THE REFUGEE CRISIS

It is a truism that problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created them in the first place. And to say that we in good old T&T remained blissfully unaware of the very real problems that Maburro et al were creating in Venezuela is sadly true. The leaders of our own Government were happy to join conga lines and dance with the Venezuelan dictator while professing "neutrality" in the crisis that was engulfing that unhappy South American nation. Although some of us were trying to point out that the problems next door were serious and could come back to "bite" us our local media happily ignored the problems being created by the Donkey and continued to support our Government's neutrality.


But then, all of a sudden, people began to notice that there was a very large number of Venezuelan refugees here (mostly) in Trinidad. I have seen no reliable numbers as to how many Venezuelan refugees are over here ... I've seen estimates of 40,000 on the low side all the way to 80,000 on the high side. What is correct, I haven't a clue! All I do know is that our little country simply can't cope with the numbers coming over in what feels like droves. We are being overwhelmed. And it is going to get worse ... much worse!


But wasn't this predictable? And if it was (and I believe that it was) then why didn't our Government realize this early o'clock and deal with the root cause of this humanitarian disaster? Because, make no mistake about it: the root cause is the complete and utter failure of Maburro & Co. to run their country in an honest and effective manner. We (i.e., T&T) would have been better off calling on Maburro either to go or to hold HONEST and FAIR Presidential elections and siding with all those who refused to support him until he allowed the people to choose fairly. But we didn't! Instead, we effectively gave the Donkey critical support in the rather stupid and unrealistic hope of getting the Dragon Gas deal through the Opposition dominated National Assembly. And we 'cussed up' the United States, our largest trading partner, in the process. Really smart! Really in our country's best interests!


And now we have  a terrible crisis on our hands. It is inhumane to send the refugees back. But we simply can't afford to keep them here! No matter which way you turn the problem, people are going to suffer ... greatly! The only solution that I can see is a verrrryyyyy long term one: first, you have to get rid of the dictator... and the sooner the better! He and his cronies are the root cause of everything and the problems won't get better as long as they remain in power. In fact, they'll only get worse. Then you have to rebuild the country ... and that's a 20 year project. But we don't have the luxury of 20 years! And finally, we have to recognize that in everything, T&T must come first and it is not always in our best interests to be 'neutral'.


But we also have to be honest with ourselves. We are in this mess now because we were happy to pretend that the problems next door were not ours and therefore we shouldn't interfere when we could have and should have.

HOW DICTATORSHIPS START

On Sunday my wife and 16 year old son while driving in Diego Martin near to Victoria Gardens were stopped in a police roadblock. Okay. no complaint there. After producing her (Trinidadian) driver's licence and insurance, the police officer asked her where she was from. Why? I suppose the officer heard her accent ... she is Venezuelan. Then he asked her how long she had been here in Trinidad? She replied truthfully ... 22 years. He appeared not to believe her.  But her driver's licence shows when it was first issued. So? Why would he ask her that? Then the policeman turned to my son and asked for his ID ... which my 16 year old son had on him. Then the officer asked my son what was his ethnicity. When my son replied 'Trinidadian' he was told roughly 'that's your nationality, not your ethnicity'. Would he have asked my son that if my son was another colour? Certainly, if I had been in the car the policeman would have been directed to a short jetty in the Gulf of Paria and told to take a long jump.


Now, I don't know about you, but I found these questions to be as offensive as they were disturbing and when my wife and son came home and reported the incident to me I was as upset as I ought to have been. It is probably better that I don't say what I thought were his reasons for asking those questions, but I was and am offended and annoyed.  Look, it is either we live under a system of law or we don't. We can't pretend that we are law abiding when the police so casually trample upon our constitutional rights and ask intrusive questions that have no place in a civilized and law abiding community.


Then last Friday a client came to see me because he said that he said that he had received a call from a police woman from the St. James police station concerning a domestic dispute between him and his live in girlfriend. But the woman police officer didn't leave her name and when I called the number on his cell phone from which the call had been received there was no answer! So? Was it a real call? If so, why didn't the officer identify herself and why was there no answer from the landline on which the original call had been made? Because I called the number and got no reply! Or is it that the police do not now answer their landline telephones?


I guess I'm already keyed up and annoyed because of the reports in the newspapers about the WASA police seizing farmers' water pumps. Let me explain: all the fresh water that comes out of the ground in this country belongs to WASA and you can't even drill a well on your property at home and extract it without a licence. So, if the farmers did take water from a stream without a licence to do so then they have committed an offence and can be fined for that offence.




BUT (and it is a big "but") the Constitution of our Republic gives all of us a right to private property. Put another way, no policeman can take away anything from you WITHOUT  a Court Order. Anybody who does so is committing an offence. Put another way, two, or even three wrongs do not make a right.


Well, you might say that is no big thing. But it is a big thing. This is how dictatorships start ... take control of little things and gradually work up to bigger things.


Then we had the Gulf View searches in La Romaine. To date the police have not produced the search warrants. Again, why is this a big thing? Because as long ago as 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed a man's home was regarded as his castle and the State cannot enter into a man's home without lawful authority. This means that unless the police are in hot pursuit of a criminal they cannot enter anybody's property without lawful authority ... a search warrant or a Court Order... and if they do not show the owner the warrant he is within his legal right to refuse entry. Further, the police officer showing the warrant must be identified in the warrant as well as any other police officers who are looking to enter and search the house.


Now, from the news reports it seems that five houses were searched. Question: how many search warrants were issued? Another question: why has it been so difficult to produce the warrants? Another question again: why did some police officers cover their faces?


Then we have the ongoing problem of a policeman in a police car turning on his siren to get out of traffic to the annoyance of everyone. Heck, every weekday morning at around 7:15am I see a police jeep speeding eastwards in Cocorite with its siren blaring. You mean to tell me that you really believe that every weekday morning at about that time there is a police emergency?  Really? Pull the other one ... it's got bells on it!


This is the way that dictatorships start. At first the authorities abuse their powers in small ways and when there is no 'push back' then they push a little more, and then a little more and so on until before you know it your rights have flown out the window. 


