ARE YOU BETTER OR WORSE OFF THAN YOU WERE 8 YEARS AGO?

 At the end of the day, self-interest is the biggest motivator of all. Wouldn't it be great if that statement was true? Unfortunately, like so many things  in this country it is heavily nuanced by external factors. Take the coming elections on August 14th for example: if you are better off under the PNM then you can be expected to vote for that Party. If you are worse off then you can be expected to vote for the UNC. That is why I used the word "unfortunately", because things are not necessarily what they might seem.  Many PNM voters feel worse off under the Rowley regime but the available evidence suggests that they are not ready to decamp 'en masse' but instead will voice their displeasure by simply not turning out to vote.

You might think that this then would be a great time to be a supporter of the UNC. After all, your Party should win. But this is far from being a 'done deal' for Kamla and her supporters. There is a great deal of rumbling and discontent in the ranks of the UNC (although  it seems that the discontent is not as high as with Dr. Rowley). In addition, that crucial element in T&T politics, the swing voters, do not seem to be enamored with either side. A careful reading of the newspapers  shows that the various editors (answering to their bosses, the owners) seem to understand this and are betting that the PNM will survive this election, although it will be a close run thing; closer than it would  or should be if the issue of race was not a determining factor.

Let's face it: the country is (generally speaking) worse off than it was 8 years ago. In any normal political environment, the Government of the day would be blamed unless it was so very obvious that it wasn't the fault of the Government. That's more than a little hard to do when you have been running the show for 8 years ...  because things aren't good at all  Even though it is not being discussed openly, a devaluation with all its adverse consequences is looming on the not too distant horizon. But the PNM certainly appears to be stronger than one might expect and a cursory reading of the newspapers doesn't appear to show much concern about the crashing economy. If anybody can give a reason other than race, I'd love to hear it.

For the record, I understand why the newspaper reporting is as incompetent as it appears to be. The editors have to answer to their bosses ... who are heavily invested in the PNM. Therefore, there is very little 'wiggle room' for these editors, even when they see things going down and crashing all around them. Money talks and you know what walks!! So we come back to the age old question: are you better or worse off than you were 8 years ago? The answer to that question should dictate what you should do. What you will do is  a different story.

ELECTIONS - Both Local and General

 Human beings love arguing. There's something gratifying about pointing arrows and playing devil's advocate. It seems to bring a sense of satisfaction that outweighs the sense of harmony that stems from agreements. Most Trinbagonians are in a tricky mental space, brought about by poverty and huge doses of lies and propaganda that sow hatred, fear and a simultaneous sense of superiority and helplessness.

With the economy in freefall is a UNC general election victory certain?  The short answer to that question is 'no'. There are too many rumours coupled with racist suspicions, accusations and innuendoes from both sides. For example, the very recent resignation and crossing of the floor by this fellow Tabiska Obika. He is a black man who occupied a high position in the UNC until very recently. He resigned his position and immediately declared his support for the PNM barely two months before  a local government election. That a black man would leave the UNC for whatever reason is a big thing and going across to the PNM in the way that he did sends a very clear message: "There is no place in the UNC for anybody who is not Indian." 

Unfortunately, he watered down this news by immediately joining the PNM in a very public way giving rise to rumours that he had been bribed away from his position in the UNC by the PNM who has promised him the mayor's seat in Point Fortin (which, of course, they hope to win in the upcoming local government elections.) Well, it's going to be a very short time  when we will know for certain whether or not Mr. Obika will get any sort of "reward" for his crossing (whether its a mayoralty or otherwise), and if he does then people will draw their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, "back at the ranch" Kamla Persad Bissessar's best chance/hope for the Prime Minister's chair rests on her ability to present herself as a capable, caring technocrat capable of solving the country's economic woes. So far, she has been unable to show to the general public that she indeed has that capability. People look at her team and with only a few notable exceptions, regard them as weak. Unfortunately, the racial division in the country will dictate that if you are an Indian you must vote for the UNC, and if you are an African you must vote for the PNM and ability (perceived or otherwise) is not as important as it should be.

