ROGUE ELEMENTS IN THE MEDIA?

The uproar in the Press to the Prime Minister's allegation earlier this week that there are rogue elements in the media was entirely predictable. The media in Trinidad & Tobago are notorious for never apologising for anything they do whether right or wrong (and especially when they are wrong) and for guarding their turf jealously. This is a pity, because more often than is happy the media say and do things that are just plain wrong, and there is little or no redress other than a very expensive and time consuming law suit for defamation. They know this full well and tend to take advantage of it. For every law suit for defamation there must be at least twenty instances of the media being "naughty" and wrong.

Don't believe me? It happens all the time. Look, just the other day the Express newspaper published an article with a headline to the effect that the Attorney General was denying that a certain Rolls Royce motor car belonged to him. The article was even accompanied by a photograph of the car complete with a Trinidad licence plate! Most of the article (and the headline) was about the AG's denial that the car was his, but towards the end of the article it was reported that the car in fact was registered to a very well known company and quoted the managing director of that company as saying that the car was his and that he had owned several Rolls Royce motor cars previously. But you had to read the whole article to get to the truth. So, why the headline and the article? This surely wasn't news?!

The only reason that I can think of was that the Express wanted to embarrass the Attorney General. I can think of no other reason. What is news worthy about a Government Minister NOT owning an expensive motor car? The answer is: nothing! Nothing at all!! So, if they weren't trying to embarrass the AG why would they print such an article? Nothing else makes sense. If anyone can give me another plausible reason as to why the Express would print such an article I will immediately apologise.

This is the second time that the Express has attacked the Attorney General in this manner. The first time was over some apartments that he bought shortly after taking up office. Again, in that article (as in "the Rolls Royce article") the reader was left with the distinct impression that there was some sort of 'hanky panky' ... or to put it more bluntly, corruption ... taking place but that the paper just can't prove it. Certainly, that was my impression.

But this surely is wrong. A newspaper shouldn't be allowed to print an article like "the Rolls Royce article" without some more facts. If the newspaper suspects that the Attorney General is involved in some sort of corruption then it should say so ... and not slide around the issue in a manner that, frankly, reeks of dishonest and malicious reporting.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. The Guardian has also stepped into the act with some rather serious attacks on the erstwhile and very voluble Sports Minister, Mr. Anil Roberts. Basically what happened was that there seems to have been some rather serious allegations concerning the Boxing Board, the end result of which has caused the Integrity Commission to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Guardian reported that amongst those being referred to the DPP was the Sports Minister. This turned out to be incorrect.

Now, any referral of any matter to the DPP is serious.And a report like this one is bound to make the ordinary citizen look twice at the Minister. But it wasn't true. What is true (at least from all that is in the public domain) is that there are some rather serious issues to be looked at that could possibly constitute corruption of some sort by certain people. But (at least for the moment) the Minister is definitely NOT one of them! The story is clearly not finished and, I dare say, a lot more will come out. But at the very least, surely the Guardian could have and should have published a front page apology to the Minister ... especially if there was no ulterior motive but just a desire to report the facts. So, why hasn't such an apology been made? It doesn't make sense ... unless, there is something else behind the article. But what?!? Does the Guardian have more facts that implicate the Minister? If so, then they should come out and say so.  Or is there another more sinister and (ultimately) dishonest motive? What? And if there was no malice, why didn't/doesn't the Guardian apologise? It doesn't make sense!

And I am not getting into the counter allegations of the Minister against the reporter, nor of her responses to him. I am about what is right and about doing the right thing and about what are the undisputed facts. I do not accept the media's brushing aside the fact that it wrongly reported that a matter involving Mr. Roberts was referred to the DPP and effectively refusing to apologise for their mistake. It is right that someone should aplogise when he has done something wrong, especially if the mistake was a genuine one. (Of course, it is harder to apologise where the mistake was deliberate and not accidental!) I think that Mr. Roberts was right when he said that the media should be held to as high a standard as possible. I do not accept that freedom of the press means licence to print or broadcast anything that you want. I do not believe that the Prime Minister's statement about rogue elements in the media can even be remotely construed as an attack on press freedom. I do believe that there are rogue elements in the media, and by that I mean elements that have their own agendas, some of them hidden, and which have nothing to do with reporting the facts but everything to do with the furtherance of their particular agenda or agendas. And nothing that I have seen or heard over the last many years has convinced me otherwise.

The best expression of how I believe the modern media should operate comes from a man called C.P. Scott (1846 - 1932) who said:

      "The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly,
        and its first duty is to shun the temptations of a monoploy.
        Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of
        its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in
        what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode
        of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer
        wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred."

Our media certainly cannot put its hand on its heart and swear that this is exactly what it does. Lightning would strike them down if they did that!
Perhaps now might be an appropriate time for a Commission of Enquiry into the operations of the media in Trinidad & Tobago?

DANGEROUS TIMES FOR VENEZUELA (and by extension the Region)

Acting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has said something over the week-end that is as dangerous and potentially destabilising as can be imagined. He has claimed that he has evidence of a plot by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency to kill his right wing rival, Enrique Capriles, and trigger a coup before the April 14th Presidential election. He said that the plan was to kill Mr. Capriles and then blame it on Mr. Maduro and his cronies thus destabilising the country.

Now you have only to look at this to see not only how stupid such an action would be for the United States, but how Maduro is really thinking. It would be a very, very stupid thing for the United States to do because Mr. Capriles is the one candidate who has been able to unite Venezuela's fractious opposition. The death of Mr. Capriles would set back Venezuelan opposition unity by several years ... and THAT would not be in the best interests of the United States! And whatever you might want to say or think about the Americans, one thing you cannot say is that they are stupid! They act (as do ALL countries) in what is in their own best interests ... and there is nothing wrong with that! And it canNOT be in America's best interests to destabilise the opposition in Venezuela.

But for Mr. Maduro to say that there is a plot by the Americans to kill Mr. Capriles quite frankly looks more like a very amateurish way of saying that he (Maduro) is planning to do just that and blame it on the Americans when it happens. I didn't hear Mr. Maduro say, for example, that as his Government has uncovered this dastardly plot that the Government was stepping up security for Mr. Maduro. Why not? Wouldn't this happen in a proper democracy? But Venezuela's government is anything but democratic.