One of the favourite excuses for the sort of police actions that we have been seeing recently is this is being done because of the extraordinary crime wave that we are experiencing. But, hello! That is what states of emergency were designed for under the Constitution. The advantage of having a state of emergency is that everybody knows that constitutional rights are suspended AND they are always for a limited time AND appropriate questions can be asked in Parliament ... which, after all, is what is supposed to happen.


What is not supposed to happen is that the police can effectively operate as if they are a law unto themselves and not give any account for their actions. We DO have a right to know and we DO have a right to ask questions and we DO have a right to push back against unlawful searches and seizures. At least, that is what our laws still say. If these laws have been changed then nobody has told me!

THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

When Trinbagonians go to the polls in a general election (whether later this year as many believe will happen, or in September next year when it is due) it could very well be the last time for a very long time that the PNM wins an overall majority, unless the Party renews itself and starts to deliver on its promises to increasingly disgruntled supporters. Certainly, the available evidence suggests that just ain't gonna happen any time soon ... but a week is a long time in politics and unless your name is Vishnu Bisram of NACTA fame you will not want to make any type of prediction to have it come back and bite you in the nether regions! We'll have to wait and see, even though many of us still feel that we're getting wet by the rain that the erstwhile Finance Minister says has gone which allows him now to see clearly.


As things stand today (and certainly not tomorrow or even next week) the opposition UNC is likely to retain its 18 seats.  But the real fight will be in the marginal seats,  and as things stand right now it very much looks like the PNM may take a hit in those marginal seats that it now holds. Assuming (though obviously not accepting) that my crystal ball is fairly accurate as to how things stand today, it looks like the PNM will take a hit (i.e., it will lose) at least San Fernando West, St. Joseph, Tunapuna and Tobago East. In the first 3, if the UNC wins them while holding on to it's 18 seats that puts them over the top and into government. (Remember that the "magic" number is 21!) If the PNM loses all 3 but manages to "steal" a UNC seat (which I honestly don't see happening ... but, hey! We're speculating) then we get a rather interesting scenario with Watson Duke & Co. holding Tobago East and therefore the balance of power. (I'm saying this based on various reports that I have received which suggest that Mr. Duke will win Tobago East if there was an election today!) Now, if THAT happens, we could well be reading "Prime Minister Watson Duke said today ..."! Don't laugh! It could happen and Mr. Duke seems to be playing for just that eventuality.


Further,  I will be the first to admit that there are other PNM seats that look as though they might be up for grabs. My list of 3 seats falling in Trinidad is by no means meant to be conclusive. Honestly, as things stand right now I believe that at least another 2 PNM held seats will fall (Moruga/Tableland and La Horquetta/Talparo).  My real point is that in the Parliamentary system that we have its no good saying "I feel that X party will win". You have to say which seats will stay and which will fall to the other side (whoever "the other side" might be). And that's what I'm trying to do here.


That we (the T&T electorate) have a very real problem and a very serious choice to make when the election comes is indisputable. Both major political parties have huge corruption issues attached to their names. The UNC is still struggling with all of the allegations against them and which have been given new life by the Ramlogan/Ramdeen charges. But the ruling PNM is also facing some terrible allegations of corruption such as the depositing of $140,000 in cash by a senior minister with no explanation being given as to where the cash came from, the closure of Petrotrin and the proposed sale of the refinery, the "Fake Oil" scandal, the Tobago ferries, the Australian boats,  "Emailgate", etc.. Unfortunately, the list on both sides is too long for comfort.


Sadly, I expect the 'race card' to be played in the next elections. There already is some evidence of this happening.  Maybe that is the real reason why we can't seem to get our act together and make this little country of ours the proverbial "shining city on the hill".

A VALID CHARGE ... OR A MASSIVE DISTRACTION

Okay. At this early stage of proceedings there are very few of us who will have any idea as to what exactly is going on in the Ramlogan/Ramdeen matter and whether or not there really is something for all of us to be concerned about. After all, where there is smoke there is fire ... or a smoke making machine! And there's my problem. Well, we'll all find out soon enough, I guess, but there are some rather troubling aspects of this whole affair which have caused me to raise my eyebrows in wonder.


The first thing that I have noticed is that Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan have only been charged with conspiracy to commit a crime ... and not with having committed the actual crime which they are alleged to have conspired to commit. Why? Conspiracy is one of the most difficult crimes to prove and usually charges under this head of criminal law are brought in conjunction with the actual crime which the perpetrators have allegedly conspired to commit. But that isn't the case here! Why? Did any money pass? If so, then why isn't that part of the case as well?


Then there is the curious case of the Jamaican-born English QC pleading guilty under a plea agreement which we haven't seen ... at least not yet. Okay. The reports say that the plea agreement will be presented in the High Court next week so it is a fair argument to say that it cannot be published until the presiding Judge sees it. (Although I would be prepared to argue otherwise ... but that is another argument and not relevant to this post.) In other words, is the learned gentleman going to be allowed to keep his money which apparently he is saying was part of a conspiracy? Or is it that he is saying that no money passed but he is guilty of conspiring with Messrs. Ramdeen and Ramlogan and perhaps others to make money pass?


You see, as I understand the law, (and I will happily admit that my understanding may be incomplete) the recent Explain Your Wealth Act and other relevant legislation effectively means that if I receive, say, $100 under circumstances which involve the commission of a crime (such as conspiracy) and I conspire with you (who are organizing/approving the payment for me) to give you, say, $50 out of the $100 then the entire $100 becomes forfeit to the State if I am proven guilty and I have to pay the whole $100 back.


So my question is: is this guy, Nelson Vincent QC, going to have to pay back any or all of the millions that he is reported to have received? And if not, why not? And if so, how much and when will he pay it back under the plea agreement? Immediately? Or has he done so already? If he has paid it back, when did he do so?


No. There is something not quite right with this whole story. Exactly what is not right I can't say, but it is clear that we are not getting the whole story. If we do get the whole story at some time in the future, then there you go! All is well. But why can't we be given the whole story now? Something is just not right and there are too many "whys" arising which need to be explained. It isn't that they can't be explained, but that they are not being explained.


