CHEAP,DIVISIVE AND UNNECESSARY POLITICS

Leadership is, or ought to be, amongst other things, about doing the right thing. Political leadership is, or ought to be, amongst other things, about taking a country forward. Any action by a political leadership that produces divisiveness ought to be deprecated, especially on occasions when it is right and meet that a sense of national pride and unity should be promoted.

That is why I have been looking on with dismay over certain events this week that have me in despair on this eve of our nations fiftieth anniversary. To my mind they were as unnecessary as they were ... well, just plain stupid! Further, instead of the nation coming together this week with a certain pride at reaching this milestone, the country is even more divided than it was, say, a month ago!

Let's look at issue number one: the flag! Opponents of the Government took great umbrage over a billboard put up along the Churchill-Roosevelt Highway by certain private citizens who are supporters of the Government. The source of their angst was the fact that the billboard had the national flag on it; superimposed on the top right hand corner of the flag/billboard was a picture of Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar. On the bottom left hand corner was a picture of the UNC Party Chairman and National security Minister Jack Warner. According to these people this was evidence that (a) the Government was using public funds to promote a personality cult (or cults), and (b) that this was tantamount to a debasing of the national flag wherein the faces of politicians on the national flag cheapens it and is wrong.

To which my reaction was 'huh'? Maybe I have been too heavily influenced by what goes on in the United States, and I would be the first to confess that just because the Americans do something doesn't mean that we should also do it. But in that great country (and, yes, whether you like them or not, it is a great country) they constantly wrap themselves in their flag. Why, just this week I saw a picture of an elephant (the symbol of the Republican Party) superimposed on the American flag. And guess what? NOBODY has said boo!! (You will remember that the Republican Convention is taking place this week in Tampa.) And why didn't any body say anything about this: putting a political symbol on a picture of the flag? (I mean, surely this is worse!!) Answer: Because the Americans take pride in thier republic and are HAPPY whenever anybody or any organisation wants to proclaim his or its love of their country. Put another way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a politician wrappimg himself or herself in the country's flag. Indeed, the PNM did it in an advertisement in the Guardian this week (much to their embarrassment) and I do recall other advertisements in the past when the Prime Minister Manning also wrapped himself in the flag. So what?

But this is really no big thing! Unless, of course, you are an opponent of the present regime in which case you will grab at any and everything to try and make them look bad. Even when it means putting a damper on the country's birthday celebrations!

Which leads me to the next point: Dr. Rowley and the PNM say that they are not going to take part in the country's official celebrations. Why? Basically, because the Government has (in their opinion) not given Dr. Eric Williams a proper place or recognition, nor has he been propery honoured in the celebrations. Also, the Government did not listen to their ideas for how the event ought to have been celebrated!

To which I say: 'What?!' What kind of 'spoiled child' behaviour is this? Let us assume (though certainly not accept) for the sake of argument that the PNM is on solid ground with their complaints. Does this mean that because they might have legitimate complaints that they should not take part in the national celebrations? In other words, because the present regime refused to do things their way that they will not attend the "party"? This is not a private affair. This is the birthday of the nation and even if the Government was wrong in anything that it did with regard to teh celebrations (which I don't necessarily agree with at all) then responsible political leadership requires ... no! Demands... that the politicians on all sides should come together for the country's birthday. It is a little like two siblings quarreling over their parents' anniversary and one saying that he won't go because he feels that the other has not agreed with the type of cake to be served. Who gets hurt by the stupid quarrel? The parents!

The attitude of the PNM and the opponents of the Government in this matter is mean spirited, selfish, small-minded, stupid and (worst of all) designed to create further divisions in an already fractured and divided society. It is just plain wrong!

FIFTY YEARS ON

Birthdays are essentially markers of time ... 'I have now been on the planet for X years' ... and are always a great time for reflection ... even for nations. And a fiftieth birthday is a significant marker, and one which should rightly be celebrated. There are several ways of looking at this particular birthday ... what have I accomplished in my 50 years on the planet? Where am I right now in this particular phase of my life? Where do I want to be? Have I achieved the goals and ambitions that I wanted to when I was younger? I could go on, but you get the point.

Except for the names and a few other obvious changes, the same questions can apply to the fiftieth birthday of a nation. Where were we fifty years ago in terms of our development? Where are we now? Have we fulfilled our potential? What mistakes did we make along the way? Have we recognised our mistakes? Are we moving to correct them? Are we on the right path for the future? If not, why not? If so, are we doing the best that we can in all of the circumstances, or could we be doing better?

I am certain that many of my readers will be able to add more questions requiring answers and introspection that are (or may be) even more pertinent than those listed above. My list is not intended to be all encompassing, but merely a guide as to the type of questions that we should all be asking ourselves as we approach the 31st August. I am going to try and answer ... or at least give my 'take'  on some of them, but, again, do not offer these views either as gospel nor as necessarily correct. They are simply my own personal views and are proffered as such. In so doing, you may notice that I have tried very hard not to be either political or overtly critical of either past or present regimes. The reason for this is because I believe that right now what is needed more than anything else is cool, calm and clear reasoning ... which I am well aware, has never defeated blinding emotions!

Starting with where we have come from: the truth is that we have come a long way. Fifty years ago there was no sharing of the national pie or cake the way that there is today. More citizens are better off today than they were fifty years ago. But, (and it is a big "but") there is today a greater level of dissatisfaction with the quality of life than there was fifty years ago. Perhaps it is because people are generally better educated than they were fifty years ago? Or maybe it is because the promises of politicians over the years have not been kept? Or maybe it is because there is a feeling that we could have done a lot better? Or maybe it is all of these things and more? But it is clear that if you go throughout Trinidad & Tobago today almost everyone you meet will complain about the quality of life and how he/she feels that things are not as good as they could or should be.

So, have we recognised our past mistakes? Because, if we haven't, then we certainly can't fix them! You could argue that we have and that is why over the years we have elected and removed various governments because they had failed us. On the other hand, you could argue that we haven't because the fact is that we have been unable to change the mindset of our politicians who, once they get into office, behave exactly as their predecessors did. My answer to that criticism would be that this is more a fault of our Constitution and that as a people we have failed to have any intelligent discussion on constitutional reform. In fact, I will go so far as to say that unless and until we discuss constitutional reform in a meaningful way that every single complaint that we have today and had yesterday, we will have tomorrow regardless of who is in power.