This is not the first time that Mr. Maduro has made outrageous claims. He has said that Mr. Chavez's cancer was in fact caused by the Americans who somehow managed to infect him some two years ago. Of course, the world still has not been told exactly what type of cancer killed Mr. Chavez nor has the world got details of the treatment that the late President underwent. Nor do we know how the Americans could so cleverly infect Chavez and kill him so slowly. Assuming (though not accepting) that the Americans could have infected and did infect Chaez with something, wouldn't it have made more sense to have killed Mr. Chavez quickly rather than have it take two long years? But little details like this are irrelevant when you are dealing with such a liar as Maduro obviously is.

Maduro has clearly learned the lesson of Josef Goebbels (Adolf Hitler's Nazi Minister of Propaganda), that the bigger the lie and the more often it is repeated the more people will believe it.

The problem is that he is clearly signalling that he does not care an iota for the truth and neither does he care what he says about anybody or anything. It is also clear that he is a man who will say or do anything to retain power at all costs. I expect him to be declared the winner in next month's election. I do not expect there to be a free and fair election.  I also expect that Venezuela will continue to spiral downwards after the election and become more and more impoverished. The dangers are obvious for the ordinary Venezuelan citizen. The problem is that instability in one of the Region's largest and most powerful countries can cause ripple effects in the neighbourhood ... and T&T is very close to Venezuela!

Maduro is much more dangerous than most people realise. A leader who has to lie and effectively threaten to kill his political opponents in order to stay in power is a leader who ought to be condemned by all right thinking peoples every where. The Venezuelans can't do it. Obviously! But we can!!

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - MORE QUESTIONS

There is only one reason for politics. It is the same and only reason for government: to make life better for the people. Period! There is no other reason!

It is vital that one keeps this in mind while discussing whether or not we should reform our Constitution, and if the consensus is that we should, then how we should go about it. Should we simply tinker with the present system? Is it working well, but just needs a little "tweaking" here and a little adjustment there? Bottom line: has it made life better for the people of Trinidad & Tobago? Could we have been better off if we had had another system? (Well, that last question is highly speculative, but I will still ask it for the sake of inclusion.) Could it/can it be improved upon? If so, how?

Winston Churchill once defined a Westminster type Parliamentary system as a dictatorship punctuated once every five years by three weeks of democracy.  You can readily understand his point when you realise that under our system of Government that a Prime Minister is not "primus inter pares" but simply "primus". He (or she) is the absolute boss and rules with great power. A Trinidadian type Prime Minister is more powerful inside his (or her) own country than an American type President is in his!

One of the biggest complaints that people have made since independence in 1962 is that they don't see their representatives except at election time. (Remember Churchill?!) And that is a complaint made by everybody on both sides of the political divide! And why does this happen? Because five years is a long time and the representatives know that there is no real necessity to dance attendance on their constituents all of the time. Their supporters usually vote for the political party in any case and not for the individual, so as long as their Party is popular and the M.P. sits in a "safe" seat (i.e., safe in that most voters in the particular seat vote for the particular Party) then the M.P. really doesn't have to work his seat all that hard. To be fair, there are exceptions to this generalisation and there are many hard working M.P.'s. But the truth also is that there are even more who "disappear" between elections and there are far too many M.P.'s who simply sit back and do little or nothing for their constituents. And this has always been so!!

Further, in between elections governments often ignore the electorate and are guilty of non-performance and/or trampling on the rights of citizens. These types of complaints are not new nor are they only being made today, but have been around since the 1962 Constitution.

So, the big question is: what can we do about this? Put another way, how do we, the people, get more control over the persons that we put into government so that we control them and not the other way around? Isn't it time that the dog starts to take control of its own tail again?

I have certain ideas which I will put forward, but I am deliberately not doing so now as I would prefer that readers of this blog think very carefully about the problems so that when we embark on a discussion of possible solutions that there will be no need to have a "back and forth" discussion but that we would all be "on the same page" in understanding and appreciating what exactly we are are trying to fix and why we think it needs fixing.

"THE EVIL THAT MEN DO..."

"The evil that men do lives on,
  The good is oft interred with their bones;
  So let it be with Caesar".
                                           William Shakespeare - Julius Caesar



Hugo Chavez is dead. He leaves behind him a country in chaos and a bitterly divided and polarised society. In the coming weeks and months and years Venezuela is going to struggle to pull itself out of the very deep financial blackhole that Chavez created with his 'Bolivarian socialism'. But it is important to look back and assess both his 'victories' as well as his 'defeats' (for want of better words). His victories first:

When he was elected in October 1998 (he actually first took the oath of office in January 1999) he had run a populist campaign that in itself was recolutionary. Venezuela was then divided between a very few "haves" and a lot of "have-nots". I remember going over there in 1997 and being absolutely shocked at the glaring inequalities that were rampant in that society. Clearly a revolution was absolutely necessary to bring equity and fairness to a society whose value systems seemed to be locked into those of the early fifties. There was too much inequality.

And Chavez was just that revolution. He swept to power promising massive changes for the benefit of the poor and dispossessed. In this regard he kept his promises. He brought in universal health care and gave huge opportunities to persons who would never otherwise have had them. His policies of helping the poor and dispossessed certainly raised a lot of people out of a squalid and dehabilitating poverty. He forced through changes that were absolutely necessary in a society that was atrophied and in which only the rich were able to enjoy Venezuela's fabulous oil wealth.

Now for his defeats: he did all this at great expense ... some would argue that the cost was too high. His rhetoric was extremely divisive and his actions were even more polarising. He pitted Venezuelans against each other and opened up wounds that ought never to have been opened. His critics branded him as spiteful and dictatorial. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence to support these accusations. A Supreme Court Judge, for example, who had the temerity to oppose him was arbitrarily arrested and locked up. Companies had their assets expropriated by the State and their owners received no compensation. The media was severely muzzled and criticisms against the Government were not tolerated. If you were so foolish as to criticise the President you would end up in serious hot water. Venezuela was anything but democratic.

Venezuela's economy began to suffer badly. Mr. Chavez spent a huge amount of Venezuela's oil income last year in propping up his economically failing regime so that he could win the elections in October. He won, but at a huge (and as yet unaccounted for) cost ... a cost which some experts say was the direct cause of the huge devaluation that Venezuela's currency suffered last month.