The PNM's big problem in the coming general elections (which are some two years away) is whether or not they can persuade enough of their supporters to come out and vote for them today. Many of their supporters are saying that they are fed up and simply will not vote. With the gerrymandered seats in the Parliament this then should be the UNC's best chance as most of the UNC supporters know that there is a great deal of disillusionment with the PNM at the moment. But all indications are that the local elections that are to be held on August 1th will have a very low poll. The problem that Mrs. Persad Bissessar has, is that the UNC, at the very least, has to ensure that it comes out with the same number of seats that it had going into the election. To this end, control of Sangre Grande's council is crucial. Control of this Council is currently with the UNC, but this is very "iffy" for both sides. If the PNM can take the Council at this time that will be an epic disaster for the UNC. Conversely, if the PNM more or less is able to maintain the status quo that will not be good news for Mrs. Persad Bissessar either. Her detractors (of whom there are many) will say with some justification that if in these bad times the UNC cannot improve it's position then the UNC can never win. In other words, the UNC has to do well in these local elections in order for Mrs. Persad Bissessar to be able to present herself as a credible alternative to Dr. Rowley. 

SHOULD TELEVISION AND RADIO BE ALLOWED IN COURT?

 Looking on with great interest at the circus that is the Donald Trump trial it occurred to me that the bedrock of the criminal judicial system - both in the United States as well as here in Trinidad & Tobago - is that the system is designed so that trials can be held in public. Indeed, anyone can enter a courtroom at nay time during a criminal trial and sit and listen to whatever is going on. But this system evolved over the years long before television - or even radio, for that matter - was ever invented.

So if the 'raison d'etre' of criminal trials includes the fact that we all agree that criminal trials ought to be held in public because we (the public) have an inalienable right to know, then why shouldn't television and radio be allowed in our court rooms? It seems to me that the fact that modern technology has made it possible for us to "attend" an event even though we are not actually physically present, then we should go with the times and allow radio and television into our courtrooms as a matter of course. Naturally, there would have to be some rules about this. For example, the cameras and microphones would have to be static (i.e., not capable of being moved). Also, there would obviously be no commentators allowed inside the courtroom. Obviously, nothing should be done that would create a distraction.

If we all agree that criminal trials should be held in public in keeping with the public's right to know, then there is absolutely no good reason why cameras and microphones should not be allowed. It is only our innate conservatism that prevents us from moving boldly with the times into the twenty first century.

What do you think?

QUESTIONS - PART 2

 I had such a good response to my last post that I thought of some more questions for you to think about. The same rules apply: this is for you only to answer to yourself and nobody else. Here goes:

11) If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

12) Is there something you've dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven't you done it?

13) What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

14) What do you value most in a friendship?

15) What is your most treasured memory?

16) If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way that you are living? Why?

17) What does friendship mean to you?

18) How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

19)When last did you cry in front of another person? By yourself?

20) If you were to die this evening without having an opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you regret most not having told someone? Why haven't you told them yet?

Okay. That's it! Next week I'll go back to discussing politics and the world as I see it. I do hope in the meantime, though, that my questions have helped you a little to think about who you are and about your life. I know that some of the questions as well as the answers may be uncomfortable for you, but if my questions have helped you a little bit to think about who you really are then I will have achieved my goal.

QUESTIONS

 I think that I once read a list of rather interesting questions somewhere (but I can't remember where). But thinking about it again I thought that you might like to answer them to yourself and for yourself only. So, here goes:

1) Given the choice of anyone living or dead in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2) Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3) What would constitute a "perfect" day for you?

4) When last did you sing to yourself? To someone else?

5) Do you have a secret hunch about how you would die and when?

6) Name three things that you and your partner have in common.

7) For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

8) If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any quality or ability, what would it be?

9) What do you value most in a friendship?