Could we do better? Oh yes! Definitely! But you must remember that there are in this little twin island republic many entrenched 'status quos' , and the problem becomes more acute when you recognise that the slightest suggestion for change always means death to some 'status quo'.

To quote Shakespeare, "the fault dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves"!

So, I say happy birthday T&T. May we all go forward towards that "shining city on the hill" that we all so aspire to achieve. In the words of the calypsonian, "we can make it if we try".

REWARDING OUR SPORTSMEN & WOMEN

Like just about every Trinbagonian on the planet I was thrilled when young (he is only 19) Keshorn Walcott won a gold medal in the Olympics. I was also pleased when a mistake by the Canadian relay team gave us the bronze medal in the men's 4X100 relay race. (Hey! Rules are rules and  a win within the rules is still a win! Sorry, Canada. I do know how you feel, but if the shoe was on the other foot you would also be shrugging your shoulders and saying the same thing to us.)

I also have no problem at all with the rewards and accolades being heaped upon the young man. I think that his achievement was stupendous and as far as I am concerned he deserves all that a grateful nation has heaped upon him and more.

But (as I argued more than ten years ago) we really should establish a firm national policy as to how we are going to reward our sporting heroes in the future. For example, Keshorn won a gold medal. One! But what are we going to do if tomorrow his cousin wins two gold medals? Three? What if his girlfriend wins four silvers? What about if somebody wins two bronze medals and a silver? Get the point? We need to have a settled policy that applies to everybody. Not to do so invites chaos.

In the United States gold medal athletes are given US$25,000 per medal. Silver medalists get $15,000 and those who bring home a bronze get $10,000. In Canada their gold medalists get Can$20,000 per medal. Then the other medal winners are compensated as their American counterparts. In addition, in both countries the coaches of the winning athletes are also given financial rewards (which are not as great as the athletes but still nice). Incidentally, both of these countries impose a tax on these monetary prizes. America even taxes the value of the medals ... but I think that it is the only country in the world to do so.

Now, I am not saying that we should limit ourselves to the Canadian or American standards. Neither am I saying that we should exceed them.
My point here is a simple one: whether you agree or not with the "goodies" that the Government has showered on our Olympian gold medalist, you would have to be absolutely churlish not to agree that Mr. Walcott does deserve something from a grateful nation. The outburst of national pride that he egendered by his superlative feat is ... well, priceless! But we must at all times keep our feet planted firmly on the ground and we must be fair to those who will follow after him. The time has come for us to have a national policy on rewarding ALL of our sporting heroes ... from the Olympics to cricket and football and everything in between ... fairly. And right now, with Mr. Walcott's tremendous achievement freshly before us, would be a great time to start such a discussion and put such a policy in place.

GETTING RID OF THE FUEL SUBSIDY

Let me begin by saying that for me personally, I am all in favour of the fuel subsidy. I understand clearly the economic arguments for getting rid of it (or at least reducing it) and, quite frankly, cannot refute them. My only answer is that you cannot run a country like a business and that getting rid of the fuel subsidy will cause a great deal of pain, especially on those least able to afford it. But this post is not to argue for a retention of the fuel subsidy. That argument is for another time and/or place. I have heard via the usual Trini grapevine (which is often as accurate as it is just plain wrong) that new Finance Minister Howai intends to reduce (if not abolish) the fuel subsidy in the upcoming budget in September or October. In other words, the argument to abolish or reduce the fuel subsidy has already taken place and the abolitionists have won.

So, assuming (though obviously not accepting) that my information is correct, I have some suggestions for the very competent Finance Minister as to how he might lessen or alleviate the "damage" to the pockets of the average citizen if the subsidy is reduced or eliminated.

Perhaps we might start with the abolition of the Motor Vehicle Tax (MVT). You see, the MVT is designed to make cars, especially larger gas guzzling cars, so expensive that citizens will think twice before buying them. But if the subsidy is going to be reduced the "raison d'etre" to tax a large engine goes by the board. After all, surely, the reason that we taxed larger engines was to prevent (or make it harder for) people to abuse the subsidy on fuel. So instead of it costing, say $100 to fill up that Range Rover, by abolishing the subsidy it will now cost, say, $1,000. In other words, it is in the tax man's interests that people buy as much gas as pthey can possibly afford. And right there what the Finance Minister has lost on the swing of abolishing the MVT he will more than make up for on the abolition/reduction of the fuel subsidy.

Also, we would then have an incentive to import more fuel efficient cars. Right now the tax system works against this. I understand, for example, that a Suzuki 2 litre Vitara is less fuel efficient than its big sister that has  the bigger 2.4 litre engine. But the present tax structure encourages the import of the vehicle that burns MORE gas!! Life in the tropics?! Bigger engines today do not necessarily translate into less fuel efficient engines.

Again, we import a lot of foreign used vehicles from Japan and other places. These vehicles are usually about 5 to 6 years old and are not as fuel efficient as later models. But in good old T&T this doesn't matter because gas is so cheap. But because they are so old the MVT is very low making them comparitively inexpensive. But abolition of the MVT will reduce (if not eliminate) the need for such inefficient cars.

I could go on, but hopefully you have got the point. Abolish or reduce the fuel subsidy, then do the same with the MVT.

And because the abolition/reduction of the fuel subsidy will cause hardship the Minister should also pay attention to helping bona fide taxi drivers in converting their vehicles to compressed natural gas (CNG). Again, I am not certain how much the conversion will cost, but let's say that it will be about $10,000, then let the Government say that it will pay for the cost of converting a maxi or a car to CNG for all registered taxis (n.b., NOT the PH taxis) up to, say, $10,000. The cost of operating a CNG fueled taxi is peanuts compared to the cost of operating a gasoline or even diesel fueled vehicle, even at today's subsidised costs.