In the meantime, there has been absolutely no investment by the private sector in Venezuela's factories and businesses for at least the last 8 years. In the oil/energy sector Chavez's purge of Stae owned PDVSA some 10 years ago has resulted in oil production falling (at a time of rising oil prices) and a lot of incompetent personnel running the company effectively into the ground. Corruption in high office is rampant. Many 'Chavistas' are multi millionaires with condos in Miami.

In terms of foreign policy it could also be argued that this also was a disaster for Venezuela. Venezuelan oil subsidies have been propping up Cuba to the tune of about US$9 billion per annum for the last decade or so. What the Castros are going to do now is going to be interesting, to say the least. My guess is that they will try to prop up the Vice President Nicholas Maduro, a former bus driver. But I don't think that he will be able to hold the centre for very long. The only countries that seemed to support Chavez were countries like Iran, Ghaddiffi's Libya, Zimbabwe (remember Robert Mugabe?) and North Korea. To be fair, he did have some friends in Latin America like Bolivia's Evo Morales. But you know what they say about 'show me your friends ...'!

And by the way, if you think that crime is bad in T&T you should check out Caracas sometime. Their crime problems make ours look like a walk in the park!

Venezuela is in for a hard time now that Chavez is dead. There is no one on the horizon who has his charisma and the divisions in the society are too deep to heal overnight. The bad news is that Venezuela's economy is in a shambles and there is nobody in the present Government who has the economic savvy to be able to fix it ... ever! The good news is that Venezuela is essentially fabulously wealthy ... at least potentially so. Now that Chavez is dead it is quite likely that the country will sooner or later move back to the centre and will become once again a nice place to live. Let us hope that in moving back to the centre that the good things that Chavez did do are not buried with him ... although that would surprise a lot of people including old Willy Shakespeare.






       

A QUESTION OF LOYALTY

I had intended to devote the next few posts to the question of constitutional reform, but a short (and rather devastating) bout of pneumonia laid me up while events have taken over in the interim. I am talking about the raging 'brouhaha' over the (seemingly) stillborn Flying Squad issue.

Let me tell you a story: in 1969 my father was the then Minister of Home Affairs (this ministry later became the Ministry of National Security). Sometime around September/October of that year my father took a note to Cabinet recommending that three young Sandhurst trained lieutenants, LaSalle, Shah and Barzey, be cashiered from the Regiment. The security service had reported that they were in cahoots with the Black Power elements in the country and were actively engaged in plotting revolution and the violent overthrow of the Government. Unfortunately, none of the evidence was justiciable and even to expose it would have exposed the security personnel in such a way that would render them useless as sources of future information. In other words, there was no proof that could have been used by the Government against them and there was no way of getting that proof.

The then Attorney General, George Richards, bitterly opposed the recommendation to fire the young lieutenants on the ground that there being absolutely no evidence against them, they would win a case against
the Government for wrongful dismissal and the Government would have to pay them huge damages. My father's reply was that the Government would be better off paying those damages rather than paying for the costs of a revolution which could well end up with the entire Cabinet facing a firing squad. Eric Williams, who was then Prime Minister, told my father that he was being overly dramatic and sided with his Attorney General. The rest is history! (Incidentally, this was not the only time in the build up to the events of 1970 that Dr. Williams did not take my father's advice. But that is another story (or stories).)

Shortly after the 1970 uprisings had been put down Dr. Williams called my father to his office and congratulated him on all that he had done in putting down the uprisings and in keeping loss of life to an absolute minimum. About two weeks after this Dr. Williams called my father again to his office and demanded his resignation. Dr. Willaims said that the Party (the PNM) was howling for my father's blood as there were elements in the Party who were claiming (with some justification because they did not have the facts) that the national security lapses that resulted in the uprisings and army mutiny were the fault of the Minister of Home Affairs. My father's attitude was "let them come. I can defend myself against any and all accusations and show where, if what I had recommended had been done, that the mutiny and uprisings would not have taken place".  "Ah!" Williams replied. "But then they will come after me!"

In other words, he recognised full well that he had screwed up and that either my father had to fall on his sword or that the whole Government would come crashing down as my father's defence of himself would have dragged not only the Prime Minister down, but the whole Cabinet as well. In a situation where the whole country was in an extremely shaky state and where the very pillars of our democracy had been seriously threatened (remember, we had only achieved independence a short 9 years earlier) my father realised that he had no choice but to go, and to go quietly. Not to do so would have threatened the very existance of his Government. By saving himself all he would do is "kill" his Government and he would go down with the rest. In other words, either he went or they all went. He went.

 He kept his peace on this until he died in 2005 although he never tired of telling us (his family) the stories of what really happened until we could all repeat them practically word for word.

I tell this story now as an example of what is supposed to happen and how Cabinet Government is supposed to operate. We are all still waiting for an explanation about this Flying Squad imbroglio and speaking for myself only, I must confess that there are too many elements in the story that simply do not add up or make sense. What does make sense, to me at least, is that the Prime Minister is being horribly exposed when she should not be. If a Prime Minister falls then his or her entire Government usually also falls. This is a lesson that appears not to be understood by those close to Mrs. Persad-Bissessar.

 I like Jack Warner a lot. Oh! I am well aware of the stories that continue to swirl around his head and I have no illusions. I honestly don't. But I do like him and think that he has a lot of strengths to bring to the table. However, I am most concerned that this present trouble is such that even if he is able to survive it that his continued presence as National Security Minister may cripple the Government. In which case, he may be finding that even if he is completely blameless in this matter (just as I say without apology that my father was completely blameless in 1970) that he ought seriously to consider whether or not it is best for the sake of his Prime Minister, his Government and his Party that he step aside quietly.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - QUESTIONS

There have been certain significant developments over the last two months that have pointed to the operation of our Constitution and raised the question of constitutional reform. The first development was the clean sweep of all 12 seats in the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) by the People's National Movement (PNM) leaving the opposition without a voice in the THA. Certain persons have been calling for some sort of appointment of non-elected assemblymen by the President of the Republic to correct this imbalance, which I honestly don't think falls within the President's powers ... but that is another story.

The second development was the election of a new President (and by the way, congratulations are in order to Mr. Carmona ... an excellent choice!) and all the "kerfuffle" that surrounded the process before the eventual nominee (Mr. Carmona) was announced.

It seemed to me that the opposition PNM was really making mountains out of molehills with their agitation before the announcement that Mr. Carmona was going to be the Government's nominee and they were singularly ungracious in their subsequent behaviour following the announcement. But again, that is also another story.

