IS A PNM VICTORY THIS YEAR A SURE THING?

Certainly if you read The Trinidad Express newspaper the answer to the question in the title of this post will be an unequivocal 'yes'. And if you talk to the "intelligentsia" in Port of Spain you will also get the same answer. And don't talk about the many "talk show hosts" (and that last is in inverted commas deliberately, for the drivel that tries to pass for discussion ... not even pretending to be intelligent discussion can make you want to pull your hair out in frustration over the daily stupidity that does not even seem to understand the basic dictionary definition of analysis)! They will point to the many, many scandals that have rocked the People's Partnership Government almost from day one. They will say things like "there has never been a government as corrupt as this one" and they will say that the Government has done just about nothing in the last almost five years. They will point to the apparent instability in the Government in the way that Ministers have been fired and forced out of office and they will also say that support for the PP Government has withered on the vine and that the obvious death of the COP is bad news for the Partnership/UNC.


And there's ... good grief!! ... the possibility of a third force coming out to capture all those disillusioned voters and playing spoiler in the coming showdown.


Well, not so fast.


First of all, despite the views of the Express, its columnists and the radio "talk show hosts" there is still a tremendous amount of support for the Partnership, especially outside of Port of Spain. The Government has been doing a tremendous amount of work outside of the precincts of the capitol city and a lot of people have benefitted and will benefit from the many projects which are as diverse as the Point Fortin highway and the Couva Children's Hospital ... both of which are scheduled to come on stream later this year.


Put another way, outside of Port of Spain people are seeing with their own eyes all of the work that the Government has done.


Further, people tend to say "I feel that the Government will win/lose" as the case may be. But if you look at the actual results of the last elections you will realize that for the UNC to lose Government there will have to be a huge swing against the Government of more than twenty percent nation wide. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that (a) the Government has lost popularity and that (b) it is going to lose some seats. Take a look at the seats that I believe the Government will lose and note the vote difference in the last elections:


Seat                        2010 Winner                     Amount of winning votes          Amount of losing votes    
Arima                     Rodger Samuel (COP)                  7612                                           7241


San Fernando         Carolyn Seepersad-                        9,111                                         7,810
West                        Bachan (COP)


Toco/Sangre            Rupert Griffith (UNC)                  7,491                                          7,285
Grande


Tunapuna                 Winston Dookeran (COP)           10,543                                          8,005


Barataria/                  Fuad Khan (UNC)                                  10,850                                          6,742
San Juan


Lopinot/Bon              Lincoln Douglas (COP)                          9,279                                           8,222
Air  West  


Pointe-A-                   Errol McLeod                                         10,972                                          6,685
Pierre






In other words, there are seven vulnerable UNC/PP seats. Let us for the sake of argument "give" these seven seats to the PNM in the next election. That still leaves the UNC/PP with 21 seats; a bare majority (the 'magic' figure is twenty-one) but a majority nonetheless! (For the sake of argument I have "given" the marginal seat of St. Joseph which was won by the PNM in a recent by-election back to the PNM ... although I would be the first to admit that this is debatable). And this does not take account of the fact that there are several vulnerable PNM seats. For example, I am sure that you will be surprised to learn that Paula Gopee-Scoon won the Point Fortin seat with 8,885 votes to 7,959 ... a bare majority of a little more than 900 votes. Now, if the Point Fortin Highway comes on stream before the elections the serious question arises as to whether or not that will make a difference to the voters in that constituency. Also, did you know that Keith Rowley won his seat by a little over 700 votes the last time around (8,777 to 8,023)?


The last cabinet reshuffle hasn't hurt the PP Government nearly as badly as the opponents of the UNC would like you to believe. For example, Ms. Dyer-Griffith, the former COP Chairman, is upset by (amongst other things) the removal of Timothy Hamel-Smith as President of the Senate. But, (and it is a big "but") his replacement is not just a woman, but a Muslim woman! If that doesn't please the Muslim community it is hard to know what will. In other words, everybody agrees that Mr. Hamel-Smith is a nice guy but in terms of actual votes he would be lucky to bring ten to the table whereas his successor can bring thousands! And that's what politics is all about!!


Finally, the PNM is not without its own problems. Keith Rowley has so far failed to excite non-African voters who still do not understand, for example,  why he did not deal more decisively with Hilton Sandy's terribly racist remark during the 2013 Tobago House of Assembly elections about a "Calcutta ship". There are nasty and lingering suspicions as to why he didn't condemn the remark immediately but took a long three days to came out with what many regarded as a lame and half hearted condemnation of this terrible remark. Dr. Rowley also has other skeletons in the closet ranging from the Landate scandal to the latest "wining" episode at Carnival time.  He also has some discontent in his own Party to contend with. For example, you can bet that the UNC will make a big issue of his cutting Penny Beckles-Robinson's throat (politically speaking, of course) and blocking her candidacy at the PNM's screening for the Arima seat. (And I know that he didn't say a word at the screening ... he didn't have to; others did it for him.)


Look: a lot can happen between now and election day and it is clear that this coming campaign will be nasty and brutish and that racial passions and prejudices will (most unfortunately) be stirred up by those who ought to know better. A week is a long time in politics and any number can play in the many weeks we have to go before "decision day 2015", but if the elections were to be held today, for all the reasons expressed above,  I'ld bet a dollar to your donut that the UNC will win it and form the next Government.


I reserve the right to change my mind, by the way,  as the date gets closer. (And that should not surprise you!)
             

POBRECITA VENEZUELA

Poor Venezuela. As if its troubles were not enough, saddled with an incompetent dictator who is (not so) slowly running his country into the ground ... a country that is the richest in Latin America in terms of natural resources ... with inflation presently hovering around the 60 percent mark and set to go higher, while supporting the brutal and bloody dictatorship of the Castros at tremendous cost to the people of Venezuela, and blaming everybody but himself for the economic tragedies that have befallen this lovely country. The Trinidad Guardian reported this week that the Venezuelan Government has devalued the bolivar from Bs.6.12 to the US dollar to Bs170 to the US dollar. Can you imagine that?!? The currency has been devalued overnight more than 25 times!!


So what do you think will happen next? Well, as a devaluation takes between three to six months to "bite" I figure that President Maduro and his cronies are figuring that when this massive devaluation does eventually start to be felt that the demonstrations will start again and this time they will be worse than before. So? What should Maduro & Co. do to keep their stranglehold on power?


Now these guys may not have a clue about economics, nor do they have any idea of how to run a country so that it prospers without democracy, but you have to hand it to them: when it comes to retaining power they have their opposition licked. First of all, they understand well the old Mao Tse Tung's dictum that power comes out of the mouth of a gun. They have cemented their hold on the army by getting rid of any and everybody who might remotely oppose them thus ensuring their control of the guns. Then they have locked up the leader of the opposition, Leopoldo Lopez, so that he can't cause them trouble outside. It doesn't matter that just about everybody from Pope Francis to the President of Spain and everybody else in between (Amnesty International, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Barack Obama, etc.) has called for Leopodo's release (he is popularly known by his first name), Maduro has simply ignored them and gone on his merry way as though he has and had nothing to do with Leopoldo's arrest.


But back to today: Maduro has a huge problem coming down the road to meet him in a very short time. This massive devaluation is going to impoverish the country even more at a time of low oil prices, and inflation will hit triple digits before the year is out. And the idiot (and yes, I will not apologize for calling him that ... if he wants to sue me here in Trinidad for defamation I will happily defend myself in Court. Frankly, I would love to cross-examine him and if he sues he will HAVE to go into the witness box) knows all too well that this time the demonstrations will probably topple him.


