THE HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY

 On Friday 25th February five men dived down under water to do some work for Paria Trading Company Limited's underwater facility at Berth 6 to complete a repair job on a flange of a pipeline. Something went wrong. What exactly did go wrong has not been reported except that it seems that the five men were sucked into a three foot pipe under water where they got jammed. The only one who managed to escape was the last to be sucked in. According to the newspapers (and ALL of my information here is from the newspapers and the television reporting) it seems that they lost their air tanks but somehow managed to find a pocket of air which sustained them for a while. And here is where the story goes "south" and stupidity comes in.

It seems that when family members of the trapped five men heard about the accident they converged at the site at Pointe-a-Pierre.  Some of those family members were expert divers. They were about to go into the water to look for and rescue the stricken men when they were reportedly told by officials of Paria that they could not do that because it was against the Company's protocols and they had to wait for permission. Two of the relatives disregarded the order and went into the water and managed to rescue one man. They were about to re-enter the water (remember that the men had been in the water since about 2:30pm and the first  - and only- rescue - took place at about 5:30pm and the men were calling for help from the air pocket) when the Paria officials came again and ordered them to stop. This time they instructed the Coast Guard - who had guns - to prevent them from going back to rescue  the stricken men. 

In the result nobody else was rescued. 

So now the questions are:

1) Who were the idiots who told the would-be rescuers that they were breaching the Company's "protocols"? What were their names?

2) Who had to give permission for the would be rescuers to breach the Company's "protocols" to have a rescue made? What were their names?  What is his name and when he couldn't be found who was his boss who could override these "protocols"? What is his name? And where were these officials who could override the "protocols"? After all, the mishap took place during normal working hours and surely it is proper company practice for a manager to be able to be found during working hours?

3) We are talking about life and death here. Why was there enough time for the Coast Guard to arrive, but the person or persons who could give the permission to start a rescue could not be found?

4) Who was the relevant officer in charge of the Coast Guard who ordered his men to point their guns at the rescuers? What Is his name? What are the names of the members of the Coast Guard who pointed their guns at the rescuers?

5) What exactly are these "protocols" and who (names please)  wrote them? Where can these "protocols" be found? Who approved them and when were they approved.

6) And last (but certainly not least) who turned on (or failed to turn off) the pipe that sucked the men to their deaths? Whose responsibility was it? What is his name?

Certainly, from the newspaper reports it appears that there are several persons (who can only be described  at the very least as complete idiots) that there is a serious case to answer with criminal charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence arising. It should not take longer than a week for these (and other) questions to be answered. And it should not take longer than a week for those responsible to face the Court. 

But, hey! This is Trinidad and the obvious expectation in the population at large (including the donkeys who allowed this tragedy to happen) is that there will be no prompt enquiry, no charges and no arrests. In other words, it will be business as usual and the fact that four men are now dead when they shoul;d be alive is totally irrelevant. After all, the dead men were nobodies and nothings - unimportant.  But they were human beings and deserve our collective horror and dismay over their untimely deaths. And they had people who loved them.  And if money eventually has to be paid, then it will be paid by a State company and not by the guilty persons whose fault it was that these men are dead. In other words, there will be no punishment! Sometimes I wonder whether or not we will ever become a serious society which holds persons to account. And just when I think that we have reached the height of stupidity something like this happens!

MURDER

 With the murder rate climbing to almost two a day most people simply shake their heads in disgust and get on with their lives. But the bare statistic of two murders a day in a country of about 1.5 million people  doesn't portray the true horror and heartbreak  of the families and loved ones of the victims. The statistic doesn't show the gruesome details - the bloody clothes, the shattered brain half out of the head, the battered body, the broken limbs, the lifeless eyes oozing blood, the ripped and bloodied clothing, the sheer panic of the victim moments before she\he was killed knowing that she\he was about to die. It doesn't tell the story except in cold, clinical terms: 'A man/woman was killed today by a gunshot wound to the head ...'. We shrug our shoulders and move on to other stories.

In the meantime are we supposed to take comfort from the erstwhile Minister of National Security who says that the safety and security of the citizenry is not his responsibility? So whose responsibility is it? Where does the buck stop? According to him his responsibility is merely to ensure that the necessary systems are in place. So? Are the necessary systems in place? If they are, why is the murder rate rising seemingly out of control? Who do we, the citizenry, have to turn to? Whose ultimate responsibility is it?