I had rather deliberately refrained from commenting on these matters for several reasons, not the least being that I really didn't feel like getting involved in any way in the politics and politicing that was taking place, nor did I feel like commenting on them. Maybe tomorrow or next week or next year I will comment on the politics again, but right now I am more concerned with trying to be part of a non-political process that will move our twin island Republic forward ... not to go around in circles.

What I really want to focus on is the simple question: is there a need for constitutional reform? If the answer is 'no', well there's an end to it. But if the answer is 'yes', then a number of sub-questions follow: why do you say that there is a need? What is working? What is not working? Where is our present Constitution falling short? Where, if necessary, can it be improved? Should we really have an executive President? If  you think that we should, then why do you say so? If you think that we shouldn't, then why do you think not? What would be the advantages to us in having an executive President? What would the disadvantages be?

There are probably other questions that arise which I just can't think of at the moment, but my point here is that no serious or proper discussions on reforming or revising our Constitution unless and until we are all absolutely clear on what exactly we are trying to achieve. When we know what it is that we want to achieve then we can discuss intelligently how to go about it. You can't get an answer to anything when you don't know the question or the question is not clear.

I have ideas on whether reform is needed and what exactly we should do and I will put them forward in subsequent posts. At the moment, though, I prefer to begin this discussion simply by posing the questions and letting them sink in. This way I hope to direct everyone's minds to these serious issues and thus be better able to understand the subsequent posts on this subject. Incidentally, if you do have ideas on other questions that ought to be addressed or considered on this subject please let me know. My list is not meant to be conclusive.

So, watch this space if this is a topic that interests you. The next few posts will be dealing with it.

WHAT REALLY MATTERS ... MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Our beloved housekeeper, Claudia, is a pastor in a small Pentecostal church in Barataria. She is a lovely, God-fearing woman who is not only religious but deeply spiritual. Yesterday, at her invitation, my wife and I together with our two sons made the pilgramage to her small church for a Sunday/Christmas service. Minou (my wife) had earlier in the week gone and bought presents for about thirty of the young children in Claudia's church to hand out after the service. She (Minou) stayed up quite late on Saturday night wrapping all of them and fixing labels on each present with the names of the children that Claudia had given her.

And so, at exactly 8am (the time that Claudia had told us to be there) we arrived with the proverbial rings on our fingers and bells on our toes. What can I say? We were welcomed with love and genuine friendship and the service as well as the sermon (performed by a visiting pastor - Sister Diane) was completely inspirational. I honestly cannot say when I so enjoyed a service before!

Hold on! I am coming to the point! But I had to set the scene first.

After the service my two sons, Robin Alberto (13) and Reynaldo (10) put on Santa hats and stood up in the front of the small congregation and called out the names of the children and gave them the presents that Minou had so lovingly wrapped the night before. The children were obviously thrilled at receiving a gift, BUT (and this is important) were even more thrilled that each gift had their OWN name on the present. In other words, the gift wasn't just a 'generic' present, but each child felt special as his or her gift was so obviously meant for him or her personally!

Afterwards, going home in the car Reynaldo opined "Now I know why Santa likes giving so much. I never knew that it could be so much fun!!"

And that just about said it all! I know that I took a long time to come to the point. Forgive me, please. But it struck me forcibly that all too often we lose sight of what really matters in our lives ... love! The gift of giving is an important part of Christmas, both for Christians and non-Christians alike. And sometimes the words of a child serve to remind us sharply of this.

Mery Christmas to you, my dear readers. And may all that you wish for come true in the new year.

TIME TO PUT SECTION 34 TO REST

It had been my sincere hope and desire that the last post that I would make on this blog for this year would be to wish everybody a merry christmas and to close down for the rest of the year. However, President Max Richards has decided to raise this issue of section 34 yet again and I just can't, in the interests of fairness, let this go without saying something.

I have said it many times before: if ever you want to understand a problem go back to the beginning. So, we must begin with the question: was section 34 a good idea and good law? The answer to both questions is an unequivocal 'yes'. So? Next question: why? And the answer is: because there is a huge back log of cases in the criminal courts and it IS (and I use the present tense deliberately) felt by all stakeholders that it is more than unfair to have persons with a criminal charge hanging over their heads for ten years ... an unconscionable period of time. Further, it was felt, that in the event that the delays in proceeding with a trial were not unconsciable in all of the circumstances of a particular case, that in the interests of justice, a case would not be automatically dismissed but that in order for it to be dismissed the accused would have to apply to a High Court Judge who would have a discretion as to whether or not the charge should be struck out.

Got that? Good! Because now we move on to the next part of the story: According to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice came to the Cabinet of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago and said that he wanted to have section 34 proclaimed immediately. He is reported to have said that he had consulted with the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as the Chief Justice who had both agreed and 'signed off' on the early proclamation. The rest of the Act (the Administration of Justice Act) could not yet be proclaimed as certain things that needed to be put in place had not yet been organised. The explanation made sense as it was recognised from the beginning that the particular section was good law. So the Cabinet went along with the request. Incidentally, there is NOTHING to suggest that the Prime Minister's account of what happened is not correct or true.

It turned out that the Justice Minister had NOT consulted with either the Chief Justice or the Director of Public Prosecutions who were as surprised as everyone else as to the early proclamation. Further, the already dark and (what ought to be) unnecessary suspicions were exacerabated when reports surfaced of the Justice Minister drinking with one of the Piarco accused, Mr. Galbaransingh, in Mr. Galbaransingh's hotel in Tobago. (Whether it was champagne as was reported, or Perrier water as claimed by Mr. Volney, is irrelevant).

Mr. Volney was fired and the Prime Minister made a report in writing to the Office of the President occupied at that time by Mr. Timothy Hamel-Smith, the then Acting President, on the matter. And that ought to be the end of the story.

So? What the devil is President Max Richards up to? He meets with the Prime Minister EVERY Wednesday for crying out loud! You mean to say that in all of these meetings since he came back from his vacation that he did not ask the Prime Minister what the story was about section 34? Really? And now he puts pen to paper? Really? He does not know what happened? He didn't read what the Prime Minister told HIS office while he was away? Really?

The President has to be very careful here. An impartial observer might well be forgiven if he came to the conclusion that the President was trying to cause a little mischief and trouble for the present Administration in these waning days of his Presidency. If that was true, he would be doing a great disservice both to his office as well as the nation.