So? What to do? Reports in Venezuela's social media (which is now the only reliable source of news in that poor country) are saying that Leopoldo has been taken out of his prison cell and tortured. The fact that this story has been allowed to get out suggests that Maduro & Co. wanted it to get out. They want a confrontation with the opposition now as opposed to a few months down the road. If they can get the opposition mad enough then when the demonstrations will start now and they can the arrest all the leaders and head off the looming coup d'état. If they wait, the chances are that the wives of the soldiers will be so angry with their falling standards of living that they may not be able to count on the support of the army anymore.


Macchievalian? Absolutely! And it doesn't matter whether they have tortured Leopoldo or not. It is enough for the story just to get out ... even though it is highly probable that the story is true. The time to strike is now, not later. It's like we say here in good old T&T: take in front before in front takes you. Ma-burro ... sorry, I mean Maduro ... is obviously doing just that!!


P.S. I forgot to mention that Ma-burro ... sorry, I mean Maduro ... I keep calling him that because he really is a donkey .. has taken to locking up shop owners who have long queues outside their shops where people are lining up to try and buy scarce goods. Now, if you were a shop owner who can't get the necessary foreign exchange to buy scarce goods and you were going to be locked up because you only have a very limited supply, would you stay open or would you shut your business down? And you still think the man is not a donkey?

THE RAMLOGAN/WEST IMBROGLIO

Well, the Prime Minister lives to fight another day! The very serious political questions that had arisen over the last two weeks or so concerning her then Attorney General and whether or not he had tried to pervert the course of justice by trying to inveigle a witness (Police Complaints Authority Director David West) to withdraw a witness statement in a High Court matter are (for now at least) put to rest. Of course, there is still the criminal investigation going on by the police and that will wend its way through the system with either the matter being dropped or an arrest being made. Either way, the Government and the Prime Minister are now out of that very messy imbroglio ... at least, for the time being.


But there is still some mopping up to do: the Prime Minister raised the issue of the behavior of Mr. West, and also that of the Leader of the Opposition in this whole sad affair, and called on Mr. West to resign his directorship of the Police Complaints Authority. It is worth the while of right thinking people in the country to look at this call very seriously, for if it is justified then Mr. West should indeed resign. What are the facts (as published in the newspapers):


- Sometime in or about June, 2014 David West supplied a witness statement to Dr. Rowley's lawyers in a defamation case brought by then Attorney General Anand Ramlogan against Dr. Rowley that related to the infamous section 34 fiasco;
- On or about the 31st October, 2014 the Attorney General placed two telephone calls to Mr. West ... one in the morning and the other around 4 in the afternoon. The allegation is that in the morning phone call the Attorney General (AG) told Mr. West that he (West) was being considered for the very important post of Director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and in the second phone call he told Mr. West that if he (West) were to withdraw his witness statement that he (Ramlogan) would make sure that West got the job.
- Mr. West says that the above version is correct. Mr. Ramlogan says that it is not and that he never tried to get Mr. West to withdraw his statement. (For the record, if Mr. West's version is correct then certainly it would appear from those facts that Mr. Ramlogan did indeed commit the crime of seeking to pervert the course of justice.)
- It is also reported that in between the two phone calls that the President's Office called Mr. West and told him that he was going to be the next Director of the PCA. In other words, by the time of the second phone call Mr. West knew that Mr. Ramlogan's support was irrelevant.
- Nothing happens for the next two and a half months except that the witness statement is filed in Court on the 19th December, 2014. Then the Express newspaper publishes the story and says that it had got the telephone records of the AG's office and that it can confirm that the calls were indeed made. The Express also purports to report on the contents of the conversations between the two men.
- Mr. West at first appears to refuse to be drawn in but then confirms that the Express story is true. Mr. Ramlogan denies it.
- All hell breaks loose at a time when the Prime Minister is out of the country.
- Mr. West reports the matter to the police.
- Then the Minister of National Security, Captain Gary Griffith enters the fray by apparently gratuitously disclosing that on or about the 19th December he had been asked by the AG to telephone Mr. West and ask him if he "had withdrawn the document." Captain Griffith says that he was told by Mr. West to "leave that alone" or some such words, which he did and never gave it another thought until this whole thing blew up when he put two and two together.




Now, some rather serious questions arise from these facts. You see, the office of Director of the Police Complaints Authority is a very important non-political office under the Trinidad & Tobago constitution. All complaints against policemen, from the Commissioner of Police down to the newest recruit, are dealt with by this office. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out therefore that the Director of the PCA wields great power and influence. He (or she) is appointed by the President after consultations with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, both sides of the political divide have to be happy and to feel comfortable with the nominee.


So, the questions are as follows:
- Why did Mr. West take so long to report the matter? Surely, this was a very serious matter that ought to have been reported at once, especially by a person who was about to assume such an important office?
- Did Mr. West disclose to the President that he was a witness in the highly politically charged defamation case between the AG and the Leader of the Opposition? If not, why not? Did he not think that this was important? If he thought that it was unimportant then why did he think that?
- Did Dr. Rowley disclose to the President that Mr. West was a witness for him in the defamation case? If not, why not? Did he not think that it was unacceptable to have as a Director of the PCA a person who was appearing for him as a witness in a politically charged law suit? If not, then would he have happily accepted (or even accept tomorrow) if the shoe was on the other foot and he had a say in vetoing the appointment of somebody who was going to appear in a law suit against him  which person would effectively be challenging his (Rowley's) version of events, would he have acquiesced in such an appointment? Hardly likely!!
- Would the President have appointed Mr. West if he had known about this witness statement and law suit?
- How did the Express get hold of the AG's phone records? Isn't this a crime under the Telecommunications Act? If so, who (i.e., what person) in the Express broke the law and who should be prosecuted?
- The Express reports seemed to say that the newspaper had evidence of the telephone conversations between Messrs. West and Ramlogan. If so, exactly what evidence does the Express have? Tape recordings? If so, who taped it and how did the Express get the tape? If not a tape recording, then what exactly.
- Is Mr. Faris Al-Rawi, the attorney for Dr. Rowley, also the attorney to whom Mr. West gave the witness statement and who Mr. west referred to as his (i.e., West's) lawyer, or did he (West) give it to another lawyer who then gave it to Mr. Al-Rawi?
- Given that Mr. Al-Rawi is not only Dr. Rowley's lawyer, but also the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the opposition PNM is this important in this situation?


There are other questions, but they all point in the same direction. Put another way: this thing ain't over by a long shot. My bet is that the opposition will now file a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister. Such motions rarely have any chance of succeeding in the Parliament, but can cause a certain amount of embarrassment which a savvy opposition can use to its advantage in the country. We shall have to wait and see exactly how the opposition will present the motion, but my best guess at the moment is that it will fail. Put another way, I don't have any confidence that Dr. Rowley and his colleagues have the "political smarts" to pull it off successfully. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar, on the other hand, has shown herself time and again to be as wiley as the best of them and not easily kept in a corner.


So, I end this post by asking the serious question: given all of the facts as exist in the public domain today (and this is important, for new facts coming to light could change every thing), do you think that Mr. West should resign his post or no? Put another way, does the possibility exist that Mr. West is at the very least sympathetic to Dr. Rowley and the PNM? Because if the answer to that last question is 'yes' then according to all the legal authorities on the law of bias, the possibility exists that he is "biased" or partial to Dr. Rowley and the PNM and therefore ought not to be holding such a distinctly non-political office. The mere existence of a possibility of bias sinks him whether he is in fact biased or not!!