Also, the Minister ought to look at the terrible inefficiency that takes place on the roads. Right now a lot of cars get almost zero miles to the gallon because every single day they are spent in time wasting traffic jams. Trinis tend not to worry about the very real cost of sitting in a traffic jam for a long time because fuel is so cheap. But if the fuel subsidy is removed/reduced all of a sudden people will feel the cost of sitting in a traffic jam with the engine idling, gas burning needlessly and going nowhere fast. For one thing, a lot of people will wake up to the very bad driving habits that take place on the roads now where cars stop in the middle of the road to take on or disgorge a passenger to the detriment of all those behind.

You might say that the whole point of this post is that if we are to get rid of the subsidy then  let's do so in an intelligent manner that at least will hand back to the citizenry something that they will have lost. Tax, tax, tax is never an answer.

TO CONTROL OR NOT TO CONTROL ... GUNS!!!!!

Keeping a gun in your house or owning a gun is a dangerous thing to do. A gun in the house doubles or even triples the chance of somebody in the house getting hurt or killed by the gun. Further, a gun in the house in the hands of an inexperienced user of firearms can exacerbate an already tense situation when and if an armed bandit enters your home.

That's the bad news about owning guns. On the other hand, the police are not protecting the average law abiding citizen. Oh, they will turn up all right after your wife has been raped, your children murdered and you are left for dead in your home. But they won't be there in minutes (or even "seconds") if you call the emergency hotline with a report that your home is under a deadly assault.

It is time that we recognise that we are living in "the wild, wild west" and that the political parties that we elect to govern us are incapable of fixing the crime spree ... at least, not any time soon. The murder rate is the figure that everyone looks at, but the truth is that violent crime ... the rapes, the armed robberies, the invasion of our homes ... is increasing with a ferocity that daily becomes more frightening. When a former National Security Minister can be robbed and beaten in his supposedly safe gated community and the assailants can get away and not be caught then we must realise that all of us have a very serious problem. The problem in one sentence is that the bad guys just aren't being caught and the police aren't going to catch any of them any time soon. We can pass all the laws we want, but unless and until the cops start to catch the bad guys ain't nothin' gonna happen!

In other words, there are very serious questions that we must ask ourselves: if the old solutions aren't working should we not try something new? Like what? Would arming ourselves work or should we continue to restrict our rights to be allowed to own and use a firearm? If the vote is that we should be allowed to arm ourselves, should there be any restrictions on the owning of firearms, and if so what?

If the vote is that we should not be allowed to arm ourselves, then should we put a time limit on the authorities to get crime under control or then allow us to arm ourselves? What do we do if the police, say, this time next year do not have crime under control? What bench marks are we placing on the Commissioner of Police and all the other persons responsible for reducing crime to get it under control where we can feel safe again? How long are we prepared to wait?

Everybody talks a blue streak when it comes to crime. The Government of the day comes up with excuses and the Opposition attacks. But the truth is that when the PNM was in power nothing happened, and while it is obviously too early to criticize the energetic Jack Warner, at some stage, if he isn't seen to have reduced the crime rate, then he too will be blamed.

Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Speaking for myself alone, I am personally not at all convinced that loosening the gun controls or gun laws in this country will work. But I see and hear nothing new when it comes to dealing with this terrible scourge. I hear promises that do not come to pass (like Operation Anaconda, for example). All I see is that except for the names and a few other changes the authorities are doing the same thing over and over again. And the issue of our personal safety is left dangling in the wind without any hope of a safer tomorrow.

No. It is time for radical "out-of-the-box" thinking. The old ways haven't worked. Frankly, nothing seems to be working. So, maybe we should try and do something new. It's either that or we continue to be murdered, raped, assaulted and robbed.

THE DANGER OF JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has today announced that the FIFA ban on Mohammed Bin Hammam has been overturned. FIFA had banned Mr. Bin Hammam from "any kind of football related activity for life" after finding him guilty of taking bribes from Caribbean football officials. The whole scandal resulted directly in Mr. Jack Warner also resigning from FIFA. The CAS said that there was insufficient evidence to support the ban.

The scandal arose when Mr. Bin Hammam had challenged Mr Sepp Blatter for the leadership of FIFA. Mr. Warner had made the mistake of supporting Mr. Bim Hammam against the very powerful Mr. Blatter. When FIFA had handed down the ban on the hapless Mr. Bim Hammam the world's premier football organisation had said that there was "comprehensive, convincing and overwhelming" proof that bribes had been paid by Mr. Bim Hammam to Caribbean officials and that Mr. Warner had supported this.

The CAS has said that its finding is not so much a case of innocence as it is a finding of "case not proven" and that if new evidence comes forward it might be possible to re-open the case. Well, if such new evidence does ever comes forward then we shall see what we shall see. But my point here is to re-emphasise the point that I made last week in my last post which criticised President Richards for, amongst other things, descending into an arena where he condemned Mr. Warner for his part in this particular scandal. At the time of the FIFA scandal I kept quiet because I did not have enough facts at my disposal to comment one way or the other, although I felt certain that Mr. Bim Hammam (and by extension Mr. Warner) was not getting a fair hearing by the FIFA Ethics Committee. Time has proved my gut feeling to be right.

As I said last week and will say again: in this society of ours we are often too quick to condemn without being in possession of all of the facts and then when they do eventually come out showing that at the very least there is not enough justiciable evidence we remain obstinate and refuse to give the accused teh benefit of the doubt. The CAS has not given Messrs. Warner and Bim Hammam a completely clean bill of health, but it has solidly backed the accusations that the FIFA Ethics Committee did not give the accused a fair and impartial hearing. Mr. Blatter is bound to have a problem now because there is the very ugly inference that he engineered these charges to be brought against these men in order to secure his own re-election as President of FIFA. Whether that is true or not I certainly cannot say, but the truth is that this very ugly suspicion is "out there" and will not go away just like that.

We must be careful in what we do and say. And we must demand of our leaders that they also be careful. Leadership is not just about "picking up a sword" and leading a charge. Amongst other things leadership is about practising high principles of behaviour and ethics. Leading by example anyone?!

