FIXING CRIME - post script

 I had intended writing only three posts on the subject of fixing crime, but last night as I got into my car at the airport and tuning the radio to BBC I got the tail end of a story whereby it seems that some women in Europe have filed a claim in court against certain European politicians for failing to take appropriate action on Climate Change. I apologize for my own scanty report on this, but I didn't hear the BBC report properly. But it got me to thinking: what if some persons sued the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Security and the Commissioner of Police personally for failing to do their jobs and keeping the country safe?

If you take your car for a check up to the mechanic and he does (or doesn't do) something that he should or shouldn't have done and this failure on his part was his fault and damage to your car was the end result, your mechanic would ne liable to you for the damage that you have incurred. If as a lawyer I give you bad advice or I was negligent in failing to file a document on time or something else, I would be liable to you.

In other words, when somebody fails to do his/her job properly and damage results from that failure, in the normal course of things the person responsible would have to pay for the resulting damage.

So? The Prime Minister is the head of the National Security Council which is the ultimate authority for the security of the Republic. He appoints the Minister of National Security who also has responsibilities in matters of this regard. And the Commissioner of Police also has responsibilities.

So? These people are allowed to pontificate month after month saying in effect that they are not responsible for dealing with the terrible scourge of crime. But if they are not responsible, where then does the buck stop? Who is ultimately responsible? In law if I fail to do something that I am responsible for and you suffer damage, then you can sue me! Perhaps a law suit against those office holders in their personal capacity making them personally liable for the damage that you have suffered might just wake them up and we might get somewhere.

And, no,  I am not offering myself to do this case, and neither can I be involved in it in any way (though I can still cheer it on from the sidelines). That would be touting and the rules of my profession strictly forbid me from touting. But if you or anybody you know has suffered damage as a result of this scourge then perhaps you should encourage them to go and see their lawyer and pursue it vigorously. Surely somebody is responsible and should be made to pay? In any case, you better believe that if I am right on this point that you would see some action very quickly! Nothing motivates an office holder like money, especially if it will cost him/her personally!

FIXING CRIME - Part Three

 I have always looked with scorn upon those who criticize but have no solutions of their own to a particular problem and refuse to admit that they don't know how to fix whatever "it" is.  I hope that I have made it clear in my last two posts on the subject of fixing crime that I have no short term answer for this scourge. Frankly, I believe that what is required is a long term fix that will probably take about 30 years before we see any results. But if we don't start now the problem will only get worse. And I do recognize that there are few (if any) politicians that think beyond 5 years.

As I said in my first post on this subject that the answer lies in education. But we have saddled ourselves with a system that hasn't been revamped for about 60 years (although successive administrations have fiddled with the system during that time). In the meantime, except for the brightest kids or those whose parents can afford private schooling (either by way of private lessons or expensive private schools), the vast majority of the children continue to receive a substandard education.

I would fix this by immediately trebling the salaries of ALL qualified teachers. Right now, the starting salary of a qualified teacher is less than US$1,000 per month. If we pay peanuts to what are probably the most important people in our society what do you think we'll get?

But (and it is a big "BUT") no teacher will get this increase unless certain things happen: Anybody (meaning any QUALIFIED teacher) who wants the increase will have to sign a contract:

1) Agreeing to a yearly performance review; if he/she fails that performance review then he/she will be immediately dismissed without any claims whatsoever for backpay or any monies whatsoever. That would be final.

2) In order to get this increase he/she would have to be properly qualified. By this I mean that at the very least the teacher would have to have an undergraduate degree as well as a teaching diploma/certificate. If someone has been teaching for a period of time, say, 30 years or more, then the requirement for a teaching certificate/diploma would be waved, but not the requirement for an undergraduate university degree. This is to ensure that only properly qualified people would be accepted as being qualified to teach our kids. You can't fool around with this.

Some people may argue that TTUTA (the teachers' union) would never agree to this. My answer is that no teacher that has a job today will lose his/her benefits under the agreement with TTUTA. But anybody who wants the increased pay will have to sign my contract. And no new hirings will take place unless the person signs on with the new contract. I am not interested in what TTUTA might or might not want unless they can show how the children will benefit. It seems to me that this significant fact has been ignored by everybody.

It has been suggested to me that TTUTA might call a strike over this. My answer is let them. I firmly believe that the country will not support the union on this. I also firmly believe that this suggestion will eliminate our system of so-called 'prestige schools' (which are NEITHER prestigious NOR world class) and will forcibly create a system that eliminates bad teaching (including the nationwide curse of absenteeism on the part of teachers nationwide). The name of the game is performance.

