THE PREMATURE ENDING OFTHE BUDGET DEBATE

 In Trinidad & Tobago there are 41 Parliamentary seats. The ruling People's National Movement (PNM) has 22 seats and the opposition UNC has 19 seats. An argument has erupted over whose fault it was that the Budget debate - arguably the most important debate in a Parliamentary year - was truncated and brought to a premature close. My answer is that it is the fault of both sides. We can argue over who might be more to blame than the other, but the truth is that both sides are to blame. And we (the people) are the losers.

Let's look at it as clearly as possible: a Budget debate is supposed to be about a government accounting to the people through the Parliament what it spent and took in over the last fiscal year and what it proposes to do/spend in the coming fiscal year. Therefore, it is a most serious debate and not one in which one should play games. If an opposition does not want to partake in the debate, for whatever reason, the Ministers should still account for their respective Ministries. Unfortunately, a lot of them didn't. One gets the most unfortunate impression that the Government was more interested in 'scoring points' than in accounting to the people. Either that or they were simply too incompetent to give an accounting.

As for the Opposition, while it is true that the Government has superior numbers and they were obviously trying to 'hold their fire power' for when the Ministers deigned to speak they could and should have put in a speaker with instructions to him/her to lambaste the Government for not putting in their Ministers to speak and risk being criticized. (Instead of Ministers, a lot of backbenchers spoke who seemed to delight more in politics than in getting a proper accounting for the people that they are supposed to represent.) It wouldn't have been difficult to do that and the Government's rather cowardly action could and should have been exposed. But the Opposition was also obviously more interested in 'scoring points' rather than looking out for Trinidad & Tobago. That they chose instead to 'play games' is deplorable. Two, or even three wrongs can never make a right. And the Opposition was wrong to allow the Government to get off the hook like that. And so I say that the time has really come to look at our whole Parliamentary system and fix the obvious problems before they get worse. And believe me, there is no 'bottom'. Things can get worse. (But that is a whole other discussion. I do have some ideas which I will put out later for discussion).

Right now we have a system that encourages division in the society rather than creating a country where everyone feels that he/she has a stake in it. But until that happens (or snow falls in Trinidad) we can at least be honest with ourselves and tell BOTH sides to stop playing the fool and get down to representing us. Because right now we are being very poorly represented by BOTH sides. I could write a book on everything that BOTH sides are doing wrong. Perhaps (despite the failures of the NAR and COP) the time really has come for a third political party?

TROUBLE FOR OUR DEMOCRACY

 We really do deserve an incompetent government. Yesterday (Saturday) Roodal Moonilal made some very damning accusations against the Attorney General. Basically, the Opposition MP accused Mr. Al Rawi of misleading Parliament. He backed up his accusations with facts and figures.  To my astonishment the Speaker then said that she would consider what he had said and would give her ruling later as to whether he (the Attorney General) should be referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament.

Unbelievable, I thought. But then I consoled myself by the thought that at the very least this would be headlines in the Sunday papers. It wasn't! In the Express the story was relegated to a minor headline, and in the Guardian Mr. Moonilal's accusations weren't even reported, but the headline was that the Prime Minister was backing his Attorney General over the indemnity issue. The Guardian also in a minor story simply reported that the Attorney General was being accused of making "false and misleading statements" in Parliament  on Friday 4th October. In none of the papers was there a laying out of Mr. Moonilal's accusations. As a result, the average person will have difficulty in forming any sort of reasoned opinion.

So? Why is this a big thing? Let's start from the beginning: Parliament is the very top of our democratic system. Misleading Parliament, whether deliberately or not, is very, very serious and all citizens should look at this accusation with great concern. Because, if the accusations (or any part thereof) are true and there is absolutely no sanction it will mean that we do not have a democracy and are being ruled by a dictatorship. That ain't good at all! 

So when the newspapers seem to play down the accusations against the Attorney General and when lying to the Parliament is not seen as a "big thing" by the 'Fourth Estate' (the media) it is not unreasonable to assume that we are in deep "doo-doo". 

