WHAT DON'T WE UNDERSTAND AND WHY?

When I was a young lawyer a very learned Queen's Counsel who was teaching me the art of cross-examination told me something that I have never forgotten. He said "when a man says something that you don't understand 98 percent of the time it is because he doesn't WANT you to understand; 2 percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is talking about."  Over the decades I have found this piece of advice to be eerily accurate.


So, I now find myself seeing and hearing about a lot of things going on in this little twin island republic and I find myself  not understanding why they have happened or not understanding the explanations. Let's take a few examples:


First of all, there was the question of Dr. Rowley's famous visit to China. We were first told that he was going to China to attend a conference of world leaders. When it turned out that there was no such conference we were told that he had been invited to go by the Chinese Government. But the Chinese very politely let the world know that this wasn't exactly true. it seems that Dr. Rowley had invited himself. But why??  What exactly was achieved by that visit that benefitted T&T? No real answer has ever come down.


Then we were told that Dr. Rowley and his Minister of Everything Stewart Young went to Australia and ordered some boats for the Coast Guard. But no reason has ever been given as to why the Prime Minister and his Minister sidekick felt it necessary to go all the way to Australia from China in order to buy some boats and bypass the normal tendering process as required by the laws of Trinidad & Tobago relating to procurement. But why?? Again, no real answer has come down. Why? What is it that Dr. Rowley and company don't want us to know or understand? There are a host of other questions that arise from this episode, but hopefully you get the point.


Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. The latest piece of news is that Dr. Rowley has picked himself up and gone to California for certain medical checks when all reports indicate that they could be done here in T&T. Why? all of the Prime Minister's expenses for him and his entourage for this trip will be met by the State. But the trip doesn't make sense. Why did he have to go all the way to California? Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that it was absolutely necessary for the Prime Minister to go to the United States for a medical check up or treatment did he have to go all the way to California for that? Couldn't it have been done in, say, Miami or even New York? What or who is there in California that makes this trip so necessary? Why? It just doesn't make sense! And by the way, for the record, I certainly don't begrudge the Prime Minister seeking first class medical advice. Its just that from all the reports that I have seen none suggest that such advice was not available here!


Look: there are a whole set of other things that simply don't make sense ... the Tobago ferries, for example. Another matter that doesn't make sense is the Prime Minister's obvious reluctance to trigger section 137 of the Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings of the Chief Justice. Allow me a moment to explain why I think that these proceedings are necessary. The office of Chief Justice is one of the highest and most important offices in the land. It ought to be obvious that the office holder ... whoever he or she may be ... should not have nay suspicions of wrong doing hovering over his/her head. At the moment there are some very ugly suspicions that are hovering over the head of the current Chief Justice. They need to be cleared up ... one way or the other. If he is guilty of any or all of them then he ought to be removed from office. If he is innocent of the charges then he ought to be cleared completely. But the only way to achieve either result is by triggering the impeachment process and having a trial. What is wrong with that? Indeed, that was the thinking behind the Law Association's call for impeachment. The Chief Justice deserves ... needs ... a trial if only to clear his name. It is not in the country's interests that the trial does not take place. Indeed, if it doesn't then those ugly and unnecessary suspicions will just grow and grow. Already some people are making scandalous and unrepeatable comments about why Dr. Rowley will not trigger section 137. And if he continues to refuse those ugly suspicions will simply continue to grow and further divide an already badly divided society.


So, I go back to the beginning: what exactly is it in all of these matters that Messrs. Rowley, Young & Co. don't want us to understand and why don't they want us to understand?  Because I'll tell you this: whatever you might think of them they aren't stupid. They understand well what they are saying and doing. They just don't want us to understand. Why?

WHY?

When I was a young lawyer I worked for a while  in England for a rather large American company. My boss (an American who was based in Geneva) used to frustrate me to no end because he always asked me 'why' whenever I made any sort of proposal or statement. It was frustrating, because more often than not his constantly asking me 'why' made me realize that I was really talking absolute nonsense or was  just plain wrong. Armed with this experience, I have learned the value of asking 'why' when I see things going on or people saying things that at first blush seem to make sense but on deeper examination you realize that it is absolute balderdash.


It was with this in mind that I question the proposed trip of Trinidad & Tobago's erstwhile Prime Minister scheduled for this week to Montevideo, Uruguay, to discuss a way forward in the ongoing Venezuelan crisis with Messrs. Guaido and Maduro. Mr. Guaido has said that he simply ain't going and will send nobody. So? Why is Dr. Rowley going? To mediate what? The trip doesn't make sense. So? Why is Dr. Rowley going? What exactly does he hope to achieve? Why does he think that he can achieve what he hopes for?


In the meantime, Mr. Maburro ... I'm sorry ... Mr. Maduro has proposed that new elections be called for the National Assembly as a way out of the present crisis? Why? Nobody has suggested that the last National Assembly elections were tainted by fraud. But there is a large body of evidence that the last Presidential elections were illegitimate. So? As a way out of the crisis why doesn't the de facto (NOT de jure) President of Venezuela simply call fresh Presidential elections and allow his opponents to stand against him? Is he afraid that he might lose? Why? If he is so popular and the majority are behind him then surely he has nothing to be afraid of?


Dr. Rowley and Caricom keep on saying that they are neutral and offer their services to mediate. But are they really neutral? Why do you think so? They recognize Mr. Maburro ... I'm sorry, but the man really is a donkey ... Mr. Maduro as the legal President of Venezuela! Why? They obviously haven't read the Constitution of Venezuela. Why not? Or is it that they believe in the late Chairman Mao's statement that power comes out of the mouth of a gun and the Donkey clearly has the guns. But if that is the case, then why don't they just say that in plain and simple language?


And why should Mr. Guaido accept Messrs. Rowley et al as bona fide mediators when they have so clearly stated a preference for Mr. Guaido's opponent?