Okay. That is my suggestion to fix the problem. As I have said, I honestly don't have a clue how to fix this problem in the short term. But I firmly believe that if we take the proverbial bull by the proverbial horns that we can fix it. I should also say (if it is not already clear) that part of our problem is that our teachers are woefully underpaid. I think that my proposal would fix this.

FIXING CRIME -Part Two

 I had promised to give a solution to the crime problem that we are experiencing here in Trinidad & Tobago. I don't hold out my solution as the only one or even the best one. It is simply a proposal for you to consider. I just want to use first, by way of example, how and why things are so bleak that we need to step back and think - think very seriously - as to how we can fix it.

The crime problem has been created by the fact that we have one of the worst education systems in the world. Take for example, the plight of a young man, say 19 years old, born and raised in Laventille, one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the country. He was born to a young 20 year old mother who already had 3 children before him from 3 different fathers. Although he is highly intelligent, his education has been do awful that he can barely read or write. His mother went on to have 2 more children besides him. None of his siblings (including him) know their fathers. Because he comes from crime infested Laventille and is functionally illiterate he can't get a job. The prejudice is too strong. In any case, because of his illiteracy people tend to think that he is stupid. But he is anything but stupid!

So at 19 years old he finds himself cast upon the rubbish heap of life - unable to better himself through conventional means. But, as I said at the beginning of this post, he is highly intelligent. He sees young people his own age driving fancy cars, going to universities and generally having a bright future. He, on the other hand, has no future. No job. Nothing. He burns with resentment as to how unfair life is. Had he been born into a family with some means his whole future would be different.

So, what do you think he should do? What would you do in order to have a good/better life? If you said 'turn to crime' you are beginning to understand the problem. Just because a boy can't read or write properly doesn't mean that he is stupid; it just means that he has been constrained by society to spend his life in a box! But he is highly intelligent! So? Are you surprised that he turns to crime and violence? Do you know of another way that he can break out of this awful hell hole that he has been born into?

In order to understand a problem we have to go back to the beginning. And the beginning here is that the education system in T&T is so poor that unless and until we fix it crime will only get worse. Next time I'll give you my solution. You will already have understood that my answer is fixing the education system. And yes, I am aware that this fix will not take effect for 25 years or more. I am also aware that politicians don't think for more than 5 years at a time (and less as elections draw closer). But a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The longer we don't take that first step the worse the crime will get. 

FIXING CRIME - Part One

 Yes. The crime situation in Trinidad is clearly completely out of hand. And the symposium on crime involving the leaders in the Region that took place over two days this week did nothing except fatten the wallets of those who own the Hyatt hotel in Port of Spain where the symposium was held. There was absolutely no original thinking or any original solution presented by anybody. Instead all that we heard was "hang them high" and "throw away the key". And that is (sadly) the quality of what passes for leadership here in the Caribbean. Talk about a total waste of time and money!!

The truth is that there IS a solution to the runaway crime that we are experiencing. The problem is that it will take about 20 to 25 years to take effect - far longer than the shelf life of any of the politicians currently in office. Let me spell out the solution for you

                         E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N

And therein lies both the answer and the reason why our 'great' leaders won't fix it. Because if they fixed it and educated our populations then they wouldn't be able to pull the nonsense that they pull on their blind and uneducated supporters with such great electoral success.

Let me put it to you like this: Question: Where in the world (i.e., what countries) is crime the lowest? Answer: In those countries which have the best education systems.  Next question: Where in the world is crime the highest? Answer: In those countries where the education system is poor or practically non-existent. 

Kind of obvious when you think about it, ain't it?  But fixing the education system (and the resulting crime) is a long term fix. But as my old mammy used to say, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." And we simply aren't taking that essential first step! So? Take the pressure!

I have an idea of how we might fix our broken education system and will write about it in a future post. Let me say, however. That I don't hold out my solution to be the only one - or even the best one. But if I can get one person to start thinking of a workable solution to this terrible scourge that we are experiencing then I will have achieved  a lot! In any case, as I said at the beginning of this post, my solution is a long term one. Sadly, short of a State of Emergency (SOE), to which I am opposed, I really don't have any short term solution. (And why do I oppose an SOE? Because it is an anti-democratic device that can be horribly abused and it will have to be for far too long in order to be effective, thus giving would be dictators a beautiful chance to run amok.)