The average person will not worry about this. 'That's politics', he/she will say. Unfortunately, it is not 'just politics'.  When Hitler rose to power and started targeting the Jews there were very few people who worried about it. 'I'm not Jewish so that doesn't affect me', was the prevailing sentiment. One world war later together with six million Jews murdered we have a clear example of why 'just politics' simply isn't good enough.

If Mr. Al Rawi is guilty of what Mr. Moonilal accused him of doing and (more importantly) he lied to the Parliament about it then as a matter of urgency he ought to be dealt with in a most serious manner. And the Speaker should be aware that many people will view her delay in making a ruling immediately on Mr. Moonilal's excellent presentation was because she wanted to liaise with the political leaders in the Government as to how she should deal with this. While this impression may not be accurate, certainly there are a lot of people who believe that it is. And that's the point! She should be jealously guarding the independence of her office. Sadly, there are many who believe that she is not doing so.

Perception, in politics, is often reality, and this is certainly the perception of way too many people.

As for the print media, I guess they don't really care. They are making money and who cares if they are biased or not? 

No. We are in deep trouble and at the end of the day we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

THE LOST OPPOSITION OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

 Keith Rowley's government has been a complete failure almost from the word 'go'. But the opposition UNC hasn't offered a convincing alternative. While it can be argued with justification that Rowley's PNM government has had a lot of bad luck come its way (the fall in oil prices, the COVID 19 pandemic, etc.), the truth is that their handling of the various crises that hit them have been so badly botched that most ugly and what should be most unnecessary suspicions have arisen. Take for example, the A&V oil scandal. The truth is that most people believe that this was or is a cover up of mammoth proportions and that somebody somewhere took a huge bribe. Is this true? Certainly, there is no clear cut evidence showing that it is, but a lot of people will say 'hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck you are going to have to prove to me that it is really just a pussy cat'. And Dr. Rowley has admitted that the head of that company is a good friend. Curry duck anyone?

Then there has been the Government's handling of the pandemic. Certainly (according to the Government) they have been reporting recently the number of COVID cases and deaths, but was this so from the beginning? We didn't cancel Carnival 2020 and then we had a general election in August 2020. Only later the general election did we start to get reports about so many people being sick with the virus and then so many people having to go to hospital and that the hospitals were being overwhelmed and so on. But why does a right thinking person get the impression th we weren't told the truth from the beginning and why is the Minister of Health surprised to discover that a lot of people simply don't believe a thing that he says? Because, if you check back between February and August of last year you will find that this virus was certainly not on the Government's front burner - or it didn't appear to be. And Mr. Deyalsingh cannot be surprised if people believe him to be incompetent.

Then you have the terrible imbroglio with the Police Service Commission (PSC) which is still going on. Apparently some high up person went to see the President about this problem. But nobody seems to know who that person was nor what was discussed. And all the while you have Gary Griffith sitting on the side lines like a leopard waiting to pounce. And there are many, many other questions coming out of this.  But it is the latest scandal and it is still occupying the front pages, so there is probably a lot more to come.

There is really only space to highlight these three matters. Each one could take a whole book to discuss thoroughly and to present possible solutions and/or theories. Certainly, these are not the only scandals that we should be concerned about. 

But the point here is that by all that is normal the Opposition UNC should be riding high in the polls and they are not. Why? Maybe it is because they do not attack the Government with anything remotely resembling credibility nor do they deal frontally with issues (such as the radical foreign exchange shortage) with anything that offers hope to a beleaguered and battered population as to how they might fix things. It is almost as if they are saying 'vote for us. We can do better than these characters. Certainly, we can't do worse!'

They say that a country gets the government that it deserves. But I really feel that we've been hit with a double whammy:  a completely awful Government and a hopeless Opposition.  We don't deserve the two together.