10) If you knew that in exactly one year from today that you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way that you are living? Why?

I hope that you find these questions interesting. Life ought not to be only about politics.  I thought that these questions were interesting and that you might enjoy them. I'll try and think of some more.

JOINING THE RANKS OF THE INSANE

 I came across this saying from the ancient Roman philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, the other day: "the object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Thinking about the political situation here in Trinidad & Tobago, I felt that this particular saying was most appropriate. This country is dominated by two distinct political tribes. If you are Indian you must vote for the UNC and if you are African you are a traitor to your race if you don't vote for the PNM. And that's it! Punto final!!

There is no discernible philosophical difference between either of the two parties. You can't say that one is better than the other in anything - except perhaps on the issue of corruption, and even there you will find members of both tribes saying that "they" are more corrupt than "mine". But I challenge anybody to lay out clearly and concisely exactly how the two parties differ from each other in policy. Both say that they are better at governance than the other and both cite all kinds of statistics, whether true or false, to justify whatever issue they might be on at the moment.

But in the meantime, the average citizen is suffering. Crime has reached unprecedented levels of violence and our economy is crashing. Haiti has shown that there is no "bottoming" out for a country, The descent is unending and things simply get worse. Put another way, there is no brighter tomorrow on the horizon.

Why do I say this? Take, for example, the latest imbroglio for the as yet to be announced Local Government election. (And take note that the Privy Council ruling on this matter was more than 10 days ago at the time of writing this post.) In other words, it is not unreasonable to assume that "things" are being put in place to ensure a certain result at the polls before the election is called. The Leader of the Opposition has called for international observers for the upcoming poll. Isn't it reasonable to assume that a Government committed to the Rule of Law would have reacted and obeyed immediately?  The Prime Minister says that it is insulting to us as an independent nation to have independent international observers, despite the fact that HE made a similar call at the 2015 general elections, which, incidentally, his party won. So? Why is the call insulting today when he is in power but it wasn't yesterday when he was not? Because he would never cheat at elections and the UNC would?

As we like to say in this country, you can't play mas' and  'fraid powder. And if the Leader of the Opposition really believes that there is a real possibility that there might be cheating, then SHE can invite international observers here. But she hasn't done that  - at least, not yet - and she hasn't threatened to do so. Why not?

And finally, the media is simply avoiding calling these two leaders to account. Why not? Isn't this something of importance to the country? And we are quietly putting up with all of it! And you say that we are not finding ourselves in the ranks of the insane?

DICTATORSHIP ANYONE?

Looking at the present political landscape in Trinidad & Tobago many people have expressed the fear that we are heading the same way as Venezuela did under Chavez and Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) and we soon will be under the crushing heels of untrammeled dictatorship. Certainly, there are rather disturbing signs that this may be so. For example, the recent Judgement concerning Brent Thomas who was arrested in Barbados and brought back to Trinidad without a warrant of extradition and the rather strange defence being put out in the public space that he was involved in rather nefarious criminal activities as justification for this action although no evidence was ever led in Court about these alleged "criminal activities". Whatever happened to the old adage: it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang?

 Then there is the rather blatant attempt to interfere with the democratic process by postponing local government elections for more than a year and (so far) refusing to acknowledge that the matter has been dealt with by the country's highest court and that should be the end of that. Instead we have had no less than the country's Attorney General saying in effect that the Government was not wrong because five judges agreed with him (the AG). It didn't matter that the system dictates that the decision of the highest court is the one that counts. Instead it seems that the decision of the highest court is only valid when the Government agrees with the verdict! And the list goes on.

But the question is: are we on the road to a dictatorship? And the answer is that there are certain signs that we are indeed heading in that direction. There are still some judges who fiercely fight for their independence, but certain judgements falling from certain judges are not only clearly wrong, but carry with them the appearance of being heavily biased towards one side or the other.  It is becoming so that one can almost predict which way a decision on a constitutional matter will go until it reaches the Privy Council. And whether it is true or not some judicial decisions seem more to be based on race than on law, at least, that is the perception. And in politics perception is reality.