THE PRESIDENT'S LAST HURRAH

The convention since we became a republic at the opening of Parliament was that the President would preside at the opening and give a speech that was not contraversial, but would deal with issues of the day. There is also a convention that the President is supposed to stay above partisan politics and as such would refrain from directly or indirectly assisting one side of the partisan divide by directly or indirectly criticising the other.

This is why I found the address of President Max Richards at the opening of Parliament this week to be disappointing to say the least. Frankly, I don't agree with the Prime Minister that his comments on corruption were not a thinly veiled attack on newly appointed National Security Minister Jack Warner. Of course they were. But the President in launching such a not so oblique attack on a Government Minister is also indirectly attacking his Government and giving ample fodder for its opponents. I suppose the President or his supporters might want to justify this by saying words to the effect that "he was only speaking the truth" or "well, if the cap fits ..." or some other similar comment.

With respect, that is not the point. First of all, Mr. Warner has not been charged with any offence either locally or abroad. Secondly, while it is clear that FIFA ain't exactly a Temple of Vestal Virgins there is obviously a lot more that needs to come out on all sides before we can come to any fair and reasonable conclusions of his guilt or innocence. But in Trinidad people repeat allegations as fact and if we happen to be against that person we happily accept them as such. I could give you right now a dozen allegations against any of the top PNM big wigs (ranging from Manning to Rowley and everybody in between) that accuse them of every thing from bribery to drugs and just about everything in between. But I will be the first to confess that I have not a shred of justiciable evidence to support any one of these myriad allegations.

The point here is twofold: first of all, a President under our system of government ought to be very, very careful when he makes comments that are critical of either the Opposition or the Government unless he is fair and even handed, e.g., he hits one side for something and then hits the other side equally hard. He needs to stay above the fray at all times. Secondly, a President who is in the position of the current President ought to be very careful in his comments especially in circumstances where he can be accused of being partisan and being critical because his term of office is coming to an end and it is more than likely that he will not be re-appointed. In other words, sour grapes!

If the President had made similar comments during the Manning era (and God knows that such similar comments could have been as justified then as supporters of the President would now defend his present comments) then perhaps one might say that this was in keeping with a certain forthrightness. But this was never the case then. Further, this President also appointed as an independant senator Mr. Michael Annisette who has never made a secret of his preference for the PNM. There are persons who believe (rightly or wrongly) that Mr. Annisette was appointed by the President on the express instruction of Mr. Manning. Now, assuming (though certainly not accepting) that this was true this would be terrible for obvious reasons.

But you see what happens when a President steps out of his crease? The office of the President of Trinidad & Tobago is important. It is deliberately set up to keep the head of state above the partisan fray. When a President puts himself in a position were a fair number of the population may perceive him to be descending into the political arena he effectively demeans his office. One President has already acted unconstitutionally or extra (meaning "outside") constitutionally and that particular act has had serious and very unfortunate ramifications which our society is still having to contend with although it happened many years ago. We need our President to go back to the centre and stay there.

AND THEY'RE OFF (AGAIN)!!!!

Okay! Here we go again with a reshuffled Cabinet that held one or two mild surprises. The biggest surprise was also the most important appointment ... that of banker Larry Howai to be the new Minister of Finance in place of Winston Dookeran, who goes to Foreign Affairs. On the one hand, Mr. Howai's appointment has been greeted by most members of the business and banking communities with a large degree of happiness. The business people look at how Mr. Howai is reputed to have turned First Citizens Bank around and are obvioulsy hoping that he can and will do the same for our troubled economy. The banking community is thrilled that one of their own is in charge of the economy. Either way it appears to be a "win/win" situation.

Unfortunately, on the other hand,  while I personally have a great deal of respect for Mr. Howai and like him a lot, I am not certain that he is exactly "what the doctor ordered" at this time. Or, to put it another way, I am not certain that he wouldn't have been a better "fit", say, as Governor of the Central Bank, a post that is becoming vacant fairly soon. You see, at the end of the day a Minister of Finance is a politician. And a good politician has to be able to sell his policies to the population at large. If the politician comes up with excellent policies for, say, the economy, but is unable to convince the general population that his policies will work and that we will all be better off, then no matter what, the population will refuse to swallow whatever bitter medicine that the politician wishes to hand out or believes to be necessary. A classic example of this was when President George Bush (the first) was forced to raise taxes when he had promised that he wouldn't. He did the right thing economically for his country, but the electorate punished him by voting him out because they didn't understand why he had to raise taxes.

Now, I have never met a banker who is a good salesman. The truth is that they don't need to be. They have a product that everybody wants and needs: money!  They are accustomed to sit in their airconditioned offices, drink coffee, and wait for the grovelling hordes to come to their tables to beg for a few crumbs. Further, Trini bankers in particular are notorious for offering their customers an umbrella when the sun is shining and taking it away as soon as there is a hint of rain.

Well, there is more than a hint of rain in our economic skies. Some would even say that the drizzling that started a few years ago is threatening to turn into a downpour! Mr. Howai is going to discover fairly soon that he doesn't only have to please the bankers and the rich businessmen, but he also has to please the man in the the street who has been seeing his life get harder and more expensive and jobs beginning to decrease. He is going to have to come up with 'out-of-the-box' thinking, for even if assuming (though not accepting) that his predecessor's policies were the right ones, he will have to get the country to accept them ... a task at which the inarticulate Mr. Dookeran failed hopelessly. In other words, he is going to have to persuade the electorate as a whole (and not just the bankers and businessmen) that he has the country on the right track. This will be difficult when, for example, my favourite doubles vendor complained to me on Sunday that his little business was down from two years ago and he now has to work seven days a week (he used to take Mondays off). It's difficult to find a smaller businessman than a doubles vendor!

So, let's see what will happen. Only the most churlish will not wish Mr. Howai well. But only the most foolish will not realise that he has a heck of a mountain to climb and that he is going to have to use skills that he never had to use when he was a banker ... that is, of course, if he wants to be a successful Minister of Finance!