Dr. Rowley et al have condemned 'foreign interference'. So far, so good. But they haven't condemned CUBAN interference in Venezuela over the last three to four years. Why not? Is the United States the only country that cannot interfere without being criticized? Why? Why can't Russia, for example, be criticized for helping Mr. Maburro ship 20 tons of gold out of Venezuela last week? Why? Was this really in the best interests of the Venezuelan people? Why? You see, why does one get the feeling that 'no foreign interference' really means 'no AMERICAN interference'?


Why is it all right for Trinidad & Tobago's hapless Foreign Minister to refuse on public television to admit that there is a serious humanitarian crisis in Venezuela? Why? Why is it okay for the Donkey (aka Maduro) to refuse to say that he will not allow much needed humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicines into Venezuela because "Venezuelans are not mendicants"? Why is it better for a leader's people to die than for the leader to admit that they need help?


Why is there no criticism in the mainstream media in Trinidad & Tobago of Mr. Maburro's regime? Why is there little or no reporting in Trinidad's mainstream media of the real hardships that ordinary people are going through in Venezuela? Why does Trinidad's mainstream media not ask the hard questions of the Trinidad Government? Are they afraid of something? Why? Why has there been little or no reporting of the muzzling of the press in Venezuela by Trinidad's mainstream media?


Why does Dr. Rowley and his Government consider that it is in Trinidad & Tobago's better interests to remain friendly with the Donkey's regime than to express solidarity with the people of Venezuela?   Why hasn't Dr. Rowley's regime published the details of the Dragon Gas Field deal that it signed with Venezuela in the middle of last year? Is there something in there that Dr. Rowley doesn't want us to see? If so, what? And why shouldn't we be able to see it?


And why is it that so many people here like ... no, LOVE ... to criticize the Americans but overwhelmingly want to go to America either on holiday or to migrate? Why don't these people want to go to Cuba instead? Why?


Why has the average Venezuelan lost 24 pounds last year but the Donkey has gotten visibly fatter?


Okay, there are a lot of 'why's' here, but don't you think that they all require answers? Why?

COCKROACHES AND FOWL PARTIES

Just about every Trinbagonian knows the old adage 'cockroach have no right in fowl party', and even if you are not from this part of the world the visual image that the adage brings up is so clear that it doesn't take much to understand its meaning.


I was reminded of this old adage about cockroaches late last week when I heard Prime Minister Rowley, Minister of Communications (and everything else) Stuart Young and Foreign Minister Dennis Moses trying to defend their rather incoherent policy towards Venezuela and Nicholas Maduro (or as I prefer to call him 'Mad-burro').


Dealing with Mr. Young first: I heard Mr. Young on Thursday say (in my words) that Maduro (Mad-burro) was the legal President of Venezuela and that those who were critical of the TT Government's recognition of him should read the Venezuelan constitution. Mr. Young said that Maduro was the legitimate President of Venezuela under that country's constitution. To which, I say, guess what, Stuart? I've read the constitution. And guess what? Maduro (Mad-burro) is NOT legitimately that country's President in accordance with Venezuelan law.


Why do I say that? Well, let's start from the beginning: Presidential elections were held in Venezuela on Sunday, May 20th, 2018 for the Presidential term due to end on 10th January, 2019. Whoever one that election would be the President for the next six years from 10th January, 2019. So far so good! BUT (and it id a big "but") the Donkey rigged that election by locking up his opponents, driving some of them into exile and literally forcing any other potential contenders out of the race. No wonder that the world regards this so-called "election" as fraudulent.  In other words, there was no President-elect after 20th May, 2018.


Now, section 233 of the Venezuelan constitution says that in the absence of a President-elect the President of the National Assembly becomes the interim President. It also goes on to say that the interim President should call an election within thirty days. In other words. the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, has legally become the interim President of Venezuela.


And so, Stuart, your government's recognizing Mad-burro was not exactly in keeping with the rule of law. If you had said something like power comes out of the mouth of a gun and he who has the guns rules, and therefore you are recognizing Mad-burro as the President because he has the guns you would have been closer to the truth. But to try and say that Mad-burro is legal is really too much of a stretch, and quite frankly destroys whatever credibility you may have had in this issue.


Now let's turn to the goodly Messrs. Rowley and Moses. I'll deal with Mr. Moses first. There is another old saying that bears repetition which is that when a man says something that you don't understand 98 percent of the time it is because he does NOT WANT you to understand what he is saying; 2 percent of the time its is because HE doesn't understand what he is saying. Having tried to listen to Mr. Moses various public bleatings I am satisfied that the man is a fool and doesn't understand what he is talking about. And the old adage about never argue with a fool because he will only bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience is well worth taking note of.


Which brings us finally to the Prime Minister. Dr. Rowley says several things: first of all he says that Trinidad  Tobago is firmly neutral and takes no sides. (So far, so good). Next he says that the legitimate government in Venezuela is that of the Donkey's and as such that is the one that T&T recognizes. Then he says that his government has reached out to Mad-burro. Then he says that the T&T Government stands ready to mediate between the Donkey and Mr. Guaido. And finally, he tells the United States to go jump in the nearest lake, not to pass go and not to collect $200!!


Dr. Rowley preaches the doctrine of non-intervention rather conveniently forgetting how T&T found itself in real trouble with (you guessed it...) the Americans in 1983 when T&T refused to support the American intervention in Grenada. I'm not going to debate here the theoretical rights or wrongs of that decision except to note that it definitely was NOT in T&T's best interests. This country paid dearly for its "principled stance"  by a then PNM government. In the same way, whether or not you really do believe that Dr. Rowley's stance on Venezuela is correct (and for the record, I don't ... but that's another debate) my point is that it is certainly not in our best interests right now. We are going to pay dearly for our so-called "independence".