TO VACCINATE OR NOT TO VACCINATE (that is the question -with apologies to Shakespeare)

 Full disclosure: I was one of those who had vaccine hesitancy. Frankly, I felt that we weren't being told the truth by ANYBODY - including those who are in authority abroad. And, my basic question -why- simply was not being answered.  Or, not answered in a way that to me made sense. So, I sat on my decision to vaccinate or not and waited until I could be satisfied one way or another. After all, the best advice always is 'when in doubt, don't'! And I wasn't about to put anything in my body that I wasn't sure about. 

So? What changed? The truth is absolutely nothing. But after reviewing time and again all the arguments both for and against, I came to the conclusion that perhaps the safer way to go was indeed to vaccinate. I had spoken to a lot of doctors - all of whom said yes, vaccinate. I had also read all the arguments both for and against vaccinating and had noticed that every argument that I could find against vaccination was based either on anecdotal evidence or on so-called 'reports' that I could not find anywhere else other than from the persons who had sent them to me but the arguments in favour were almost always backed up by science.

Put another way, the evidence that the vaccines were/are safe greatly outweighed the evidence that they were/are not. Now, I am fully aware that an argument that I find compelling is not one that you might consider in that regard. In other words, for an argument to convince the other person, it must be presented in such a manner that he/she finds compelling, not what the proponent of the argument believes to be the truth. I am also aware that if you cannot say something in one sentence then you cannot say it at all. You may need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain your sentence, butif you cannot make your point in one sentence then you cannot say it at all.

So in one sentence, my point is that all the scientific evidence (to me) points to the fact that it appears safer to get the vaccine than not to get it and that the stories (like those of Nicki Minaj about swollen testicles, etc.) ought to be discarded unless and until scientific evidence is produced that proves the point. You have every right to disagree with me on this. After all, it is your body! And for the record, this does not mean that I agree with the T&T Government's response and how it has handled this crisis. But that's another story.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF ENERGY

Dear Mr. Young,

 In recent times a story started on social media which (rather surprisingly because it was potentially very critical of the Government) found its way into the main stream media. Basically the report was that NGC (the National Gas Company) had lost or was about to lose more than $400 million and that the company's board of directors had asked for, and received, a full indemnification of this loss/potential loss from The Government (GORTT).

You will not be surprised therefore when I tell you that this report stirred up a heck of a lot of questions - none of which have been answered to date except for a very bland statement that talks were on-going and the matter was at a very sensitive stage. Translation: 'we ain't sayin' nothing at the moment for reasons that we are not prepared to give other than confidentiality'.

Somebody has forwarded to me  today a press release of yesterday's date supposedly made by you, our erstwhile Minister of Energy, Stuart R. Young (we mustn't forget the 'R' - it makes you seem more important - and yes, I do know that it is an initial probably for your middle name - but it does seem more than a little pretentious.). In this press release you say that any troubles the NGC is having was caused by the Kamla regime (why am I so surprised?) and  that there has been a 'mis-characterization (sic) of information that  was leaked in a surreptitious manner[and] was not surprising and was expected.' You, Mr. Minister, go on to say that 'at the appropriate time we will provide the accurate information ...' But, you say, 'due to the current stage of discussions and the sensitive negotiations that time is not now.' Of course, there is no hint of when 'the appropriate time' will be.

You then take a not unexpected swipe at the opposition (after all the best defence is always offence) and re-affirm your faith in the NGC board and the President of NGC.

To which I say, 'okay. Let's take the honourable gentleman (you) at his word, for he would never lie to us, would he?' But a whole set of questions arise: The first is, Mr. Minister, do you have any idea when the issues may be resolved and we can learn the whole truth? A week? A month? A year? Indefinitely? If the last, then when would be a good time to raise this matter again? a week? A month? A year? Because, I'm sure that you will agree that the possible loss of $400 million plus is much to serious to be left alone indefinitely and we (the general public) deserve to know what in the name of heaven is going on. Put another way, if tomorrow the shoe is on the other foot and you and your party form the Opposition would you be prepared to accept such an answer? (Forgive me if I say that I'm sure that you wouldn't.)