THE COMING ELECTIONS IN T&T

Apart from the falling price of oil and gas the subject that is on most people's minds in good old T&T these days is what is going to happen in the coming elections. If you live somewhere in the east/west corridor or in Port of Spain you will be forgiven if you think that PNM will win in a cakewalk. You will be further forgiven for this impression if you read the Express newspaper or watch the TV6 news. (The Express tries very hard to pretend that it is neutral, but the truth is that there is a clear bias in its reporting where it tends to play down stories that are adverse to the PNM and play up stories that are critical of the ruling UNC. Now, there's nothing wrong with that. Frankly, it is part of the guarantee of free speech that is written into the Constitution, and no right thinking person can find fault with that. The problem is that to the undiscerning reader, or a person who does not quite understand the nuances of the skewed reporting, it can create a wrong impression.)


But if you go south of the Caroni River you will find a completely different story. The Government has done a heck of a lot of work in areas of Trinidad that had been ignored for decades and its support in rural communities is stronger than ever. The Ministers have begun to reel off rather impressive statistics of what they have done, which statistics continue to be conveniently ignored by the critics in Port of Spain who want to see an end to the domination of the Indian based/supported Government. Because, let's face it, the voting in Trinidad is by and large race based with the Africans supporting the PNM and the Indians supporting the UNC. The population of the east/west corridor is largely African and south of the Caroni River it is largely Indian. It's hardly surprising, therefore, to find the support for the two Parties splitting the way that it does. Of course, people like to hold themselves out as not being racist and therefore like to pretend that their support of one or the other Party does not depend at all on race but on principle. (Unfortunately, most of the Black intelligentsia supports the PNM and the vice versa is also true of the Indian intelligentsia, thus if not proving the lie to their earnest protestations, certainly would raise questions in the mind of a reasonable visitor from Mars.)


That there are exceptions (on both sides) to this rather sweeping generalization is true, but the exceptions are too few to put the lie to what has been said above.


Which leads us back to square one: the coming general elections. Historically (with the exception of 1986), something like 70 percent of the seats in a Parliamentary election in Trinidad (Tobago with its two seats is a different story) do not change allegiances. What has made the difference in the past and what will make the difference in 2015 will be in the marginals. There are 39 seats in Trinidad up for grabs (plus two in Tobago making a total of 41). PNM will probably win the two Tobago seats  so for the purposes of this post we can leave them out of the equation ... at least for the time being.


If you define a marginal seat as one where the vote difference between winners and losers was not more than 10 percent then you get only eight seats in Trinidad which can be defined as marginal with three of them actually belonging to the PNM!! (They are Diego Martin East, Diego Martin Central and Point Fortin). So, assuming that the PP manages to keep the swing to the PNM below 10 percent it is looking at a one seat majority (21 UNC seats to 20 PNM seats) in the next Parliament.


However, the UNC has been pressing ahead with the highway to Point Fortin despite the best efforts of Dr. Kublalsingh (who has now definitely broken all world records for going on a hunger strike without either food or water for more than something like 170 days) is nearing completion. Most certainly, this highway is going to affect positively the lives of everybody in the area and the Government must be reasonably hoping that this will tip the odds in its favour. (Paula Gopee Scoon won the Point Fortin seat the last time around with 8,885 votes to the UNC candidate's 7,959 ... a bare majority of 926 votes).


There are some seats such as Mayaro which the Express has been trying to promote as marginal, but Winston 'Gypsy' Peters won that particular seat the last time around with 12,846 votes to his PNM challenger's 7,330 (a majority of 5,5516 votes ... a rather comfortable majority).


So, the message here is: continue reading all of the newspapers and pay attention to all of the polls that they publish, but pay attention to the methodology that the polls use and where they are conducted. A poll in San Fernando West (a most marginal seat), for example, will unsurprisingly give the seat to the PNM if the perceived swing to the PNM in Trinidad is accurate. But unless that swing is something in the order of 25 percent or more, put your money (at least for the next week) on the UNC eking out a bare victory. Put another way, the UNC/COP partnership won the last election with 432,086 votes. The PNM garnered 286,165. Do the maths and figure out for yourself what the swing needs to be in order to defeat the Government and install the Opposition PNM. Then check out the marginal seats for yourself.


For better or worse, the numbers don't lie!!




P.S.  For those readers who are interested in the actual figures they are set out below:
           Constituency                    Winner                             Amount of votes of winners and losers
           Arima                                Roger Samuel (COP)        7,612 to 7,241
           D'Abadie/O'Meara            Anil Roberts   (COP)         9,541 to 8,421
           Diego Martin Central        Dr. Amery Browne
                                                                              (PNM)       9,040 to 8,041
           Diego Martin East             Colm Imbert    (PNM)        9,349 to 8,077
           La Horquetta/Talparo        Jairam Seemungal(UNC)    8,712 to 7,633
           Point Fortin                       Paula Gopee Scoon(PNM)   8,885 to 7,959
           Toco/Sangre Grande         Rupert Griffith (UNC)          7,491 to 7,285
            Tunapuna                         Winston Dookeran (COP)     10,513 to 8,005

THE WRONG ROUTE

I have stayed out of the Highway Re-route Movement's (HRM) contra temps with the Government for all kinds of reasons which are irrelevant to the point I wish to make here. In my mind, the question of Dr. Kublalsingh's sincerity in his beliefs is not in issue, or, put another way, ought not to be in issue. We should assume (though not necessarily accept) for the sake of argument that he is being sincere rather than get into an argument about that  ... which would only serve to obfuscate the real issues behind the proposed re-routing of the highway. And no right thinking person can look at somebody starving himself to death and not want to find a way to stop him from dying regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the cause that he has undertaken.


But, in all of the arguments, both pro and con, that I have read there has been one matter that has bothered me no end and which has never been discussed. It is this: forget the re-routing of the highway for a moment. Serious question: should a government (any government) be pressured into doing something that a majority of the population does not want, by an action such as a hunger strike? Does this amount to emotional blackmail?


Consider this: let's say that X sincerely believes that the death penalty is wrong and ought to be abolished. Let's say that the government of the day passes appropriate legislation that effectively allows the death penalty to be carried out again and manages to withdraw from all of the various international treaties that make it so difficult to carry it out now. Let's then say that X brings a case in the High Court to stop the death penalty from being carried out, which he loses twice and now is on its way to the Privy Council, and that the government proposes to hang, say, twelve convicted murderers a la Dole Chadee in one day before the Privy Council can adjudicate on the matter. (And just for the record, I am aware that the Privy Council has stepped into cases like this before, but let's pretend that it won't in this case.) X now goes on a hunger strike and refuses to come off of it unless and until the government of the day postpones the hangings and at the very least agrees to mediation on the whole question of the death penalty.


And finally, let's assume (though not accept) that X is as sincere in his belief as to the rightness of his cause as Dr. Kublalsingh is. So, should the government of the day give in to X and go to mediation? Should it postpone the hangings even though if it does the legal tangles that such a postponement will create would be such that we would be right back to square one with the problem of executing convicted murderers? But if it doesn't postpone the hangings the murderers will be hanged!


Except for the names and a few other changes, the story is the same one. The question is should a government ... any government ... allow itself to be pressured in the manner that Dr. Kublalsingh is doing now? What are the consequences to the country of this government ... any government ...in giving in to this kind of pressure? Should we be concerned with the possible precedent that this will set?


For me, the answer is yes, we ought to be very concerned. As much as I do not want Dr. Kublalsingh to die, I see the issue as being bigger than just his life. And that's really, really sad!! With the greatest of respect for Dr. Kublalsingh I am of the view that he has gone down a wrong route here.


And for the record, I am one of those in the minority who believes that the death penalty ought to be abolished!! I think that it is wrong.  But this post is not about that nor is it about the rightness or otherwise of the HRM's cause. Hopefully, you will understand my point and at the very least think seriously about it. What conclusions you come to is, of course, entirely up to you!!