And by the way, would you agree to a mediator who has already come out publicly and said that he supports your opponent? No? I wouldn't either. But Messrs. Rowley, Young, Moses et al apparently don't see why Mr. Guaido should not accept them as mediators. 


And just about every major western democracy has said that it recognizes Mr. Guaido. The British have been reported as placing $1.2 billion in gold reserves under Mr. Guaido's control. Frankly, it looks like the beginning of the end for the Donkey and his narco-kleptic regime.  Venezuela is becoming increasingly isolated and the regime's days are looking decidedly numbered. And so, Dr. Rowley, my question to you is what are you going to do when the Donkey falls? What will happen to your Dragon Gas deal when Mad-burro is gone? Have you got a Plan B?


Quite honestly, I think that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was acting in T&T's best interests when she said in Parliament that the Opposition recognized Mr. Guaido. It is only a matter of time before he  gets de facto power in addition to the de jure (legal) authority that he now holds. Mr. Guaido is bound to take note of who supported Mad-burro and who did not.


The public castigation of the American ambassador could not have been in our best interests. Further, Dr. Rowley left yesterday to try and meet with the UN Secretary General today AFTER the UN Security Council debated the Venezuelan problem on Saturday. What is wrong with this picture?


And you wonder why I opened this post with a reference to cockroaches in a party of chickens'?

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIENDS AND INTERESTS

It is a truism in international affairs ... and one well worth remembering ... that countries don't have friends, they have interests. You have only to look at the last fifty years of the Twentieth Century to se how true this is. Germany and Japan went to war with the United States and most of Europe, yet today, these two countries are stalwart "friends" of both the USA and Europe. Indeed, Germany looks set to achieve by peaceful means what it failed to achieve with two world wars that killed millions. Ironic, eh?


So I have to ask again: who is more important to Trinidad & Tobago: the dictatorial regime of Nicholas Mad-burro or the people who live in Venezuela and who he is grinding into dust with his criminal, cruel and undemocratic policies and actions?


You see, I really hadn't planned on dealing with this subject again ... or at least, for a little while ... but when I read in this morning's newspapers that the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago was defending his government's support of Mad-burro and company I just couldn't let it go, nor could I let Rowley, Moses, Young and company get away with it.  According to the newspapers Dr. Rowley says in essence that Trinidad & Tobago has pursued since independence a strict policy of nom-interference with all nations and this means that we must not interfere in the internal happenings in Venezuela.


Well, that is basically true up to a point, but it tends to ignore the injunction quoted at the beginning of this post. Let me put it to you this way: if you saw your neighbor literally beating his wife to death should you intervene and save the woman's life or should you say "well, that's none of my business", and stay out of the fight and let him kill the woman? If you believe that you should do nothing (not even call the police) then don't bother reading any more, for obviously nothing will convince you that a maniac ought to be stopped and prevented from doing harm to others.


It cannot be in the best interests of Trinidad & Tobago that Mad-burro and company turn that once beautiful country of Venezuela into a basket case where the people ... the ordinary people ... can't get basic food and medicines. It cannot be in our best interests where the policies of a ruthless dictator are forcing the biggest mass migration in history and tens of thousands of refugees are coming over to Trinidad placing a strain on our society. It cannot be in our best interests where the fact that Mad-burro and company are actively encouraging and facilitating the drug trade and are exporting drugs and guns to our country. It cannot be in out best interests where the collapse of the security systems in Venezuela has allowed piracy (from Venezuela) to flourish in the Gulf of Paria threatening the lives of our fishermen and yachtsmen.


No, Dr. Rowley. Maybe you are personally friends with Mad-burro. I can't comment on that except to quote the other old adage: show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are. You want to be friends and dance with him, go ahead. That is your business. Your personal business.  But being friendly with the Donkey's  regime is definitely NOT in our country's best interests. Sending your hopeless and hapless Foreign Minister Dennis Moses to the Donkey's fraudulent inauguration last week was certainly not in our country's best interests. Signing a gas deal with the Mad-burro regime might have been in our best interests, but (and it is a big "but") we don't know what the terms of that deal were. In the circumstances we can't really comment except to note that just because you say that it's a good deal for us doesn't necessarily make it so. Indeed, if it is such a good deal for us then why can't we know what the terms of the deal are? And don't tell us that the figures are confidential as your Energy Minister attempted to. There are other things that we need to know, e.g., how are the expected profits to be shared? Fifty/Fifty? Sixty/Forty? How?


In any case, assuming (though certainly not accepting) that the Dragon Gas deal is a good one for us, is it really such a good deal that we can close our eyes to the suffering that Mad-burro is inflicting on his people? Put another way, using the example above of your neighbor murdering his wife, is it acceptable to do nothing and not stop him from killing her because your neighbor has promised you a big contract?


And by the way, Dr. Rowley, you do know, don't you, that for that Dragon Gas Deal to be law in Venezuela it has to be ratified by that country's National Assembly? And guess who does not control the National Assembly? That's right: your good friend, the Donkey. And the deal hasn't been ratified!! Interesting, eh? And if it is not ratified then Venezuela can at any time legally withdraw from it!!

WHO SHOULD WE BE FRIENDS WITH? THE PEOPLE OR THEIR GOVERNMENT?

This post could almost have been headed "WHO IS MORE IMPORTANT? THE PEOPLE OR THEIR RULERS? let's understand something: Power comes out of the mouth of a gun (Chairman Mao). Or put another way, he who controls the guns rules. Now, Nicholas Mad-burro (or in English "Mad Donkey") controls the guns in Venezuela. He ruthlessly and cruelly incarcerates and murders anybody who is a threat to his regime and his lies would make even Donald Trump blush (which is saying a lot)!


Mad-burro has taken to locking up and torturing family members of his opponents who have gone into hiding in an effort to find where they are hiding and killing them.