A MINDLESS,HEARTLESS TRAGEDY

On Saturday morning sitting in our kitchen having our morning coffee and watching the news on television my wife and I were moved to tears over the tragedy in Newport, Connecticut. I decided then that I would write something on this today (Monday … I like to keep my computer in my office … if I take it home I will end up working there). But later on that morning I received an email from a very good friend, Lennox Raphael, who lives now in Copenhagen. In my mind Lennox expressed so exactly how I personally feel about the tragedy, that although his words are not precisely mine, they express exactly how I feel … about everything. So, with his very kind permission, I publish his e mail to me below as if it were my own.


Hi, Robin,

That is what a good friend said to me when I had Papaya: "Lennox, you are making your grandchildren!"

And I’m thinking of this right now because I am so saddened by what happened in Connecticut yesterday, hours after I left New York to return to Copenhagen.

So painful that young lives can be snapped out so easily, so casually, as tho they are flies, when they are actually angels. I think it was ex-Commissioner Bernard who said some years ago that Trinidad was experiencing a satanic wave: well, not just Trinidad&Tobago. Seems to be everywhere.

The enormity of this cruelty has been derailed by customary jet lag.

Even the snow that covers Copenhagen seems to be crying.

The world is never easy.

I know (in Trinidad) we feel at times our world & values are crumbling before our eyes; but it's everywhere.

Here, in Denmark, where there is at least one bank robbery a week, irrational acts are commonplace.

About a year ago the front page of the bestselling newspaper here, ExtraBladet, was covered with snapshot photos of young kids who had been knifed by their parents, as fallout from parents caught up in jealousy.

And not so long ago that massacre of young people in Norway.

In Trinidad & Tobago adults are poor examples of commendable behavior. And I am alarmed when I see the public language that is considered acceptable.

There is so much rage in everything. I noticed this the five weeks I spent there recently. Even the way people drive cars; the way politicians speak. Everything is bait instead of debate.

Words do break bones.

If anything, with all the good we have going for us, we are an increasingly careless nation bent on stretching the rubberband to breaking point.

A satanic wave seems to be embedded in all levels of the society.

Impatience replaces Intolerance.

Public conversation is punctuated by insults.

We seem to forget that young people are convinced by good examples.

There seems to be a death wish in the society.

I admire people like you who can make a point without prolonging scars.

Too much picong is ruining the society.

We have to pull back from the emotional cliff.

I was thinking of some of these things while in Washington getting Papaya her Kazakhstan visa and while in New York where people instead of helping a distraught man who was pushed unto the subway tracks would chose to take photos of him being savaged by the train.

Skyscrapers become tents.

And even the New York Post would splash the unforgivable photo on its front page, the photographer, when criticized, said he was using his flash to warn the incoming train that smashed the poor man to bits.

So the Connecticut fever is everywhere in varying doses.

Well, I don't want to continue in this vein. This is the season of the Christ.

And our children & grandchildren are holy and ought to be shielded from the mindless savagery of our times.

God bless,

L



Incidentally, you can get more of Lennox at the following address:


http://www.servinghousejournal.com/ContentsIssue6.aspx

ABUSE OF SUBSTANCE? REALLY?

It is well established in democratic countries around the world that editorial writers are always anonymous. The editorial written in a newspaper (daily or otherwise) represents the view of the newspaper and not of the individual who actually writes the piece. This is why I can understand the disdain of the 'Jamaica Observer' when calls were made to disclose the identity of the writer who wrote the editorial on Tuesday last (December 11th) headed "The More Important Issue Is Abuse of substance". Clearly, the persons calling for such disclosure wanted to suggest that the writer of this editorial was an African and/or a Trinidadian who is opposed to the People's Partnership Government. In other words, that the editorial was racially motivated.

Certainly, the editorial in question was curious to say the least. Assuming (but not accepting) that any and/or all of the criticisms in the editorial have validity then an obvious question arises: why didn't the esteemed newspaper raise these type of criticisms years ago when black/African regimes were in power in Trinidad & Tobago. There are endless examples of this type of behaviour which the learned editorial writer calls "an abuse of substance" relating to past regimes, and yet there is not even a peep of an acknowledgement from the newspaper that this is not something that arose today.

So? Why? What is different? Is there a connection between the newspaper and certain opposition elements in Trinidad & Tobago? (And I ask this question completely open ended and without inference.) Naturally, the newspaper would deny this even if it were true. But if there was then that would explain this rather savage attack on the T&T Government. After all, the editorial basically says that the PP Government of Trinidad & Tobago is racist! (Let's call a spade a spade!)

But, is it really? Did other administrations in T&T not do the same thing? If so, were they racist as well? If not, why not? (And by the way, the short answer is 'yes' other administrations did EXACTLY what the 'Observer' editorial is accusing this administration of doing.

Let us put the race card squarely on the table: Since independence Trinidad & Tobago has had thirteen different administrations including the present one. (Two of them were headed by Patrick Manning at different times so I am counting those as separate). Of these thirteen administrations only three were headed by Indians: Basdeo Panday and Kamla Persad-Bissessar. And of the two consecutive administrations headed by Mr. Panday, one lasted less than a year! All the other administrations were headed by Africans.

Now, a cursory look at T&T's civil service will show a preponderance of Africans. And I mean a REAL heavy weighting that certainly does not reflect the ethnic make up of the society. It's even worse when one takes a look at the ethnic make up of employees at the Central Bank, which is sometimes disparagingly referred to in T&T as "little Nigeria" (a reference to the overwhelming preponderance of Africans in that establishment). Ambassadorships and chairmanships have in the past been dominated overwhelmingly by Africans ... many of them friends and relatives of the regimes then in power.

So, the question remains: why did the 'Observer' choose to write this editorial now? Is the newspaper connected with certain elements opposed to the Government in T&T? If so, shouldn't the newspaper declare this? (Understand me well: there is absolutely nothing wrong if it is, but at least then people would be able to understand why it wrote that editorial). It would be naive to think that the newspaper would not be aware that its editorial would not create waves in Trinidad & Tobago. Not in this day of Internet connectivity. And it would be equally naive for the newspaper not to know that opponents of the PP Government would not use this as an example of "unbiased" reporting and commentary. Pull the other leg: it's got bells on it!