Of course, the possibility exists that all this could just be a massive distraction and elections are going to be called fairly soon.  Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy when thoughts like this can even arise and leave you wondering?

WASA'S 'DEVASTATING' DRY SEASON

Look, I'm the first to admit that we are in the throes of a dry season. I also have stopped watering my garden (thereby losing half of my plants and half of my lawn) and don't wash the car every week in an effort to do my own little bit to help conserve precious water. After all, if everybody cuts back on his/her water consumption there will be savings ... and every little bit helps. And no, I'm not some sort of hero ... just an ordinary person trying to help.


But what confuses me are the continuing reports in the mainstream media that this is a "devastating" dry season that is worse than usual and WASA has a real problem in keeping us all supplied BECAUSE of the dry weather. (No mention, of course, of the millions of gallons being lost on a daily basis because of leaky pipes!)


You see, I live in North Western Trinidad (Maraval to be precise). Now when we have a really bad dry season the hills in Maraval turn brown and by this time of year (the end of April) there are usually terrible forest fires raging in those hills. But ... guess what? This year I have seen no forest fires and the hills are still fairly green! Going into Diego Martin I find that the hills also look greener than they do during a really harsh dry season.  Now, the hills are not what you might call "lush" green, but they are certainly not brown ... which they normally are at this time of year.


In addition, there have been showers that have managed to keep lawns and plants alive in my neighbourhood.


So? What is going on? Are we really in the throes of a devastating dry season? Or are we being subjected to propaganda by the powers-that-be in order to "take in front" for the incompetence of those charged with providing us with a safe and secure water supply? Because, although I will readily confess to not having a PhD in meteorology my simple and most unscientific observation is that this particular dry season is not soooo bad ... which is what the authorities would have us believe.


So? Why are we getting these constant statements to the effect that this is the worst dry season for a long time? And why isn't the mainstream media reporting or questioning the statements about this being the worst dry season ever, etc.? Something here just doesn't add up. What? And why?

TO IMPEACH OR NOT TO IMPEACH

While the whole world is fixated on the Mueller report and whether or not President Trump should or should not be impeached, a lot of people have forgotten that we have going on in good old T&T our own little impeachment drama, which although not of earth shattering importance to the rest of the world, is of great importance to our democracy and how we govern ourselves. I am talking about the recommendation by the Law Association of Trinidad & Tobago  to the Prime Minister made some four or five months ago that he should trigger the provisions of section 137 of the Constitution which sets out how a Chief Justice might be removed from office. For the record, here is what the relevant parts of the section say:


"137(1) A Judge may be removed from office ... for misbehaviour, and shall not be so removed except in accordance with this provision.
        (3) Where the Prime Minister, in the case of the Chief Justice ... represents to the President that the question of removing a Judge under this section ought to be so investigated, then -
            (a) the President shall appoint  a tribunal ... ."


The section goes on to detail how the tribunal is to be appointed and is supposed to act or investigate. In other words, the Chief Justice is put on trial for the acts or decisions that may warrant removal from office. Eventually, the findings of the tribunal are sent to the Privy Council for a final decision.  It is important to note that triggering the impeachment process is NOT finding the Chief Justice guilty. It is simply saying, hey, there are a number of matters here that need to be answered which may or may not be a good reason to remove you from office if you are guilty of all or any of them.


There are a number of safeguards built into the whole impeachment process that can ensure that a Chief Justice is not dealt with unfairly ... and all right thinking peoples will agree entirely with these safeguards.  Our system of justice is sacrosanct. Without a fair system of justice that everybody buys into (regardless of one's political bias or interest) then what you have is a dictatorship ... benign or otherwise. And the safeguards are there to ensure that a politician just can't remove a judge or a Chief Justice just like that.


Now, there are, unfortunately. a fair number of questions hanging over the head of the current Chief Justice. Any fair minded person ought readily to concede that he may well be innocent of every single charge, just as he may be guilty of any or all of them. But what is clear is that there has been no open investigation and no opportunity for the embattled gentleman to put his answers. No matter how one might feel about the current Chief Justice ... whether he is good, bad or indifferent ... the point here is that both he and the country need to have the air completely cleared. If there is a stain then he ought to be removed. If there is no stain then he ought to be exonerated. But what we have now is that the current holder of that high office is operating under a very dark cloud of suspicion which is not good for him personally nor is it good for the country. One way or the other the air needs to be cleared.


The Constitution provides a beacon of principle and  democratic values to the country. The Prime Minister must pick up the baton which the Law Association has sent to him and trigger the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice. But it needs to be clearly understood that the Chief Justice may very well be innocent of the various crimes and misbehaviours of which he stands accused and we all should be most wary of rushing to judgment merely because the process has been triggered.


And the Prime Minister should be acutely aware that perception is often reality and that  there is a perception amongst certain sections of our society that his refusal to date to trigger the impeachment process is based more on perceptions of race and of tribal loyalty than of what is best for the country. These perceptions are as unfortunate as they are dangerous for our society and it is necessary that they be addressed head on. Our justice system requires it. Indeed, the survival of our democracy demands it.

DEVALUATIONS AND ELECTIONS

In the past few days there has been an increased commentary by persons on both sides of the political divide about whether or not Trinidad & Tobago will devalue it's currency. Right now the official exchange rate is hovering around US$1 equals TT$6.75. However, there is a dearth of availability of US dollars for any reason ... whether legitimate or otherwise ... and the black market rate is now hovering around TT$9 equals US$1.


The authorities from time to time issue stern warnings about black market foreign currency deals, which warnings are cheerfully ignored by the populace as a whole. Indeed, unless you have a contact getting any amount of foreign currency is difficult if not impossible. One mother that I know was the other day desperately trying to get US$2,000 to send to her son who is in university in the States. On the one hand, its not a lot of money, but on the other hand the money is desperately needed by the young man to pay his rent and buy food! She couldn't get the foreign currency in time from the bank so she bought the money on the black market. When the bank finally came through (after about two weeks) she took the money from the bank and promptly resold it on the black market to recoup her loss when she was forced to buy.


