TROUBLE IS COMING

 Are we heading for social unrest?  All the signs seem to suggest that we are. People are losing their jobs left, right and centre, and there are (admittedly rather muted) reports that people are going hungry. I have already said that I don't think that we have been told the truth about anything. Certainly, we have been misled about the COVID pandemic and there is a lot that doesn't make sense. For example, why was it such a big deal if somebody had imported some Pfizer vaccines into the country? Was it because the only organization that can give permission to import a vaccine is the Government and it had given no such permission to anybody? Okay. One can see the sense in such an injunction, but assuming that the report was true (it turned out to be fake news) was there any real reason for the rather obvious anger from the authorities about this? Surely, any action that helps defeat this virus ought to be welcomed? Or was there another reason why the authorities were so obviously upset? If so, what is/was the reason?

Put another way, shouldn't any action that can help defeat the virus be welcomed?

And back to social unrest. There is an almost surreal calm in the country right now. Everything seems to be quiet and people are going about their business as best they can. But things are tough. Restaurants are closed and people are out of work. So? Will there be rioting? If so, when? Will there be some sort of trigger that just lights the proverbial match to a very tense situation? If not, then do you expect that things will just gradually deteriorate until the people can't take it any more? But, things are quiet and by and large (except for the gangs) the population is dealing with the current adversities with a rather admirable stoicism. 

But life is not static and the population will not accept many more platitudes. It has been my experience that people will generally accept hard times IF (a) they are given some credible form of hope that their leaders can and will get them out of the trouble that they are in AND (b) the people are told the truth.

I am very, very concerned that we are not being told the truth and that no hope of a better tomorrow is being offered by our leaders. In the circumstances, my advice to you is to watch out. Trouble is coming.

IS IT UNREASONABLE TO ASK FOR COGENT EXPLANATIONS THAT ARE BACKED UP BY PROVABLE FACTS?

 

Perhaps the most hyperbolic narratives we've seen over the last year are the endless portrayals that the Government is doing a good job in handling the COVID crisis. It started with some little known company in England trading on the fact that it was out of Oxford, home to one of the most prestigious and well respected universities in the world, although research showed that it had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the university, saying that we were number one in the world in our handling of the then rapidly burgeoning pandemic. We don't hear anything about this now, do we? Interesting, don't you think? Was this all a publicity stunt?

But the uncritical reporting has continued. Ministerial as well as Prime Ministerial press conferences are held and the hard questions are never asked - or at least, they are never reported on. In a rational world journalists would give at least as much attention to the facts as well as Government pronouncements and not allow seemingly inconvenient facts to just be dropped. For example, why exactly did Delci Rodriguez come here a year ago? Was it really to discuss a joint response to the pandemic? There are very ugly and unsubstantiated rumors that it had to do with sanctions busting. Is there any truth to this?  Would it not be important to put this to bed one way or the other? If it was about a joint response to COVID what was the result? What is the agreed joint response? And why was this not reported?

If the media don't (or won't) report what is going on, should we really be surprised that people resort to flights of alleged fantasy? Is it really unreasonable for people to question how photographs of the unapproved Chinese vaccine SINOVAC being off loaded from a Chinese plane in Toronto were really being transshipped elsewhere when we are not told where? Is it unreasonable to question when there are NO  photographs of the approved Sinopharm vaccines arriving in Trinidad? And if such photos are now made available would it be unreasonable to believe that they were 'photo shopped'? Is it unreasonable to question the Government about this? Is it unreasonable to require an answer to this?

But the media seem unable or unwilling to pick up on this story. Is it unreasonable to ask why? Is there some monstrous conspiracy afoot? No matter how well meaning we fantasize or want the Government and the media to be, what do we really know? I mean REALLY know? Why are seemingly straight forward questions never answered or, if they are, the answers are simply clever (and not so clever) deflections? Is it unreasonable to ask why?

THE BIG LIE

 The Big Lie is everything right now and the mainstream print media seems to be doing its level best to continue to metastasize it and to paper over any criticisms that might legitimately arise over the Government's handling of this Covid crisis.

For example, I haven't met a Trinidadian (or Tobagonian for that matter) who believes that Prime Minister Rowley had tested positive for Covid. The absolute dearth of information was palpable. For example, if he did test positive who was the person that administered the test and why? Was it administered because he was due to get the vaccine the next day or was he feeling ill? If he was not feeling ill then did he feel ill at any time? If so, when?

Dr. Rowley is over 70 and has several comorbidities. It would be most unusual for such a person who was tested positive not to have some symptoms at least or to feel ill. So? Did he? If so, when? And who was the attending physician? After all, Dr. Rowley is no ordinary person, but is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. His health and well being is (and ought to be) of vital concern to the country. And yet, we were told nothing more except that he tested positive, was in quarantine and there were 35 other people affected. Who were these 35 other people? Were they all tested and quarantined? If so, when and where?