No. The 'Observer' had an agenda that it hasn't disclosed. There is no law that says that it has to disclose the agenda and it has every right in the world not to disclose it. But what is one law for the goose also has to be the same law for the gander, and the newspaper's blindness and apparent unwillingness to recognise the real injustices of the African dominated administrations of the past is of concern. Why? Why isn't the newspaper even-handed in its criticisms?

Finally, nothing in this post should be construed as defending or attempting to defend the PP Government. I personally do not want to appear as a defender or an apologist for the present administration and I have very deliberately not commented one way or the other on the charges made against them by the 'Observer'. My purpose here is to say quite publicly that I have noticed a very clear bias against the PP Government by at least two daily newspapers in T&T which bias is completely defensible in terms of freedom of the press, but which is indefensible in that both newspapers pretend to be politically neutral ... which they are quite patently not!  Ugly suspicions in my mind are raised when I see a daily newspaper in far away Jamaica attacking the Indian dominated PP Government seemingly out of the blue. Why would the Jamaican newspaper do this? It doesn't make sense! And when somebody does something that on the surface you don't understand it is usually because he does NOT want you to understand! Would that my suspicions could be proved to be completely unfounded!



P.S. I intend to send a copy of this post to the 'Observer'. I don't really believe that they will publish it ... but, hey! You never can tell! It would say a lot if they did, but would say even more if they don't!!

QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERED (but probably never will)

One thing about us Trinis, we always seem to get caught up with the confusion of the moment and very rarely take a step back to look at various issues with an unclouded mind. Bearing in mind that compelling reason will never convince blinding emotion (and we Trinis are very, very familiar with blinding emotion)  I have listed below some 29 questions that I think ought to be asked, even though I have no doubt that none of them will ever get an answer. Still, if I make at least one person think then I will consider my job here well done. The questions are all asked as open ended as I could possibly make them. Readers will have some idea from previous posts as to what my personal opinion might be on any one question, but my opinions aren't important here. What is important are yours. What do you think?


1) Why did the DPP try to stop the Coleman Commission of Enquiry (COE) into the Hindi Credit Union and CLICO just when the COE was about to move to begin to look into the actions of Messrs. Duprey, Monteuil, and other CLICO honchos, on the ground that the COE might prejudice a criminal trial?

2) If this is such a serious point why didn’t the DPP take the same point when Harry Harnarine and the Hindu Credit Union came under Coleman’s spotlight?

3) Why did the DPP take so long to launch a criminal investigation into CLICO?

4) If the CLICO honchos were giving the Central Bank such a hard time to get information why didn’t the Central Bank say or do something a lot earlier?

5) Do you believe that the Central Bank’s hands were really tied in getting CLICO to “behave”? If this is the truth, then has this problem been fixed? If so, when was it fixed? Who recommended that it be fixed? When was this recommendation made? If it still has not been fixed, then why not?

6) Why didn’t it come out sooner that the Government had a lot of technical reports on the Mon Desir/Debe section of the highway being built in the South?

7) If the reports were/are so flimsy that they only consist of a few pages and some photographs as has been alleged by Dr. Kublalsingh why will it take the JCC 60 days to read them?

8) If the reports are so voluminous that it will take at least 60 days to read them and this is in fact a reasonable time, then does this mean that Dr. Kublalsingh and his supporters were not telling us the truth when they claimed that the report(s) is/are inadequate?

9) If they were not telling us the truth then what does this mean?

10) If they were telling us the truth then where did these reports suddenly come from?

11) Do the re-routers and/or Dr. Kublalsingh have their own technical reports to back up their claims and allegations?

12) If not, then on what basis exactly were/are they making their protest? Because they “feel” or “believe” that this is wrong? And if they have no scientific evidence to justify their claims then why do they want to meet with the JCC committee to put forward their views?

13) If their protest is based on scientific evidence, where is their study? Who did it and when? What exactly does it say?

14) Why hasn’t the press checked on the re-routers claims rather than printing them as fact?

15) Did Dr. Kublalsingh really go for some 8 or 9 days without water? If so, would this be a world record given that T&T has a very hot climate and dehydration in a hot climate is always greater than when it is cold?

16) If he (Dr. Kublalsingh) did cheat and/or has been cheating on his fast is this important? If so, why? If not, why not? Does it make a difference to know whether he cheated or not?

17) Why didn’t the press “embed” a reporter with Dr. Kublalsingh to make sure that he wasn’t cheating? Is this important?

18) Should we accept everything that the media tell us without questioning it? Is the media reliable and do they always tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

19) Is the print media especially biased against the PP Government?

20) Is this important to know? If not, why doesn’t it matter? If so, why should it matter?

21) If the print media is indeed biased should they declare their bias? Would this be an infringement on their freedom to publish whatever they liked or would it simply be an act of openness and honesty? Is it an infringement of a free press to require that it be honest?

22) Is the Milsherv/Tobago House of Assembly a big deal? If not, why not? If it is a big deal then why is it not making continuous headlines a la Kublalsingh? Or is this an example of political bias on the part of the media in that the THA elections are coming up next month and they don’t want the PNM to be embarrassed?

23) If Commissions of Enquiry are really important why did the police effectively refuse to investigate NH International (the construction firm belonging to Mr. Emile Elias) for possible breaches of the Larceny Act in the Scarborough General Hospital/Landate matter by saying in writing that they couldn’t find the file?

24) Do you believe that the police really couldn’t/can’t find the file?

25) If you don’t believe that they can’t find the file what do you think is the real reason that the police will not investigate this matter?

26) Should the press be pursuing this or should they allow it to be dropped as it is now more than 10 years old?

27) If they should just drop it then does this mean that all old matters should be dropped? What about Calder Hart? When should his matter(s) be dropped?

28) And speaking of Mr. Hart, do you believe that he can get a fair trial in T&T?

29) If you were on a jury that was trying Mr. Hart would you approach the trial thinking ‘well, I presume that he is innocent but I will certainly listen to the evidence of the prosecution’ or would you approach it thinking “I know you’re guilty but let me hear what you have to say’?

FIXING THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

It is difficult to understand why people are so surprised to learn that more than 300 persons who fall under the auspices of the Integrity legislation in Trinidad & Tobago haven't filed their 2011 declarations. Let's face it: filling out those forms is a pain in the neck (if not somewhere lower) and because there are so many forms to review a lot of people will reason that perhaps they might simply get away with it as the Integrity Commission simply won't have time to go after them. That is the reality of the human condition.