Of course, the problem is exacerbated by the local banks who buy the foreign currency at comparatively low rates and resell it at a huge profit! But, at least they are legal! In any case, the (mis)behaviour of the banks is another story. It is suffice to note at this time that they are not at all innocent in this mess and have actually helped to exacerbate the problem with their greedy and predatory way of doing business.


In the meantime the country is bleeding heavily. Our foreign currency reserves are falling at an alarming rate and we now have less than a year of import cover. So? What should we do?


The Government spokesmen (and women) talk about "diversification". Sounds good, eh? But in reality how serious are they? Let me give you an example: Trinidad & Tobago imports tomatoes. Now, I am ashamed to admit that I haven't a clue how much a pound of tomatoes costs ... my wife does all of our groceries! But let's pretend for the sake of example that a pound of tomatoes costs an importer US$1 per pound. Now, if T&T were to devalue (and let's be drastic for the sake again of example) to say US$1 now equals TT$20 it won't take a genius to realize that the importation of tomatoes would no longer be a good business. People just wouldn't be able to afford to buy the imported product. The end result would be that local farmers would finally be able to compete with the international product. In other words, and using this rather over-simplified example, the devaluation would have allowed a certain diversification in a part of the agricultural sector.


It doesn't take a genius to work out that a devaluation would also cause a tidal wave throughout the local economy. For example, motor cars and trucks would all of a sudden become prohibitively expensive.  I'm sure you get my point. A devaluation is a fairly classic device that governments can use to prevent foreign exchange from leaking out.


Which brings me to my next point: devaluations always cause hardships in the society ... especially amongst the poorer classes. Everybody's life becomes more expensive and it becomes harder to make ends meet. It is no wonder, therefore, that most governments try desperately to avoid this step.  But a general election is due by September next year. The Government can borrow enough over the next few months that will allow the standard of living to be held or maintained ... more or less ... for another year, but it's room for maneuver is going to become more and more restricted as time goes by. Put another way, there is nothing on our economic horizon, either in terms of some miraculous bailout (like  a massive oil discovery) or in terms of new economic proposals that remotely look like an end to the economic hurricane that is battering us right now.


An early election would avoid the Government having to devalue the currency ... they could always do it after. But the truth is that a devaluation is beginning to look more and more like the only way out for us. I would love to be wrong on this, but I have a very real fear that if we don't bite this particular bullet soon our delaying "taking in front" will be even worse for us when our reserves finally run out and we are forced to go ignominiously cap in hand (as we did in the late eighties) to the IMF.

THE UNEXPLAINED WEALTH BILL

The principle that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty has been a bedrock principle of our law since almost the beginning of time.  It is also enshrined into our Constitution that no one shall be deprived of his/her property without due process of law. There is also the old adage that our legal system promotes that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man to hang.


That is why I was most shocked and dismayed when I read Mr. Faris Al Rawi's latest attempt at closing loopholes that allow all kinds of criminals (especially white collar ones) to escape from the long arm of the law. Basically, the erstwhile Attorney General is saying that this Bill is necessary because there are too many people who have unexplained wealth and that  this proposed law is a way of catching them. Well, to be fair, he has a point there. I mean, for example,  does anybody remember the report of Planning Minister Camille Robinson Regis depositing some $143,000 in cash in a First Citizens Bank and there never being a satisfactory explanation given for that?  Was that transaction suspicious in your opinion? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so? Will the Honourable Attorney General explain where he and his wife, for example, found the money to buy a property in St. Clair which they are renting to the Government for some $23 million over the next three years? And if they inherited or were given that property is it reasonable to ask where the donor(s) of that very expensive property got the money in the first place? Is that suspicious in your view? If so, why do you think so? If not, why don't you think so?


I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Would it be reasonable (using these two examples) to launch probes into these matters? If not, why not? And if so, why? Continuing the use of these two examples, what if there was a change of Government tomorrow morning and the new Attorney General uses his position from behind the scenes to have these two politicians have their property frozen?  Would you say that this was politically motivated? If so, why would you say so? If not, why not?


And although the Attorney General points to safeguards in the Bill whereby persons such as the Director of Public Prosecutions have to sign off on any application to freeze the assets does anybody believe that the DPP, for example,  is really politically impartial? If you do, then why do you believe that? If you don't, then why do you believe that? Certainly, from where I sit there are certain questions that make me wonder about the DPP. For example, why has the infamous emailgate affair not been brought to a conclusion? Why hasn't the matter involving the drugs at former Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar's home been cleared up? There are other matters to which no clear and reasonable answers have been forthcoming from the DPP or his office. His signal failure to deal with these matters gives rise to most unfortunate and unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed as to why he hasn't acted. And that's really the point. We have to be even more careful than the larger societies that our basic rights are not trampled upon because everybody knows everybody else.


The Bill is draconian. If you are accused your property can be frozen 'ex parte' , i.e., behind your back and without you getting any chance to say why this shouldn't happen. All of your assets are frozen! Full stop! And it is up to you to go and defend yourself. But (and here's the catch) if you hire a lawyer to defend you he has to be very careful that any monies that you use to pay his fees are free and clear, because if they are linked to you, his fees, that you have paid him to defend you, can be seized! Talk about a Catch 22! What lawyers do you know will want to do matters like this whereby simply for defending a client the lawyer can find himself being investigated and his assets being frozen as well?


So, you are put in the unenviable position of having your assets frozen ...and that includes your home, by the way ... and having no means to defend yourself (unless you have some wealthy relatives who love you very much) and having to fight the State with its comparatively unlimited resources. A really fair fight!


I am personally of the view that this proposed law will not be able to stand up in Court. But that will take years to be fought out and in the meantime a lot of mischief and expense can and will take place. That there is an abuse and that some people are getting away is readily admitted.  But the Bill as it stands is clearly an abomination. It sweeps up everybody ... not only the guilty. Our only real hope is that the nine Independent Senators vote against this Bill when it reaches the Senate. But it will only take one Independent senator for the Bill to pass! Will each and every one stand and vote against this Bill? Because you should know that they are going to be under tremendous pressure to vote for it.