And turning quickly to the second most important change ... Mr. Jack Warner as National Security Minister ... it is going to be interesting to see how Mr. Warner, probably the Caribbean's most adept, adaptable and competent politician, will handle this poisoned chalice. For make no mistake, if he fails at this his reputation as a "can-do" guy will certainly take a big "hit". On the other hand, if he does make a noticable dent in crime then Mr. Warner's reputation in this country will be higher than the mountain tops regardless of whatever Mr. Blatter, FIFA or anybody else might choose to throw at him.

So, the race is on once more, the "horses" having been on hold for more than a month. In the coming weeks and months we'll begin to get a pretty good picture of whether or not this particular 'race' will produce the results that we all so desperately crave.

P.S. Proven performers to watch: Vasant Bharath at Trade; Ganga Singh at Environment.

ON HOLD!!!

A number of my friends and followers have been asking why I haven't written anything in this blog for the last month or so. The answer is simply because I regard everything that has happened recently as really worth nothing and, quite frankly, beneath the value of commentary. For example, Ms. Nalini Dial's rant on Facebook about the terrible murder of the daughter of Ms. Marlene Coudray was crass, low and absolutely contemptible and certainly not worth the amount of publicity that it was given.

In another vein, the resignation of Mr. David Abdullah and the withdrawal of his "Party" the MSJ from the Government received a heck of a lot of publicity but really and truly in terms of the overall effect on the politics of this country amount to less than "diddley-squat". I had put the word "Party" in inverted comma's in the last sentence when I referred to the MSJ because the truth is that as of today (and yesterday and probably tomorrow) the MSJ couldn't make its deposit in any constituency in good old T&T. The "Party" is a one dimensional collection of labour leaders who "get high on their own supply" and have am inflated sense of their own self importance. They have absolutely no solutions for the better governance of this country save and except that in their view workers are not given their fair share of the national pie or cake. The time to pay attention to the pronouncements of the MSJ (or indeed any political party worthy of the name) is when it can command the support of a reasonable section of the electorate. Until then .... well, the least said is probably the better.

Frankly, what I have been waiting for (like the rest of the country) is the impending Cabinet reshuffle which is due out now, maybe even today. And, like most persons the office that I shall be looking at the most is that of the Ministry of Finance. For make no mistake, this impending reshuffle can make or break Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's government. Although she has three years left, the truth is that after next year people's attitudes will begin to harden, and even if, say, by year five, things start to turn around, history has shown that the electorate will punish the government by voting them out. And the only way to turn things around is to improve the economy or at least make people believe and accept that what is being done is the best that can be done in all of the circumstances ... a task that the inarticulate Winston Dookeran has patently failed to do. Look, Mr. Dookeran may have been a very good Finance Minister and he may have done the best that he could in all of teh circumstances. I personally, don't think so, but there are a lot of people who disagree with me on this. But this is not my point here. My point is that he has failed to convince the country that what is being done is the absolute best that could possibly be done in all of the circumstances. Even those who disagree with me on his actual performance agree with me on this. And the art of politics is being able to persuade people to follow you on a particular matter (or matters).

So we will all find out fairly soon what the Prime Minister has in her mind and what she is going to do. It is clear that whatever her faults, the Prime Minister does understand the value of timing. The fact that she has had us all on hold for all this time shows at the very least that the lady has political courage and understands the game of political brinkmanship better than most.

AN OPEN LETTER TO SIR ANTHONY COLEMAN

Dear Sir Anthony,

Like most citizens of this little country I have been reading and watching
on television the revelations of the activities of the various "players" in
CLICO and the Hindu Credit Union with a mixture of horror and
fascination as your Commission of Enquiry (CoE) into their activities
continues. However, and without trying to be either rude or presumptive,
there is one particular factor that to date your CoE has not touched upon,
neither has there been any hint given that you  will or will not touch upon
it: what I am talking about is the failure of the Regulatory Authorities to
act, or to act in time.

Put another way, a question that must arise is could either the CLICO or
Hindu Credit Union debacle (or both for that matter) have been avoided
if, say, the Central Bank or the Ministry of Finance (or both) had acted
earlier? What about the Commissioner of Co-operatives? Could the
Regulatory Authorities have acted earlier to prevent what happened?
Should they have acted earlier? Were these debacles avoidable if the
Regulatory Authorities had indeed acted earlier?

Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that the answer to any of these
questions is 'yes' then the obvious question is what could they or should
they have done? And if the debacles were avoidable who in the Central Bank
was/is responsible? What about the Ministry of Finance? Who ought to
be taking responsibility? You see, if it's nobody's fault then nobody can
be asked to fix it and nobody will have to ensure that such costly
mistakes ever happen again. (You may not know it, but Nobody is a very
well known character in this country.  He is personally responsible for
more disasters here than anywhere else in the world. He used to be
in England but your compatriots threw him out of the country a long time
ago. Unfortunately for us, when you threw him out he landed up over here.)

My problem is that I happen to have a reasonably good memory, and I
remember that in or about the year 2000/2001 the then Attorney General,
Mr. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, stood up in the Parliament of this
country and said that CLICO/CL Financial was insolvent! Now, I am
certain that you will agree with me that when an Attorney General (or
even a former Attorney General) speaks on a matter of national
importance that people ought to pay attention to what he says. If he is
wrong or foolish then the court of public opinion can and will deal
with him. But his office is so high and so important that a serious
accusation concerning such a behemoth as CL Financial is surely so
serious that it ought to be dealt with promptly.

And the point here is that it wasn't! I cannot remember any statements
at all coming from the then Governor of the Central Bank that the
Attorney General was wrong, that CL Financial was not insolvent.
Similarly, I cannot remember any statements either from the then
Minister of Finance. So? Was CLICO/CL Financial insolvent when
Mr. Maharaj made his accusation in Parliament? If so, then what did
the Regulatory Authorities do?  From where I sit they appeared to
have done nothing at all! Is this true? If the giant was solvent then
why didn't the then Governor of the Central Bank say that Mr. Maharaj
was wrong? Why didn't the then Minister of Finance say that his
Cabinet colleague was wrong? Surely the public and investors had
a right to know whether the accusation was true or not?