SHOULD WE BAN (OR POSTPONE) CARNIVAL 2015?

I can hear you say "what? are you crazy?" No. I'm not crazy and I am deadly serious. I am totally aware of how important Carnival is for our national psyche, business, tourism and just about everything else that defines us a country. But Carnival is (more or less) a short four months away and there is a huge potential problem looming on the horizon. Let me spell it out for you:
      
            E-B-O-L-A


Ebola is a virus that is communicated by bodily fluids such as blood or saliva. But those aren't the only types of fluids in our body. There are fluids that come when (ahem) there is a certain 'intimacy' between people. There is also a bodily fluid commonly known as sweat!! Now, at Carnival there is a heck of a lot of sweat both at the many fetes around the country as well as a certain amount of sharing of drinks (saliva), not to mention the 'intimacy' that traditionally causes our birth rate to balloon nine months later.


Let me say at the outset that I do not have an answer to the question as to whether or not Carnival 2015 should be banned or postponed. All I know about Ebola is as follows: it cannot be transmitted in the air and will not mutate into an airborne form; the most people at risk are the healthcare providers and family and friends of the Ebola patient, and finally, the good news (and the bad news) is that in order to get Ebola you must have direct contact with an infectious bodily fluid!


The question arose in my mind when I heard about the person who arrived in the United States some two weeks ago and then after arrival succumbed to the virus. Apparently, there are potentially about 114 people that he had been in contact with since he arrived. To make matters worse, the victim went to the hospital, was misdiagnosed and sent home before being admitted a crucial two days later. And this was in the great United States of America whose health care services are reportedly better than ours! That there are only 114 potential victims is instructive for us. How many people does a reveler bump into on the streets at Carnival time or at a Carnival fete? How prepared are our hospitals for dealing with a potential Ebola victim?


Social media in Venezuela was reporting about two weeks ago nine mysterious deaths in a city just south of Caracas. The reports suggested an Ebola type illness. But there has been nothing in the major news reporting agencies so no one can say that the reports are accurate. The problem is that Maduro's Government ain't exactly open in all things and may or may not have ordered a cover up. It is nothing short of a tragedy that we cannot trust their denials (if it ever comes to that). But Venezuela is just next door. Has Ebola arrived in our next door neighbour's yard? Again, I really don't know, but I am of the view that we should all be on high alert, and unfortunately, as I said,  Maduro and his cronies simply can't be trusted to tell us the truth. And to make matters worse, they (Maduro and company) are not in the habit of allowing unrestricted news reporting in that unfortunate country. So, the bottom line is that we just don't know if Ebola is in fact in Venezuela or not. And a heck of a lot of Venezuelans come over for Carnival ... as well as a heck of a lot of other people!


Heathrow airport is a major world hub for airlines. People from Europe use it as a departure point for the Caribbean (Trinidad Carnival) and it is a departure and arrival point for practically the whole of Africa. You've only got to look at it to see that there are huge potential problems facing us. Somebody on the London Underground could easily come into contact with somebody who has the virus. The mortality rate of Ebola is staggeringly high.


What all of this means is that the Health Authorities in T&T need now to step up to the plate and tell us exactly what they do know about Ebola, what steps they have already taken to control, isolate and counteract the virus if it rears its ugly head on our shores, what additional steps they are planning to take should there be an Ebola victim in Trinidad, where will the victim be taken, that there are plans afoot to be able to contain the virus, that training is taking place now (and "now" must mean "now") of health care providers, what steps that are being taken to prevent any one with Ebola from even getting on a plane bound for T&T. Putting it shortly, what are the control measures that are being taken and implemented  to protect the country now from this epidemic?


The danger is real. It is much more real than, say,  the dangers highlighted by Dr. Rowley's rather pathetic bleatings about supporting UN resolutions on ISIS or  Wayne Kublalsingh killing himself slowly, or even the out of control murder rate. Unfortunately, this is a non-political issue and therefore there is no profit in saying "hold it Sherriff, she's headin' for the strawberry patch!"  But it is a very, very hard question that ought to be faced and discussed now. As a society we need to look at this very hard question and answer it. As I said, I don't know the answer as to whether or not we should ban or postpone Carnival 2015. I simply haven't got enough information to make a proper decision. But I do know enough to be able to say that this potentially could be the most serious crisis that we have ever as a country had to face!! And it is better that we take the hard decisions now than suffer a disaster because we just wouldn't discuss it and take appropriate steps before it hits us squarely in the face!!

T&T'S EDUCATION SYSTEM - A DEFINITION OF INSANITY

Albert Einstein famously declared that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. Unfortunately, that while that definition applies to so much that goes on in our little twin island republic that it's not even funny, nowhere does it apply more than to our education system. I know that a lot of people are not going to like me saying it, but our education system sucks ... all the way from the primary schools right up to the University of the West Indies and back down again.


Let's start with UWI first: once upon a time when UWI was the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture it enjoyed a world-class, first class reputation. Today, UWI ranks near the bottom of any list of universities and does not appear anywhere on any list of the world's top universities. Don't believe me? Take any discipline ...say, economics ... and have two young graduates applying for the same job ... one from UWI and the other from, say, Harvard. Guess who is going to get the job? I don't think I need to go further: UWI is not a first class school and it could be and should be. Heck, it's not even a second class school!


And as for our so-called "prestige schools", well they are anything but prestigious and it is nothing short of a miracle that some students not only graduate, but are bright enough to go on to first class universities and make their mark on a fast paced and rapidly changing world that is happily leaving us as a country way behind.


But officials in the Ministry of Education continue to tinker with an inadequate, out-moded, out dated, inefficient system and absolutely refuse to consider that the system is way past its "use by" date. The other day I met one of these Ministry boffins who vigorously defended the system, so I asked him "if I blew up the education system this afternoon so that there was absolutely nothing left and you had to start from the beginning, would you put back the exact same system?" He answered honestly before he realized the trap that he wouldn't, which, of course, is exactly my point. If you would put in a completely different system if the old one was completely blown up, then why don't we put in a new one now? And we don't have to blow up the old system, just put in the new one and phase out the old one gradually.


A lot of our problems in this country begin with the failing/failed education system. And part of the reasons that the system is failing is because we simply refuse as a society to pay our teachers a proper wage. The result is that the teachers don't teach in the classrooms, but force parents to hire them to give private lessons to the children. The result is that just about every child that takes the SEA exams or what used to be called 'O' Levels and 'A' Levels in my day are now forced to have their parents hire teachers for extra lessons. If they don't, except for the very bright kids, you can guarantee that the kids will fail.


Now, another question: if the system and the schools are so good, why does just about every child who hopes to pass the requisite exams have to take extra lessons? In other first world countries extra lessons are not needed for the vast majority of students! So, why are they a way of life here if the system is so good?


I could go on almost forever on this subject, but hopefully you have got the point. Fixing the education system will ultimately fix most of our problems. Don't fix it and I can guarantee that the problems will not only continue but will get worse. And, yes, I do have ideas on how we might fix the system besides paying the teachers a proper salary. I'll share those ideas in another post. But before I get there we should all be on the same page, which is agreement that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Once we have agreement on that fundamental point we can then discuss ideas on how we might fix it.


Oh! And by the way, while I do have ideas on how to fix things, I certainly don't hold my ideas out as the only ideas or the only way to do things. The purpose of this post is to try and get as many as possible to recognize the problem and begin thinking of ways to fix it; because one thing is certain: the system is broken!

WHAT"S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ISIS AND OUR LOCAL GANG LORDS?