WHY ISN'T THE LOCAL MEDIA REPORTING ON THE VEMEZUELAN CRISIS?

If ever there was a news story that affected not only Trinidad & Tobago but the entire Caribbean it is the extreme crisis taking place in Venezuela. As of today, the entire country has been without electricity for six long days. The supply of electricity since the crisis began last Thursday has been sporadic ... sometimes you get power but most of the time you don't. Foreign news reports say that up to now some twenty-four people have died of which six were infants.


But this crisis might as well be happening on the moon and not a few miles away, if you read the local newspapers or listen to the local radio and television stations. Oh, the papers do put a story on the crisis in their pages from time to time, but then they devote a lot more time and space to whether or not newly appointed Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith should be wearing a camouflage uniform or whether an Opposition politician was wrong to "fat shame" an admittedly large and overweight woman. It seems that the editors and managers of our local media believe that these type of stories are far more important than our neighbor literally falling apart.


No electricity has meant no water. No electricity has meant no gasoline for cars. No electricity has meant no refrigeration and food spoiling which means that people are going hungry. No electricity has meant no telephones, no cell phones, no internet, nothing. If you have an emergency you cannot call either the police or an ambulance! Think about it! No electricity has meant that the airports are shut down.  You can't leave the country even if you wanted to! No electricity has meant that the hospitals cannot function and that people are going to die. No electricity has meant that ATMs and credit cards can't work and the banks can't function. So, if you had all your cash in the bank six days ago you will be flat broke today. No electricity has meant that hungry people are resorting to looting. There is a complete breakdown of law and order. And no electricity has meant that there is no water!!


I could go on, but you get the point. This is a very serious crisis. And if you thought that we had a refugee crisis before this happened just wait for a little while  ... its going to get worse!!


So? Isn't this a serious news story? But you'd never guess this by reading the local newspapers or listening to the local radio or television stations. Why? I have my suspicions ... all of them as ugly as they ought to be unnecessary. And frankly, they are all related to the media's not so hidden support for the Rowley led Government. You see, any proper reporting of the crisis next door to us will by implication show how absolutely stupid and uncaring was the Government's rather obvious support for the Maburro regime and its so-called "neutrality" which wasn't neutral at all!!


But this story won't go away. And people will continue to die. And the editors and managers of our local media will continue to try and ignore it and pretend that they are politically neutral when they so obviously are not! And that's the real sin here!

WHAT DON'T WE UNDERSTAND AND WHY?

When I was a young lawyer a very learned Queen's Counsel who was teaching me the art of cross-examination told me something that I have never forgotten. He said "when a man says something that you don't understand 98 percent of the time it is because he doesn't WANT you to understand; 2 percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is talking about."  Over the decades I have found this piece of advice to be eerily accurate.


So, I now find myself seeing and hearing about a lot of things going on in this little twin island republic and I find myself  not understanding why they have happened or not understanding the explanations. Let's take a few examples:


First of all, there was the question of Dr. Rowley's famous visit to China. We were first told that he was going to China to attend a conference of world leaders. When it turned out that there was no such conference we were told that he had been invited to go by the Chinese Government. But the Chinese very politely let the world know that this wasn't exactly true. it seems that Dr. Rowley had invited himself. But why??  What exactly was achieved by that visit that benefitted T&T? No real answer has ever come down.


Then we were told that Dr. Rowley and his Minister of Everything Stewart Young went to Australia and ordered some boats for the Coast Guard. But no reason has ever been given as to why the Prime Minister and his Minister sidekick felt it necessary to go all the way to Australia from China in order to buy some boats and bypass the normal tendering process as required by the laws of Trinidad & Tobago relating to procurement. But why?? Again, no real answer has come down. Why? What is it that Dr. Rowley and company don't want us to know or understand? There are a host of other questions that arise from this episode, but hopefully you get the point.


Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. The latest piece of news is that Dr. Rowley has picked himself up and gone to California for certain medical checks when all reports indicate that they could be done here in T&T. Why? all of the Prime Minister's expenses for him and his entourage for this trip will be met by the State. But the trip doesn't make sense. Why did he have to go all the way to California? Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that it was absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister to go to the United States for a medical check up or treatment did he have to go all the way to California for that? Couldn't it have been done in, say, Miami or even New York? What or who is there in California that makes this trip so necessary? Why? It just doesn't make sense! And by the way, for the record, I certainly don't begrudge the Prime Minister seeking first class medical advice. Its just that from all the reports that I have seen none suggest that such advice was not available here!


Look: there are a whole set of other things that simply don't make sense ... the Tobago ferries, for example. Another matter that doesn't make sense is the Prime Minister's obvious reluctance to trigger section 137 of the Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings of the Chief Justice. Allow me a moment to explain why I think that these proceedings are necessary. The office of Chief Justice is one of the highest and most important offices in the land. It ought to be obvious that the office holder ... whoever he or she may be ... should not have nay suspicions of wrong doing hovering over his/her head. At the moment there are some very ugly suspicions that are hovering over the head of the current Chief Justice. They need to be cleared up ... one way or the other. If he is guilty of any or all of them then he ought to be removed from office. If he is innocent of the charges then he ought to be cleared completely. But the only way to achieve either result is by triggering the impeachment process and having a trial. What is wrong with that? Indeed, that was the thinking behind the Law Association's call for impeachment. The Chief Justice deserves ... needs ... a trial if only to clear his name. It is not in the country's interests that the trial does not take place. Indeed, if it doesn't then those ugly and unnecessary suspicions will just grow and grow. Already some people are making scandalous and unrepeatable comments about why Dr. Rowley will not trigger section 137. And if he continues to refuse those ugly suspicions will simply continue to grow and further divide an already badly divided society.


So, I go back to the beginning: what exactly is it in all of these matters that Messrs. Rowley, Young & Co. don't want us to understand and why don't they want us to understand?  Because I'll tell you this: whatever you might think of them they aren't stupid. They understand well what they are saying and doing. They just don't want us to understand. Why?

WHY?