The then Prime Minister, Basdeo Panday, had a very close relationship
with Mr. Laurence Duprey. Mr. Panday was the godfather of Mr.
Duprey's newborn child. Did Mr. Panday "sit" on either the then Governor
or the then Minister of Finance (or on both)? What was the state of CLICO's
statutory fund at that time? Was it in deficit? If so, what was the Regulatory
Authority (which I believe is the Central Bank) doing about it? This
question is extremely serious for if the statutory fund was in deficit then
how long was it in deficit for? Did it ever go back into the "black" before
the eventual collapse? If not then what was the Regulatory Authority waiting
for?

With the greatest of respect, Sir Anthony, and without in any way casting any
aspersions whatsoever on you, hopefully you will readily appreciate that if
you do not find answers to these questions and publicise them, then, regretably,
you will have done only part of the job for which you have been entrusted. The
matter becomes even more acute when you understand that the man who was
the Governor of the Central Bank when Mr. Maharaj made his accusations
is today the Minister of Finance; and the person who the present Minister of
Finance has put in charge of CL Financial today was at the time that Mr.
Maharaj made his accusations the then Minister of Finance.

Put another way, Sir Anthony, you are going to have to deal with this directly
sooner or later. It can't be allowed to "drop off the table".

THE TRINIDAD & TOBAGO AIRPLANE

No! I am not going to talk about Caribbean Airlines/BWIA or any of the
recent disclosures about losses and profits (real or imaginary) or about
how much money CAL had or didn't have in 2010 ... although, there is

admittedly a lot there to talk about! I want instead to talk about our little

country, where we are and where we are going ... or think we are going.
Some time ago (in the sixties, I think) there was a book entitled "Spaceship
Earth". I cannot now recall the name of the author but in essence her
premise or thesis was that planet earth was like a spaceship barreling
through space. The planet had three compartments: first class, second class
and third class. Those of us who are 'travelling' in the first class
compartment are more than all right. Those of us who are 'travelling' in the second class compartment
have some problems, but are managing (if only just) to survive. But, she said,
there is a fire in the third class compartment and if we don't put it out soon
it will engulf all of the 'passengers' on the spaceship.

If the planet can be likened to a spaceship, then perhaps good old T&T can
be likened to an airplane with three compartments as well. There is absolutely
no question that those who are lucky enough to be in the first class compartment
are enjoying the ride. Champagne and caviar are the order of the day for this
flight and nothing, no expense and no luxury is too much for those passengers.
The second class compartment is gradually getting smaller and more cramped.
Quite a few passengers in this compartment are having trouble paying not only
for their seats for the flight but also for the food and drink on board. They are
managing and one or two of them are lucky enough to be upgraded from time
to time to first class. Unfortunately, for every one that gets an upgrade two are
downgraded to third class. As I said, this compartment is getting smaller and
more cramped.

The real problem comes with the third class compartment. This is by far and
away the largest section of our fictional airplane, but it is the one in which
there is the most potential for trouble which could cause our airplane to crash
killing or destroyintg all on board. Right now travelling in the third class
section of our plane is like travelling in the Wild West. Passengers are
shooting and killing each other, almost with gay abandon. So far only
the third class passengers and a few second class passengers are being
killed, but it can only be a matter of time before some third class
passenger gets the bright idea of going into the first class cabin and
taking whatever he feels like taking with his gun. It also can surely only
be a matter of time before some third class passenger decides to light a
match in the third class compartment and the fire then spreads to the
whole plane!

There is trouble coming. If you lived through 1990 and 1970 you can
recognise it. You can see it. You can feel it. You can taste it. It's coming!
The trouble is coming because the economy is stagnant and absolutely no
hope for a better tomorrow is being offered other than platitudes falling
from the mouths of politicians on both sides. The trouble is coming
because the Rowley led PNM is not offering itself as a credible alternative
to the People's Partnership and the ordinary man sees and understands this.
The trouble is coming because the people feel that our leaders on both sides
really don't care about anything or anybody other than themselves. The
trouble is coming because there seems to be no hope!

Can it be turned around and prevented? Yes! There is still time. Will it be
turned around? Ah! That is the question!!

Jack The Saviour?

One of the bad things about living in a country like Trinidad and Tobago is

that nothing stays secret for very long ... if at all! One of the good things

about living in a country like Trinidad and Tobago is that you can usually

find out fairly quickly what went on in any given situation.

Now, I don't pretend to know absolutely, but if the reports that I am getting

about what happened yesterday at the Prime Minister's residence, La Fantasie,

the Partnership government owes its survival this morning to the efforts of the

UNC Chairman Jack Warner. It seems that the Prime Minister had indeed been

persuaded by her closest advisers that she should fire COP Leader Prakash

Ramadar for his comments on Sunday where he said in essence that the COP

would not necessarily tow the Government line in Parliament. Frankly, it

would have been impossible for any Prime Minister

to have tolerated that type of challenge and Mr. Ramadar was extremely

foolish to have made it in the first place. He ought to have known that such a

challenge to the authority of the Cabinet ... and ultimately the authority of the

Prime Minister ... could not and would not be left alone.

Now, it seems that five of the COP Ministers and Parliamentarians were

prepared to walk out of the Cabinet with Mr. Ramadar. Such an exodus, though

clearly not immediately fatal to the continued existance of the Government

would have hurt Mrs. Persad-Bissessar terribly. The moral authority of the

Government would have been very, very badly damaged ... and quite likely

damaged fatally.

And it is at this point, if my sources are correct, that the erstwhile Jack Warner

stepped in. The old Jack correctly recognised that this crisis would effectively

destroy the Government's moral authority if it was allowed to go to its logical

conclusion, and that the UNC's chances of winning another term would be

severely (if not fatally) dimnshed. Mr. Warner apparently used his not

inconsiderable negotiating skills to bring both sides together enough for

the Prime Minister to go on national television last night at the peak

viewing hour of seven pm to announce that no Minister had been fired and

that no Minister had resigned.