In the meantime, Venezuela is now a complete basket case. People are literally starving and the average weight loss over the last year or so is close to twenty pounds per person. But the erstwhile President of the proud Bolivarian Republic has gotten fatter!! You doubt me? Look at his photographs of, say, five years ago and look at his photographs today! Of course, it is always possible that it is the fault f the Americans that he simply appears to be fatter as they (the Americans) are always responsible (according to Mad-burro) for all of Venezuela's current problems!! Yeah! Right!


In an editorial this week the Washington Post said "what was the region's richest society was swept by epidemics of malnutrition, preventable diseases and violent crime. Three million people fled the country. Yet Maduro(sic  ... his real name is Mad-burro), having orchestrated a fraudulent reelection, presses on with what the region describes as a socialist revolution, with tutoring from Cuba and predatory loans from Russia and China."


Sixty years ago Venezuela had the highest standard of living in the Hemisphere outside of Canada and the United States. Its health care system was the best in the world! Its GDP was the highest in Latin America! And now? Don't even bother to ask. The UN estimates that by the end of this year 2019 the number of refugees will have grown by five million people. Five million more than the three million that voted with their feet last year out of a total population of some twenty-eight million!


Mad-burro is a dictator. He has enriched himself, his family and his corrupt cronies like Caballo at the expense of the very people that he says he wants to help. The corruption and destitution in Venezuela has created the worst humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen.


So, I ask the question: who should Trinidad & Tobago care about? The people of Venezuela or their corrupt and dictatorial rulers? Surely, the answer ought to be crystal clear!?! And yet, the TT government sends its hopeless and hapless Foreign Minister Dennis Moses to Mad-burro's inauguration (or coronation as some have called it) thereby confirming our support for a corrupt and incompetent regime. And all in the name of 'that's none of our business'.


Well, Mr. Moses, for your information it IS our business. The corruption and maladministration in Venezuela is forcing refugees to flee to Trinidad  Tobago. Your government has been distinctly unfriendly to them and have even conspired with the dictator to repatriate some of them in dubious circumstances.  And you say that the collapse of Venezuela has nothing to do with us?!? What are you going to say when the number of refugees from  Venezuela doubles this year? Oh! And please tell me: who should we be friends with: Mad-burro and company or the people? And don't try and tell me that Mad-burro is a legitimate President. I'd sooner believe that Mexico will pay for Trump's wall!!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND

Okay. I'll admit that I have been more than a little bit lazy and haven't read or looked up the law about Trinidad & Tobago becoming (or not becoming) FACTA compliant. The truth is that I have 'no horse in this race' and being a (reluctant) member of the working class I felt that my time was better spent elsewhere. In any case, I reasoned, regardless of what I thought or said the law was going to pass or fail regardless of how I felt. (Isn't that a sad commentary on our democracy/ But that ain't the point of this post ... perhaps that might be a good topic to discuss downstream?)


But a big part of my problem in trying to decide how I felt about the argument between the Government, the Opposition and the Banks was that I didn't understand exactly what they were arguing about. (Incidentally, if there is anybody out there who can explain clearly and succinctly exactly what the whole issue was about I'd be extremely grateful. And don't tell me that it was about becoming FACTA compliant. I want to know exactly what was offensive ... or alleged to be offensive ... about the proposed law.) On the one side the Government and the Banks were preaching that the sky would fall down and we'd be in real trouble if the law wasn't passed, that we would be blacklisted and would not be able to do any international transactions of any kind. On the other side the Opposition was saying that there were several clauses in the Bill that offended against our constitutional rights (I think that there were about three clauses) and they were digging their heals in. It was necessary, the Opposition said, to send the Bill to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament (JSC). But NOBODY said what these clauses were, or why they offended our rights, or why they were necessary in the first place.  And everyone that I asked didn't have a clue either.


Eventually, the Bill was passed without the "offending"clauses. The Government removed them so that the law would not offend the Constitution. But here is what I don't understand: if the Bill could have been passed without the "offending" clauses and it would be good law, then why didn't the Government do this in the first place? Why did we have to go through all this trauma and argument?  And if the removal of these clauses has made the Bill bad law, then why is the Government making bad law? And if it was in the country's best interests that the original Bill be passed then why didn't the Opposition support it? What exactly was offensive about these clauses? What rights were they infringing? And why weren't we told this in the first place?


Put another way, I personally do not have enough information to make any judgment here as to who was right or who was wrong on this matter. But I can say unequivocally that the firm impression that I have right now is that BOTH sides have been playing fast and loose with the rest of us and that we haven't been told the whole truth on this matter. I have said it many times before, and I'll say it again: there is only one reason for politics; only one reason for Government: to make life better for the people! Full Stop! There is NO other reason!!

DON'T CRY FOR ME, VENEZUELA

I had the pleasure last night of dining with an 80 year old lady who had just arrived from Caracas to visit her daughter who is married to a Trinidadian and lives here. Naturally, the conversation turned to what was happening in her unfortunate country and, more importantly, how was she surviving? I also wanted to know how the poor people were managing.


Here is some of what she told me:
- the black market exchange rate today is 400 bolivars to US$1. Nobody pays attention to the official exchange rate ... not even the banks. In any case, unless you have very high government connections it is impossible to buy US dollars at the official exchange rate; everything is priced at the reigning black market rate which climbs higher every day;
- everybody has lost weight ... except those in Government. This is because food is scarce. She herself has lost 5 kilos over the last 12 months;
- scarcities in everything are common. Meat is like gold and just as scarce and just as expensive;
- because of the scarcities people are hoarding. If you see an item in the grocery today you buy it, even if you don't need it, because it won't be there tomorrow;
- items like soap and shampoo are either not available or are of extremely poor quality. No luxury brands (e.g., Pantene) are available;
- the minimum wage is 1,800 b's a month. Put another way, the minimum wage is the equivalent of US$4.50 a month. No wonder that people are starving and crime is so high;
- public transport has collapsed and private taxis (like our PH taxis) charge whatever they like. My old lady friend has an ironer who comes in once a week for about 2 hours every time. The ironer charges her 100 b's for her time plus 55 b's for her taxi fare. When the ironer leaves she walks to another job;
- Caracas is now filthy dirty. The roads are full of potholes. The malls are empty and many businesses are closing or have closed.
- inflation is running at close to one million percent a year! Prices of goods in the shops change literally every day!