WE HAVE LOST THE DIVISIVE RACIAL WAR

 It is too painful to admit it, even to yourself if to nobody else, but it's true. We have lost the war against racial politics and the racial divide that plagues this country. Maybe in about a hundred years from now things might - in fact, probably will - change. But for the foreseeable future, and certainly in the lifetime of anyone reading this post right now, the war is effectively over and the right thinking peoples of this country have lost it. 

I put a large part of the blame on BOTH political parties who draw their support from either the African or the Indian side of the divide. If you are Indian you are a traitor to your race if you have the temerity to vote for the PNM and vice versa if you are an African and vote for or support the UNC. It is easier to make the racial appeal than it is to actually make policy proposals, and that is what BOTH sides do with absolutely no shame, even where the racism is blatant and in your face.

For example (as if I needed to prove this point), can anybody tell me clearly and succinctly what are the policy differences between the two major parties? Because basically the UNC seems to be saying (when all the verbiage is stripped away) simply that they can do a better job of running the country than the PNM. And conversely, the PNM seems to be saying that they are not the UNC.  And that's it! There are no arguments (intellectual or otherwise) except for race that differentiate the two parties.

Left by the wayside are the real decisions and arguments about the economy, health care, education and so on. For example, if the PNM (who is in government right now) were to take what many economists believe to be necessary by trimming the workforce in, say, WASA they would probably be voted out of office immediately because most of the overstaffing in the public sector economy comes from or is made up of their supporters. The UNC is acutely aware of this problem of overstaffing in the public sector but is appropriately silent on this issue. In other words, the UNC (probably correctly) assumes that there is no profit in that issue of overstaffing because they allowed it when they were in power and have signally failed to point it out probably reasoning that there is no profit in exposing that particular issue.

So? All politics is (are?) personal. And because those who offer themselves for leadership (on BOTH sides) are singularly devoid of any ideas on how to make things better other than don't vote for "them" because "they" are African/Indian and "our" people will suffer, we are clearly doomed to suffer the terrible consequences of racial divisiveness for a lllooonnnnggg time to come. Maybe we can yet save ourselves by forming  a new political party and calling it the Free Democratic Alliance of Trinidad & Tobago - FDATT for short!

RATIONALIZING PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

The Spiritual Shouter Baptist holiday on Thursday last (30th March) gave me pause to think. Apart from the fact that it certainly is a well deserved recognition of this small, but important, faith and the role that it played in the development of our country, it is extremely important that we recognize and acknowledge the  roles that these small groups (faiths) have made to the society. But then I got to thinking: how many of us have had a birthday fall on , say, a Tuesday but have celebrated it on the week-end with friends and family? I would venture to suggest that just about every adult on the planet has done this at least once in his/her lifetime. After all, what is important is the acknowledgement and celebration of the person's birth (which is more important than the actual day itself).

So, I got to thinking: there are many religious public holidays (e.g., Christmas, Divali, Eid ul Fitr, etc.) which can't be moved for rather obvious reasons. But what about those public holidays that can be moved such as Spiritual Shouter Baptists Day, Emancipation Day, Labour Day, etc.? Why don't we celebrate them on, say, a particular Monday in the relevant month? That way we would all get the benefit of a long week-end, the particular event (e.g., emancipation) could be still celebrated and the particular section of society (e.g., the Spiritual Baptists) could still be honoured and acknowledged.

If we rationalized our public holidays and moved them to a particular Monday in the relevant month an immediate benefit to the Society as a whole would be an increase in production as many studies have shown that when a holiday falls on, say, a Tuesday or a Thursday there are more people who simply make the weekend a long one and take the relevant Monday or Friday off. Of course, there is a very large proportion of the work force that don't do this, but if we're being truthful we will recognize that there are a lot of people who do indulge in this practice. In other words, production would be affected positively. 

Sometimes we need to understand that not all of our problems require political solutions. Oftentimes some of our problems can be solved and things made better by the application of some good old commonsense. Oh! Its obviously more fun to blame the "other side". But sometimes the "other side" really didn't create the problem in the first place and simply went along with the original thinking that experience has shown is more than a little wonky. And our collective goal ought to be thinking about how to make our country more efficient and consequently a better place to live.

AT THE HALFWAY MARK

 To understand Trinidadian and Tobagonian politics you have to realize that both are very different and that the things that motivate voters in Tobago are not the same things as in Trinidad. We are very roughly at the halfway mark of the present Government's term and it might be useful at this stage to take a look at things the way they are - and not how we would want them to be.