Then we have the question of the Brazilian variant supposedly brought here by an illegal immigrant. Do we know who this immigrant is/was? If so, when did we find him/her? What did we do about it?

Then we are told that this virus is spiking, but many health professionals are telling their friends that the situation is much worse than is being reported. So/ Why? What are the newspapers doing about it? Instead of simply parroting unquestioningly whatever they are being fed by the authorities, what are they doing to find out the truth? It can't be that hard to find out. And yet, it seems to be. If you want to know what the Government wants you to think or believe simply read the newspapers. If you want to know what is really going on you will have to do a lot of digging.

Look for example at the question of the vaccines coming to the country. Now we are being told that we are getting a huge quantity of the Chinese vaccine which has been approved by the WHO. Well that's great! But is it true that the Chinese vaccine is not as effective as the other vaccines (Astra Zeneca, etc.)? If so, are we buying second or even third best? The question has relevance because one (unfortunately) remembers Dr. Rowley rather angrily dismissing the Indian offer of free vaccines saying that we weren't beggars. (Although nothing stopped him apparently from later asking President Biden for help - but I guess that wasn't begging!)

When the mainstream media so blatantly abdicates its responsibilities to keep the general population properly informed but appears to help the Government in covering up it's missteps then we are in serious trouble. There is more - a lot more! But hopefully the point is made. 

And we should all be aware that history has proven that a country never gets out of trouble when the truth continues to be a victim.

WE STILL AREN'T BEING TOLD THE TRUTH

 In my last post I said that we weren't being told the truth and I set out my reasoning for coming to that conclusion. Now, I have to ask the same question again. Put another way: are we still being misled? Take a look at what has happened recently. 

It was reported that somebody had been tested positive with the dangerous Brazilian variant for Covid 19. As soon as this report came out social media lit up with two questions: the first was how did this variant get here if the borders were locked down? And the second was who is the patient/victim? Is he/she an illegal immigrant?

Surprisingly, it took the authorities several days to answer these rather simple questions. Eventually we have been told that it came from an illegal Venezuelan immigrant.

Okay. That's believable, but why did it take so long to tell us? 

In the meantime another rumour surfaced on social media that a young (18 years old) Syrian boy in Westmoorings was tested positive for this Brazilian variant about the same time that the initial report about the Brazilian variant was said to be here. Also, the rumour is that this variant is literally ripping through and devastating the Syrian community in the West. Is all this true? I haven't a clue.

But you realize that the delay between announcing that the Brazilian variant is here and identifying that it allegedly came in through an illegal immigrant needs to be properly explained. The erstwhile Minister of Health tried yesterday to avoid giving proper information saying that questions on this should be directed to the Ministry Of National Security. To which I say why? What the heck is really going on? Why is there this apparent spike in Covid cases? Is there under-reporting? Was there under-reporting? Why do so many people simply not believe what we are being told? Why, for example, do so many people believe that the Prime Minister did not have Covid? Did he? I honestly don't know. But I do know that many, many persons simply don't believe that we are being told the truth - about anything!

And don't get me started on those guns which were found last week! Those announcements alone raise all sorts of troubling issues. Is it too much to ask of the Government that when their people talk to us that they tell us the truth?

WE AREN'T BEING TOLD THE TRUTH

 

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than we have not been told the truth about COVID 19 in T&T by the authorities. Why they should lie to us is, of course, another question. I can think of a few reasons, but they would only be guesses on my part and I wouldn't want to say anything that I couldn't prove. But why do I think that we haven't been told the truth? Consider the following:

First of all, when the whole world was locking down in February last year we held our Carnival. And then after Carnival there were reportedly very few cases  of the virus in the country, but we locked down on March 23rd of last year, about a month after Carnival had come and gone. Then after the lockdown  the rate of infection was supposed to have dropped so precipitously that some (little known) organization in England ranked us as number one in handling the virus. And even though we remained on lockdown we held a general election in August that allegedly did nothing in that there was no significant spike in new cases. But that didn't matter, we were number one in the world in handling the virus! (By the way, have you noticed that this claim is no longer being made? What do you think happened to stop the claim being made? Are we still number one? If not why were we knocked off our perch? And if we are still number one then why are we not being told this?)

But, (and here we go) apparently many of the symptoms of the deadly virus are very close to those of pneumonia. When I looked up how many people were reported to have died from pneumonia in the whole of 2018 it was less than half of the reported pneumonia deaths for March 2020! To which one can only say 'HUH'? That doesn't make sense - unless, of course, we were not told the truth in the first place.

Then we are now being told that there are two new cases of the British variant in the country. Okay. But it begs the question how? I thought that nobody but nobody can enter the country without (a) a negative test taken in the two weeks before arrival and (b) going into quarantine for two weeks after arrival and (c) getting an all clear at the end of the quarantine period.