And you wonder why somewhere close to 10 percent of Venezuela's population has fled the country! Me? I blame President Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate), his sidekick Vice President Diodadas Cabello, who is the head of the infamous Cartel de los Soles, and who is probably the most dangerous Drug Lord in the Hemisphere, and the Cubans who have created a security apparatus that makes a coup most unlikely.  But it doesn't matter, does it? Maburro gets fatter, Cabello and his cronies get richer, the Cubans get their oil and the poor starve. Then neighbouring countries Like Trinidad & Tobago faced with an influx of refugees fleeing the tyranny, show no sympathy or empathy for these suffering people but instead complain that they are coming over here by the thousands. Of course, there is NO criticism of the tyrannical regime that has forced them to flee. Neither is there any consideration of how desperate  man or woman has to be to flee from his/her home and go to a strange land where they have no family, no friends and don't even speak the language! And the TT government sits down with these monsters, breaks bread with them and makes deals which are kept secret from the rest of us!


And nobody sees anything wrong with this!!
-

LIES, HALF TRUTHS AND MORE LIES

It is getting very difficult ... if not impossible ... to believe anything that the present Government says ... which is very sad indeed. Trust is the number one requisite for any Government to hold and when that is gone then there is chaos.


There are (unfortunately) too many examples of Government Ministers lying outright or shading the truth in such a way as for their statements on the particular issue that they are talking about to be so wildly misleading that to call them anything other than lies would itself be a lie. Take, for example, the statement by the present Minister of Planning Camille Robinson Regis. She is reported to have said that it was the UNC who built the HDC development at Greenvale. Now, that is simply not true. The truth is that the Greenvale development was approved by the then PNM Government in which Dr. Rowley held the position of Housing Minister. And guess who was the Planning Minister? That's right! None other than the great lady herself: Camille Robinson Regis. And guess what? At the time that the HDC was given the go ahead to build Greenvale there were adverse reports that the area could flood and the appropriate planning and Town & Country approvals were NOT granted.


But Mrs. Robinson Regis was right about one thing: AFTER the development was complete at a cost of around $300 million the UNC Government handed out the houses.  So? Who is to blame? The people who spent the $300 million in the first place or the ones who after the money was spent handed out the houses? Both? Yeah! I guess you could say so, but frankly, I put more blame on Mrs. Robinson Regis and her cohorts than I do on the UNC in this instance.


There are too many other examples of lies and half truths to list them all here. But let's take a look at another one: Petrotrin. We heard in  or about the middle of this year that a  decision was taken then to close down Petrotrin with all the resulting consequences that flowed from that decision. Okay. So far so good. I'm not here debating whether or not the decision to close Petrotrin was correct or not.


So? What happens next? We have recently been told that a foreigner, one Mike Wylie, has been hired to run one of the successor companies  (I think that it is Heritage Petroleum) as its CEO. Again, so far so good. (And again, I am not debating here Mr. Wylie's salary or anything else as to whether or not he is being overpaid.)  But yesterday in Parliament, Minister of Amongst Other Things Communication, Stuart Young is reported to have said that Mr. Wylie was hired in August of this year ... to which piece of information I thought 'hold it sheriff, she's heading for the strawberry patch!' Why? Because something here is dreadfully wrong with the timing.


You see for such a high level hiring to take place it would need to have been advertised. But we know that it was never advertised locally. Because if it had been then we would all have started asking awkward questions as to what in the name of heaven was going on? Why was this job being advertised? And the answers would have been ... how shall we say? ... embarrassing to the Government as they would have been forced to admit their plans. They didn't want either the Union or the country to know what was going on.


Of course, one could ask why wasn't a search done for a national, but you would only end up with the same answer. (I can't help but remember Dr. Rowley's plea some time ago to nationals in London to come back and serve their country ... but that's another story, again.)


What is most significant here is the TIMELINE. The search for a new CEO had to have started at least five to six months BEFORE the hiring of Mr. Wylie (which you will remember was in August). This would allow 30 days for applications to have been submitted, another 30 days to vet  and short list the applications  and another 30 days for interviews before arriving at the final short list which we now know to have been three people ... a Japanese, an Iranian and Mr. Wylie. And then there would be the final interviews and then the negotiations with the preferred candidate. As I said, you're talking of at least 5 to 6 months BEFORE August 2018. Which means that at least by the end of February/early March of this year they knew that they were planning to shut down Petrotrin.


But a decision like this is not taken in the dark. There would have had to have been discussions and decisions  AFTER the decision to close  was made to plan on how to go about the closure, what they were going to do, plan the successor companies, plan their management requirements, determine the various skill sets required and so on. In other words, it is not unreasonable to presume that the decision to close Petrotrin was made about a year before it was announced. Anyone who has ever advertised for a senior executive post knows what I'm talking about. And when we are talking about Government?! Well, they take an even longer time ... unless, of course there is/was a cabal inside the Government who took it upon themselves to do all that was necessary to fast track this matter and just get it rubber stamped when everything had been decided and done. If that is the case, then this points to a secret government working for their own purposes and not necessarily for the good of the country. There are reasons why safeguards exist and flouting them (or appearing to flout them) creates very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions that are better left unexpressed at this time.