When I was a young lawyer I worked for a while  in England for a rather large American company. My boss (an American who was based in Geneva) used to frustrate me to no end because he always asked me 'why' whenever I made any sort of proposal or statement. It was frustrating, because more often than not his constantly asking me 'why' made me realize that I was really talking absolute nonsense or was  just plain wrong. Armed with this experience, I have learned the value of asking 'why' when I see things going on or people saying things that at first blush seem to make sense but on deeper examination you realize that it is absolute balderdash.


It was with this in mind that I question the proposed trip of Trinidad & Tobago's erstwhile Prime Minister scheduled for this week to Montevideo, Uruguay, to discuss a way forward in the ongoing Venezuelan crisis with Messrs. Guaido and Maduro. Mr. Guaido has said that he simply ain't going and will send nobody. So? Why is Dr. Rowley going? To mediate what? The trip doesn't make sense. So? Why is Dr. Rowley going? What exactly does he hope to achieve? Why does he think that he can achieve what he hopes for?


In the meantime, Mr. Maburro ... I'm sorry ... Mr. Maduro has proposed that new elections be called for the National Assembly as a way out of the present crisis? Why? Nobody has suggested that the last National Assembly elections were tainted by fraud. But there is a large body of evidence that the last Presidential elections were illegitimate. So? As a way out of the crisis why doesn't the de facto (NOT de jure) President of Venezuela simply call fresh Presidential elections and allow his opponents to stand against him? Is he afraid that he might lose? Why? If he is so popular and the majority are behind him then surely he has nothing to be afraid of?


Dr. Rowley and Caricom keep on saying that they are neutral and offer their services to mediate. But are they really neutral? Why do you think so? They recognize Mr. Maburro ... I'm sorry, but the man really is a donkey ... Mr. Maduro as the legal President of Venezuela! Why? They obviously haven't read the Constitution of Venezuela. Why not? Or is it that they believe in the late Chairman Mao's statement that power comes out of the mouth of a gun and the Donkey clearly has the guns. But if that is the case, then why don't they just say that in plain and simple language?


And why should Mr. Guaido accept Messrs. Rowley et al as bona fide mediators when they have so clearly stated a preference for Mr. Guaido's opponent?


Dr. Rowley et al have condemned 'foreign interference'. So far, so good. But they haven't condemned CUBAN interference in Venezuela over the last three to four years. Why not? Is the United States the only country that cannot interfere without being criticized? Why? Why can't Russia, for example, be criticized for helping Mr. Maburro ship 20 tons of gold out of Venezuela last week? Why? Was this really in the best interests of the Venezuelan people? Why? You see, why does one get the feeling that 'no foreign interference' really means 'no AMERICAN interference'?


Why is it all right for Trinidad & Tobago's hapless Foreign Minister to refuse on public television to admit that there is a serious humanitarian crisis in Venezuela? Why? Why is it okay for the Donkey (aka Maduro) to refuse to say that he will not allow much needed humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicines into Venezuela because "Venezuelans are not mendicants"? Why is it better for a leader's people to die than for the leader to admit that they need help?


Why is there no criticism in the mainstream media in Trinidad & Tobago of Mr. Maburro's regime? Why is there little or no reporting in Trinidad's mainstream media of the real hardships that ordinary people are going through in Venezuela? Why does Trinidad's mainstream media not ask the hard questions of the Trinidad Government? Are they afraid of something? Why? Why has there been little or no reporting of the muzzling of the press in Venezuela by Trinidad's mainstream media?


Why does Dr. Rowley and his Government consider that it is in Trinidad & Tobago's better interests to remain friendly with the Donkey's regime than to express solidarity with the people of Venezuela?   Why hasn't Dr. Rowley's regime published the details of the Dragon Gas Field deal that it signed with Venezuela in the middle of last year? Is there something in there that Dr. Rowley doesn't want us to see? If so, what? And why shouldn't we be able to see it?


And why is it that so many people here like ... no, LOVE ... to criticize the Americans but overwhelmingly want to go to America either on holiday or to migrate? Why don't these people want to go to Cuba instead? Why?


Why has the average Venezuelan lost 24 pounds last year but the Donkey has gotten visibly fatter?


Okay, there are a lot of 'why's' here, but don't you think that they all require answers? Why?

COCKROACHES AND FOWL PARTIES

Just about every Trinbagonian knows the old adage 'cockroach have no right in fowl party', and even if you are not from this part of the world the visual image that the adage brings up is so clear that it doesn't take much to understand its meaning.


I was reminded of this old adage about cockroaches late last week when I heard Prime Minister Rowley, Minister of Communications (and everything else) Stuart Young and Foreign Minister Dennis Moses trying to defend their rather incoherent policy towards Venezuela and Nicholas Maduro (or as I prefer to call him 'Mad-burro').


Dealing with Mr. Young first: I heard Mr. Young on Thursday say (in my words) that Maduro (Mad-burro) was the legal President of Venezuela and that those who were critical of the TT Government's recognition of him should read the Venezuelan constitution. Mr. Young said that Maduro was the legitimate President of Venezuela under that country's constitution. To which, I say, guess what, Stuart? I've read the constitution. And guess what? Maduro (Mad-burro) is NOT legitimately that country's President in accordance with Venezuelan law.


Why do I say that? Well, let's start from the beginning: Presidential elections were held in Venezuela on Sunday, May 20th, 2018 for the Presidential term due to end on 10th January, 2019. Whoever one that election would be the President for the next six years from 10th January, 2019. So far so good! BUT (and it id a big "but") the Donkey rigged that election by locking up his opponents, driving some of them into exile and literally forcing any other potential contenders out of the race. No wonder that the world regards this so-called "election" as fraudulent.  In other words, there was no President-elect after 20th May, 2018.


Now, section 233 of the Venezuelan constitution says that in the absence of a President-elect the President of the National Assembly becomes the interim President. It also goes on to say that the interim President should call an election within thirty days. In other words. the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, has legally become the interim President of Venezuela.


And so, Stuart, your government's recognizing Mad-burro was not exactly in keeping with the rule of law. If you had said something like power comes out of the mouth of a gun and he who has the guns rules, and therefore you are recognizing Mad-burro as the President because he has the guns you would have been closer to the truth. But to try and say that Mad-burro is legal is really too much of a stretch, and quite frankly destroys whatever credibility you may have had in this issue.