And the answer to my question is that except for the names and a few other changes, the answer is none! I mean, think about it! The ISIS leaders pretend that they are religious. But the operative word in that last sentence is "pretend", for in a month of Sundays nobody could ever convince me that the so called brand of Islam that they are pushing has anything to do with Islam, which is a religion of peace and tolerance. (Indeed, in the 'dark ages' in Europe it was Islamic scholarship that saved a lot of the accumulated scientific knowledge from foolish destruction from the then Christian fundamentalists. But that is another story.)


Our local gang leaders at least are honest enough that they don't pretend to be representatives of a higher cause. They quite simply are about controlling absolutely the territory that they control, and woe betide anyone (and I mean anyone) who dares to challenge their authority, because the remotest challenge means death to the challenger.


And this is the point of this post. I have written before that we are in the throes of a relatively small scale civil war ... a fact which the mainstream media and the PNM opposition simply refuse to acknowledge. Details are still sketchy at the time of writing but from what has come across on the news this morning is that it seems that there was a huge gun battle last night at about ten o'clock between two rival gangs just outside the Besson Street  Police Station!! Apparently, the gangs had high powered rifles and the fight became a three way fight with the police joining in. The end result is that three gang members have been killed including one who was already wanted for murder.


But when the Minister of National Security says that he is buying armored personnel carriers the Opposition howls in protest and a Catholic priest talks loftily from his pulpit about "extra-judicial killings".


Look, regrettably the only thing that can defeat the force of these gangs is force. Live with it! If you say that you don't like it, well, honestly, neither do I. But I would hate it even more if a member of my family or a friend was gunned down because a gang lord decided that he or she should die for some real or imagined slight such as refusing to hand over a purse/wallet/car keys. I wwould feel a lot happier if I saw all the Opposition politicians (and 'all' means 'all') coming together with the Government of the day and making it crystal clear to the revolutionaries that they support absolutely the unitary State of Trinidad & Tobago. And if they don't particularly like what the Government is doing in the realm of national security, then for crying out loud, stop criticizing and tell me exactly what they propose to deal with putting down this revolution. Stop the platitudes. Let's hear real and concrete proposals. And if you can't then shut up.  For just as ISIS got stronger and stronger so will these guys if they are not stopped now. And 'now' has to mean 'now'!! Put another way: lead, follow or get out of the way!

SCOTLAND AND THE RUN-OFF

Like probably most people in T&T, I became very interested in the Scottish referendum for independence which was held on September 18th when a convincing majority (55% to 45%) of Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom. The story as it unfolded was riveting especially towards the end when opinion polls began to suggest that the result could be very, very close ... so close that it might even have ended up the other way with  a slim majority voting for independence. That this would have led Scotland and the United Kingdom into completely uncharted territory was at once as dangerous as it was at the same time exciting. That in the end the Scots voted for security over everything else, was also probably (with the benefit of hindsight) predictable.


But what caused this movement for independence in the first place? After all, for more than three or four hundred years Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom. There are probably as large a percentage of Scots who served and died in the two great wars of the twentieth century as there are Englishmen. Scotland hasn't done badly in terms of economic "goodies" that it gets from the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, reports leading up to the vote suggested that Scotland in fact gets more "goodies" on a per capita basis than the other parts of the country. So why would the Scots want to leave such a cozy arrangement from which they were so obviously benefitting? And why would such a large minority (because 45% is a very large minority) want to leave such a cozy arrangement?


It seems that the truth is that the Scots found themselves getting sick and tired of Thatcherite policies being imposed on them from London. It was policies first formed by Mrs. Thatcher that exacerbated a system of inequalities and dumped valuable social programs on the rubbish heap. Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997 did, through a form of federalism known as "devolution", push through some  reforms which allowed Scotland to keep certain policies such as free higher education and national health care while south of the border  the health care system has been partially privatized and English university students are now having to go into debt like their American cousins in order to pay for their higher education.


In other words, Scotland's value system, which is more socialist than the rest of the Tory dominated UK, was/is at risk so long as Scotland remains or remained part of the UK.  But the referendum campaign has elicited promises to the Scots that will give them greater power to resist the Tory policies ... which is probably better for the Scots than independence. And now, with the leaders of all three main political parties having promised even more powers to the Scots the rest of the UK, especially the regional Parliaments in Wales and Northern Ireland, will begin to demand more internal self-government. In other words, the "old" United Kingdom is now dead and something new is going to emerge; what exactly it will look like when all the dust settles is far too early to tell, but one thing is certain: it ain't gonna be like it was before the 18th September. And all of the changes that are to come were basically started by Maggie Thatcher whose policies over the years have created greater inequities in the system that finally dove the Scots to revolt.


I know I am taking a long time to come to the point of this post, which is not why the "no" campaign succeeded or should have failed nor is it to have a dissertation or discussion on Mrs. Thatcher's economic policies. The point that I want to make is that in the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher never had a popular majority even though she ruled as Prime Minister for 11 years. The most she ever got was 43.9 percent of the vote! The most that David Cameron (the current Prime Minister) has ever got was 36.1 percent of the vote. The point is that Britain's "first past the post" system has allowed the Tory minority to dominate.


The anti-Tory vote gets split between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats were so anxious to get into power the last time around that they formed a coalition with the Tories that effectively reduced their influence to zero. The United Kingdom has had a Tory dominated government for the last 4 years.


So? Where am I going with this? Ask yourself: would history have been different in the UK if instead of a first past the post system as it has now, they had instead a run-off system like the one that T&T is about to get? Would the Tories have been able to govern and impose policies which a majority of British voters do not want if the system had allowed voters a second chance while narrowing their options? Would this have been a bad thing? (And, yes, the majority of British voters do not vote for the Tories in the UK general elections, so I can say with great equanimity that the majority of British voters do not support Tory policies. If they did, they would vote Conservative!)


Speaking only for myself, I was never a great lover of Mrs. Thatcher's economic policies which have been almost slavishly copied in other countries including our own. I argued then (and have been unfortunately proven right) that you cannot run a country like a business and that Thatcherite policies only make the rich richer and the poor poorer. But, again that is not the point that I wish to make here. My point is that despite all the piffle that has been printed about the run-off provisions that we are about to pass into law, the truth is that they can and will go a long way towards making our own little corner of the world a fairer place to live in. And that is important! If the UK had tackled the thorny problem of electoral reform earlier the very obvious looming political problems that it now faces would never have arisen. The first past the post system allows a minority to rule the majority. Imperfect as the run-off might be, it still is a better option.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - THE RUN OFF Part 2

So,  continuing where I left off yesterday, let's start with the first Objection:

This is undemocratic because it is unfair to the candidate that came first.
This argument shows a fundamental misconception of what an election "race" is all about. In fact, to call it a "race" is somewhat of a misnomer. An election is really about choices. Who are we going to choose to represent us for the next five years? It isn't a race like a bicycle or swimming race where the winner is the guy or gal who comes in first ahead of the pack. It is about who will represent the people of the particular constituency. This proposal (now law) effectively gives the electorate the chance to choose more democratically. For example, you have A, B and C to choose between. A and B get 45 and 40 percent of the vote respectively. C ends up with a paltry 15 percent. So, A and B go to a run-off. The voter now can decide 'well, I preferred C, but if I have to choose only between the first two I will choose B over A' or vice versa. What is undemocratic about that? If A wants to hold on to his lead then he will have to ensure that he gets C's supporters to vote for him. What is wrong with that?