Let's take Trinidad first: the island is cursed with two major races that are very roughly equal in size. If you belong to one race you will vote , say, for the UNC, and if you belong to the other race you will vote, say, for the PNM. At least, that is the mantra. But it ain't as simple as that! That rather blanket statement applies to very, very roughly only sixty percent of the registered voters. In other words UNC has a base support of approximately thirty percent of registered voters and PNM has (again, very roughly) an equal amount of supporters who will vote for "their party" no matter what. Race trumps everything amongst these rather rabid supporters on both sides who will vote for "their" side no matter what. Allegations of corruption and incompetence etc., whether true or not, matter little to these people.

Then you have (again all figures are very rough) about fifteen percent of the electorate who lean towards the PNM and the same amount who lean towards the UNC. These voters can be persuaded to either switch sides or not vote at all as their sympathies, although coloured a little by race, are influenced by other factors such as, for example, the economy, corruption, etc.. That leaves  a "floating" vote of approximately ten percent, and it is this section which makes the difference. Put another way, the two main parties have to convince this section of the electorate, who will not vote or be influenced by race, that they can do better than the other side. Last time around in 2020 the PNM's rather obvious unspoken mantra was "we are not the UNC". The UNC's mantra was "we can do it better". The UNC managed to eke out a small victory in Trinidad but lost out when the two seats in Tobago were handed to the PNM.  The UNC failed to provide enough voters in either island with reasons to believe that they (the UNC) could make the lives of the voters better and the PNM managed to sell to enough people that they, not being the UNC, were the natural party to govern in default of there being a better alternative.

Now, Tobago has a very different racial make up. For one thing, the electorate is almost one hundred percent African, so the Indian/African thing is relatively non-existent. In addition, in Tobago the voters tend to be rather clever with their vote; they will go wherever they think that they will have the most leverage and upon whom they can rely the most. It's all about self-interest - and you know what? They are right to think this way. Oh! A minority will vote ethnically - that's a given, but the average Tobagonian will look to see where he can get the most butter for his bread.  The UNC has signally failed historically to understand this and has relied instead on support in Trinidad (and the occasional Tobagonian who can muster enough votes in Tobago) to defeat the PNM, in order to get hold of the reins of power

So? Back to Trinidad! There are a small handful of marginal seats in the forty-one seat Legislature (of which thirty-nine are in Trinidad), such as Barataria/San Juan, where the PNM/UNC voters" till ah dead" are roughly equal to one another and so the winners will be chosen by the real floating voters in those constituencies. A very small movement in any of those marginal seats could spell victory or defeat for either of the two main parties. At present, there are about four or five marginals and a swing in one will not necessarily mean that all will swing the same way. The quality of the respective candidates in terms of persuading people to support them will make the difference.

As for the fringe parties like the People's Empowerment Party (PEP) or the one led by Gary Griffith, they will continue to struggle and are unlikely to be able to garner much support even though their leaders may continue to talk a lot of sense. Unfortunately, money talks and neither of these fringe parties has enough money to run any type of campaign that can persuade voters to support them. The PEP's leader is certainly trying though and has been quite innovative in his use of social media. Will his efforts succeed? Highly unlikely at the present time.

Of course, as former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said, "a week is a long time in politics", and we have not weeks, but more than two years until the next elections are due! In that time any number can (and will probably) play. 

One final point: whether we admit it or not, our politics are more presidential in nature than most people realize. It is a given that voters will compare the two leaders, Dr. Rowley and Mrs. Persad-Bissessar, and cast their votes accordingly. In this regard, voters will look carefully at both leaders and make their judgements accordingly. Rabid supporters on both sides need to look at this particular point and think very carefully: "can my leader garner enough support in the country in order to win?" is the real question that needs to be asked after a cold and unemotional look at the situation as it continues to play out. That is, of course, assuming that they really do want "their side" to win! Heated emotion has never defeated cold logic - something that the rabid supporters on both sides fail to understand.

EMAILGATE AND MISLEADING PARLIAMENT

 Two completely separate dramas are taking place right now on both sides of the Atlantic. On one side the former President, Donald Trump, is facing a possible criminal charge that he was involved in and approved a payout to a porn star that he had slept with when his wife was pregnant and he was running for the Presidency of the United States. The allegation on which the possible criminal charge is based is whether the money that was used to pay the porn star off came from campaign funds. If that is true then the former President faces a jail term . Wouldn't that be something if Trump lost the case!?