The truth is that the Integrity Commission with the best will in the world is largely ineffective and ineffectual ... and this comment has nothing to do with the competence or lack thereof of the Commissioners or their staff. It has everything to do with the fact that the legislation is cumbersome and unworkable. Case in point: is there anybody out there who wants to bribe an opposition senator or member of Parliament? No?! Why am I so surprised!! But opposition MP's and senators have to fill out the @#$%*&% forms! I remember once when I was an opposition senator the Integrity Commission began asking me what I considered at the time to be really stupid questions concerning a matter in my form. I got really quite upset with not only the stupidity of the questions but with the sheer arrogance of the Commission. The matter was eventually resolved by the then Commission Chairman John Martin meeting personally with me and apologising orally for their arrogance and stupidity and acknowledging that in no way was I suspected of doing anything wrong but that they were just "following protocol", and begging me just to give a simple answer to one question which I did. I had been prepared though as a matter of principle to let them take me to Court. And I did ask them for the names of anyone who might want to bribe me! After all, as an opposition senator there was absolutely no way that I could award or influence the award of ANY contract. Stupidity! But if I told you of the time that was wasted on this nonsense you would want to cry!

But there are a lot of people who probably should fall under the net but aren't there. For example, there are a lot of not-so-high but not-so-low civil servants who can do a lot of damage to the public purse if they so desired. Then again, who is more guilty: the "bribor" or the "bribee". And yet we ignore the "bribor".

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Why don't we do it another way? Instead of requiring a huge amount of persons in public life to file a return every year, why don't we widen the net to include just about everybody who might be capable of being involved in "bobol" of one kind or another, but that nobody be required to file an annual return as such. Then we give the Integrity Commission the power to make enquiries of any person for any period that he is in public life. This way, for example, if it was suspected that Minister X was paid a bribe by contractor Y for project Z the Integrity Commission could go into Y's books to see whether or not there have been any suspicious payments. Then the Integrity Commission could take a harder look at X.  Follow the money and you usually will find the crook.

In other words, rather than making everyone file every year, only those persons whom the Integrity Commission decides to be investigated would have to answer. A lot of time wasting and inefficiency would be avoided and the Integrity Commission would become much more effective and efficient.

One final problem could be the possibility of witch hunts. Yes. In this country that is a real possibility. But we could figure out a way to deal with that. Indeed, I have one or two ideas of how we might deal with it which I would prefer not to discuss at this time. That would be for another post IF this idea were to gain "traction". There is no point in discussing something now that simply ain't gonna happen! But then again you never can tell.  What do you think?

War! WAR! vs. JAW! JAW!

The Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh/Re-route movement matter continues to dominate the news headlines. It is probably fair to say that despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue (which is getting rather extreme) that nobody wants Dr. Kublalsingh to die and that most people would like to find some middle ground or solution that effectively allows both sides to save some face. After all, Dr. Kublalsingh's point (after stripping away all the 'ole talk' and threats to kill himself) is that the Mon Desir/Debe section of the highway is damaging to the environment. There is nothing wrong with a man taking this point (unless, of course, it is not true).

Allegations have been flying fast and furiously as to whether or not this central point is correct or not. The "Re-routers" claim that the Government study is a farce and not worth the paper that it is written on. Dr. Kublalsingh himself seems (as reported in the newspapers) to have changed his demands from requiring a meeting with the Prime Minister, then not requiring one but instead requiring a commitment from her  to appoint a committee approved by the "Re-routers" to look again at the environmental issues. (The reporting in the newspapers is not as clear or as balanced as one might hope for ... but, hey! We've got to work with what we've got). The Government's position is clear: their reports show that the claims are groundless and so the highway goes forward.

And then we have all the opponents of the Government crawling out of the woodwork seeking to bask in the "reflected glory" of Dr. Kublalsingh's fast. The fact that some of these people were nowhere near Dr. Kublalsingh's protest against the aluminium smelter is forgotten and seemingly irrelevant. What is important is here is yet another stick to beat the Government with! (Nobody ever said that Life in the Tropics was dull!!) But none of these people seem to want to help find a solution. One gets the (rather unkind) impression that they would actually like Dr. Kublalsingh to die so that they could beat the Government with an even bigger stick!

My view on the whole imbroglio is as set out in my last post on this subject. Nothing has happened to persuade me to change my mind. What I would like to discuss now is a possible way forward.

The "Re-routers" (and, please, I use the term in a purely descriptive sense ... just in case somebody wants to take issue with it) are making a claim which, if true, ought to be taken seriously. Further, they say that the Government's study is flawed. Well, perhaps a way out might be for them (the "Re-routers") to present to us ... the general public ... their own study on the problem listing the experts that they have relied on and their qualifications. This way we could all see whether or not they really do have a point.

In a court room "he who alleges must prove". Okay! I know we aren't exactly in court, but do we have to be? I consider myself a fairly well informed person, but I don't have any recollection of the "Re-routers" providing scientific and documented reports to prove their case. If they have, maybe they could/would provide it again.? I can't believe that if a clear, cogent and scientific argument is made for all to see that the Government would not listen to it. But all that I have seen so far is a lot of blinding emotion. Frankly, I do not blame the Government for not giving in to the emotional arguments even though I readily concede that cool, clear reasoning will never defeat blinding emotion!

By the way, I am not interested in whether Dr. Kublalsingh is "cheating" on his fast (although I will confess that if he is in any way that this would affect his credibility and would therefore lead naturally to other matters that I prefer not to discuss at this time). What I am interested in is finding a way forward. Both sides are digging in and nothing less than "all out victory" would seem to suffice. Both sides have a lot to lose from a defeat. Let's try and turn the rhetoric away from winners and losers and try and discuss this matter in an intelligent and civilised manner. Because at the end of the day, Trinidad & Tobago will win if the right decision is made and Trinidad & Tobago will lose if the wrong decision goes through. We are all in this together. 'War! War!' is not the answer. Let's try a little 'Jaw!Jaw!'

PASSION, COMMITMENT AND TOMFOOLERY

The hunger strike of Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh, leader of the Re-route the Highway Movement, is receiving (very) understandable media attention. Any reasonable observer looking at the whole 'brouhaha' dispassionately would have to admire Dr. Kublalsingh's commitment to his cause. After all, if a man so believes in his cause, whether it is to re-route a highway or a religious belief, or anything and everything in between, that he is willing to die for it, such passion and such commitment is something that ought to be admired whether you agree with that person or not.