Thinking about this, I wondered whether perhaps more pictures and more detailed stories in the press are necessary to bring home to the society as a whole how simply awful murder is.

I speak from personal experience. On Monday 17th February, 1997 (25 years ago tomorrow) my first cousin was kidnapped and murdered by a police sergeant paid to kill him by a man that my cousin thought was his friend. The murder is still "unsolved" and the police have shown absolutely no interest in investigating it. But that's another story. What I'm on about is the absolute despair, worry and heartbreak that the family went through. I still think of how my cousin must have felt when the gunman put the gun to his left temple and pulled the trigger. He would have known that he was about to be killed in a most gruesome manner. He must have been absolutely terrified. But nobody cares. Can you imagine the absolute horror of having someone put a gun to your head and knowing that he will pull the trigger?

Are there more gruesome murders? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Is anything being done about it and to prevent it from happening? Sadly, the answer is no

Do our leaders care? It certainly seems that they don't for they fill us with stupid platitudes, and poor fools that we are, we just take it. Nobody  is responsible for doing anything and nobody pays the price. In the meantime those left behind will have to deal with finding closure any way that they can. Perhaps I should change my name to 'nobody'. That way I'd be able literally to get away with murder.

THE MURDER OF YA ELVIS

 Okay. Full disclosure: I have been (very happily) married to a Venezuelan girl for almost 25 years. As a result I think that it is fair to say that I know Venezuela (at least Caracas and it's environs) fairly well. I also have had the privilege of meeting and getting to know many Venezuelans from all stratas of their society - the rich, the middle class and the poor. To be frank, I like Venezuelans - in general, I have found them all to be a generous, fun-loving and kind people who will willingly lend you a hand whenever and wherever it might be needed.

That is why it saddens me enormously to see the terrible destruction of this beautiful and naturally wealthy country which had been blessed with oil, gold and abundant forests. There is no reason why Venezuela is in the dire straits that it is in except for two words: politics and incompetence. The fact is that President Maburro ('Burro' in Spanish means 'donkey' and the misspelling is deliberate) and his cronies aided and abetted by China, Iran and especially Cuba have literally destroyed the country with approximately one-fifth of it's citizenry voting with their feet and leaving.

Not many in this country (or elsewhere for that matter) have ever stopped to think how desperate a person must feel to take the decision to pack up and leave your home and your family and your friends of a lifetime and go to another country where you have no family, no friends and you don't even speak the language.

But there are elements in this society (including those in high office) who dance with Maburro  and his cronies and who refuse to criticize them even when a baby is murdered.

I have said it before but it bears repeating: if you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics. Why are so many people (especially poor people) willing and want to leave their homes to travel (often by illegal means) To another country? And the answer invariably is economics - they feel that they have no future in a country run by foreigners (mostly Cubans) and drug lords. And we sit here smugly and say and do nothing even when a child (read 'baby') is murdered by an over zealous and uncaring bigot who has a State sanctioned gun and who knows that the State will protect him no matter what!

But its not right. And it is not right when we don't call a spade a spade and refuse to even criticize the Donkey for creating the terrible conditions that make his people want to leave.

I have read the Donkey's statement in today's newspapers where he claims to bemoan the tragedy of the baby's murder. Yeah! Right! He is really sorry but it isn't his fault! And our Prime Minister "reaches out" to the Donkey's Vice President but doesn't criticize the Donkey et al for creating the conditions that led to the mass exodus of Venezuela's citizens which led to the murder. It would be reasonable, for example, to tell the Cubans that they are ultimately responsible or at the very least have helped to create the conditions that led to this child's murder.

But, you see, the murdered child was a nobody and a creature of no importance. On the other hand, the Donkey et al are persons of great importance and we must never offend them! 

P.S. I am acutely aware that because of this post as well as others that I can never go back to Venezuela again. And that is a great pity because I really do like it there. Its just that I don't feel like getting tortured and thrown in a Venezuelan jail to rot and while I like the country I don't like it enough to risk that!

WHY?