Then I think that  while you can confirm or deny (as the case may be) those parts of the report that are true and those that are not, the real question is will you? You see, Mr. Minister, most people believe that there has been/will be a huge loss. and most people are looking for answers - which (for the sake of argument - I am prepared to concede may not be available right now. But 'right now' cannot mean never and there has to be some sort of reporting/accounting in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Put another way, has the NGC lost a bucket load of money or is it in danger of losing it?

We can't operate on the old 'trust me. I will never do anything wrong' line. All of the voters in this country are legal adults. We deserve to be treated as such. And the deflecting of arguments by attacking those that dare to question you just ain't working any more. We need the truth! Now!

Yours faithfully,

Robin A.G. Montano

(As I have two middle names and on the off chance that it is not pretentious - I think it is - I have signed off like you but with my two middle initials.)

THE S.O.E EXTENSION

 For most people, their lives don't change when a new government takes power. Let me put that another way: their lives don't change noticeably. They still have to go to work, their day-to-day problems still exist and the only noticeable changes are the faces of the new ministers on television. When the government doesn't change then even this small change in the faces of the ministers (X is moved to Y Ministry and Z is brought in to replace him/her) is hardly noticeable.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that except for a very, very small minority, life goes on much as it did before.

However, (you knew a 'but' was coming, didn't you?) all this changes when some sort of crisis hits (a war,  a crash of the economy, a pandemic, etc.). Then people start to look more carefully at who they voted for and to think about whether or not the 'other side' might have managed the crisis better. The longer the crisis goes on and the more people that are adversely affected by it the more unpopular the regime will become.

Sometimes the government makes the wrong decisions, either through inadvertence or because of incompetence, but whatever the reason you will never get a politician admitting that he/she made a mistake. Instead they will jump through hoops to try and prove that it (whatever 'it' is) was the fault of others, especially their political enemies whom they had defeated at the polls.

It has always been a source of great wonder for me as to why, when things have not gone according to plan, that we as an electorate do not hold the government's feet to the proverbial fire and insist on getting answers to the hard questions that are not asked - much less answered. Instead, if you have voted for X party and they are in power, you usually accept blindly whatever stories they might tell. And, of course, if you voted for Y party you will believe even the most outrageous things and call the X party dishonest and corrupt. But you ain't gonna get answers to those pressing questions that need to be answered.

Don't believe me? Check out the political news over the last 10 years. Except for the names and a few other changes the stories are the same. For example, a young lady called Reshmi Ramnarine gets appointed to a high level post for which she obviously had no experience for. And a few days ago another very young lady got appointed as this country's ambassador to China. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that she has absolutely no diplomatic experience, but she is now our country's ambassador to China - a VERY important diplomatic post. It is interesting that the Opposition hasn't made s similar fuss as was made over Ms. Ramnarine's appointment. But that is another story again.

But (and you knew that there had to be another 'but') we are now in the middle of a huge health crisis with this COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from the dangers to the personal health of persons the present Government's response has effectively decimated the economy. There was a debate in Parliament a few days ago on whether a State of Emergency (SOE) (first introduced at the beginning of May) should be extended to the end of November. As a concerned citizen I had hoped that both the Government AND the Opposition would have used the opportunity to educate the population as to the actual science and whether or not it is still necessary to have an SOE,  for example, whether or not it is still necessary to keep in person dining banned in restaurants, and so on. I had hoped that whatever their political leanings BOTH sides would realize that the population is reeling under the threat of this virus and people have lost/ are losing their jobs as a result. On top of that more than a thousand people are reported to have died. So to talk about it being serious is more than mere hyperbole.

Put another way, what I saw in Parliament was a lot of 'grandstanding' on both sides with nobody seemingly concerned about the citizens who are catching hell. The Government's attitude seemed to be 'this is what we are doing and if you don't like it get to hell out of here'. And the Opposition's stance was 'we don't like it, you haven't convinced us, but we are going to play it safe and abstain so if by chance what you are doing actually works then we can say that we didn't vote for the extension because you didn't answer our questions. And if it doesn't work then we can say that we told you that it wouldn't but you didn't listen.'