On the other side of the ocean former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is facing a charge that he deliberately misled Parliament over some parties that were hosted in his name at No. 10 Downing Street during the pandemic, and that these parties breached the lockdown rules set and approved by the former Prime Minister himself and that he (Johnson) deliberately misled Parliament when he said  that the lockdown rules were never breached. (Incidentally, this has turned out to be untrue but the ex-PM has said in his defence that he didn't  intentionally mislead Parliament when he said that the rules were never breached. In other words, there was no intention on his part to mislead.)

Now, in criminal law there are two parts to proving beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed: one part is the act itself - the actus reus - and the other is the intention - the mens rea. That is why, for example, there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. In murder there is the fact that a person has been killed and the intention was to kill him. In manslaughter, a man has been killed but there was no intention to kill, though it was reasonably foreseeable that death would have resulted from the particular act. 

In both of these cases the intention of the alleged perpetrators is all important. The prosecution in both cases has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused politicians not only did whatever they are accused of, but that it was their intention to do so knowing that it was wrong. In civil matters the standard of proof is much lower; it is on the balance of probabilities!

Why am I raising this now? Because I was thinking about Dr. Rowley and his "emailgate" scandal. Dr. Rowley said in Parliament that the report he was making resulted from somebody unknown to him leaving the so-called evidence in his mailbox. Now, nobody really believes that Dr. Rowley doesn't know who the author of that now discredited report is. Indeed, the evidence on a balance of probabilities  points to one particular person who is known to Dr. Rowley and because he (Rowley) knew the author, he was happy to believe that the allegations were true. But there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this person gave Dr. Rowley the information.

In other words, although a reasonable person on the balance of probabilities might conclude that Dr. Rowley really did know who the author of that report was, the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Rowley knew him simply does not exist. Put another way, there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Rowley knew that the accusation that the former Prime Minister and some of her senior Ministers had conspired to commit murder was false and that in the circumstances, it can only be that while there is no justiciable evidence that Dr. Rowley, knowing the report to be untrue, deliberately misled the Parliament, there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that at the very least he knew where the information was coming from and that it was probably unreliable.  But circumstantial evidence just ain't good enough so Dr. Rowley gets a free pass!

TAKING IN FRONT

 The Trini expression "taking in front" needs paying attention to as regards the flooding problem that has plagued us for God knows how long. We have begun the Dry Season and it is only a matter of time before the rains return with a vengeance. 

So, it is not unreasonable to ask the requisite authorities what exactly are they planning to do right now and what exactly have they done. Because, as sure as night follows day the Rainy Season is going to come this year and there will be the potential for flooding again. It would make a great deal of sense, therefore, to "take in front" and do everything that is needed to be done in an effort to, at the very least, minimize the flooding, if not eliminate it altogether. We can't continue like the pharisee who gets rid of his sins at the gate of the temple by crying "Korban". 

Paying attention to this problem now could save  a lot of money downstream and would make a lot of sense. 

All too often in this society we act as though we are surprised when  a foreseeable event (like flooding) happens. We then wring our hands in anguish and try to blame everybody and his mother (except ourselves, of course) for the particular disaster although it was clearly foreseeable. All that it takes is a little bit of commonsense mixed with a little bit of foresight. So? Can we ask NOW what (if anything) is being done NOW about this clearly foreseeable problem? And, for the record, this is not about politics or political name calling. This is only about fixing a potentially looming problem that has some potentially very serious consequences.

IN HONOR OF ALL WOMEN

 It is with appropriate shame and embarrassment that I didn't pay attention to International Women's Day and all that it means and is supposed to mean. By way of explanation (and not by way of excuse) the fact is that there are so many "special" days in honour of some thing that I simply (and wrongly) regarded this day as just another one of those "days" that somebody has dreamed up but don't really mean a darned thing.

But it was forcibly brought home to me today when early this morning somebody gave my wife a single rose in appreciation of all that she has done and to thank her. It then occurred to me that not only as a husband of some twenty-six tears, but as a father of three beautiful daughters and as a grand father of four gorgeous girls that I ought to have paid attention to this day and all that it stands for.

Women  should be able to live their lives and make their own decisions without male interference. If we are to talk about freedom and equality it must be so not only for men, but for half of the world's population - women - as well. Sadly, all too often we read about women being abused or enslaved by traffickers Just because men are physically bigger and physically stronger than women, men have tended to dominate women. Instead of dominating with the strength of an argument, men dominate with simply the strength of their arm. 'You will do as I say or I will beat you until you obey' is the mantra.

This can't be right. Indeed, although it has persisted for a lloonngg time, the length of time that this attitude has persisted has never been right. And recognition of what women have done and are doing is important for all of us.