 

Why is the murder rate rising seemingly uncontrollably? Why does crime seem to be out of control? These basic questions are being met by those in charge of our security with excuses, obfuscations and outright lies. And what is  the basic reason for crime in general rising to what are, by any standard, absolutely intolerable levels - at least for any supposedly civilized society?

And the answer is as simple as it is seemingly ultimately difficult for us to deal with: the crooks and criminals simply are not getting caught; and when they are caught the chances of them being convicted are minimal.

When I last looked at the murder conviction rate, for example, it was way less than five percent; and the statistics on crimes being solved are almost as bad. If your chances of going free are 97 to three those aren't bad odds to take.

So? What are the authorities doing about this awful state of affairs? Because it seems as if they are simply content to drink coffee and ride around in limousines with flashing blue lights and letting the rest us catch as catch can. I mean, absolutely nobody is being caught! Corruption at ALL levels exists in the society and if you are caught it really is a case of (your) bad luck.

And despite all the pious bleating of our leaders of how we need more laws, the sad truth is that the BEST deterrent against crime is the fear of getting caught. If you think that you won't be caught the death penalty, for example holds little or no terror for you.

The second best deterrent is an efficient legal system. Why can, for example, the United States, catch the criminal and in less than a year try him/her? And why can't we do the same? Its all well and good to blame the lawyers, but the USA has some very clever lawyers also who know well how to work their system. So? Why does it take years to bring a person to trial? We should be able to catch and try the crooks in less than a year - set them free or send them to jail. Why can't we do that? Because it is clear that we can't! And why do we put up with this incompetence (because that is exactly what it is)?

 If you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics! And when a man (or woman) gives you an answer that you don't understand ninety-seven percent of the time it is because he (she) DOESN"T WANT you to understand; three percent of the time he (she) is so stupid that he (she) doesn't understand what he (she) is saying. So what is it?  Are we being lied to or are our leaders incompetent, or is it both? And why are we putting up with this? Because ultimately it is our fault because we put up with it!

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO - A NARCO STATE

 

When my cousin was murdered some twenty-five years ago (N.B. The person who ordered his murder as well as the actual hitman were never charged) I spent considerable time and energy into trying to find out what happened. Very, Very briefly, my cousin was murdered on the order of an English Drug Lord to a Trinidadian Drug Lord who engaged a police corporal to do the deed. During the course of my investigation I discovered that there were at that time twelve major Drug Lords in Trinidad of whom my cousin's killer was one. I also found out that the 'black' or drug economy was equal to this country's then budget, which was about sixty billion dollars.

(Incidentally, just so you can appreciate that number: if I gave you one billion dollars on the day that they crucified Jesus Christ, and you lived forever and spent at the rate of a thousand dollars a day, you would have something like a hundred and ten years to go before you ran out of money.)

In the ensuing twenty-five years nothing has really changed and it is most unlikely that the twelve major Drug Lords have ceased their nefarious activities. It Is also quite possible that there are more than twelve major Drug Lords today. I honestly don't know because after delving into the story and giving what I knew to the police at that time, I stopped looking into the matter when I realized that the police were going to do nothing about the murder of my cousin. But you can readily appreciate where the money to buy the guns that are plaguing us right now is coming from.

Why am I raising this now? Because it has struck me that although we like to pretend that we are so much better than Venezuela which has become a Narco State and which is heavily influenced (if not controlled) by Drug Lords the sad truth is that we are in the same boat. At the time of my cousin's murder the drug trade was worth about Sixty Billion TT dollars a year. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that it is much more now. The point is also that these monies flowing into and out of TT must be having an effect on the local economy. In other words, if is cut off we all could suffer. So it wouldn't be in any government's interest  (much less ability) to interfere with this.

Some may ask why I haven't named any of the Drug Lords. The answer is because I have never had any proof that could stand in a Court of Law. Did I tell the police? Yes.

 Let me put it like this: I was at your house at midnight last night. I know I was there and you know I was there, but I am going to lie and say that I wasn't. Nobody except you saw me and I have a dozen witnesses who will swear that I was with them. The result? I will not be found guilty - even without my 'witnesses'  as it would be your word against mine, and a person is not guilty unless and until the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that I was there. It would be your word against mine. The proof that I had was something like that. I had no evidence that could stand up in a Court of Law (and still don't). But that doesn't mean that I don't know what happened or who killed my relative and why, (he was killed because he had discovered that the TT Drug Lord was doing the illegal business with the English Drug Lord)  just as you would be unable to prove that I was at your house last night. It doesn't mean that I wasn't there, just that you can't prove it.