The fact that the meeting then continued until about two am tells us that even

if the cracks have been managed to have been papered over for now that

deep divisions and hurt feelings still remain. Prakash Ramadar has been

forced/persuaded (it doesn't matter which) to climb down Whether he stays

"climbed down" remains to be seen. My spies tell me that the person in

the COP who has been pushing Mr. Ramadar is his deputy Vernon DeLima.

If that is true, then Mr. Ramadar is going to have to be cery careful as to

what advice he accepts from Mr. DeLima in the next few days, for (if that

report is true) it would mean that Mr. DeLima is not as committed to the

Partnership Government as perhaps he ought to be and is prepared to sacrifice

his Party's inclusion in the Government for what he perhaps believes to be a

matter of great principle. The truth is that if that is indeed a fair reflection of

the truth and what Mr. DeLima believes then there will be further clashes as

Mr. Delima clearly would believe that the Marlene Coudray affair is worth bringing down the Government for.

In the meantime, the Government survives for yet another day. What a pity

that the great promise of May 2010 has now degenerated to this. But at least

the Prime Minister should thank her lucky stars that she didn't "cut Jack's

throat" as it was rumoured some months ago that she was being urged to do.

 

THE BEGINNING OF THE END?

It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the People's Partnership
Government is in serious trouble. The on going 'brouhaha'  between the COP
and its senior partner, the UNC, over the Marlene Coudray affair has now
escalated out of all proportion to the original sin of poaching the COP's
San Fernando mayor. The truth is that the defection of Marlene Coudray from
the COP to the UNC was simply another nail in the coffin of the terminally ill
COP which has been whithering on the political vine long before the UNC gave
them a wiff of oxygen in the 2010 general elections, for without the UNC's
helping hand the COP would have lost any and every seat that the Party would
have contested. Frankly, it must be difficult to be in such a position where you
are part of a team that didn't really need you to win. Oh! Undoubtedly, the COP
coming together with the UNC helped the UNC win even bigger, but the truth is
that in 2010 the UNC would have won without the COP's help.

Fast forward two years later and we now have a completely different scenario.
Prakash Ramadar has allowed himself to be boxed in on an issue that of itself
really ought not to have been allowed to blow up into such a big mess ... but it has!
Now he is in a such a position that if he climbs down from the limb that he has
found himself on he will look ridiculous, but if he doesn't then his days in the
Cabinet are clearly numbered. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't!
The Prime Minister cannot (and will not) take his threat to vote independently of
decisions taken in Cabinet that the COP does not agree with lightly. Talk about
principles!? The whole principle of Cabinet Government is that if you are a
member of a Cabinet that takes a decision that you do not agree with, then you
have a simple choice: resign or shut up. It's a little like being half pregnant: a
physical impossibility!

So the erstwhile Mr. Ramadar will either get his marching orders fairly soon, or
he will march out of the Cabinet before they come down. Either way he is dead
meat, for he can't hope to win that St. Augustine seat again. That seat is a solid
UNC seat and if Mr. Ramadar holds on to it until the next general election (and
my bet is that he will) he will be ignominiously routed at the polls. To make
matters worse for him, many of his constituents have been complaining that
they don't see him ... a complaint made about his colleague, Carolyn Seepersad-
Bachan, the member of Parliament for San Fernando West, and the real reason
why the COP is so upset about Ms. Coudray's defection. (The plan was for the
UNC to run Ms. Coudray in San Fernando West in the next elections).

But while the COP has gratuitously shot itself in the head with this very stupid
quarrel it has also managed to damage the UNC horribly. All indications are
that the UNC "honchos" haven't yet understood the damage that has been inflicted
on them, but they will find out soon enough. The country is rapidly coming to the
conclusion that they don't know how to govern and that good governance is
not high on the UNC's list of priorities. To a large extent this perception is being
caused by the stagnating economy which the COP's Finance Minister has failed
to fix. (Whether it is Mr. Dookeran's fault that the economy is in the doldrums or
not the point is that he has to take responsibility for it.) Add to this fact the
very public infighting over the Coudray matter and you have a mix that is causing
a great sense of unease in the population.

Now I know that quite a few of the UNC boys (and girls) have done the maths and
realise that if all the COP MP's walk out that they will still be left with twenty-one
seats ... a working majority. But, (and it is a big'but') they will find out soon
enough that having a majority in Parliament means nothing if you don't have a
majority in the country behind you. If the COP walk out or are fired (and the truth
is that it won't really matter which) the UNC are going to be severely damaged.
A lot of people who used to support them will "park" and will wait to see what
will happen next. Unfortunately for the country, Keith Rowley's PNM is neither
an attractive nor a viable option. You might say that the PNM has gone to sleep.
But all that could change if (and it is a big"if") the PNM were to get a new
leader in the morning. If the PNM choose the right leader then Kamla will be in
very serious trouble. If they don't ... well, the UNC  could prove the old saying
accredited to Winston Churchill: Politics is much more dangerous than war; in
politics you can get killed many times ... in war you can get killed only once! In
other words, the UNC could live again! But for now, they have a really big
problem!

THE CONTINUING TRIVIALISATION OF GOVERNMENT




Is it perhaps asking too much of our leaders that they stop dealing with trivia and get on with the serious business of running a country. The latest brouhaha to dominate the headlines ... the meeting of the leaders of the various Parties that make up the People's Partnership to discuss the Coudray affair ... is a classic example of how to waste time by pretending that you are doing something important when in reality you are not.

I simply cannot understand the leadership of the Congress of the People (COP) on this Marlene Coudray matter. What was so important about this woman and her deciding to switch her allegiance to another Party that they actually threaten to break up the Partnership... and then they don't, but say that it is "important to get it right so that it doesn't happen again" ? I am sorry, but to me it just seemed like a lot of sour grapes and trying to cover up your embarrassment that a high profile member of your Party decided to leave you and go somewhere else. So what? Are you (the COP leadership) saying that the UNC has an ethical responsibility to turn away any COP members who wish to leave the COP and join the UNC? And so what if she really was a COP appointed mayor (for there seems to be some doubt on that in that she is reported as saying that the COP leadership didn't really want her)? So what? What is so absolutely critical and important that the Mayor of San Fernando has to be a member of the COP? What exactly is/are the philosophical difference(s) between the COP and the UNC that would make the same person acceptable yesterday but not acceptable today?