And you wonder why we are in the state that we are in?

ARE WE APPROACHING FAILED STATE STATUS - OR HAVE WE ALREADY REACHED THERE?

This is a serious question. In thinking about it I took note of the following:

- We have been relegated effectively to just above junk bond status by the world renowned body, Standard & Poors. Oh, the erstwhile Minister of Finance tried to put a spin on the S&P report but a plethora of respected economists basically told him that he was talking through his  ..., well, not his mouth! So he shut up!

- Unemployment is rising uncontrollably. People are literally out of work and have absolutely no hope of getting a job anytime soon. It is most interesting that reliable figures are not being published on this (or indeed, on anything else!). I simply can't imagine how people at the bottom of the economic pile are surviving.

- One gets an impression that the Prime Minister simply doesn't have a clue as to how to deal with the economic situation. This may very well not be so, but in politics image is everything and the image is one of a leader and his team of ministers floundering hopelessly and helplessly getting fat on their generous salaries and 'perks' while the people are catching hell.

- Prices are rising - not so slowly, but inexorably. We don't know when this will end, or indeed if it ever will! But the reality is that prices are rising - especially at the grocery - and rising faster rather than slower.

- Foreign exchange is scarce and hard to come by. If a person is lucky enough to have a few US dollars in his bank account he simply can't get it out. First of all, he has to "order' it and then he will probably be told he can only get a portion of it in cash.

- There is now open speculation that there will be marches and/or riots when the existing State of Emergency (SOE) comes to an end on the 30th August.  If the Government manages to get the Opposition to support an extension of the SOE then there is open speculation that there will be serious social unrest. Either way, trouble with a capital "T" is coming - and soon!

- Crime is rising. Need I say more?

I could go on, but surely you get the point. People are hurting and there is little trust that we are being told the truth - about anything Certainly, I am one of those who believes that we have been lied to for the longest while. There is too much that simply didn't or doesn't make sense. And the fact is that when somebody is telling you something that you don't understand, 98 percent of the time it is because he doesn't WANT you to understand; two percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is talking about.

No. I can't say that we are yet a failed state, but if we continue on the path that we are currently on, we most certainly will become one very soon.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Let's say that you have a prosperous business that is making you a million dollars a year. But you discover/believe that the manger is stealing a hundred thousand dollars from it so you fire him. Then you hire another manager, but this one is so totally incompetent that instead of making a profit he actually is losing a million dollars a year. Then, although you have no justiciable evidence you have good reason to believe that your new manager is also stealing a hundred thousand a year from you. In other words you are way in the hole by more than a million dollars! Now, what do you do?

Obviously you get rid of the second manager. But the problem here is that the only other available manager is the first one whom you fired because you thought he was stealing from you. So? What do you do? Here are the stark choices facing you: (1) you keep the first manager because you believe that he is at least more honest than the first; (2) you fire the second manager, hold your nose and rehire the the first manager knowing full well that he will steal from you again - but at least (you reason) he will put you back in profit; (3) you say to hell with both of them and look for a third manager who you believe/hope will not steal - although at the moment there is no one on the horizon in whom you can place your trust. But time is working against you. You can't take too long to take a decision.

And that, my dear friends, except for the names and a few other changes, is the conundrum that we find ourselves in. So? I ask you: given the choices available, quite seriously, what would you do? Let's not argue about it. Let's answer this hypothetical question.