But this article is not about my cousin's murder. It is about the fact that we have become a Narco State and that the Drug Lords are operating with impunity here. The fact is that they are now so wealthy and so powerful that they are probably untouchable. Isn't that sad?

TOO MANY QUESTIONS

 

As of at the end of January 14th there were 3,256 reported COVID 19 deaths in Trinidad & Tobago. This figure suggests that far from doing a good job in fighting the pandemic, the Government is failing miserably. But (and it is a big "but") the question arises: how many of those deaths were COVID related as opposed to the victims dying from some other comorbidity? In other words, were all these 3,256 deaths caused exclusively by COVID or did the victims suffer from something else that actually killed them, e.g., heart disease, but they had tested positive for COVID?

I have no evidence that this is the case, but rather suspect that this suspicion is accurate. Assuming (though not accepting) that the suspicion is correct that they were not killed by the virus, the next question that arises is why would the Government authority lie? Because it is a lie. If a person is killed by a heart attack but tests positive for COVID that is very different from somebody being killed by the virus. So? Then the next question (whether the suspicion is accurate or not) is how many reported deaths from COVID also include comorbidities (such as heart disease)? And what is the true figure on COVID deaths (i.e., deaths caused by COVID)?

I can come up with half a dozen or more reasons why the authorities (let's not say the Government who is being fed the information by their authorities) would lie about this, but any or all of them would be very true or very inaccurate (take your pick). But it is clear that we are simply not getting a full picture. Why not? And who would be ultimately responsible for this? Because somebody has to be responsible for this.

Everybody has his/her own biases, but these questions deserve answers one way or the other. It is not good enough simply to accuse the questions of demonstrating bias, but it is necessary in a properly functioning democracy to answer them. Failure to do so invariably leads to what I call "not a damn dog bark" syndrome. Democracy cannot flourish when the hard (as well as the easy) questions are not answered. And the continuing failure by our leaders in Government not to answer them directly or to answer with (rather obvious) obfuscations simply causes most unnecessary distrust. And that ain't good for anybody. The truth will come out sooner or later. And it is clear that we are not being told the truth. And if we are being lied to, when will we know when a statement is true?

THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TELLING THE TRUTH

The Government is on a head on collision with the trade unions over whether or not it can tell unvaccinated workers not to come to work next week. The truth is that the government is probably right that unvaccinated workers should not be allowed in the work place. The problem is that the Prime Minister and the all important Minister of Health have long ago used up whatever credibility that they had on this issue (as well as on other issues) by not telling the truth when they could have or should have. The fact is that now only the very gullible PNM supporter will accept anything falling from their mouths, even if what they are saying is probably correct. But on the other side of the coin the stance of the unions is also probably just  as right. But the unions also have something of a credibility problem. So? What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? WE are the ones who will have to give!

But the Government continues to believe that leadership is simply telling the people what to do as opposed to persuading them to their point of view. It may be too late to change people's minds about the credibility of the Government but the issue of whether to ban unvaccinated workers or not is way too important to be like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins by throwing his hands in the air and crying "korban". So  perhaps the best way forward is to find a scientist like the American Dr. Fauci who can and will talk to us  the way that Fauci has spoken to the American people and who will tell us with great frankness (a la Fauci) what exactly has been done wrong, what has been done right, and (perhaps most importantly) what needs to be done NOW to help get us out of this mess.

The fact is that I am not all that interested in the past and what mistakes were made or not made and by whom, as the case my be. I am really desirous of a way forward and even if it is necessary to give up our right to refuse the vaccine (or be allowed to refuse it) then we should get the best possible advice available. And the advice should come from someone that we trust.

We Trinbagonians are pretty darn smart and we have living amongst us people who are just as smart and capable as Dr. Fauci. It is time to stop playing politics with this virus.  I'm not interested in who said what or didn't say what. I'm interested in solving the problem. Please don't waste time in criticizing what has been said here. Instead, (if you can) put that brain of yours to finding a way out of this mess. One solution has been proposed here, but there must be others. We are living now with the consequences of not being told the truth in the first place. Its high time that we are now told the truth about everything!