Now, there is an argument that commercial decisions need to be kept secret for as long as possible. The problem here is that Petrotrin is/was not a private company owned by private individuals, but a public company owned by the State, or, to put it another way, owned by the citizenry of Trinidad & Tobago. Different "strokes" apply to such a situation and you cannot apply normal commercial considerations to a State owned enterprise.


 Which brings us back to the original point of this post: we are being lied to with lies, half truths and more lies. And, for the record, a half truth is a statement that contains some element(s) of truth but which leaves the listener/reader with a very different impression from what has really happened and leaves out crucial and important details. There is a reason why when a witness is sworn in in the Courts he is asked to tell the WHOLE truth. And that is exactly what we are not getting!


What do you think?






B

WHITHER GOETH THE COUNTRY?

Just about everybody in the country is crying these days about the dire straits in which Trinidad  Tobago finds itself. Depending on whom you talk to the fault lies with the "other side", meaning the side to which that person does not belong or identify with. The complainers wax warm when it comes to discussing the leadership shortcomings of the other side. But the truth is that personal leadership shortcomings are not the main problem ... although, admittedly they have contributed to the problem. There has been a fundamental shift in the politics of the country in which both of the major parties have become more homogenous and the mix of actual concerns has turned more and more to issues of identity ...or to put it bluntly: Race!


PNM voters are overwhelmingly Black, Christian and generally come from the poorer sections of the society.


UNC voters are overwhelmingly Hindu and Indian with a large section of the Moslem and Christian Indians supporting that Party.


Very generally speaking, the UNC supporters are financially better off than their PNM counterparts and tend to rely less on Government jobs and largesse. The children of UNC supporters generally tend to do better in school than those of the PNM.


UNC funding tends to come from wealthy Indians (mostly Hindus) while the PNM tends to get most of its money from the Syrian community and a few wealthy businessmen who happily play both sides in the not unreasonable expectation that they will benefit from lucrative Government contracts when either side wins the next election.


The mainstream media is dominated by the African elements in the society as well (as in the case of the Guardian) by the Syrians. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media is overwhelmingly biased in favour of the PNM although they all pretend that they are not. (As I have said before, it is their constitutional right to be biased. It is dishonest for them to pretend that they are not when they are.)


Social media choices reflect and reinforce these identity lines. It is fairly easy to guess at the ethnicity of an anonymous writer/contributor on social media just from reading his/her comments on any particular issue.


The attitude on both sides of the political divide is not just that the other side is misguided, but that the other side is evil. In these circumstances, any form of compromise  becomes impossible and any chance of the country moving forward is as great as a snowball will have of surviving in Hell.


Both Parties are hurling themselves and the country off of a cliff and resist genuinely reaching out to the other side.  Probably, the biggest problem is the complete lack of trust that exists on both sides in the bona fides of the other side. Excuses and/or deflections are the order of the day ... on both sides! It's always "their" fault and "we" are always not guilty. "We" have never done any wrong and will never do any wrong! To which statement an unbiased and reasonable observer on the ferry to Tobago will raise his eyebrows in slight surprise and say "really"?

TRUTHS, HALF TRUTHS AND FAKE NEWS

"The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of a monopoly. 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."
Manchester Guardian, 6th May, 1926
C.P. Scott 1846 - 1932


I have put the above quote at the beginning of this post because I am fed up with all three of our daily newspapers who like to pretend that they are unbiased and present the facts fairly. They are all biased and they do NOT present the facts on almost any political issue fairly. Read the above quote again.  Probably the worst offender is the country's oldest newspaper, the Trinidad Guardian. There are a whole host of reports that can be high lighted ranging from the sea bridge to Petrotrin, but for the sake of brevity this post will concentrate on only one by way of example.
 The "venerable" newspaper that is the Guardian had two articles on the Grenville housing project this morning. In the first article headed "CAMILLE: PNM DIDN'T BUILD  GRENVILLE" it reports that the Planning Minister in response to criticisms about the flooding at that Government housing site has sought to put the blame on the Opposition UNC for building the project. But the article reports no fact checking that the Minister's statements are inaccurate to say the least. The fact is that the PNM when the present Prime Minister was Housing Minister approved and built the project DESPITE warnings from the experts that it could flood. The UNC Government under then Prime Minister Persad Bissessar completed the project and distributed the houses. Now, THAT IS the truth. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the Guardian will defend the article on the ground that it was reporting accurately what the Minister said! To which the answer is in the above quote "...nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong." But the "unclouded face of truth" in the Guardian article does suffer wrong precisely because it does not report the WHOLE truth. And it is a truism that a half truth is often more dangerous than a lie.


But  it isn't as if the Guardian doesn't know the truth, for in an editorial this morning headlined "KEEP POLITICS OUT OF GRENVILLE" this bastion of the "free press" (and, yes, those words are deliberately put in quotation marks ... I am being sarcastic) says "... As we understand it, there were warnings about proceeding with the development in the first place since the area had the risk of flooding."


To which the logical questions are : really? And when were those warnings given? By whom and to whom were they given? Who was the Housing Minister at the time? Who made the decision to go ahead? When was that decision to go ahead made? And why have you not put this in the report on Camille's rather disingenuous statements?


I'm sure you get the point. Look: I genuinely don't mind if the Guardian (or any of the other newspapers for that matter) has a bias in favour of the present Government. Heck! That is their constitutional right! What I am against is the PRETENSE that they are not biased when all of the evidence suggests that they are. This pretense is as dangerous as it is dishonest. It is dangerous because many unsuspecting persons will be persuaded that something is right when it is so obviously wrong. It is dangerous because this is how a dictatorship begins ... slowly creeping and controlling the media so that only reports favourable to those in power (whoever "they" might be) are published.


I have deliberately not discussed the other two newspapers in this post ... it would make it too long. But a casual examination of their reporting will show up similar problems and discrepancies in the reporting of the news and the lack of transparency. And the sooner that we call out these newspapers the better!