So? How come this new British variant got into the country? Who screwed up? What has been done to correct the screw up? Do we know who the two victims were in contact with? Do we know who the persons that were in contact with the two victims were in contact with? And if Nobody screwed up what are we doing about finding Nobody or are we going to just give him a free pass -again!??

Then we are now being told that the virus is spreading and there are many new cases being reported every day. How and why is this happening?

Now, the authorities are tightening the restrictions. Okay. That is probably a good thing, but does anybody understand exactly WHY this is happening right now? 

And then there was the issue of the vaccines from India and Africa and the brouhaha with the Indian High Commissioner. It is probably best to leave my opinion and my very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions over that particular episode unexpressed at this time. except to say that it (that episode) has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

And finally, we had the news that Dr. Rowley was found to be Covid positive literally just before he was scheduled to get the vaccine. Many people do not believe that Dr. Rowley is indeed ill. Most certainly, the news reports as to how sick he is are conflicting and leave a reasonable observer to question as to what exactly is the truth about this. But it is more than interesting to find that there is a large number of persons who simply do not trust the report that Dr. Rowley is indeed ill.

And so, we come back to the beginning, which is that we have never received a clear and cogent report from the Health authorities as to what exactly happened and is happening. This has resulted in very ugly rumours of favoritism and a bending of the rules depending on who you are. For example, the Prime Minister's daughter and her family can get permission to visit her parents for a Christmas holiday but ordinary citizens remain stranded abroad and not able to come home. Why? No. Things simply don't make sense and when something doesn't make sense 98 percent of the time it is because the person who is telling you about whatever it is doesn't WANT you to understand; two percent of the time it is because HE is a fool and doesn't himself understand what he is saying.

So? Who is the fool, or who is trying to fool us and why?

 

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - FIXING OUR PROBLEMS PART 3

 As previously posted, I firmly believe that the root of all of our problems here in Trinidad & Tobago begins and ends with race. So? How can we solve this seemingly intractable problem?  I think that the answer lies in our British made/copied Constitution. You see, there are 41 seats or constituencies in T&T. Both major parties have a real lock on approximately 18 each with about 5 seats really in play at each general election every 5 years. And because of the demographics in each constituency that ain't gonna change any timesoon. Put another way, there is every incentive to vote race and so prevent "them" (whoever "them" might be) from gaining power.

But what if there was another way? Look: the reason for a 5 year term is fairly simple -it takes about 5 years (more or less) for any government policies to begin to work. Less time than that and a regime will not necessarily be able to do what is the right thing especially where that might entail unpopular policies; more time than that can lead to dictatorship.

But here is where the Americans seem to have got it right. (And, yes, I am aware of all the problems that they are having right now and the history behind those problems). They have a Lower House which is elected every 2 years, an Upper House elected every 6 years with a third of the Upper House facing re-election every 2 years, and a President/Chief Executive elected every 4 years.

What if we did a variant of that here? We could, for example, double the number of seats in our Lower House to 82 and elect them every 2 years. They would be full time parliamentarians with the responsibility in their districts for all that our current local councils have to do (lights, garbage collection, etc.) as well as legislative responsibilities (which would include things like budgets and other legislation). But because they would only be there for 2 years a lot of voters would be tempted to vote for a candidate from the "other side" if "their side's" candidate was simply a party hack and totally inefficient. The electorate then would have more reason to vote for somebody who would and could perform than for a hack. And if truth be known, we've got an awful lot of those on BOTH sides right now. 

Then we could have a full time Upper House of, say, 41 Senators with one third facing re-election every 2 years but with every Senator having a full term of 6 years. This could prevent stupid legislation from getting through. For example, let's say that the Government wants to pass a law that all men must wear green pants. Then the President gets the support of the members of his party in the Lower House along with a few in the Upper House. But at the elections held every 2 years those politicians who supported this absurd 'green pants' law are booted out of office including those Senators who supported it and voted for it. Now, if you were one of those Senators who rather blindly supported your leader in this stupid law, and you were facing the polls in 2 years time, would you quietly drop your support for this stupid law knowing that it will lead to your political demise or will you go down with that sinking ship? Put another way, this system returns power to the people.

Then we could have a Chief Executive whose election and period in office is not linked to his party have a majority in either house. He/she would face the electorate every 4 years and could have a term limit placed on him/her (e.g., 2 terms as is the case in the United States).

I could go on, but hopefully the point is made: that this system would effectively reduce , if not eliminate, the reason to vote race. What do you think? If you don't like it what idea(s) do you have? Because, like it or not, our problems begin and end with race. We need to do whatever we can to make it unprofitable to vote race. If we don't it will only get worse.