COVID 19 - IS THE END IN SIGHT?

 EVERYONE KNOWS  where I got my medical degree from and what an expert I am in all things relating to medicine and health. ( Hint: its the same place where the Health Minister got his medical degree and scientific knowledge and scientific expertise from!) So, armed with this great knowledge and expertise I have been thinking about this Covid pandemic and how we have been dealing with it so far. To make a long story short, I have been looking at early 20th century history and in particular at the Spanish Flu epidemic that took place around 1920 and lasted for two to three years. 

My reading and my studies (don't laugh: remember that I went to the same place that Minister Deyalsingh got his qualifications  from) have suggested to me that the Spanish Flu was an epidemic that was very similar in every way to the present Covid 19 pandemic. About 50 million people died or were infected by that virus which raged around the world (well, Europe and North America at least) for about three years before eventually dying out.  It seems that the Flu (which actually started in the United States and NOT Spain) started to become less and less severe before eventually becoming nothing more than a serious cold and disappearing from our radars for the last hundred years or so. 

My reading (and please remember my medical qualifications  and expertise when you read this) is that the world probably achieved herd immunity and at the same time the mutating virus became less and less severe and therefore less and less dangerous.  If I am right then it would seem that we are entering now the final stage of this pandemic and that by next Christmas we should more or less be out of the woods, for we already know that the Omricon variant is less dangerous than the Delta variant. If this trend continues then we are indeed nearing the end.

I have not discussed this with my fellow expert (the Minister of Health) but I am fairly certain that if I am right he will not only agree with me but claim credit for the ending of the pandemic.  Speaking for myself, I couldn't care less whether he agrees with me or not. I just want this thing to be over as soon as possible.  (If I turn out to be wrong, then Mr. Deyalsingh will no doubt tell everybody why you shouldn't listen to me - and he'd be right!) So until we know one way or the other just stay safe and get yourself vaccinated. WE are on the planet for only a very short while, but we stay dead for a llooonnnggg time!!

Merry Christmas, everybody.

WHAT HAS CHANGED?

 

A lot of people (including my wife) will be pleased with the announcement that the beaches will now be open from 5am to noon every day. But the question arises: what has changed? Is it that it was never dangerous to open the beaches? Or is it that the situation is more under control than it was before? Or is it that it was never dangerous to open the beaches but the Government wanted to appear as if it was doing something and was taking this pandemic seriously? Or is it something else? What?

I have argued for a long time that we simply haven't been told the truth about this pandemic or anything associated with it. I defy anybody to answer the question raised here with an answer  based on evidence and absolute knowledge. Because if yesterday it was dangerous to open the beaches then why is it not dangerous today? And if the argument is that it is only a limited opening, then why was it dangerous to have this limited opening yesterday and not today? 

There are too many unanswered questions that lead the casual observer to come to one of three conclusions: the first is that the Minister of Health and his minions really don't have a clue as to what they are doing and are operating more by 'vaps' than from the science; or secondly that they have been lying to us; or thirdly, a combination of the first two.

The problem is that the matter is far too serious to allow these guys to operate and not know what they are doing. We rely on them to be up to date on everything to do with this pandemic and also to know what to do. we aren't that stupid and we do understand that bright minds abroad in the big countries are also struggling with the virus. But that does not mean we can't or shouldn't be told the truth, no matter how bitter it might be. And my complaint in one sentence is that we haven't been told the truth - or at least, not the whole truth.

And that is the beginning and the end of the whole story. the question: do these guys know what they are doing is answered by the first question. Unfortunately, there is too much evidence (whether circumstantial or not) that suggests to the reasonable observer that they don't know what they are doing.

I was taught that if you van't say something in one sentence then you can't say it at all. So, in one sentence, what has changed to allow the Government to open the beaches? In one sentence!

REALLY LOOKING HARD AT THOSE THA RESULTS

 Everybody (well almost everybody) is quite pleased with the drubbing that the PDP gave to the PNM in the recent Tobago House of Assembly (THA) elections. And most people are pleased that young (he's 36) Farley Augustine has become the new boss of the THA (his correct title is Chief Secretary).

