England were extremely upset when they lost their
respective bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals in favour of Russia and
Qattar.
2) The English were so upset that the head of the English football delegation some
months after the decision that Qattar was the successful applicant for the 2022
finals accused Jack Warner of asking for a bribe.
3) This accusation was made even more explosive as Lord Triesman (the English
football head) made these accusations before a House of Commons Committee
that was looking into why the English did not get the 2022 World Cup.
4) Mr. Warner was finally completely cleared of Treisman's allegations.
5) In the meantime, the election of a President for FIFA was coming up on June 1st.
6) Mr. Mohammed Bin Hammam, from Qattar, a vice president of FIFA, had thrown
his hat in the ring and was challenging the incumbent Sepp Blatter for the
Presidency.
7) Bin Hammam was prevented from attending a Concacaf meeting in Miami in
April because he was denied a visa by USA authorities.
8) In order that he could meet with Concacaf dlegates and make his pitch to them as
to why they should vote for him instead of Mr. Blatter he asked Mr. Warner to
organise a meeting with Concacaf delegates in Trinidad in early May. Mr. Warner
obliged.
9) After the meeting Mr. Warner was quoted in the press as saying that he would
not divulge whether or not he would support Mr. Blatter.
10) At that stage all hell broke loose. The General Secreatary of Concacaf, one Chuck
Blazer, reported to Mr. Blatter that Messrs. Warner and Bin Hammam had had a
meeting with Concacaf delegates in teh Hyatt Regency Hotel in Port of Spain and
had given each of the delegates an envelope containing US$40,000 in cash. The
delegates from Puerto Rico and the Bahamas backed Blazer's accusations. But,
interestingly no other delegates did. In fact, the delegate from Grenada has been
reported as saying that if this was true he was clearly being discriminated
against as he received nothing at all.
11) The FIFA Ethics Committee summoned Messrs. Bin Hammam and Warner to a
meeting on Sunday 29th May, some 3 days before the Presidential election, and
decided, without giving either Warner or Bin Hammam a chance to defend
themselves properly, that there was a prima facie case to answer. Accordingly,
both men were summarily suspended from all FIFA duties and positions until
there could be a full hearing ... which would be (very conveniently for Blatter)
after the election. Bin Hammam withdrew from the race and Blatter was elected
unopposed.
12) Then Lyle Austin, who became the acting President for Concacaf in place of the
suspended Jack Warner, fired Chuck Blazer for hiring a big time American law
firm without the approval of the executive committee of Concacaf.
13) Then it is announced that Blazer is not fired but that Austin is now
suspended for purporting to fire Blazer without proper authority.
14) But it is noticable that the committee purporting to suspend Austin is made
up of only 4 delegates!

I apologise for the rather lengthy list above, but it is important to keep all of the above in mind when listening to all of the sound and fury that is going on. Clearly there is a lot more behind the scenes and anything that anybody says right now (including yours truly) can end up being so much hot air. But having said that, I think that it is possible to come to the tentative conclusion that the old Jack Warner simply ain't gonna get a fair hearing from the Ethics Committee whose behaviour on Sunday 29th May showed quite clearly that they weren't at all bothered by fair play and ethics, but that the most inportant thing was to get Jack and Bin Hammam out of the way at all costs.

One of the things to notice, and one of the reasons that I say this is because I find it strange to say the least how Blazer could hire a law firm without apparent authority and be backed up by Blatter for so doing. But Mr. Austin is suspended for trying to put the American in his place! There is something that simply isn't right here. That there are many who would like to see Jack hanged (not literally, of course) but to all the right thinking members of that group I would say that by all means go ahead and hang him. But make sure you do so only after he gets a fair trial. And quite frankly, while I will readily concede that I could be wrong, the truth is that I genuinely believe that Blatter is out to "kill" Jack and will do so at the earliest possible opportunity ... and truth, justice and fair play be damned!!

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!