P.S. An added bonus would be to reduce the power of those small cliques who control both main parties.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - FIXING OUR PROBLEMS Part 2

 

We inherited our constitutional system from the British. After all, the reasoning was, it had worked for them for the last thousand or so years and had been successfully transplanted around the world from Canada to India and everywhere in-between. It was therefore quite reasonable to assume that it would work for us. Reasonable, but it ignored one crucial element: race!

As I have said before, we are hopelessly divided by race with the African element of our population voting one way and the Indian element voting the other. Both sides ignore issues such as competence and who might actually have better programs until the one in power screws up so badly (or is perceived to screw up badly) that it is voted out. There was an experiment way back in 1986 when a political party, the National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR), purported to have all the answers and not be race based. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, not the least being the incompetence of its leaders, the NAR failed and in 1981 the country reverted once again to its comfort zone of race based politics.

Today this has so become the norm that it is almost impossible to find  anyone who is not influenced by it. The PNM gets its funding from wealthy "nons" (non-black/non-Indian) and the UNC gets its funding from wealthy Indians. As the newspapers are owned by the nons you will find that generally speaking to a greater or lesser degree they tend to favour the PNM (although, to be fair, the Express more than the other two daily newspapers tends to to a more neutral line). The truth is that the UNC simply does not need the money from the "nons" who generally find that they are simply not needed. The PNM though, needs their cash quite badly.

And, no, I'm not advocating any type of press censorship. My own personal view is that a person ought to have complete freedom of choice in following whatever political path he/she believes to be the best for the country. Of course, this doesn't mean that I have to agree with him/her or say nothing about his/her beliefs. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander and while I reserve the right to change my mind on anything, I also reserve the absolute right to hold whatever opinions that I may have, so long as I do so honestly.

But we are talking about constitutional reform and how we might fix our very serious problem caused by the racial divisions in our society. In looking at it I have come to the conclusion that perhaps we ought to start with a blank sheet of paper. For example, we are a nation of some 1.4 million people. And yet, we have Regional Councils, District Councils. Town Councils, City Councils and even a Tobago House of Assembly with its own 'Secretaries' and Chief Secretary. Why? The Mayor of Miami, for crying out loud, presides over a larger population and a larger land area than we have. So? Why are we indulging in the expense of having all these Councils complete with all these 'wannabe' politicians clogging things up.

Perhaps, the first thing that we should do is to ask the simple question: why?

Next week I will set out my proposals for how I think we can solve the problems that we have. These last two posts have really been trying to set the ground for my proposals as well as to encourage my one or two readers to start thinking about how they would solve the problems. Because one thing is crystal clear: by continuing to ignore our problems we will never fix them.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - FIXING OUR PROBLEMS PART 1

 

Probably the biggest problem that we have in T&T today is that we are hopelessly and seemingly helplessly divided by race. We don't like to admit it, but the truth is that we are no where near being a truly "rainbow country". If we can fix this we would be well on our way to fixing everything else. 

 Most Africans blindly support the PNM and most Indians equally blindly support the UNC. The "nons" (non-Black/non-Indian) stuck somewhere in-between tend to go with whoever they think will run the country better, but as they (the "nons") tend mostly to live in areas that are heavily pro one side or the other, their vote (they number about 15 percent of the total electorate) is more often than not so diluted as to be almost meaningless in real terms.

The result is that the leaders of both sides often and not very subtly basically say to their supporters 'vote for us because we can't let them get power'. Who 'us' and 'them' are depends on who is saying it. But the sad truth is that both sides are saying the exact same thing. Sometimes, admittedly, one side is more blatant than the other, but you know what? It really doesn't matter. Because when one side says something like this ('vote for me because ...') the supporters of the other side are equally galvanized. In other words, there is an incentive on the part of the leadership on BOTH sides to play the race card, and they both do - all the time! Although they will both undoubtedly protest that they never do that!

So? How can we fix this?

Perhaps the answer lies in reforming our Constitution in such a way that it makes it ultimately unprofitable to vote race. Can this be done? I think so, but it would mean starting over with a completely blank sheet of paper and thinking completely outside of the box.  To do this, it would also mean changing things so that the Head of Government is not as powerful as he/she now is. (Did you know that a Trinidadian Prime Minister is more powerful in his own country than an American President is in his?)

But I'm getting ahead of myself. This post is intended to be the first part of a series on how to forge a path forward and to get out of the terrible morass that we now find ourselves in. After the zealots on both sides have calmed down a bit over what I have said about both sides being equally guilty of racism, I am hoping that I may have started people thinking about how to fix this. 

And, for the record, I do have an idea on how to fix things. And I do realize that what I will have to say may not be the best solution, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and we need to take the first step by calling a spade a spade.  Because, if you listen to the other side ('other' depending on your perspective) it is always 'their' fault and never 'ours'. 'We' are definitely not racists nor are we racial.

And given that there is only one reason for government; one reason for politics: to make life better for the people - I am putting in my "two cents" here in the hope that we might all consider the problem seriously enough to think about possible solutions.