But it is probably a safe bet that nobody has really thought past the fact that  "the new broom" has come in with promises to stop the t'iefing and to make things more efficient.  Pay attention: in the 2021/2022 Budget debate in September last the PNM government allocated the record amount of $60 billion for the THA. So everybody thinks that Farley will have some nice dollars to spend. They would be wrong! He won't have a cent unless and until it lands in the THA bank account. Personally, I expect Colm to give him just enough to run his show, but no more than that!

An allocation in the budget is just that: an allocation. It doesn't mean a thing until the money actually is transferred. So although in theory Mr. Augustine will have a lot of money at his disposal, in practice he will have nothing unless that which the erstwhile Finance Minister gives him. And do you think that Colm will be generous or will he cry poverty?

And don't forget about the boats ... and the planes. Even at the best of times the ferries were breaking down.  Do you think that theses ferries (under the control of the PNM) will be better maintained than they were before? do you expect that the planes to Tobago will also be properly maintained? 

No. It is not unreasonable to think that  a vindictive PNM government will turn the screws (not so softly) on Tobago and that it will take  all of Mr. Augustine's ingenuity to try and keep his boat (pardon the pun) afloat. 

The Opposition will have to ask questions and put the pressure on in Port of Spain, but they don't have a lot in this particular affair. They can't expect to win in Tobago and without the PDP offering them something there won't be much for them to be motivated to help in any way. Frankly, it looks like Farley is on his own here. All right thinking souls will wish him luck because it will mean that the people (of Tobago) will win. But, honestly, knowing how things really work it looks to be most unlikely that the people of Tobago are going to get any real relief any time soon. I'll be the first to sing 'thank God I was wrong'! But I genuinely fear that I am not.

BY ALL THAT IS NORMAL ...

 BY all that is normal, the results of the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) elections were predictable. But this is not a 'normal' country and voting in the country has more to do with race (Africans vote PNM and Indians vote UNC).  By all that is normal Keith Rowley's PNM should have expected to lose in Tobago big time! The not very subtle attempts to bully and/or bribe the electorate didn't work. And the attempt to link the victorious PDP with the Indian dominated UNC also didn't have the desired effect ... though what that rather blatant racial call will do in a general election remains to be seen.

The results simply reflected that the population in Tobago, unencumbered by race (Tobago is more than 90% black) thought about what they wanted and decided that they weren't going to be bribed or coerced into voting for unbridled incompetence. Oh! They will take the bribe money and run with it. Why not? But they had decided to give Watson Duke's PDP a chance.

Now, both the PNM and the UNC will try to put their own spins on it. But losing is often more important than winning and the PNM will not merely go into a corner and lick it's wounds, but it will spend a lot of time analyzing where it went wrong. The UNC will interpret the results as being that the population is fed up and their (the UNC's) return to power is all but guaranteed.  

If the UNC thinks that it will be making a big mistake. Trinidad, with it's 39 seats, is not Tobago with it's 2 seats, and they will be discounting Watson Duke who could well end up winning the 2 Tobago seats and holding the balance of power. If that happens, look for more political maneuverings downstream. 

Both sides will try subtly (and not so subtly) to play the race card. The PNM has generally been more successful in playing this card than the UNC, but that is no guarantee that the UNC can't learn. What is clear, as I have said, is that it is a whole new ball game and a lot will depend on how both sides deal with Mr. Duke. Because, if they are not careful the news will read "Prime Minister Watson Duke said today ... ..." And don't think that it can't happen or that it hasn't crossed Mr. Duke's mind. He is certainly p[roving himself to be cleverer than either Kamla or Rowley.

VERA BHAJAN v THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION

    DONNA PROWELL has been a good friend of mine since 1986. Although we haven't spoken for a long time I would be more than surprised to learn that she had changed in any significant manner over the years.  She has always been very smart, well balanced, and 'clued in' to the country and to what was going on. Frankly, I wasn't at all surprised when I had heard that she had been made the Chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and felt that she  was an excellent choice. 