It's unfair to third Parties because they will be automatically excluded in the run off election.
Sounds good, doesn't it? I mean, shouldn't everybody get an equal "bite at the cherry"? But on a closer examination one realizes that it really doesn't stand up to the light of day. Before I answer this let me just say that last night the Senate changed this particular provision by saying that if a candidate gets at least 25 percent of the popular vote, he/she can be in the run-off.  Now, back to the question: the answer is that everybody is getting an equal "bite at the cherry". But third Parties are now going to have to be more than just spoilers in the game. For example, in 2001 Mr. Ramesh Maharajh formed a Party which effectively caused Mr. Panday's UNC to lose that 18/18 tie. Mr. Maharajh's candidate in that election in Tunapuna polled a few hundred votes and the PNM candidate was able to squeak in with a very bare majority. Most political observers concede that had it not been for that third Party candidacy that the seat would have gone to the UNC instead of the PNM. And to add insult to injury that third Party candidate lost his deposit! Put another way, third Parties now are going to have to step up to the plate with real support or get out of the way. What could be wrong with that? How is this unfair to somebody who, at the end of the day, clearly doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving and winning?

In fact, this proposal can effectively give third Parties greater influence in that the two major Parties will (if they are smart) have to be very cognizant of a third Party's policies and proposals because if there is a run-off the leadership of the particular third Party can urge its supporters to support either Party A or Party B as the case may be. In other words, the leadership of all the Parties (both major as well as minor) are going to have to be more careful in that they are going to have to articulate their policies more clearly, and the subliminal messages from the UNC and the PNM (vote for us because we are Indian/African) are going to have to become even more subliminal if the ONR/NAR/COP supporters (who still exist ... they just have no "home" at the moment) are going to be attracted to one side or the other is going to get their votes. (These voters are by and large not motivated by racial voting and do in fact cause the outcome in several marginal constituencies).

There is the very good chance that in a run-off not everybody who voted in the first round will vote in the second round; in other words, there is a very good chance that the eventual winner will get less than 50 percent of the votes cast in the first round.
Well, duh!!! Of course that can happen! But this argument ignores the fact that voting is not compulsory. It is a right that is available to every adult citizen. A citizen can choose to exercise or not exercise his right. But he can't complain about any result if he chooses not to exercise his right to vote. What do you expect will happen if you don't vote? It is either that the principle that every single vote is important is a good principle and is correct, or it's not! So, somebody who voted in round one can say "I ain't votin' 'cause I vex' " or he goes out to vote on the basis of the choice that is now available. But don't complain! And the result will be determined by the people who do exercise their franchise! Full stop! Punto finale! Indeed, less than 50 percent of the electorate can refuse to turn out in the first round! You can "play" the numbers game till the cows come home, but the principle that an elected representative should at least have 50 percent of the votes of those who have bothered to turn out is a good one.

That there should have been public consultation before such an important and fundamental provision was brought in; there hasn't been enough time to consider it carefully.
Again, this sounds good at first blush. We even had one of the Commissioners appointed to the Constitution Commission (Ms. Merle Hodge) saying that this was never considered or discussed. To which I would reply, well, first of all, how much time do you think you will need? What are your concerns? The ones that I have articulated? Or are there others? If so, what exactly, and in one sentence for each(because if you can't define it in one sentence you can't define it at all), can you define the other concerns?
Secondly, if this wasn't discussed at all, then how come it was in the addendum that was submitted by the Constitution Commission that Ms. Hodge signed that was submitted on 18th July, 2014? Why did Ms. Hodge sign the addendum? Why didn't she submit a minority report? Did she read what she was signing? Did she even understand it? Or did she only understand it when the PNM began objecting to it? And if it was in the addendum, surely this suggests that it was discussed at some time by the Commission?

That a run-off could leave the country in a political limbo for two weeks, which is an unacceptably long time.
To which the short answer is "bull piffle', Good grief! Don't those who are putting this up as an argument understand the Constitution? It is  unarguable that the results of any election  should be determined as quickly as possible. But even in the best regulated democracies there can be delays. For example, in 2001 then President Robinson took two long weeks to resolve the 18-18 tie (which he eventually did wrongly and unconstitutionally ... but that is another story). And nobody complained then! Why? Because Robinson eventually decided in favour of Manning?  Or this wasn't a concern? In the great United States in the presidential election of 2002 it took more than a month before the Supreme Court finally ruled in favour of George Bush (and, yes, I am very aware that the American Constitution is different from ours). In our Constitution there are provisions that keep a Prime Minister in office even after an election until the President appoints a new one. Now, tell me: what can a Prime Minister do who is awaiting a run-off in a particular constituency in the 15 days between the election and the run-off? Do you really think that he/she would be so reckless as to try and empty the Treasury in that time believing that he/she will eventually lose? Do you not think that any Prime Minister coming in after such a situation will not look to hang his/her predecessor as soon as he/she takes office? Come on!  Mr. Panday has been accused of all sorts of crimes and other misdeeds, but not even his worst detractors accused him of taking advantage of that 2001 18-18 delay to do any corrupt act!

The real reason
No. The real reason, which neither side has articulated but it remains like the proverbial elephant in the room, is because the PNM has quite rightly concluded that this run-off provision is a dagger aimed at their electoral heart. The evidence tends to suggest that the support for the UNC tends to split while the support for the PNM tends to stay solid. Put another way, the combined votes of those opposed to the PNM have frequently exceeded those cast for the PNM.  In other words, a majority of third Party voters are non-African or better educated and do not vote according to ethnicity and would prefer to vote for the UNC rather than the PNM where the only choice is between the two Parties. Where there is a third (or fourth) choice the UNC support will sooner hive off in favour of a third Party before the PNM's support does. Put another way, the PNM believes that they will lose elections more often than they will win when there is a run-off ... unless they bring about fundamental changes inside the Party .... which they clearly don't want to do.  And that, my friends, is really what it is all about!!

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM --- The RUN-OFF Part 1

I had not intended to write at all about the latest 'brouhaha' making the political rounds ... the contraversial run-off proposals currently being debated in the Senate. Frankly, I considered the arguments against the proposals a bunch of "bull piffle" and accordingly had decided to obey the injuction of Mark Twain who said something to the effect that one should never get into an argument with a fool; he will only drag you down to his level and then beat you with his experience.


But such confusion has been created by the "piffle" of the Bills' detractors that I have been besieged with requests to try and expain it. Indeed, the requests are probably best summed up by one reader who wrote me an email this morning which is typical of the requests that I have been recieving. He said:


          "Robin, could somebody who is above average intelligence (like yourself), relatively impartial
           (lol- like yourself),describe the pros and cons of the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill?
           I realise that I probably do not fall into either category, but do not understand the
           ramifications. Please enlighten us all."


So hear goes: first of all, there is the criticism that the amendments require a special majority ... which is a two thirds majority ... in both Houses of Parliament. This is simply not true. A simple majority (one vote) can amend any part of the Constitution that does not affect the fundamental rights of the citizenry (which rights are set out in Section 4 of the Constitution and include things like freedom of the Press and the right to join political parties and to express political views, etc.). The proposed amendments do not infringe any of our fundamental rights. A simple majority is really all that is required to pass the Bill.


There are three things that the Bill proposes to change: the first is a proposal that no Prime Minister should serve a total of more than two full terms. Nobody seems to have a problem with this so I 'll leave it alone. In any case, it is fairly clear.


The second proposal is really "a crock" and is effectively not enforcable. It proposes that in any time after the third year of his election an MP can be removed if more than 50 percent of the registered voters in a constituency petition for his withdrawal. The petition must be presented before the last year of a Parliamentary term. Now, the truth is that it will in practise be virtually impossible to get 50 percent of the registered electors in any constituency to sign such a petition. Put another way, it sounds good in theory but it simply will never work!


The third proposal is where the critics have been getting their "knickers in a twist" (as my English friends would say). The proposal is that if there are more than two candidates in any constituency and no one gets at least 50 percent of all of the votes cast, then there shall be a run off election two weeks later between the top two candidates only.