And if that wasn't bad enough we are witnessing the death of truly independent journalism. Independent journalism insists on showing us what we learn - fully and fairly - regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be. Independence calls for plainly stating the facts. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is under reasonable dispute, letting readers grasp and process uncertainty for themselves. Somebody once said comment is free but facts are sacred. And we get a lot of comment masquerading as fact from our newspapers.  But a free and independent press is an absolute requirement for a democracy.

Put another way, if we are indeed heading towards a dictatorship like Venezuela then the newspapers are helping greatly in that regard. They are neither truthful nor neutral. Drawing false moral or factual equivalence is neither objective nor truthful. You can also ask (if you think that Maburro is such a great leader or that a dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing) why has approximately one third of Venezuela's population of some thirty million people fled that unfortunate country. 

AWARDING SILK

 A big thing in the newspapers this morning has to do with the awarding of the title 'senior counsel' to a group of 18 lawyers, which group includes both the President's brother and her husband. The title of 'senior counsel' is meant to be a recognition that the lawyer who receives 'silk' (as it is sometimes called because the robes that lawyers wear in Court are made of cotton, but the robes of senior counsel are supposed to be made of silk) and entitles the lawyer to charge more for his/her fees.

Let me deal with the nepotism charges first: I don't know the President's brother, Collin Kangaloo, but I have had a professional acquaintance with her husband, Kerwyn Garcia. In my opinion Mr. Garcia is a good lawyer and deserving of the title 'senior counsel'; I don't know the President's brother at all and therefore cannot comment fairly on his abilities as a lawyer or lack thereof. But I do know the Kangaloo family from San Fernando and although I don't agree generally with their politics I do believe that they are honourable people. And if a senior counsel is supposed to be honourable then certainly on this score Mr. Kangaloo qualifies.

The problem comes in because of their relationship with or to the President of Trinidad& Tobago. There is a not unreasonable perception that their being awarded silk has something to do with their relationship with her. That this perception is most unfair to the goodly gentlemen is a given. They shouldn't have to turn down an award just because of birth or a marriage that took place a long time ago. And yet the perception lingers whether it is fair or not or true or not. And in the world of politics perception is reality.

The problem really comes in because (despite how some might choose to dress it up) the fact is that there is only one person who really appoints silk - and that is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. If he/she decides that a person should or shouldn't be awarded with the accolade then that person will (or will not) get it. Full stop! So nobody can get silk if the Prime Minister says 'no'. And anybody can get silk if the Prime Minister wants that person to get the award. And no explanations need to be given.

In other Commonwealth countries they have dealt with this by removing the politicians from the process and having the appointment being made by a non political committee (appointed either directly or indirectly by the politicians - but at least they recognize the problem).

I tend to prefer the American system where a lawyer's worth is measured by his/her reputation and nothing else. The Americans have even done away with the anachronistic and colonial robes that our lawyers have to wear. Let's face it: there are some silks who have done nothing in their legal careers to get this award and there are others, who because they have offended a Prime Minister whether deliberately or not, will never get it. The reputations of these attorneys are irrelevant. Put another way, the appointment of senior counsel is heavily tied into politics. Oh! Sometimes a lawyer from the Opposition might be appointed if only so that a Prime Minister can pretend that he/she is not politically biased. but when last did you see a prominent  Opposition lawyer being appointed as a senior counsel?

Let me put it another way: ALL judges in our jurisdiction are lawyers. I am not aware that any of them have ever been awarded the title of senior counsel. But is it right that a person who is a senior counsel should have to bow before a person who is not? In other words, you are smart enough to be a judge and sit in judgement but you are not good enough to be a silk! What's wrong with this picture? If you are good enough to be made a judge surely you are good enough to be made a senior counsel?

But when that happened a few years ago with no less a person than the present Chief Justice there was a hue and cry resulting in the Chief Justice returning the award!