Frankly, nothing that has happened recently has done anything to make me think that I should change my (obviously) very high opinion of her. That is why I was so surprised when I read that a High Court judge had been very critical of her and that there was even some speculation that she might be a little racist. Let me put that particular allegation to rest: Donna is NOT racist and even to suggest that remotely is a terrible defamation of her. but this is not the first time (nor, sadly, will it be the last) when a judge gets things wrong and in getting it wrong causes most unnecessary mischief. 

People need to understand that a law is simply a rule by which the society agrees to be bound; whether that rule is a good or bad one is beside the point. We put people in there to pronounce on these rules and to interpret them where necessary. But the fact is that the judges are by and large ordinary people who, while deserving of respect, can and, more often than not, do get things wrong. Just because a judge has pronounced on a matter does not make it right. It simply means that a judge has given an opinion on some matter. But then, that is why we have effectively two separate rights of appeal.

No. While I absolutely respect the judge's right to give an opinion as she sees it in this matter, I say unequivocally that, with respect,  she is wrong. Her judgement had nothing to do with the Donna Prowell that I have known over the years. I also think that her comments as reported were gratuitous and did nothing to address the root of the matter before her.

Certainly, the judgement as reported in the newspapers does not seem to have dealt with Ms. Prowell's affidavit evidence nor with the fact that  Ms. Bhajan had purportedly been appointed by the President without the knowledge or approval  of the EOC. Frankly,  It is surprising that a judge would choose to make the comments that this one did, without actually taking the 'live' evidence of witnesses and then coming to the conclusions that she did.  For example, Ms. Prowell's affidavit alludes to the fact that Ms. Bhajan, though required by the Act under which she was seeking appointment, did not have the necessary experience of at least 10 years as laid down by the statute.  And yet, this seems to have been completely ignored by the judge. 

There are other things that lead me to believe that something is dreadfully wrong here. But that is not the point of this post. My point here is that I think that the judge got it all wrong and has thoroughly screwed up her judgement. Do I respect her judgement? Absolutely, but do I think that she was wrong? Yes. Clearly.

TIME TO START THINKING DIFFERENTLY

 It is difficult to believe that most people understand the size of the mack truck that is careening down the road towards us nor the speed at which it is going. Certainly, I didn't, until I had a conversation with a friend of mine who owns a business that imports certain (essential) medicines. She told me that the cost of a 40 foot container a year ago was US$1,600. In other words, no matter what you wished to put in the container the cost to you before you begin to do anything or put anything in it would be US$1,600.

Okay, I thought. That's high, but I guess we are living with it. And that's when she hit me. Guess what it is now? Today? US$2,000? I guessed. Wrong! The cost of that same 40 foot container from last year is now US$16,000!! That is an increase of more than 100 times last year's cost!! Ouch!!

On checking the accuracy of this information I discovered that food and other  costs in the USA have also gone up exponentially this year!!

Put another way, if this information is accurate (and I believe that it is) then by March we are going to be facing a most serious crisis. Then what? Vote PNM? Vote UNC? This crisis will be largely external in nature, We can spend a lot of time blaming the government for doing or not doing what they could have or should have done. But instead of casting blame (which is easier than actually solving the problem) we should from now be thinking of exactly what we need to do in order to survive. And we ain't doing that!! In fact, nobody on either side of the political divide is doing that!! Its always so much easier to blame 'them'.

THE PRESIDENTIAL MESS

 

Just when you think that the politicians can't get any lower, they conspire to prove you wrong - again. Let's look at the mess of that debate that never was - the one dealing with the removal of the President. And don't worry, I'm not going to quote law at you or this or that section of the Constitution or the difference between a procedural motion or another type of motion. Nor am I going to give a 'learned' opinion on what the law says or what is the correct way to interpret it.

No. I'm just going to look at the whole mess and see if it could have been handled in another way.

In order to do that we need to start from the beginning. (I was always taught that if you want to understand a problem you always need to go back to the beginning.) Everybody seems to agree that the trouble started about a year ago when the Prime Minister (Rowley) let it be known that he had 'lost faith' in the Commissioner of Police (Griffith).  There were a lot of harsh words said in public passing between the two men, but it all seemed to die down and the country more or less went back to normal.