Critics of this proposal say that :
- this is undemocratic because it is unfair to the candidate that came first;
- it is unfair to third parties because they will be automatically excluded in the run off election;
- there is the very good chance that in a run off not everybody who voted the first time around will vote in the second round; therefore the possibilty exists that the eventual winner will get less than 50 percent of the votes cast in the first round;
- that there should have been public consultation before such an important and fundamental
  provision was brought in; there hasn't been enough time to consider it carefully;
- one of the members of the Constitution Commission has been reported as saying that there was no
   discussion on this in the Commission;
-  that a run-off could leave the government of the country in a political limbo for two weeks, which
   is an unacceptably long time.


And that, in a nutshell, are the criticisms. And the answers? Let's take them one by one ... tomorrow!

FIXING T&T --- TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING

Quite near to my home in Maraval (but fortunately not quite close enough to affect me directly) a Roman Catholic private school for girls is about to be opened in Long Circular Road. The school apparently is slated to have 200 students and either the entrance or the exit to the school (I'm not sure which) will be on Champs Elysees, a narrow road that exits onto the main road (Long Circular). Most understandably, the residents of Champs Elysees are very, very upset. The traffic that this new school will generate on mornings and on afternoons will be horrendous. If there are going to be 200 (upper class) students in attendance (and the fees that will be charged ensure that this will be the case) then it is reasonable to presume that at least 150 plus cars will be at the school every morning and every afternoon. It will be extraordinary if there are no traffic jams on Long Circular road(which has become a major artery in the road system in and out of Maraval) at least twice a day, and as for Champs Elysees, which was designed as a very quiet side road, it will be virtually impossible for the residents to go in and out of their homes without difficullty during times of pick up, drop off and special school events such as speech day.


My own personal experience with a school (I live opposite to a primary school) is that most parents are simply oblivious to the problems of residents and they simply disregard their objections unless and until the residents do something that inconveniences them (the parents) at which time they heap abuse upon the abused residents. I solved my own problem of being blocked by the simple expedient of blocking everyone (and I mean everyone) every time that I was blocked from getting into or out of my home. The school and the parents have learned that it is easier to be considerate rather than inconsiderate and as a result we have lived side by side very happily for the longest while disturbed only very occasionally when some wealthy woman (and it is alway the very wealthy women) decides that she does not have to be considerate and occasionally blocks me, with the attendant consequences.


But this post is not about my personal difficulties or how I have solved them, but rather about the machinations of the Town & Country Planning Division. How does this department make its decisions? Can a person affected by a decision object? If so, how does he find out about it before it has been granted?


So, I looked up the Town & Country Planning Act Chap.  35:01 for answers. The short point is that there isn't much that an affected person can do without spending a lot of money. If a person,let's call him X, buys a property that used to be a residence but he wants to use it as an office, he has to apply for a change of use certificate. But the neighbours won't usually know about this application until he has moved in and the office is a fait accomplis. Then X decides to sell to Y who wants to open a restaurant. Y makes his application and again the neighbours won't know what is going on until it is too late. This is what happened with Woodbrook. In other words, the change of use in a neighbourhood tends to creep in gradually and without those who will be directly affected being able to do anything about it in a timely manner. By that time there are so many approved changes that not to grant a change of use from residential to commercial can lead to an expensive law suit where the aggrieved applicant can legitimately claim that because others were granted permission then he ought to be granted as well.  Not to do so would be unfair.  This is what has happened with this new school.


Okay. I know that it is a little more complicated than that, but the point here is that there is no simple mechanism for persons being affectedby a potential decision from "taking in front" before the decision is made. That there are remedies available to those persons is a fact, but they all involve expensive lawyers who will charge "a pound and a crown" to try and set aside the decision that has already been made. (As one of those lawyers my bank manager and I would be very happy to take such a case, but it really isn't right, is it?)


There ought to be an easier, less expensive and more civilised way of dealing with this. Perhaps one solution might be to amend the law so that all applications for a change of use of any property has to be advertised at least, say, 4 weeks before any affirmative decision can be given. Then, if there are objections the relevant authority can hear them and weigh them against the interests of the property owner who quite understandably wants to deal with his property in the most profitable way for him.


Life is always about compromises and in any society there must always be a balance. Imbalances occur when there is a lack of timely information ... and that is my whole point.

'A CENT SHAVE ICE'

Way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was a boy in Presentation College in San Fernando at recess time (I believe the kids today now call it 'break') we would go outside the school grounds to buy a barra and channa for five cents and (when we could afford it) a 'doubles' (which was two barras with channa) for ten cents. Outside also were vendors selling shaved ice with syrup which we called 'a press'. (Today they call it 'a snow cone'). A press cost a penny (which was two cents). However, if you didn't have enough money you could get it without the syrup for one cent. So quite often a boy would say to the vendor "gimme a cent shave ice". Of course, because that was the least expensive thing that you could buy the saying developed "he like a cent shave ice", in other words, practically worthless.


In this last year before a general election the politics are going to become very interesting. We have currently all the brouhaha about the run-off proposals that are going before the Senate next week. The PNM is trying its best to de-rail the Bill as it (quite correctly) recognizes that in a three way fight it is the UNC that tends to get hurt. In a straight two way fight in a marginal constituency it is the PNM that usually ends up losing. (UNC voters, it seems, are more ready to try a third party than are PNM voters.) My own feeling is that the Bill will pass and that all the noise is really just that: noise. But that is not the point of this post.


Next on the agenda is what has become known as 'emailgate'. Discerning readers will remember that about a year ago the Leader of the Opposition disclosed in Parliament that he had a thread of emails which purported to be passing between the Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the then National Security adviser (who is today the Minister of National Security) which, if authentic, disclosed a serious criminal conspiracy to (inter alia) commit murder. The parties involved all strenuously denied that they had ever authored such emails and Dr. Rowley refused to say who had given them to him. (he said that he "got it in my mailbox!" ...Yeah! Right!) So, the accused all gave Google permission to disclose whether or not the alleged emails did in fact emanate from their respective accounts and after a lot of legal 'too-ing and fro-ing' it seems (if the newspaper reports are to be believed) that this issue is finally going to get closure.


One of two things is going to happen when this matter closes: either the Prime Minister et al are going to be shown to be guilty, in which case they will all probably be (or should be) arrested and charged immediately, or Dr. Rowley is going to have to resign. Well, he probably won't do that, but certainly he ought to. He will be guilty of misleading Parliament and it is no defence to say that 'well, I was just bringing this to the attention of Parliament. I didn't know if it was true or not, but I thought that it was serious enough to alert the national community'. An unbiased person will note that that defence would be a "crock", i.e., not worth 'a cent shave ice'. Dr. Rowley presented the offending emails as fact and made some very, very serious accusations against the alleged perpetrators. If that defence was really genuine he would have and should have taken it to the police. But he didn't! And therein hangs the tale!


Then we have the so called "principled stand" of Ms. Seepersad-Bachan and Mr. Dookeran when they voted against the Constitution Reform Bill because it didn't go far enough and deal with the issue of proportional representation ... another "crock". I mean, who really believes that? The perception that most people had from their "principled stand" was that the goodly lady and gentlemen were still smarting from their defeat at  the hands of COP Leader Prakash Ramadhar in the recently concluded COP internal elections ... defeat which some say was quietly helped not a little by UNC operatives who regard Mr. Ramadhar as being preferable to Ms. Seepersad-Bachan.


But the truth is that as far as electoral politics are concerned Ms. Seepersad-Bachan is not worth 'a cent shave ice' and Mr. Dookeran could not save his deposit anywhere in the country if he tried. That they both will exit the political scene next year is clear. Until then we can expect them both to use the bully pulpit of their respective ministerial offices to try and sting Mrs. Persad-Bissessar whenever they can. After all, they have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, not even 'a cent shave ice'.