So, today it is right and proper that we honor women - ALL women; the mothers, sisters, daughters and wives that have carried us and nurtured us from time immemorial. Let me put it another way: your mother was a woman!

A MILLION ACCUSATIONS AND NO PROOF OF ANYTHING

 Tell me something: how many people in T&T do YOU think actually believe that our leaders in offices that are supposed to be non-political, are in fact non-political and who make their decisions on strictly non-political terms. These offices (e.g., the office of the President, the Chief Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner of Police , the Registrar of the Supreme Court etc.) are supposed to be strictly non-political. We are therefore supposed to trust that whatever decision  a holder of one of these offices makes is certainly not tainted with any type of political flavour. 

And you have only got to look at it to understand why this ought to be so.  All of these offices carry with them enormous power and a biased holder of such an office can do enormous damage to an individual citizen who is challenging the Government of the day and who will have a really hard (and expensive) time in correcting whatever decision was made against him/her.

So it was with not little consternation that I read in the news that the case against Mr. Basdeo Panday - a former Prime Minister - was dropped apparently for lack of evidence. Why? The newspaper report says that it was because some witnesses are now dead while others have migrated and as a result the case against Mr. Panday is now very weak. But, Hello! Was the case ever a strong one? If so, why then was it never brought to trial? And where does the dropping of this case against Mr. Panday leave him now? The damage that he suffered from the rather obvious publicity that accompanied these charges certainly did achieve (if nothing else) great damage to Mr. Panday's political career - whether he deserved it or not!

There were, for example, a whole bunch of cases related to the construction of the new airport terminal in Piarco. Indeed, it was reported that some Americans involved in the construction of the airport were charged with bribery and corruption and either they were found guilty or they pleaded guilty (I can't remember which). But I thought that the American case was related to one or more of the corruption cases down here. And the American case was completed years ago. Why did the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) then withdraw one or more of the local corruption cases? Was the withdrawn case(s) linked to the American case in which the persons were found guilty? If so, why didn't the DPP go up to the States and get the evidence from that case and apply it down here?

There are a million questions that one should have about criminal matters down here. For example, why are these high profile cases against "big wigs" never heard? Why do they take so much time to be heard and completed? Why can a politician (like Dr. Rowley, for example) make a very, very serious allegation (emailgate) that the then Prime Minister and some leading members of her cabinet were involved in a plot to murder somebody and absolutely nothing comes of it? The accusation is simply left hanging in the air, nobody is ever charged and the press  or some politician then regurgitates it as though it was a proven fact! On this point alone, do you realize that Dr. Rowley made the accusation, has never withdrawn it and has never been called upon to withdraw it? And then we have a terrible accusation made again under Parliamentary cover that some Members of Parliament are engaged in trafficking of women and children. But nothing is done about it! So? Is the allegation true? If so, who has the responsibility of investigating it (in other words who is the actual person doing the investigation) and when exactly can we get some closure on this horrible act?

I could go on, but hopefully you have got the point. So? let me put the question with which I began this post in another way: do you believe that there is anybody in a strictly non-political office who is exercising his/her functions in that office in a partisan manner? If so, who do you think he/she/them is/are and what should we do about it?

TO TRAFFIC OR NOT TO TRAFFIC - SAVING THE VICTIMS

 I confess that I am totally confused. You see, the Prime Minister said in Parliament on Friday (24th February) that there was a report that contained evidence that certain Parliamentarians were engaged in the despicable practice of trafficking in children and women. For the record, in my view trafficking in people is simply another word for slavery. The persons being used in this awful manner simply have no choice. It is exploitation at its worst! The PM went on to say that no Parliamentarian on his side was so engaged, giving the inescapable conclusion that all of the Parliamentarians so engaged in this horrible were on the UNC side.

My confusion is not from the statement that apparently (according to Dr. Rowley) there are some UNC Parliamentarians who are engaged in this god-awful practice, but that apparently (if all concerned are telling the truth) that nothing has been done about it. Nobody has been charged and if there have been any investigations, these were all on "the down-low". Nobody has ever said what investigations have taken place, nor by whom, nor when! But then a former UNC Government Minister who has been fiercely publicly critical of his former political leader has added fuel to the fire by saying that he knew about this sometime ago and he has said both that there was indeed a report when he was a Minister that was covered up because it named (UNC) people. Mr. Maharaj's intervention was widely seen as being not only supportive of the Prime Minister but as confirmation that the PM was telling the truth! But then a reasonable question would be why didn't he (Maharaj) do something about it when he was a Minister and had the power? One can be forgiven in questioning whether or not he is telling the truth. And if he says that he wasn't allowed to, that explanation simply can't hold water. He could have resigned and said why he was resigning. That would have certainly been more believable!