Put another way, if Dr. Kublalsingh were to use that passion and commitment to, say (being ridiculous), invent a better and more nutricious hamburger, society would praise him and beat a path to his door. He would make a fortune!

There are quite a few people though who tend to regard Dr. Kublalsingh more like a Don Quixote type figure who was described in Miguel de Cervantes's epic story "El Caballero de la Triste Figura" ("The Knight of the Doleful Countenance") as "... un entreveradero loco, lleno de lucidos intervales" ("... a muddle-headed fool, with frequent lucid intervals") ... Don Quixote was made famous in the story for his 'tilting' with (attacking) windmills that he thought were evil giants.

It is tempting to argue that Dr. Kublalsingh is doing the same with this hunger strike as Don Quixote did with his windmills. He is insisting that he will starve himself to death if the Prime Minister of this little Republic refuses to meet with him (and no doubt capitulate to his demands). That this is emotional blackmail of the highest order cannot be in doubt. In other words, he is saying that it will be the fault of Mrs. Persad-Bissessar, and only Mrs. Persad-Bissessar, if he dies. Now let me be clear: whether you fall on the side of the "re-routers" or not: NO Prime Minister can ever be seen to be giving in to this sort of blackmail ... and it is blackmail! If it happens in this case, where would it end. No! As much as Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's humanity and her obviously clear desire is not to see a needless death, as Prime Minister she cannot allow herself to be forced to do something like this. It is clearly not in the interests of the State. If she did this (give in) today, what would stop somebody else from doing a similar thing tomorrow? Where should we draw the line?

You will note that I have been careful in this writing to avoid discussing the rights or wrongs of Dr. Kublalsingh's argument. I see that as completely separate and apart from what is happening right now ... the potential death of a human being that is completely unnecessary and not in the best interests of the society, much less the good doctor's family nor the doctor himself! Further, it is not in the best interests of the wider society that our Prime Minister (and she is our Prime Minister whether you voted for her or not) be forced to meet and treat with someone in circumstances where she is effectively being blackmailed.

Let's look at it dispassionately: if Dr. Kublalsingh does in fact starve himself to death will that change the route of the highway? I doubt it. His death might give opponents of the Government yet another stick to beat the Prime Minister and her team with, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts that NO intelligent opposition politician (and to the detractors of the PNM please do not say that this is an oxymoron) would say so clearly that there would be no way out of the statement (other than "I was wrong") that he would give in to a hunger striker. It just ain't gonna happen! No statesman (or woman) can afford to give into something like this!

In other words, Dr. Kublalsingh is probably killing himself (for that is exactly what he is doing) for a lost cause. As I said at the beginning of this post: I do admire his passion; I admire his commitment, but I don't think that this particular cause is worth killing himself for. Even if you think that what he is doing is pure tomfoolery or that he is just plain wrong on this issue, I would urge you to add your voice to mine and say to him please don't kill yourself. There will be other causes where your country will need your passion and your commitment. If you are dead then it will be our loss and you won't be there to help.

 The famous English playwright, George Bernard Shaw, said it best when he said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable man insists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man"

We need men (and women) like Dr. Kublalsingh in this country whether you agree with them or not. They keep the rest of us on our toes. They force us to look again at issues that we might otherwise overlook to our long term detriment. Please join me in asking him not to kill himself.

"we were wrong"

That's a title or headline that you won't see over any editorial in any T&T newspaper any time soon. Another title or headline that you shouldn't hold your breath for is "WE ARE SORRY". The question of a fair minded press comes to the fore once again. Let me be clear: the newspapers have every right in the world to be as biased or as unfair as they want to be. Bottom line: that is what freedom of the press is all about. I am not about trying to muzzle them, intimidate them, or restrict them in any way and I will be the first to join in condemning anybody who would be so foolish as to attempt to do such a thing.

But criticism is a very different thing from intimidation, and nobody and no institution should ever believe that it is so sacrosanct that it cannot be criticised.

What has brought this on is the announcement by the Attorney General yesterday that the long running (2 year) arbitration battle between the Government and BAE Systems over the cancellation of the OPV's (Offshore Patrol Vessels) has been settled in the Government's favour with BAE Systems having to pay to Trinidad & Tobago the not inconsiderable sum of $1.382 billion.

Now, on Sunday 28th October, 2012 the Sunday Guardian published a headline article that the Attorney General had gone to the Cabinet with a request for approval that the Government pay BAE the sum of $1.3 billion!! The article caused a huge fire storm with the Opposition yelling "we told you so!" at the top of their voices.  The article went into some detail saying that several Cabinet Ministers were irate and "confirmed the decision" to pay BAE had been taken but did not want to be taken. The article even went on to report that Mr. Dookeran, who had chaired the meeting, walked out of it.

The Attorney General vigourously denied the truth of the article and slammed the Guardian for publishing it at a time when the matter was 'sub judice'. Other Government Ministers also stepped up to the plate, but the truth is that not very many people believed them. After all, why would the Guardian publish such a story IF it weren't true?

It is pellucidly clear now that this report was as wrong as wrong could be. In fact, the truth is just the opposite! But there has been absolutely no apology from the Guardian or even a paltry acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, it got its facts all wrong and that what was reported simply could not have been true. But the editorials in both the Guardian and the Express this morning chose instead to criticise the Prime Minister for her criticisms of Opposition Leader Keith Rowley which she made at the Divali Nagar.

Tell me something: what do you honestly think is more important to Trinidad & Tobago this morning: the fact that the country has won a huge law suit or that the Prime Minister inserted certain political comments in a speech at a religious function? (And I am not here discussing whether or not the comments were justified. That is for another time. Let's not mix apples and mangoes.) For the life of me I can't understand it. I see this victory in the arbitration as a big thing and whether or not you like the Government "the boys" ought to be congratulated. It is a big thing. But the newspapers haven't done so.

I can only come up with one possible reason for the attitude of these two newspapers, and that is that they are terribly biased against the Government. If somebody ... anybody ... could give me another reason or reasons I would gladly consider it or them. And as I said from the very beginning, if they want to be against the Government (or anybody else) then that is their absolute and unqualified right. Just be honest about it!

This is the second time that I have pointed out the inherent bias in the press. I know all too well that the editors will ignore what I am saying here and will continue as before, but hopefully, one or two of my readers will begin to notice and will adjust their opinions on what they read in our media accordingly.