I will write again soon with my ideas.

ROWLEY AND MABURRO - SANCTIONS ANYONE?

 

Prime Minister Keith Rowley in his capacity as Caricom Chairman has called for an end to the sanctions on Venezuela and for negotiations to bring both the Opposition in Venezuela and the ruling regime to some sort of settlement. With great respect to the Trinidadian Prime Minister he has so badly mixed apples with oranges that it is crystal clear that either has hasn't got a clue as to what he is talking about or (to put it as plainly as possible) he has some sort of interest in helping to perpetuate the illegal Maburro regime  ... which raises suspicions that are as ugly as they ought at this time to be left unexpressed as to why he would choose to do so. Instead of pressure, Dr. Rowley argues, what is needed is that everybody sits down and talks the problems out. 

Take, for example, Dr. Rowley's assertion that the sanctions have caused the Venezuelan economy to collapse. While I hesitate to say that this assertion is an outright lie, it is simply not true. The sanctions were installed in 2016 AFTER the economy had collapsed and after some three million Venezuelans had fled the country. (it is now about 5 million, or 15 percent of the population). And assuming that Dr. Rowley is telling what he perceives to be the truth, the fact is that he is being extremely naive ... Maburro & Co. have absolutely nothing to gain from negotiations with anybody. They have fraudulently destroyed the electoral process and have locked up, tortured and murdered their opponents. Further more, they are in charge of the guns and the probability of their being overthrown in a coup is as remote as the probability that snow will fall in Tobago next week. So? Why should they agree to any sort of compromise with anybody? Oh! It is true that the ordinary Venezuelan is catching his tail BUT (and it is a big "but") THEY (i.e., Maburro & Co.) are not! So why in the name of heaven should The Donkey and his friends agree to anything?

The arguments that Dr. Rowley and his friends seem to be advancing are strangely reminiscent of the arguments of those who opposed sanctions on that ruthless and racist apartheid regime of South Africa almost a generation ago. And yet, all agree that it was the sanctions that eventually helped to bring that terrible regime down.  Sanctions are one of the few tools available to bring that illegal Venezuelan regime down. And the fact that most Western countries have refused to recognize Maburro's regime has prevented The Donkey from getting his hands on Venezuelan assets abroad. Hurray for sanctions! If they weren't there does anybody really believe that the ordinary Venezuelans would have benefitted as opposed to Maburro simply getting fatter? (Have you noticed how much weight he has put on while the average Venezuelan is reported to have lost more than 20lbs in the last year or so?)

It cannot be in the interests of either Caricom or Trinidad & Tobago to have a ruthless, narco fueled State (and yes, the Drug Lords are getting free rein in Venezuela right now) sitting right on our doorsteps. Venezuela is too large and too important to the Region as a whole to be treated with naivety or to be allowed to be ruled by terrible men and women who are simply thugs. And for all the pious bleatings of the Trinidadian Prime Minister that we should talk to The Donkey it is to be noted that apart from some pious platitudes he doesn't ever say what exactly he hopes to achieve by these so-called "talks" other than leaving The Donkey in power. Oh! He will say that he wants to bring to an end the suffering of the Venezuelan people, but  according to him that can best be achieved by leaving Maburro & Co. in untrammeled power. Really? If you buy that rubbish then I still have that bridge in Brooklyn that I have been trying to sell for the longest while! Offers invited!!

And as for "talking" with The Donkey's regime, all I have to say is that there is absolutely no incentive for Maburro to agree to any compromise. But there are plenty of incentives for him to continue just as he is doing now.

NEANDERTHAL THINKING

 It is difficult, if not impossible, to be happy about the direction that Trinidad & Tobago seems to be heading these days. Some wag suggested to me that the Government's thinking seemed to come straight out of the playbook from the Neanderthals - the close cousins of ours who went extinct so many thousands of years ago. Certainly, I understood his point. For example, while the Government and our erstwhile Minister of Health beat their respective chests about how well they have managed the COVID-19 crisis there is a worrying (and lingering) suspicion that we haven't been told the truth. There has been a dearth of testing for the virus. It was reported, for example, that little Grenada with approximately five percent of our population had actually done more tests than we had.  But we are supposed to have done a good job! Really? How do we know? We don't have all the facts.

Then there was this business about getting 200,000 vaccines from the African Union. Why does one get the uncomfortable impression that this was made out to be a big deal because India has been in the news about providing vaccines to poorer nations? In other words, it is all about race! Oh! Those who defend the Government will say that this is simply not true. But the suspicion persists. Why? Is this a case of where there is smoke there is fire?

There is the matter of a recently appointed Government Minister releasing a report about WASA saying what we all knew already: that this State entity was hopelessly and helplessly overstaffed, needed a radical overhaul and had too many 'managers'. Put another way, it is completely inefficient.