"WHEN IT COMES TO PINNING BLAME - PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEYS"

 The tile of this post is a quote from the American Senator Mitt Romney. When you think about it, you will realize that this piece of advice is followed to the letter by our local politicians. We have on the one hand, the erstwhile Leader of the Opposition criticizing, for example, the Prime Minister's COVID advisers and on the other hand the Prime Minister dissembling to the point where it is almost impossible to ascertain exactly where the truth with him ends and the lies begin. Often one is left with the impression that he didn't say something earlier that was in direct contradiction to what he might be saying now, when in fact that is exactly what he is doing. And yet, he not only gets away with it, but continues to get away with it. Unbelievable!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm in a state of despair over the state of affairs in Trinidad & Tobago. On the one hand it is absolutely clear that we haven't been told the truth about this virus from the beginning (and I'm talking about from February last year). On the other side of the coin the Opposition really seems to be totally incompetent and completely incapable of doing anything other than talking to its supporters who will vote for them no matter what. Then on the third side of the coin (and, yes, I know that a coin only has two sides) we find ourselves with persons who are supposed to be independent but clearly aren't - like the Speaker of the House who really is an absolute disgrace and doesn't even seem to try to be even handed any more. (I guess that she has decided that it really doesn't matter and that nobody gives a damn what she says or does so long as she pleases her boss, the Prime Minister. The problem, of course, is that her boss is really the people of T&T, but then they appoint her in a very indirect way and she has decided to pay more attention to the real decision maker - the Prime Minister - and what he wants.) And the sad truth is that she just happens to be one of the more visible examples of the wrong person in the wrong job.

Perhaps in about fifty or so years from now we will break out of this racial voting. Apart from the fact that I can barely hold by breath for fifty seconds let alone fifty years, I certainly don't expect this pattern to break any time soon. Instead I see it continuing for a very, very long time.

But we have a habit of blaming the 'other' side (whoever the 'other' one may be) and completely ignoring the faults on 'our' side. If you support either the PNM or the UNC your answer will usually be something like "well, they (the 'other' side) are worse. They 'tief' more, they don't do what is necessary and we are (or would be) better off with 'our' people in charge." And there you have it, folks! How do you argue with that? My father used to say "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".

But one thing is certain, you will very, very, very rarely get a supporter of one side saying that he/she thinks that the country would be better off with a third party. Instead, he/she will point out the two rather spectacular failures of the two attempts at a third force and will argue that there is all the evidence that you need as to why it won't work. And you know what? They may well be right! Isn't that sad, if they are? In the meantime, at least we have plenty of donkeys to pin tails on!

ON THE REAL JOB OF AN OPPOSTION

 

I will readily confess that I have paid little or no attention to what I will call in this post 'the Tobago fracas', so much so that when a good friend asked me whether a special majority was needed I wrongly told him 'no' that it could be passed by an ordinary or simple majority.

I have no intention of going into the 'whys and wherefores' of the proposed legislation. But (like a lot of other people) I am interested in the politics. It seems to me that Dr. Rowley has once again outmaneuvered the erstwhile leader of the Opposition and that he really couldn't care less if the legislation fails or not. If he had been really interested in passing this legislation there would and should have been a lot more consultation. The fact that there wasn't speaks volumes for the game being played.

 If I had been asked (which happens as often as snow falls in Trinidad) I would have had my first speaker make a very short speech in the parliament. He/she would have said  that the Opposition intended to give the Government enough votes to pass the legislation but was requesting that the Government go on the record as to exactly what benefits the COUNTRY would get. In other words, was the legislation narrow in that only Tobago would benefit or was it broad enough so that the entire country would benefit? Then if or when things go wrong we will know who to blame. 

Then my speaker would have sat down and I would have asked no one else on my side to speak.

You see, we suffer a problem in this little country of ours when we refer to the Opposition as 'the opposition'. Everybody assumes that the real job of the Opposition is to oppose anything and everything that the Government of the day brings to the Parliament. That's not the job of the Opposition at all! In fact a better (though more cumbersome) title for the Opposition might be 'the Alternative Government'.  Then we might more clearly understand that their job is to provide another alternative - a better or different way from doing whatever is being proposed. Because at the end of the day "the Opposition will have its ay, and the Government will have its way" (to quote former Speaker Hector Maclean).