WAR!!

We have a rather stupid habit in Trinidad & Tobago of denying the truth of a given situation and criticizing and condemning anybody and everybody who dares to speak about it and tell it like it is. It's what you might call a 'shoot the messenger syndrome'.

So when a senior police officer speaks out and says in effect that the police are declaring war on the bandits in Laventille and the Minister of National Security also speaks of war with the criminals the newspapers and other persons jump up and say that this kind of language is not helpful and will not assist in making things right. In other words, calling a spade a spade is not a good idea because it might offend the very people who the society is afraid of. Or, put another way, it might offend them (the criminals) more and drive them into further and worse crimes of violence, so, don't make statements like that!

From my personal point of view this type of thinking is as wrong as Neville Chamberlain's when he tried to appease Adolf Hitler. And we all know what happened eventually in that matter! In the circumstances,  I decided to look up the definition of 'war' in the dictionary in order to see if what the Minister et al.were saying was fair and accurate.  This is what Webster's  gives as a definition of 'war':

        "Conflict carried on by force of arms as between nations or as between parties within a 
          nation". (emphasis mine).

Well, if what is going on in Laventille is not a conflict "between parties within a nation" then I don't know what is! A soldier gets shot ... killed ... murdered ... call it what you like ... by criminals who (if the news reports are reasonably true) shot him precisely because he was a soldier. Oh? This is not an act of war? This is not symptomatic or evidence of a conflict between parties within a nation? The police are reported to have recovered thirty (count them: thirty!) spent shells from a high powered rifle from the site of the soldier's ambush!

The sooner that we (i.e., civil society) recognize that we are indeed in a state of war the better. Because, the fight against crime is one thing ... all nations have crime at some level or another, but not all nations have a virtual civil war taking place within their borders. Some (Syria, Iraq and Somalia, for example, come to mind immediately) are obviously worse than others, but except in terms of degree what we have inside our country is a civil war where gang lords (aka gang leaders) are carving out ever increasing territories for themselves and their followers. Anybody who is not with them is against them and so they kill them, It's as plain and simple as that!

I am raising all this right now because I think that it is important that we recognize exactly what we are facing. Going to war requires an obviously different mindset from fighting crime. In fighting crime the politicians can (and do) bicker amongst themselves as to who has the better crime plan or who is better equipped to deal with the criminals. In going to war everybody basically has to pick a side and do all that he/she can to ensure that his/her side wins. The politicians need to stop the 'blame game'. Of course I would like to know who and/or what really is to blame for this terrible and absolutely deplorable state of affairs that we now find ourselves in. But what I would really like to see first and foremost are solutions to winning this war that nobody (in civil society) wants or wanted. Afterwards we can indulge in the luxury of 'it's your fault' blame game.

It is time now for a coming together of all right thinking citizens. It is time now for all of the politicians to put aside their differences (petty or otherwise) and to say that on this matter that they are absolutely united. A message needs to be sent to the rebels (note that I am not calling them criminals any more) that in this war they face a united front, that we will not accept defeat, nor will we allow our country to deteriorate into a place like Somalia where gang lords rule the roost! We must send a clear and unequivocal message to the rebels that Trinidad & Tobago is indeed a united and civilized society that adheres to the rule of law and does not and will not tolerate any alternative State within its borders. We must send a clear and unequivocal message that any attempt whatsoever to establish any different type of State within the borders of Trinidad & Tobago will simply not be tolerated and will be dealt with firmly ... and 'firmly' must by definition include the use of such force as may be necessary to eradicate the threat of disintegration of the unitary State of Trinidad & Tobago. And this message must be a united message from all sides of the political divide!! There can be no opportunity given to the rebels to exploit a 'divide and rule' strategy!

SUSPENDING ANIL

I am almost certain that most people will have missed the real story behind the suspension of Sports Minister Anil Roberts from the COP. By that, I mean, why did the Congress of the People (COP) not simply expel him instead of suspending him and dragging the matter out further?

For the benefit of my overseas readers let me just do a very brief recap: about two weeks ago the Express newspaper's television station, TV6, aired a video which has gone viral on the internet showing a man in a hotel room with some girls. The man appears to be rolling a joint of marijuana and commenting on it. The video shows a hotel key with the room number 201. The man looks and sounds exactly like Mr. Anil Roberts, who currently holds the Sports Ministry portfolio in Trinidad & Tobago. Mr. Roberts has refused to either confirm or deny that it is he in the video and has retained all of his legal rights against self-incrimination. The problem is that Mr. Roberts is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of D'Abadie/O'Meara which he won in 2010 on a COP ticket. The political Leader of the COP, Mr. Prakash Ramadar, and Mrs. Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan, the Chairman of the COP, summoned Mr. Roberts to a meeting last week and requested an explanation from him. Mr. Roberts (probably on his lawyers' advice) chose to say nothing and effectively stymied the nascent inquiry by refusing to answer any questions on the video.

The COP has always tried to project itself as the Party of morality and integrity and of always doing the right thing. But the 'right thing' includes a person's right to be heard as well as being presumed innocent until found guilty. So the Party argued that because he had not yet been heard that they couldn't act. Mr. Roberts refusal to co-operate left the Party's leadership in something of a quandry in that they  they didn't want to be seen to be acting precipitously. They have also said that there is no provision for expulsion in the COP constitution. At least, that's what they said.

Then the Party's executive met on Monday night to discuss the issue and after quite a long session emerged to tell the waiting Press that Mr. Roberts was now suspended from the Party until such time as Mr. Roberts clarifies the situation and the facts surrounding the video. They then said that the removal of Mr. Roberts from his Ministry is solely the prerogative of the Prime Minister. But they didn't call for his removal! Interesting, eh? In other words, they simply 'kicked the can down the road' and ended up standing for nothing while pretending that they did.  And the man being touted as the 'saviour' of the COP (Winston Dookeran) is also keeping very, very quiet and is not taking a firm stand on this at all. Who do they think they are fooling? Certainly it really appears that all they stand for is holding Ministerial office and let the devil take all the rest. And Anil Roberts continues to refuse to confirm or deny that he is the man in the video. (But let's all be clear on one thing: if the man in that video is not the T&T Sports Minister that will be the biggest news since Jesus walked on water! Never have I seen such a perfect double of another!) Mrs. Persad-Bissessar is going to have to act on this ... and soon!

So, we come back to the all important 'why'? What are they waiting for? The answer is quite simple: if an MP's seat is declared vacant at any time during the life of a Parliament then there must be a by-election within three months of that declaration EXCEPT in the last 12 months of the life of the Parliament. There can be no by election in the last 12 months of the life of a Parliament. So? When is the 'magic' date? It ain't May 24th! The first sitting of this Parliament (the Tenth Parliament) was on June 18th 2010.  So, the 'magic' date is June 18th 2014. In other words, there can be no by-election for any seat after this date. And this is what the COP and the Prime Minister are obviously waiting for! Because the truth is that the last thing that neither the COP nor the ruling UNC want right now is a by-election in a seat that will probably fall to the PNM if an election was held now. The propaganda victory that would result in favour of the PNM from such a loss would be enormous even though there would still be enough seats for the Government to carry on. And the COP would be so badly defeated that the reality that it has very, very little support in the general population would be the last piece of dirt that buries an already dead Party. No. Both the UNC and the COP have  very good reasons for not wanting Mr. Roberts' seat to be declared vacant before 18th June 2014. After this date, it doesn't matter. And this is why we have all these shenanigans and no clear and forceful decision is being taken now. And you thought that politicians always tell the truth!?