Then again, the head of the country's Bar is the Attorney General. If a lawyer is good enough to be the Attorney General surely he/she is good enough to be made silk on his/her accession to office. Actually, I think that any person who becomes Attorney General should automatically take silk. But when that happened with Mr. Anand Ramlogan  a big fuss was made. (The fact that Mr. Ramlogan has since demitting office proven time and again that he definitely is senior counsel material has been rather conveniently ignored by his former critics.) Let me put it to you this way: the first row of desks in an open Court is specifically reserved for senior counsel. You aren't supposed to sit there if you are not silk. So if you are the Attorney General of the country and therefore head of the Bar but you don't have silk you can't sit in the first row even though you are head of the Bar! But a person that YOU helped to be made a silk yesterday can sit in the first row and you have to sit behind him/her.

It is time that we cut the remaining ties to our former colonial masters and become truly independent. We should stop trying to mimic them and to act like pseudo Englishmen. We are not. We are Trinbagonians and should be proud of who we are. I agree that we should stand and bow to the judge when he/she walks into the Court. That is not only good manners but respect that the office deserves. I don't agree with calling judges "my lord" or "my lady" and prefer the American "your honour". But I'm going off topic here.  Left to me I would abolish the title of 'senior counsel' or 'silk'. It adds nothing to the justice system and sometimes even causes divisions where there ought to be none. And sometimes it can even cause unintended damage to a person's reputation.

THE BRENT THOMAS AFFAIR

 This whole affair raises more questions than answers - which, I suppose, is par for the course. The first question is how could the police effectively commandeer a coast guard plane WITHOUT anybody in the National Security Council, which is headed by the Prime Minister and whose members INCLUDE both the Minister of National Security (NSC)  AND the Attorney General, knowing about it? Assuming that the reports in the newspapers are correct, neither the Attorney General nor the Minister of National Security knew about this matter. We haven't heard yet from the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knew about it. Indeed, it would be very, very worrying if he didn't for reasons that ought to be obvious. He is the head of the NSC, for crying out loud!

But, assuming that he joins with his two Ministers on the NSC and says that he too knew nothing about it, then we have a serious problem. It would mean that somebody in the National Security apparatus is operating outside of his/her legal authority. It would mean that the NSC, the ultimate authority for the defence of the Republic, can plot a coup and the NSC would never know about it until it was too late. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister didn't know about it ... and yet here we are with two members of the NSC saying that they had no idea that a Trinidad &Tobago aircraft had been dispatched to Barbados to collect an alleged fugitive and there is/was no Court Order or other authority given by anyone who should have known about this, as having a clue as to what was going on.

As if that wasn't serious enough, we haven't been told why Mr. Thomas was targeted in this fashion. Was it because somebody high up had a grudge against him? Was it because there was (or is) some kind of evidence that for security reasons hasn't been produced? If so, what kind of evidence? And why was the Judge not told about this in camera?

Then we have the rather unusual statement from the Attorney General of Barbados that he knew nothing about it. But, we haven't heard yet from the Prime Minister of Barbados. Did she know something about it? If so, that could be an explanation for her rather curious silence as she might not want to embarrass her Trinidad counterpart. But if so, then it would mean that the Trinis are lying. Why are they lying (if indeed they are)?

Look, this whole affair raises more questions than answers. A national of Trinidad & Tobago is arrested and held by Barbadian police, presumably at the request of the Trinidadian police. There is no Court Order either from Barbados or Trinidad authorizing the detention and extradition of the Trinidadian and when the Trinidadian sues in the Trinidadian Court for his arrest, extradition and detention there is absolutely no credible defence proffered on the part of any person in authority. All we have got so far is "Not me! I didn't even know about it!" So? Who does? Or, who did?

This matter is dangerous and the issues that it raise need to be fully ventilated. To just let it pass without the story coming out does not augur well for anybody, much less our democracy.

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.