But if the PM is not lying, then why hasn't anything been done by his Government about this trafficking? I mean, if you know that trafficking is going on, and has been for some time, then what have you done about it and when did you do it?  And if the answer is 'nothing' then the next question is why not? Have you saved anybody? And if not, why not? And if so, who did you save and when? Do you know the names of the other victims that you haven't saved? I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

This whole story seems to come apart when serious questions are being asked and no explanations or answers are given, Why (assuming that the American report on trafficking is true - and I do believe that it is) has nothing apparently been done? No right thinking person regardless of his/her political persuasion could ever condone (even in the slightest) this reported type of behaviour. And this is coming out now when Dr. Rowley et al have been in power for almost EIGHT years!? Why didn't they do something before?

No! Something is wrong and the rather obvious political games being played by all of the actors on both sides are not helping. This matter is too serious to be wept under the carpet. Either there is trafficking or there is not! And if there is, at the very least find the women and children being trafficked and save them.  We can look for the evidence against the perpetrators of this horrible crime AFTER WE SAVE THE VICTIMS. But the most important thing right now is to save the victims.  And if anybody knows about this let them come forward now! 

DEFAMATION 101

 On Carnival Sunday (19th February, 2023) The Express newspaper published an article by Selwyn Cudjoe headlined "Cro-Cro: Our Warrior King". In the article Mr. Cudjoe seems to support the calypsonian and appears to be saying that in his opinion different rules of defamation ought to apply to calypsonians who are "brave" enough to sing about social issues. In other words, a calypsonian should be able to sing about social and other issues without being limited by the current libel laws. 

In order to understand why Mr. Cudjoe is simply wrong on this point, perhaps it is necessary to look at what exactly is a defamatory statement in law. It is a statement that tends to bring some one against whom the statement is made into "public ridicule and contempt". However a perfect defence to this would be if the statement was true. For example, on the face of it, if I said that "John is a thief who steals from everybody", such a statement would be highly defamatory unless I had evidence that John was indeed a thief who steals from everybody.

Mr. Cudjoe attempts to wrap his argument in a not so veiled attempt at raising the racial bogey by arguing that the calypsonian is "ready to protect a verbal-musical (sic) (African) art form such as the kalenda, shango, belair and other work songs. The calypsonian, part of the warrior class, always saw his function as defending the race, which is why he takes his responsibility to his group so seriously".

Well, nothing is wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that singing a calypso about somebody that denigrates that person and is factually incorrect, or can't be proven to be correct, is acceptable because the calypsonian is a "warrior". If that is so, then I could write a calypso about the man who murdered my cousin and the policeman who assisted him and get away with it because it was a calypso! (For the record, I know who killed my cousin but I have no justiciable evidence. It's a little like saying both you and I know that I was at your house at midnight last night; I am going to deny it and because nobody saw me  and my visit was not recorded you can't prove that I was there.)

I am not here trying to defend Cro Cro nor am I commenting one way or the other about whether or not he defamed Mr. Inshan Ismael. That argument will be up to the courts to decide. I am on the very narrow point that singing a calypso about somebody which is derogatory and untrue does not give the calypsonian a "get-out-of-jail-free" card. Like everybody else, the calypsonian is bound by the laws of defamation and if he defames somebody, either by name or by an innuendo where everybody knows who he is talking/singing about then, unfortunately for him, he will be required to pay damages. And no amount of argument that he is a "warrior' and is simply following the traditions of his African race will hold any water.

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL PARLIAMENTARIANS

 Dear Parliamentarians,

And yes, I am writing to all forty-one of you - as individuals. ALL of you. I was thinking the other day that you are supposed to be elected to look after US -  the people - NOT your political parties! Look! I understand the game well. Heck I served twice in the Senate! But you all give us the impression that your political parties come first and the interests of the country come second.

But, I was thinking: what are you elected for? There are forty-one of you that are supposed to represent first and foremost the interests of your constituents - the people who elected you!  What promises did YOU make to YOUR constituents? What promises have you kept?

You all meet approximately once a week when Parliament is in session. Why does a reasonable observer get the feeling that NONE of you are ever concerned primarily with the welfare of the people who elected you? What have YOU done to make life better for YOUR constituents?

Crime is a huge problem with everybody afraid to go out and everybody barricading themselves in their homes at night. It wasn't so long ago that many people slept with their doors wide open. Only a fool would do that today. And yet, despite the very real fear that we all have to live with, none of you have said or done anything to make us believe that any of you have a clue as to how to fix it.