THE DAILY BIAS IN TRINIDAD'S NEWSPAPERS

It is practically impossible to see anything that is bipartisan or in the best interests of the country in any of the daily newspapers in Trinidad & Tobago. Over the weekend and in the face of devastating floods in the country affecting thousands of people the Guardian had a lead story on its front page about a family who believed that evil spirits had entered their home and had caused a member of the family to commit suicide. Honestly! You can't make this up! That was the lead story in this country's old newspaper with the flooding taking second place to this "news". Why the editors thought that this was real news has not been explained. One might be forgiven for thinking that the editors did not want to highlight any news which might (however remotely) make the Government look bad. And nobody could blame the Government for evil spirits!


Then, not to be outdone, the Express in an editorial this morning has criticized the Opposition for walking out of the Senate on Monday. What apparently happened was that the Opposition had suggested that the debate on the country's budget be postponed so that the Senators could go out and assist those persons affected by the devastating floods. It seems that Minister Franklin Khan  the Leader of Government Business in the Senate initially agreed ((according to news reports) and then for no reported reason changed his mind and said that the debate had to go on. The Opposition Senators took umbrage at this and said that the people were more important than the debate and then walked out.


The Express editorial accuses the Opposition Senators of grandstanding and says " ... to stage a walk-out in the Senate, where none of its members has direct responsibility to persons in any specific constituency was simply an exercise in despoliation. Nothing could have been gained from it. There was no point to be made in this fashion, except to further entrench in the minds of more citizens the emptiness behind many a political maneuver by those elected or selected to represent the people's interest."


To which, I say "what?" Read that quote again. What exactly is the editorial saying? In plain language I understand it to mean that politicians do not need to go out to physically help people in distress and in any event, especially where they do not represent a specific area of the country. There are persons whose jobs are to do just that. The politicians serve better by staying in Parliament or their air conditioned and comfortable offices and "direct" relief efforts.


A friend reminded me of the old story of the old man and his grandson walking along a beach. The old man picked up a starfish that had been washed ashore by the waves, and threw it back into the sea. The young boy asked him why he did that saying that it wouldn't make a difference to anything. 'That's true,' the old man replied, 'but it makes a big difference to the starfish!'


Maybe the politicians who have donned tall boots, gone into boats and helped to collect and distribute food, blankets and other much needed supplies haven't made a big difference in the overall scheme of things. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they made a huge difference to those people that they did help.


No, Mr. Khan and no, Mr. anonymous Express editor who is very happy to write this drivel and not own up to it preferring the comfortable anonymity of the editorial, there is such a thing called 'empathy'. Even if assuming though not accepting that there was grandstanding by the Opposition Senators, my question is: were they right to ask for an adjournment so that everybody (Government as well as Opposition) could go out and help the stricken? And if they were right to ask, what is the problem? Why not go out to help people? Unless, of course, there was an underlying fear that acceding to such a request might have made the Opposition look good. In other words, the Government's interests come before the people's. By no means should the Opposition ever be acknowledged to be right on anything!

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

What's wrong with this picture? UWI students, concerned for their safety and security mounted a protest demonstration late yesterday (Thursday) afternoon on the St. Augustine campus. They were clamouring for greater security. So somebody (probably the very university administration responsible for the students' safety and security) called the police who obligingly came and broke up the demonstration!


Now, if you think that there is nothing wrong with this picture then I really have nothing to say to you, for I think that it is so obviously wrong that it ought not to take a lot of words to prove it; and the old saying, 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still' would apply to you. You see nothing wrong with calling police to break up a demonstration where the students are demanding that the university authorities provide them with greater security?!? If that's what you think then I can only shake my head in deep sadness and say that now I understand what is really wrong with this country of ours.


There is a most unfortunate attitude that is often on display by persons in authority in this country. I call it a neo-colonialist attitude. In the "good old days" before 1956 there were two rules:
Rule 1 was that Massa was always right.
Rule 2 was that when Massa was wrong refer back to Rule 1.
Now that Massa has gone our present rulers slavishly ape all the things that he used to do and they insist on making sure that Rules 1 and 2 still apply. All that has changed is the colour of Massa's skin. They are in charge and therefore no damned dog has a right to bark! And guess who is the dog? That's right: us!! (Please remember Rule 2)


No. Even if the students went a little overboard yesterday (and I don't know whether they did or did not) the police action was extreme and uncalled for and should be condemned. We should also criticize the university authorities. It is not good enough for them to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and say 'well, there's crime all over the country'. No. This is their balliwick ... their turf ... their students ... and they should do more to protect them. They should take responsibility.

WHY?

It is very difficult ... if not impossible ... to understand why things keep going wrong in Trinidad & Tobago. It is difficult to understand, of course, if you are looking for logical answers which do not point to some sort of corrupt practice of one kind or another.


Take for example, the free school holiday today for all public school children. The reason given in the newspapers is because the Trinidad & Tobago Union of Teachers (TTUTA) is having an all day conference today and it is important that all their members attend. Okay. But what is more important? A TTUTA inspired teachers' conference or the education of the children? And if both are equally important why couldn't this conference be held on a Saturday? Why should the children not be taught when it is time to teach? Is this a good reason to cancel school? If you think that it is, then why do you think that the conference should not heave been held on a Saturday when the children have no school.


Let's turn to the political theatre that is unfolding now between Dr. Rowley and Dr. Moonilal. Dr. Rowley held a press conference yesterday (Thursday) in which he slammed Dr. Moonilal's allegations as false and political mischief. His lawyer, who was by his side, is reported as saying that everything that Dr. Moonilal said or alleged was false.


The problem here is that everything is not false ... or at least, does not appear to be false. The facts (as reported) are:
              (1) the email is real;
              (2) the email was sent to the Prime Minister's cousin;
              (3) the email begins with the words "Good morning Honourable Prime Minister ..."