Look: it is either we all want a better country for EVERYBODY or we just want a better country for a select few. But I must confess that I have a very sad feeling in the pit of my stomach that there are very few of our present Parliamentarians who I believe are there genuinely to make life better for the people. I would give anything to be wrong on this and if thereis anybody out there who can name  a current Parliamentarian that he/she feels or believes is genuinely thereto make life better for the people then I invite you genuinely to name that person or persons. As for me, well dreamer that I am, I genuinely want a better country for everybody. Doesn't look that we'll get it any time soon though. 

HOW TO CREATE A DICTATORSHIP

 For some time now I have had the most uncomfortable feeling that:

(a) We aren't being told the truth about anything;

(b) The mainstream media is in cahoots with the Government and that it/they will do almost anything to protect the Government;

(c) The Government simply doesn't have a clue how to solve our problems.

Let's start with the second one first: there are most unnecessary and disturbing rumours that certain journalists, namely Urvashi Tewarie-Roopnarine and Adesh Samaroo have beens suspended/ fired/ sidelined from their jobs because they had the temerity to ask the Health Minister certain uncomfortable questions. Also, that the host of TV-6's 'Morning Edition', Fazeer Mohammed, has also been sidelined basically because he was/is too critical of the Government. Is any of  this true? Because if any of it is true this will be of great concern. Essentially it will mean that there are some very dark forces at play and that the so-called "independent" press is deep inside the pockets of the Government. You don't have to be a genius to understand that.

What also is of concern is that all of the journalists allegedly sidelined are Indian. If it is true that they have been sidelined then the very ugly suspicion of racism will come to the fore.

Unfortunately, the longer this goes on the more difficult it will be to deny and the more the perception of race will raise its ugly head. We simply cannot afford things like this to happen. If the journalists have been suspended then this is legitimate news and we ought to be told why. If they haven't, then equally, there has to be some sort of explanation that can put to bed these ugly and unnecessary rumours. We simply cannot afford for rumours like this to take hold. 

As for the first and third points, well I have already written what feels like a million words on the two issues. Readers will know where I stand on them.

JOURNALISM 101

 To be a good journalist you have not only to ask the questions that politicians (and others) would prefer to ignore, but you also have to show when the person being questioned is dissembling (i.e., lying) and put forward reasonable theories for the lies. You also have to leave your political allegiances at the door and report everything as honestly as you possibly can  As C.P. Scott said in the Manchester Guardian in 1926 "comment is free but facts are sacred".

So here are some questions that either haven't been asked or to which there has been no clear reporting of the answers:

1. When exactly were the candlelight vigils held? Were they at least 14 days before the spike in Covid-19 cases began? Put another way, when was the last candlelight vigil?

2. How long does it take to be tested positive after being exposed to the virus?

3.How many days after the Easter weekend did the current spike begin?

4. How much exactly are we paying China for the Sinopharm vaccines?

5. Countries like Canada are NOT accepting vaccinations from the Sinopharm vaccine. What exactly will this mean for a person who has got the Sinopharm vaccine but needs to go to, e.g., Canada? Will he/she have to get re-vaccinated with a vaccine approved by the other country? What happens if a person is vaccinated by different vaccines?

6.Why does the death rate seem to be still climbing although we have been in lockdown for what feels like forever?

7. Why are citizens still being locked out from their own country? What exactly is the criteria to be allowed to come home? (This question could also be asked another way: what is the criteria used for some people, e.g., the Prime Minister's and Attorney General's children, to be allowed to come home?)

8. Why are public utilities (e.g., T&TEC) still sending out bills and threatening disconnection? 

9.Why exactly has the Prime Minister failed to show up in Parliament to answer questions? Why was he given permission to skip the sitting of Parliament on Wednesday 16th June? 

10. Why was it considered necessary to have an extended curfew for the weekend of 19th and 20th June?

11. Who or what were the Farmers Associations that the Government said that it approached to discuss the extended curfew for 19th/20th June? There are several who are reported as saying that they were never approached.

12. How many people -exactly- are now out of work and have no income coming in?

 There are many other questions. Indeed, they can go on for a lllooonnnnggg time. But hopefully, the point is made. We are simply NOT being served by the mainstream media. And the question is why? Is there a political agenda? If so, shouldn't they say that they are biased?

DISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH

Although the big news this week is the royal screw up with the distribution of vacinnes to the elderly, I think that it can best be summed up by saying that the Minister of Health should either resign or be fired. He can't say that 'it wasn't my fault'. If it had gone well wouldn't he be claiming credit? He can't have it both ways  and it is time that we in this little country of ours start to call a spade a spade and to hold people accountable. It's either we do that or we continue to accept third and fourth world standards  and give up all hopes of a better, fairer society.

But this latest screw-up by the Minister of Health is simply another distraction from the real issue, which in one word is economics.

Labour's share of the nation's income has been falling for a long time now. We see it and we feel it and we see wealth slowly (and not so slowly) increasingly falling into the outstretched hands of a few as opposed to the many. When we talk about economic prosperity, when that prosperity is accruing to -everyone or just an elite few - that should increasingly become a big part of the debate.

What is taking place now is simply a continuation of the Thatcher/Reagan trickle down theory from the eighties, i.e., that if you let rich people get richer some of that wealth will trickle down to the masses.

I disagreed then with that theory and I am sorry to say that subsequent events have events have justified my skepticism. We need to start thinking very seriously about how we want to distribute the wealth that our country generates and exactly how we are going to do it. Because it is clear that the wealth of our country is NOT being distributed in anything approaching an equitable manner.

THE JOB OF A PRESIDING OFFICER IN PARLIAMENT

 Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been thrust back into the limelight with her latest ruling  that effectively protected the Attorney General and prevented the country from learning where, to whom and how much money was paid by the State to lawyers hired by the Government  to deal with the myriad legal matters that need to be dealt with every day. In essence, the Attorney General's argument was that some of the information being requested ought not to be divulged because of privacy and other issues.

The only problem here with the arguments raised by the Attorney General and endorsed by the Speaker was that in October 2016 the same Attorney General with the same Speaker in the chair gleefully went to town with details of how much his (UNC) predecessor had spent on lawyers and even went so far as to give complete details of the amount of fees paid to each lawyer. Now that the shoe is on the other foot it seems that the exact same type of information being requested is not to be allowed and the Speaker (who has the final say in these matters) appears to be only too happy to side with the Government.

The other problem is that everybody remembers when at the end of January 2020 a UNC Parliamentarian (Dr. Tim Gopeesingh) tried and failed to have a motion to discuss the looming COVID pandemic heard as a definite matter of urgent public importance. The Speaker said that in her opinion the matter did not qualify; in other words, there was nothing urgent for the Parliament to discuss. Of course, subsequent events have proven how tragically wrong she was! 

Traditionally a Speaker is supposed to be above partisan politics and  is there to guide the deliberations of the House in a fair and equitable manner, She/he is NOT there to protect a Government from any thing that the Government may or may not want to do. But one gets the most unfortunate impression that that is exactly how Mrs. Annisette-George (the current Speaker) sees her role. Certainly, her performance as Speaker has given rise to multiple impressions and accusations of bias.

As the presiding officer the Speaker is the interpreter of the rules and procedures of the House, and has the authority to control and regulate the course of debate and to maintain order.  But when the general population gets the overwhelming impression that the Speaker is a mere puppet and will do anything that the Government wants, our democracy is in trouble. Because when the PNM loses (and it will one of these days) and the UNC put in an obviously biased presiding officer it will not be good enough nor will it be acceptable for them to say to the PNM "well all yuh did it". And that is exactly what they will say.

No. This nonsense must stop, and stop now. Mrs. Annisette-George has debased her position as Speaker and for the sake of our little democracy she ought to be replaced immediately with a more neutral Speaker. Don't do it and see what happens with this little democracy of ours. And this has nothing to do with PNM/UNC politics but everything to do with OUR country. There are many ways to arrive at the door of a dictatorship. One of the ways is to have a biased presiding officer in the House of Representatives - and we simply cannot afford that.

                                                      

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.