Now let's turn to the goodly Messrs. Rowley and Moses. I'll deal with Mr. Moses first. There is another old saying that bears repetition which is that when a man says something that you don't understand 98 percent of the time it is because he does NOT WANT you to understand what he is saying; 2 percent of the time its is because HE doesn't understand what he is saying. Having tried to listen to Mr. Moses various public bleatings I am satisfied that the man is a fool and doesn't understand what he is talking about. And the old adage about never argue with a fool because he will only bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience is well worth taking note of.


Which brings us finally to the Prime Minister. Dr. Rowley says several things: first of all he says that Trinidad  Tobago is firmly neutral and takes no sides. (So far, so good). Next he says that the legitimate government in Venezuela is that of the Donkey's and as such that is the one that T&T recognizes. Then he says that his government has reached out to Mad-burro. Then he says that the T&T Government stands ready to mediate between the Donkey and Mr. Guaido. And finally, he tells the United States to go jump in the nearest lake, not to pass go and not to collect $200!!


Dr. Rowley preaches the doctrine of non-intervention rather conveniently forgetting how T&T found itself in real trouble with (you guessed it...) the Americans in 1983 when T&T refused to support the American intervention in Grenada. I'm not going to debate here the theoretical rights or wrongs of that decision except to note that it definitely was NOT in T&T's best interests. This country paid dearly for its "principled stance"  by a then PNM government. In the same way, whether or not you really do believe that Dr. Rowley's stance on Venezuela is correct (and for the record, I don't ... but that's another debate) my point is that it is certainly not in our best interests right now. We are going to pay dearly for our so-called "independence".


And by the way, would you agree to a mediator who has already come out publicly and said that he supports your opponent? No? I wouldn't either. But Messrs. Rowley, Young, Moses et al apparently don't see why Mr. Guaido should not accept them as mediators. 


And just about every major western democracy has said that it recognizes Mr. Guaido. The British have been reported as placing $1.2 billion in gold reserves under Mr. Guaido's control. Frankly, it looks like the beginning of the end for the Donkey and his narco-kleptic regime.  Venezuela is becoming increasingly isolated and the regime's days are looking decidedly numbered. And so, Dr. Rowley, my question to you is what are you going to do when the Donkey falls? What will happen to your Dragon Gas deal when Mad-burro is gone? Have you got a Plan B?


Quite honestly, I think that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was acting in T&T's best interests when she said in Parliament that the Opposition recognized Mr. Guaido. It is only a matter of time before he  gets de facto power in addition to the de jure (legal) authority that he now holds. Mr. Guaido is bound to take note of who supported Mad-burro and who did not.


The public castigation of the American ambassador could not have been in our best interests. Further, Dr. Rowley left yesterday to try and meet with the UN Secretary General today AFTER the UN Security Council debated the Venezuelan problem on Saturday. What is wrong with this picture?


And you wonder why I opened this post with a reference to cockroaches in a party of chickens'?

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIENDS AND INTERESTS

It is a truism in international affairs ... and one well worth remembering ... that countries don't have friends, they have interests. You have only to look at the last fifty years of the Twentieth Century to se how true this is. Germany and Japan went to war with the United States and most of Europe, yet today, these two countries are stalwart "friends" of both the USA and Europe. Indeed, Germany looks set to achieve by peaceful means what it failed to achieve with two world wars that killed millions. Ironic, eh?


So I have to ask again: who is more important to Trinidad & Tobago: the dictatorial regime of Nicholas Mad-burro or the people who live in Venezuela and who he is grinding into dust with his criminal, cruel and undemocratic policies and actions?


You see, I really hadn't planned on dealing with this subject again ... or at least, for a little while ... but when I read in this morning's newspapers that the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago was defending his government's support of Mad-burro and company I just couldn't let it go, nor could I let Rowley, Moses, Young and company get away with it.  According to the newspapers Dr. Rowley says in essence that Trinidad & Tobago has pursued since independence a strict policy of nom-interference with all nations and this means that we must not interfere in the internal happenings in Venezuela.


Well, that is basically true up to a point, but it tends to ignore the injunction quoted at the beginning of this post. Let me put it to you this way: if you saw your neighbor literally beating his wife to death should you intervene and save the woman's life or should you say "well, that's none of my business", and stay out of the fight and let him kill the woman? If you believe that you should do nothing (not even call the police) then don't bother reading any more, for obviously nothing will convince you that a maniac ought to be stopped and prevented from doing harm to others.


It cannot be in the best interests of Trinidad & Tobago that Mad-burro and company turn that once beautiful country of Venezuela into a basket case where the people ... the ordinary people ... can't get basic food and medicines. It cannot be in our best interests where the policies of a ruthless dictator are forcing the biggest mass migration in history and tens of thousands of refugees are coming over to Trinidad placing a strain on our society. It cannot be in our best interests where the fact that Mad-burro and company are actively encouraging and facilitating the drug trade and are exporting drugs and guns to our country. It cannot be in out best interests where the collapse of the security systems in Venezuela has allowed piracy (from Venezuela) to flourish in the Gulf of Paria threatening the lives of our fishermen and yachtsmen.


No, Dr. Rowley. Maybe you are personally friends with Mad-burro. I can't comment on that except to quote the other old adage: show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are. You want to be friends and dance with him, go ahead. That is your business. Your personal business.  But being friendly with the Donkey's  regime is definitely NOT in our country's best interests. Sending your hopeless and hapless Foreign Minister Dennis Moses to the Donkey's fraudulent inauguration last week was certainly not in our country's best interests. Signing a gas deal with the Mad-burro regime might have been in our best interests, but (and it is a big "but") we don't know what the terms of that deal were. In the circumstances we can't really comment except to note that just because you say that it's a good deal for us doesn't necessarily make it so. Indeed, if it is such a good deal for us then why can't we know what the terms of the deal are? And don't tell us that the figures are confidential as your Energy Minister attempted to. There are other things that we need to know, e.g., how are the expected profits to be shared? Fifty/Fifty? Sixty/Forty? How?