ALL of you seem more intent on scoring political points than improving our quality of life. When last did any of you make a speech that didn't directly or indirectly criticize the other side. I am acutely aware that many of you on the Government side believe that your primary role is to defend the Government while those of you on the Opposition side believe that your role is primarily to criticize.

Guess what? You are both wrong! Your primary role is TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE! Full stop! There is really no other reason and there is no need to defend the indefensible or to criticize everything. For example, we have an education system that is falling apart; what are YOU on the Government side doing about it? What proposals do YOU on the Opposition side believe should be done to fix it?

There is an unspoken fear, especially amongst Opposition M.Ps. that if they tell the Government side how they would fix things that the Government will steal their good ideas and then take credit for it. Hello! I'll ask again: what do you think that you are in Parliament for? How do you justify not sharing your solutions? Do you think that when election time comes people will vote for you because you unashamedly supported your side even when your side was proposing or doing nonsense? Do you really believe that your side didn't or hasn't made any mistakes? If you do think that your side is making or did make mistakes, what did you/are you doing about them? Hey! What were/are those mistakes? And don't you think that we, the people, deserve answers to these questions?

When last did you acknowledge that the other side (whichever is the 'other' for you) did or said something good?  Or do you truly believe that everybody on the other side is completely incapable of doing or saying anything that will benefit us -the people? When last did any of you have a meaningful conversation either inside or outside of Parliament with the other side? When last did any of you congratulate the other side for anything that they said or did?

I could go on, but hopefully you get my point. NONE of you give the impression that you put the welfare of the country first before your own partisan and personal interests. And that is not how this is supposed to work! You are supposed to meet and TALK to each other about making this a better place to live. And so far NONE of you are doing that!

Robin Montano

POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES

 I have been conducting my own very, very inaccurate survey as to whether or not people in general are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in T&T. I have asked a lot of people if they think that the country is on the right track and how or where the country will be next year. 

I have also been asking people whether or not they believe that the newspapers are reporting things accurately. In my (admittedly very unscientific) survey I was not surprised to find a rather partisan divide. Depending on whether or not the person was a UNC or a PNM supporter the answers to this question fell along rather predictable lines - most UNC supporters felt that the three daily newspapers were biased against their political party and that the stories in the newspapers tended to reflect this bias. Most of the PNM supporters felt that the reporting was reasonably fair and accurately.

In answer to my first question (above) most people, regardless of their political bias, felt that the country was going downhill. My impression in talking with people is that they are deeply unhappy with the state of affairs in the country. UNC supporters certainly feel that the country is on the wrong track. While those who support the PNM have grown somewhat gloomy since the election with inflation and job losses entering into the picture. And don't discount the trauma of the murder/crime rate! The UNC's problem here is that, except for the die hard UNC voters, most people believe that nothing short of an absolute dictatorship can solve this problem. In other words, the UNC has not convinced people that it can fix our crime problem. 

Interestingly, most people seem to feel that the politicians on both sides are "a waste of time" and who will  lie at the drop of a hat. Incidentally, I should say, by the way, that in my "survey" I determined and classified who was a supporter of which party by asking them how they voted in 2020. Persons who might be classified or classify themselves as "floating voters" tended to report that they had voted for the PNM while "holding their noses". On further questioning, a lot of these people tended to report that they believed that the collective leadership of the UNC was weak and ineffectual.

That there is a clear disconnect between the political parties and the population as a whole is clear. But that disconnect seems to be shaped partially  -and in many cases is amplified - by people's fear of what the other party might or might not do (whoever the "other party" might be). All the supporters of each side are afraid to lose and race is a big (unspoken) part of the picture. But no one thinks that they are winning either.

I asked this question of both sides: do you think that the country will improve? And overwhelmingly the answer was in the negative  - on both sides!

I didn't ask, but I do think that there seems to be a racial divide underway.  Put another way, although there seems to be a lot of discontent "on the ground", discontent will not predict election results the way that it used to.

There were other questions pertaining to the leadership on both sides of the political divide - the answers to which are fairly predictable. In 2020 the PNM won largely by running as "not the UNC". They seem to be setting up the same theme for a reprise in 2025. Question: will that be enough?

P.S. To those readers who might take issue with my "survey", let me state as clearly as I can that it can in no way even pretends to be scientific.  But what I have written is the rather firm impression that I have got having talked with a lot of people. I would be the first to admit that I got it wrong if subsequent events (all things being equal) prove this.