You see, either the COP is in a partnership or it isn't. If it is, could somebody please explain to me the critical importance to the COP (other than the very obvious embarrassment suffered by Ms. Coudray's rather sudden departure) of having a COP mayor? What makes this such a big issue for them? And why is this issue so much more important than the floundering economy, the visible lack of job creation and the obvious lack of confidence in the TT dollar which has now slid to US$1 = TT$6.43 (down from $6.30 on 24th May, 2010)? Or is it that the COP "has" the Ministry of Finance, and although by any measurable yardstick the present Minister of Finace is woefully failing, it would be an act tantamount to sabotage to criticize him? So, rather than focus on the real problems in the country, it is far easier to focus on matters of trivia and cloak yourself in the self righteousness of "ethics".

The Lord knows that we need as much ethical behaviour as we possibly can get, but He also knows that He helps those who help themselves. Instead of sounding like little children who have lost some of their marbles in a game, Messrs. Ramadar, Toney and DeLima should wake up and smell the coffee. It's the economy stupid! (With apologies to Bill Clinton). Deal with it!

RETHINKING (AND RATIONALISING) OUR NATIONAL HOLIDAYS



Having just thoroughly enjoyed the long weekend occasioned by the celebration of the Spiritual Baptists Shouter holiday I got to thinking about the public holidays that we enjoy in this country, why we have them and what (if anything) we should do about them. You see, including Carnival Monday and Tuesday (which are not officially public holidays but which may as well be, because the entire country shuts down workwise) we have sixteen public holidays a year ... seventeen if you recognise that Ash Wednesday is for at least 75% of the country a 'dies non' (i.e. a non-working day)!

A lot of our public holidays (Christmas, Easter, Divali. Eid ul Fitr, etc.) are religious holy days and obviously can't be changed. But the truth is that we have a fair number of public holidays ( such as the Spiritual Baptists holiday) that could and should warrant another look. Don't get me wrong: I am not advocating the doing away with any of these holidays (except perhaps for the Corpus Christi holiday which I will deal with later). I am of the view that each and every holiday that we have is important in its own right, but that there are several holidays which do not need to be celebrated on the actual day.

Look: we have the following holidays that often fall in mid-week, and which, when they do cause havoc with productivity: Spiritual Baptists Shouter holiday (March 30th)
Indian Arrival Day (May 30th)
Labour Day (June 7th)
Emancipation Day (August 1st)
Republic Day (September 24th)
Now, apart from the obvious historical reason for each of these holidays as holidays in their own right, wouldn't it make more sense if we moved the holidays to an appropriate Monday in their respective months? For example, we could have the Shouter Baptist holiday on the last Monday in March. Indian Arrival Day could be on the last Monday in May. Emancipation Day could be celebrated on the first Monday in August ... and so on.

The advantages to the country would be twofold: first of all because these holidays would no longer fall in mid-week there would be increased productivity. The reality is that when any of these holidays fall on say a Tuesday or a Thursday many persons take the opportunity to have a four day weekend. Next, because we would be increasing the number of long weekends a lot of people would be encouraged to travel inside the country ... Tobago, for example, would benefit from the number of Trinis who would want to go over to the sister isle. I don't have the figures, but I will bet dollars to doughnuts that every time there is a long weekend that travel to Tobago goes up!

As an adult, how often has your birthday fallen during the week and you have decided to celebrate it on the Friday or Saturday night? Get the point? We need to be mature about our holidays. There are good reasons for each and every one of them and we should be proud of them. Amongst other things, each one serves in a meaningful way to remind us of our history ... and yes, it is important to remember who we are and where we came from. But rationalisng the actual days of celebration would not ... could not change that!

P.S.
I did mention that I had a question mark over the Corpus Christi holiday. The reasons for this are basically rooted in history. When General Abercrombie sailed into Port of Spain harbour and took over Trinidad from the Spanish, he did so because England was then at war with France ... it was the time of the Napoleonic wars ... and Spain was at the time under Napoleon's thumb, which meant that England was technically at war with Spain. During the period of the Napoleonic wars (which finally ended with Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo in 1814) there were many peace treaties signed (and subsequently broken) between England and France. One of these treaties was signed in the French town of Amiens in or about 1804. By the Peace Treaty of Amiens, England handed back every thing that she had taken from France except Ceylon (which is today the island of Sri Lanka) and Trinidad.

It is not difficult to understand why the English wanted to hang on to Ceylon/Sri Lanka. The island lies just South of India which at that time was arguably the most important colony of the British Empire. English merchant ships (as well as warships) would have to sail right past the island to get back to England. But why the English wanted to hang on to Trinidad has become obscured in the dust of history.

What had happened was that a fairly large number of the former French aristocracy in fleeing the French Revolution had ended up in Trinidad. When Abercrombie came in to Port of Spain they were overjoyed, but when England started talking peace with Napoleon they begged "whatever you do, please do not hand us back to that dreadful man". (You have to remember that they hated Napoleon. He had come to power as a result of the Revolution that had forced them to flee France.) The French at the time couldn't care less about Trinidad. When it became obvious that Trinidad was going to stay English, the French planters realised that they had another problem: the English were (gasp!) Protestant! They might be forced to give up their Catholic religion. So they had inserted into the Treaty of Amiens that the Roman Catholic holiday of Corpus Christi would be a holiday in the colony from that day on.

So that is why in Trinidad & Tobago, a country in which more than 50% of its population is not Christian, this rather obscure Roman Catholic Feast Day is celebrated down to today. Incidentally, I believe that we are the only country in the world that celebrates Corpus Christi as a public holiday! The only non Trinis that I have met who are Catholic who have ever heard of this Feast Day are Roman Catholic priests! So, the question is (or ought to be) is this particular Feast Day so important that we should continue to celebrate it as a public holiday? And, for the record, the question is asked genuinely and without prejudice, but is asked seriously. We ought to be able to discuss these sorts of matters without the unfortunate emotions that so often accompany them and obscure rational and logical thought.