Now, there are some who say that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that there is a fair  degree of certainty that it is a duck. So? Where are we with this? If Dr. Rowley was innocent of the charges then one would expect that he would protest his innocence all around the mulberry bush. But what if he was guilty? He wouldn't say "all yuh ketch me" and go quietly. He would more than likely also protest that he was innocent. The point here is that his protestations are natural and unfortunately take us nowhere nearer to the truth.


So, we now turn to the investigation by the relevant authorities that has been (quite properly) called for. The problem here is that when the emailgate saga exploded the same authorities launched an investigation which eventually ended some two years later with a whimper that seemed to suggest that the emails that (the same) Dr. Rowley had brandished in Parliament were faked. But nobody has been punished or called out for this. Why?


And now the very same authorities are being called on to investigate this A&V payment scandal. What confidence can the public have that these authorities will do their job fairly and impartially? And if you believe that they will, then why do you believe that? Do you believe that they did their job fairly in emailgate? If you do, then why do you believe that?


There are a few truisms here that hold firm when answering these questions: the first is that if you need more than one sentence to make your point then you cannot make it at all; you may need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain your point, but you must be able to make your point in one sentence. The second thing to note is that when somebody is telling you something that you don't understand, ninety-nine percent of the time it is because he does NOT WANT you to understand; one percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is saying.


There are a whole host of other things that don't make sense; the issues with the Galleons Passage for example. There are too many questions surrounding the whole Petrotrin saga that haven't been properly answered ... and the list goes on.


So? What is it that they don't want us to understand? And, more importantly, WHY don't they want us to understand?

NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL

Congratulations are in order to newly appointed Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith for the successful rescue of Natalie Pollonais. Mr. Griffith has been criticized (and in some cases rather severely) for talking too much. His critics have said that it is easy to talk but that he will fall flat on his face when he has to perform.


Well, guess what? He didn't! He performed and performed most credibly. The housewife was rescued (or 'extracted' as Mr. Griffith seems to prefer to say) and according to all reports was rescued safely. She is apparently unharmed.


Mr. Griffith came into office a few weeks ago and sent out a stern message to all: it wasn't going to be business as usual. He hit the ground running ... making some long overdue promotions and conducting security exercises that have resulted in several arrests. But this Natalie Pollonais kidnapping was his first real test ... and a most serious one at that!


To his great credit, Mr. Griffith kept his mouth shut and his head down until the victim had been rescued. Then he gave a brief press conference that outlined the bare facts. He refused to be drawn into disclosing confidential material as to how Mrs. Pollonais was found and praised the security services under his command and those that had cooperated with his people to the fullest. So much for "he talks too much!"


The country this morning can breathe a sigh of relief. We finally have someone at the head of the Police Service who seems to know what he is doing! And we should all join in clapping him on the back. Let's face it: at long last it is NOT business as usual.








P.S. You know what would have been nice? If the politicians (viz. Messrs. Young and Al Rawi) had resisted the urge to bask in the reflected glory of Mr. Griffith's success and simply stayed away from the press conference. Their presence did nothing and Mr. Young's attempt for the government to take some credit was as stupid as it was uncalled for.

WANTED URGENTLY: LEADERSHIP

The T&T economy is on the verge of tanking. We have something like a US$850 billion debt becoming due (the Petrotrin debt) around May next year. Either we pay the debt or we default on it. If we pay the debt then expect more belt tightening all around bringing with it a lot of pain. If we don't pay it then our credit worthiness will take a hit and we will find ourselves on the wrong end of economic sanctions, which will mean more pain. Either way we are in trouble. And a re-negotiation of the debt if at all possible) will also bring pain. In other words, we are in deep 'ca-ca'!


In the meantime, neither the Prime Minister nor his erstwhile Minister of Finance has anything coherent to say about the impending disaster facing us or what policies they are looking to implement now to stave it off.Instead, we are regaled with stories about how ferries (that don't work) are going to fix the sea bridge and about how there is going to be a new Sandals hotel in Tobago ... a deal that raises more questions than answers and which have caused most unnecessary and very ugly suspicions to arise that are probably better left unexpressed for now. We continue to give the Maburro regime a free pass even though that regime's policies are creating a refugee crisis in the Region as well as here at home.


The Prime Minister turns more and more to his base using polarization and culture wars to keep the base energized and (hopefully) intact. His Minister of Everything has taken a leaf out of Trump's playbook calling every little criticism either fake news or labelling the critics as being "unpatriotic", ignoring, for example, the fact that when his Government failed to give clear and cogent answers to the many questions surrounding the deal with Austal to buy some coastal patrol vessels, that his critics felt that they had no choice but to ask the Australian Government to investigate the deal ... which admittedly, looks 'fishy'. Why asking a foreign Government to investigate a deal around which many questions swirl could be  'unpatriotic', has neither been asked nor explained.


The Government's leading spokesmen are becoming less and less coherent and increasingly have nothing of substance to say on any subject. A Minister decries as fake news allegations that his wife's company got certain Government contracts and then in the next breath says that he recused himself from any decision making  concerning their being awarded. To which the only comment can be "WHAT"?


The list goes on, but one cannot help but view with dismay the floundering and ineptitude that is on display. Let's understand something: it is in the interests of EVERYONE  that this Government succeeds. It is always in our collective interests that whatever Party is in power succeeds. Wishing that they fail would be unpatriotic. But, equally, I would argue that it is unpatriotic to continue to support a Government that is failing.


And right now, this Government is failing badly. No amount of obfuscation can hide that fact. What we need now is a clear policy statement showing us the plan to stave off the looming disaster. Either that or they should resign. I'll say it again: there is only one reason for politics ... only one reason for government: to make life better for the people!! There is no other reason!!


So, I say to Dr. Rowley et al: lead, follow, or get out of the way!