In any case, assuming (though certainly not accepting) that the Dragon Gas deal is a good one for us, is it really such a good deal that we can close our eyes to the suffering that Mad-burro is inflicting on his people? Put another way, using the example above of your neighbor murdering his wife, is it acceptable to do nothing and not stop him from killing her because your neighbor has promised you a big contract?


And by the way, Dr. Rowley, you do know, don't you, that for that Dragon Gas Deal to be law in Venezuela it has to be ratified by that country's National Assembly? And guess who does not control the National Assembly? That's right: your good friend, the Donkey. And the deal hasn't been ratified!! Interesting, eh? And if it is not ratified then Venezuela can at any time legally withdraw from it!!

WHO SHOULD WE BE FRIENDS WITH? THE PEOPLE OR THEIR GOVERNMENT?

This post could almost have been headed "WHO IS MORE IMPORTANT? THE PEOPLE OR THEIR RULERS? let's understand something: Power comes out of the mouth of a gun (Chairman Mao). Or put another way, he who controls the guns rules. Now, Nicholas Mad-burro (or in English "Mad Donkey") controls the guns in Venezuela. He ruthlessly and cruelly incarcerates and murders anybody who is a threat to his regime and his lies would make even Donald Trump blush (which is saying a lot)!


Mad-burro has taken to locking up and torturing family members of his opponents who have gone into hiding in an effort to find where they are hiding and killing them.


In the meantime, Venezuela is now a complete basket case. People are literally starving and the average weight loss over the last year or so is close to twenty pounds per person. But the erstwhile President of the proud Bolivarian Republic has gotten fatter!! You doubt me? Look at his photographs of, say, five years ago and look at his photographs today! Of course, it is always possible that it is the fault f the Americans that he simply appears to be fatter as they (the Americans) are always responsible (according to Mad-burro) for all of Venezuela's current problems!! Yeah! Right!


In an editorial this week the Washington Post said "what was the region's richest society was swept by epidemics of malnutrition, preventable diseases and violent crime. Three million people fled the country. Yet Maduro(sic  ... his real name is Mad-burro), having orchestrated a fraudulent reelection, presses on with what the region describes as a socialist revolution, with tutoring from Cuba and predatory loans from Russia and China."


Sixty years ago Venezuela had the highest standard of living in the Hemisphere outside of Canada and the United States. Its health care system was the best in the world! Its GDP was the highest in Latin America! And now? Don't even bother to ask. The UN estimates that by the end of this year 2019 the number of refugees will have grown by five million people. Five million more than the three million that voted with their feet last year out of a total population of some twenty-eight million!


Mad-burro is a dictator. He has enriched himself, his family and his corrupt cronies like Caballo at the expense of the very people that he says he wants to help. The corruption and destitution in Venezuela has created the worst humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen.


So, I ask the question: who should Trinidad & Tobago care about? The people of Venezuela or their corrupt and dictatorial rulers? Surely, the answer ought to be crystal clear!?! And yet, the TT government sends its hopeless and hapless Foreign Minister Dennis Moses to Mad-burro's inauguration (or coronation as some have called it) thereby confirming our support for a corrupt and incompetent regime. And all in the name of 'that's none of our business'.


Well, Mr. Moses, for your information it IS our business. The corruption and maladministration in Venezuela is forcing refugees to flee to Trinidad  Tobago. Your government has been distinctly unfriendly to them and have even conspired with the dictator to repatriate some of them in dubious circumstances.  And you say that the collapse of Venezuela has nothing to do with us?!? What are you going to say when the number of refugees from  Venezuela doubles this year? Oh! And please tell me: who should we be friends with: Mad-burro and company or the people? And don't try and tell me that Mad-burro is a legitimate President. I'd sooner believe that Mexico will pay for Trump's wall!!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND

Okay. I'll admit that I have been more than a little bit lazy and haven't read or looked up the law about Trinidad & Tobago becoming (or not becoming) FACTA compliant. The truth is that I have 'no horse in this race' and being a (reluctant) member of the working class I felt that my time was better spent elsewhere. In any case, I reasoned, regardless of what I thought or said the law was going to pass or fail regardless of how I felt. (Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy/ But that ain't the point of this post ... perhaps that might be a good topic to discuss downstream?)


But a big part of my problem in trying to decide how I felt about the argument between the Government, the Opposition and the Banks was that I didn't understand exactly what they were arguing about. (Incidentally, if there is anybody out there who can explain clearly and succinctly exactly what the whole issue was about I'd be extremely grateful. And don't tell me that it was about becoming FACTA compliant. I want to know exactly what was offensive ... or alleged to be offensive ... about the proposed law.) On the one side the Government and the Banks were preaching that the sky would fall down and we'd be in real trouble if the law wasn't passed, that we would be blacklisted and would not be able to do any international transactions of any kind. On the other side the Opposition was saying that there were several clauses in the Bill that offended against our constitutional rights (I think that there were about three clauses) and they were digging their heals in. It was necessary, the Opposition said, to send the Bill to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament (JSC). But NOBODY said what these clauses were, or why they offended our rights, or why they were necessary in the first place.  And everyone that I asked didn't have a clue either.


Eventually, the Bill was passed without the "offending"clauses. The Government removed them so that the law would not offend the Constitution. But here is what I don't understand: if the Bill could have been passed without the "offending" clauses and it would be good law, then why didn't the Government do this in the first place? Why did we have to go through all this trauma and argument?  And if the removal of these clauses has made the Bill bad law, then why is the Government making bad law? And if it was in the country's best interests that the original Bill be passed then why didn't the Opposition support it? What exactly was offensive about these clauses? What rights were they infringing? And why weren't we told this in the first place?


Put another way, I personally do not have enough information to make any judgment here as to who was right or who was wrong on this matter. But I can say unequivocally that the firm impression that I have right now is that BOTH sides have been playing fast and loose with the rest of us and that we haven't been told the whole truth on this matter. I have said it many times before, and I'll say it again: there is only one reason for politics; only one reason for Government: to make life better for the people! Full Stop! There is NO other reason!!