And then there is the rather curious (not to mention offensive) behaviour of the presiding officers in both Houses of Parliament who give the (obviously unintended) impression that they are completely biased and whose rulings call into question constantly their so-called independence.

But the 'Granddaddy' of all our problems begins and ends with the economy and the Government's handling of it. There was the rather sudden closure of Petrotrin shortly after serious reports of alleged corruption on the part of a contractor whose principal was alleged to have been a close friend of the Prime Minister. It is interesting that this allegation (of corrupt practices) seems to have all but disappeared. We have had closure after closure of plants at Point Lisas with thousands being thrown out of work. The Heritage and Stabilization fund is reported to being depleted on what feels like a daily basis and foreign exchange is now in such short supply that for the first time in almost thirty years there is a thriving black market in that commodity. The banks continue to make money though, and there is reportedly a lot of excess liquidity in the system. But business is bad.

There are whispers of reports that many economists are saying that if we don't take action soon then we will be forced to turn to the IMF. But it is noticeable that there is no denial of these whispers from either the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister.

In the meantime prices, especially of food, are rising. And there is talk of reducing the number of public servants! If that happens will social unrest be far behind? So far the bulk of the unemployment has been in the South of Trinidad. And most of the recently unemployed persons have received severance packages thus cushioning the blow. Right now there are many public servants who only report for work on a one week on one week off basis, but they continue to draw a full month's pay. How long can this continue.

No. We are stuck with what my friend calls 'Neanderthal thinking'. But the Neanderthals went extinct and the Homo Sapiens took over.  The rest is history. Makes you wonder where we'll all end up if this kind of thinking continues to dominate.

TWENTY FOUR YEARS

   TWENTY-FOUR years ago yesterday my cousin Monty was kidnapped. His skeleton (that's right: his skeleton!) was found two days later in his burnt out car. The police told me at the time that the burning of the car was done using "an accelerant more flammable than gasoline". 

It took me two years to find out what exactly had happened to my cousin, how it happened and why it happened. Frankly, the story reads like something out of a crime novel. It involves a local as well as a foreign drug lord and police corruption going from the bottom of the Police Service all the way up to the top. I know everything, but, unfortunately, can't prove a damned thing! I know who kidnapped my cousin and I know who pulled the trigger of the gun that ended his life. But, I can't prove it.

At one time when we had the Canadian CoP and his Canadian Deputy I went to see the deputy who knew why and what I was coming about. The deputy met with me and a lawyer friend of mine whom I had brought as a witness. He (the deputy) was surprised that I had somebody with me but hadn't bothered (by his own admission) to read the file. Instead he seemed more interested in finding out what I knew. I told him that I knew a lot but that it didn't make sense having any kind of discussion with him unless and until he had read the file. He promised to do so and also promised that he would call me ... very soon! He never did. Frankly, his attitude raised very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions in my mind that are probably better left unexpressed.

I an very close to a girl that was raped more than 10 years ago and saw for myself up close and personal how devastating that experience was for her. I followed up with the police every day for 6 months after the deed and then on a weekly basis for another additional 10 months, but it was to no avail. The rapist was never caught.

Why am I raising all this now? Because, like most Trinis I have been appalled by the brutal murders (especially of our women) that seem to be climbing almost daily. I felt it when Ashanti, for example, was murdered and I was most upset about Andrea's terrible ordeal. But I also feel for their loved ones who are left with the terrible scars of knowing how absolutely horrible their last hours on the planet must have been.

It is a truism that there is no grief which a length of time will not heal. But it is also very true that when a tragedy (such as the brutal murders of these girls) takes place that no matter that you have no more tears to shed you never forget the injustice meted out to your loved one and you thirst for revenge, i.e., you want their killers to be caught and found guilty and punished. When this doesn't happen you are left with a huge void in your psyche that you fall into again and again ... even after 24 years! The tears go, but the pain never does.

We can pass all the laws we want. We can bring back the death penalty and castrate the rapists. But if we don't catch the criminals everything that we say and do is just so much dust and doesn't mean a thing.

FIX THE SYSTEM AND CATCH THE CROOKS

What is the point of passing all kinds of laws that are designed to secure convictions if you are not catching the criminals in the first place? Criminals don't fear draconian laws; they fear getting caught! Let me put it this way: everybody who has a driver's licence has at one time or another broken the speed limit laws - especially on the highway. But if you put police on the highway with a timer or radar gun you will see people slowing down. Nobody wants to get caught and have to pay a fine.

It is the same thing with violent crime. If the criminal believes that his chances of getting caught are almost zero, and his chances of being convicted are even slimmer, then he simply ain't gonna hesitate to do the crime. And this includes everything from murder to speeding and everything in between.

That is why I am so fed up with the posturing of politicians who claim that this latest Parliamentary Bill (whatever "it" is) will definitely bring down crime and is a vital piece in the State's fight against crime.  And nobody takes them out on these claims. Our erstwhile Attorney General is now bringing to Parliament legislation to amend the Evidence Act which he claims is absolutely vital and most important in the fight against crime. I suppose that he wants to pretend that he is doing something about the crime epidemic.

I'm sorry, but I've heard this song before. Remember the Anti-Gang Act? There were NO prosecutions (let alone convictions) under the Act when it was law, but the Attorney General didn't hesitate to castigate the Opposition for their lack of support when the law came up for renewal, and the mainstream media agreed with him. It was irresponsible not to support this legislation the AG thundered.

But nobody ever went back to the basic question: how many criminals are being caught? How many crimes are committed without being "solved"?

Does this mean that we should be like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins by crying "Korban" at the gates of the Temple? No.  But we should start at the beginning which is catching the criminals - and quickly. The fear of getting caught is the ONLY effective deterrent against crime. Everything else is just fluff. And we should let the politicians (like the Attorney General) know that we are not impressed with their 'holier than thou' pronouncements. Fix the system by catching the crooks. Don't catch the crooks and we will all have to continue to deal with tragedies like the dreadful story of Andrea Barrath.

And yes, catching the criminals means also convicting them. This means that as part of fixing the problem the Court system has to be fixed as well.

THE RACIAL ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

 One of the greatest American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln,  once made a famous speech in which he said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I could not find the exact quotation of his famous speech so you will forgive me if I quote him from memory. He said words to the effect that "I believe this government cannot endure permanently half believing in fiction and half in science and logic. The union will not be divided. The house will not fall. But I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become one thing or another."

And that is more or less what he said. If you think about it, you will appreciate that except for the names and a few other changes his words apply accurately to Trinidad & Tobago in 2021. We are hopelessly divided racially, and to pretend that we are not is similar to whistling in the wind. there are two main races in the country: African or Black and East Indian. If you are Black it is a pretty good bet that you vote and/or support the PNM. If you are Indian it is an equally good bet that you support the UNC. If you are neither one nor the other you will support the political party that you believe that you personally can benefit from financially. If you are Syrian/Lebanese this usually means that you will support the PNM because the Indian community has enough wealthy persons that the UNC doesn't need their money. 

You will notice that nowhere in the above analysis is there any statement of the differences in policies between the two major parties. The truth is that there is very little difference between them in regard to policies on anything ranging from health care to education to taxes. The arguments at election time is always about 'we can do a better job than they can and we steal less.' The not so hidden subtext is that both sides not so subtly say vote for us because we are Black/Indian (as the case may be).

It is probably too much to hope that the current leadership of both sides will change anytime soon or do anything for the country that will put us on the right track of not caring about 'us' and 'them' but of 'we'. Oh! The politicians on both sides will bleat about equality and how they are not racists and will trot out persons from the 'other side' which they say prove their point, but nobody is really fooled by that. 

Look: the sooner we talk about this racial elephant in the room the better. And the sooner that we admit to ourselves that we are a society that is hopelessly divided by race also the better. You can't fix a problem unless you acknowledge that it exists in the first place. After that acknowledgement then we can begin discussing how to fix it.

But then, the question will arise: do our politicians really want to fix a system that they benefit from?

TWO KINDS OF TRUTH

 I got the title of this post from a most enjoyable and readable novel by an American, Michael Connely.  In it the author argued that there were two kinds of truth: one is the unalterable bedrock of one's life mission, and the other is the malleable truth of politicians, charlatans, corrupt lawyers and their clients, bent and molded to serve whatever purpose was at hand.

The more I thought about the learned author's proposition that there are two kinds of truth, the more I thought that he was absolutely right.  The only thing that I would change is the first: I would argue that  the first kind of truth is the unalterable bedrock of what exactly is going on in any particular sphere of life. I would leave the author's definition of the second kind of truth  as I believe that it is solidly on point. 

 We see examples of this everyday, not only in the big countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, but in the little countries like Trinidad & Tobago. For example, is it true that Prime Minister Rowley's daughter, her husband and their son have not only taken up residence at the Prime Minister's official residence but are also using official cars, official personnel and official special branch guards 24/7?

If this is true, why is this okay now but it wasn't okay when the accusation was made that then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's sister was supposed to be living at the Prime Minister's official residence in St. Ann's back in 2012? I seem to remember that Marlene Macdonald, who is now the present Minister of Community Development, made a big stink about this saying in effect that it was not only wrong but evidence of corruption on the part of Mrs. Persad-Bissessar. I really can't remember the details of that particular accusation, but I seem to remember that it was reported that the sister lived in England and was visiting the Prime Minister and assisting her with an illness.

Whatever, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that assuming (though not accepting) that the accusation against Mrs. Persad-Bissessar had merit, then doesn't it follow that if this story/question about Dr. Rowley's family is true that what is taking place is also wrong?  With respect, the ruling PNM cannot have it both ways. Either this is wrong for everybody or it is right for everybody. And either the story about Dr. Rowley's family is true or it isn't! Either way, the facts ought to come out and we ought to be told 'yes, it's true', or 'no, it's not!' 

And we should begin to insist on the first kind of truth from our leaders and not the second one. Speaking for myself, I am fed-up with all the lies that we have had to swallow over the last few years. And I don't care who is telling the lies; they ought to be stopped ... now!  And it is we, the citizenry, who have to stop them from being told.

THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT SENATORS

 

There has been a lot of talk recently about the role of independent senators and how they should or should not have voted in the recent debate on the Bill proposing amendments to the Procurement Act. If you are a UNC supporter you would be very angry over the seeming abdication by all but one of the Independents of their perceived responsibility and even more annoyed over the vote by Dr. Remy in support of the Government's Bill. If you are a PNM supporter you are very happy with the result and are smirking happily while accusing the UNC side of sour grapes.

With respect, both sides are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Senate is supposed to work. So let's start from the beginning. There are 31 Senators. The Government has 16 senators, one of whom is always the President of the Senate, i.e., the presiding officer. He/she has a casting vote IF there is a tie. Convention dictates that the Presiding Officer must ALWAYS vote to maintain the status quo. So, if the votes are tied at 15 for and 15 against, and the status quo is that there must be no change to whatever is being proposed, then the proposal fails. And as almost all the proposals for change come from the Government this tie would mean that whatever was being proposed fails ... the Government loses.

I should have also pointed out that there are 6 Opposition Senators and 9 Independents. All the Senators are appointed by the President of the Republic. The Government Senators are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Opposition Senators are appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. The Independents are appointed by the President on whomsoever he/she may so desire. These last are usually chosen from the general population and are usually persons who are recognized as being leaders of or in their particular fields of expertise, e.g. medicine, religion, law, etc. (As an aside, I saw a rather derogatory comment about Senator Paul Richards where he was referred to as a mere "DJ". This was a most unfair and unwarranted comment. I have known Senator Richards for many years as as a most competent, knowledgeable and balanced news journalist. Frankly, he deserves to be in the Senate and has made some excellent contributions in the past as an Independent Senator.)

But I digress. The Independents are not in the Senate to prevent or obstruct the Government of the day from doing what it wants, but are there to ensure that laws are not passed that would, for example, give the Government dictatorial powers or are so absolutely stupid that no sane person could support it. (for example again, I would expect the Independents to vote against a law that said that all men must wear green pants at all times.) I have known many Independent Senators  who have not particularly liked or agreed with a particular proposal of the particular Government, but have voted for it (whatever "it" was) because they understood that their fundamental role was as a sort of watchdog and not to get involved in the politics of a particular situation.

When an Independent Senator abstains from voting that is a serious warning to the Government of the day. What the Independent is saying in effect is 'I'm not going to block you, but you should know that I disapprove of what you are doing'. A sensible Government will pay close attention to this. An astute Opposition will also pay attention and will look for ways in the future to try and persuade the Independent who abstained not to do so next time, but to vote against the next proposal.

Although I did not agree with Senator Remy's vote on the Procurement Bill, frankly I have seen no evidence whatsoever that she is a "closet PNM" (or whatever other derogatory epithet has been hurled against her.) Clearly, in voting for the Bill she must have felt that she was doing exactly what she had been put in the Senate to do, and she was acting in accordance with that belief. I think that at the very least she should have abstained as did her other colleagues, but once she acted honourably and honestly (and I believe that she did) then whether I agree with her vote or not is immaterial. The most that we can ask of anyone is that he/she acts honourably and honestly.

For the record, I think that the Bill should have been defeated, but I must say that the Opposition Senators have not been reported as dealing with the problems that the Bill will create, but appeared to have concentrated more on the politics. And the reported comments of Senator Jerlean John made after the vote, if accurate, are as unnecessary as they are unfortunate. That the Opposition Senators were unable to persuade the Independents to vote against the Bill speaks more to their failure than anything else.

Perhaps the Opposition Senators should take a course on the role and function of the Senate. The Upper House is supposed to be a place where more reasoned debate takes place and the interests of the country take precedence over the more narrow partisan ones which tend to dominate the national debate. But that is why we have an Independent Bench, and whether you like them or not, most of them do a good job. Certainly, in my lifetime I have only known one individual who was clearly not independent and who always voted for whatever the Government of the day wanted. Fortunately, he is no longer there and the President who appointed him is also long gone. But, to be fair, so far the present crop of Independents is doing a good job. Would that we could say the same for the remaining 22 Senators on both sides of the aisle!

P.S. Even if all 9 Independent Senators had abstained the Bill would still have passed. For the Bill to have failed, all 9 Independent Senators would have had to have voted against it.