But CoP Griffith's term was ending this year (I can't remember exactly when, but I think it was around August). In any case, although the CoP's term was ending, the Police Service Commission (PolSC) did nothing to start the process moving to re-appoint either Mr. Griffith or to appoint somebody else until very late in the day. And here is where it starts to get messy:

The PolSC sent a letter to the President with three nominees for the CoP post. Now, under the Constitution the President in this case has no discretion but MUST simply forward the letter to Parliament. But before the letter is forwarded by the President to the Parliament she rather inexplicably returns it to the PolSC and effectively tells the Commission to think again. Here it becomes more than a little murky, but rumours start almost immediately that a 'high level public official' went to see the President and told her NOT to send the list to the Parliament. Incidentally, we don't know whose names were on the list but rumour hath it that Mr. Griffith's name was one of the three. We also don't know who the 'high level public official' was but the rumour is that it was no less a person than the Prime Minister himself. But neither the Prime Minister nor the President is talking so we may never know. The most that the Prime Minister has said is that he talks to the President about lots of things lots of times - which ain't exactly an admission of anything. Why he wouldn't come out and say 'it was me' or 'it was not me' is a question that is left just hanging there.  Of course, those who don't like the Prime Minister are saying that he won't say because he knows that he was wrong to interfere. Those who do like him simply dismiss it and say that it isn't relevant.

But the President rather curiously says that she returned the letter from the PolSC but doesn't say who asked her to return it or whether the request was in writing - to which any thinking person can only say 'hmmmmm'! Why would she ( a lawyer and a former Court of Appeal Judge) do something like that that is so clearly unconstitutional? In any case, who was this 'high level public official'? Was it in fact the Prime Minister? You see why it gets murky.

Then the Leader of the Opposition files a motion in the Parliament essentially asking the Parliament to remove the President from her office. That this motion was likely to be defeated  was clear from the outset, but that was never the point. Enter the erstwhile Speaker of the House who takes it upon herself (for reasons that could make lawyers rich by arguing them all the way to the Privy Council) to order that there was to be no debate on the motion.

What exactly would have been the harm in having the highest forum in the land debating the motion was never explained. All we were told was that the Speaker had decided that this was the right way to go and that she was banning all debate. "Vote and Go", was one headline in a daily newspaper.

Nobody  has bothered to explain exactly why a debate on this issue should not have been allowed. The answer to this question is hidden under a deadweight of legalese that would be the kind of stuff that late night comedians  love to sink their teeth into. So what? let us assume (but not accept) that the Speaker's decision not to allow debate was right in law, was it right for the country? We tend to speak about the Presidency in hushed, almost reverential tones that are oddly reminiscent of the 'good old days'  when any criticism of the Governor or the King was considered treasonous. But the defenders of the President essentially argue that there are two rules concerning the President: Rule One is that the president is never wrong; Rule Two is that when the President is wrong, refer back to Rule One.

We should have had a debate - even if there is legal authority to say 'no'.  The Speaker was wrong not to do so. And let's face it, the Opposition mishandled the whole imbroglio from start to finish. They could have, and should have, gone through all the possible scenarios and been prepared for whatever the Speaker threw their way. . But their reaction suggests that they were taken by surprise. The motion could have and should have been better drafted. The Speaker has badly damaged the appearance of independence so necessary for one in her position. And the Prime Minister has come across as someone who is quite comfortable with obfuscatory comments that tend to hide the truth more than letting the people know exactly what was happening or had happened. Finally, the President has also badly damaged her Presidency by her actions as well as her rather pathetic attempts at covering up.

Put another way, none of the main players in this little 'play' have come out of this unscathed. They all stink - some more than others.

THE PREMATURE ENDING OFTHE BUDGET DEBATE

 In Trinidad & Tobago there are 41 Parliamentary seats. The ruling People's National Movement (PNM) has 22 seats and the opposition UNC has 19 seats. An argument has erupted over whose fault it was that the Budget debate - arguably the most important debate in a Parliamentary year - was truncated and brought to a premature close. My answer is that it is the fault of both sides. We can argue over who might be more to blame than the other, but the truth is that both sides are to blame. And we (the people) are the losers.

Let's look at it as clearly as possible: a Budget debate is supposed to be about a government accounting to the people through the Parliament what it spent and took in over the last fiscal year and what it proposes to do/spend in the coming fiscal year. Therefore, it is a most serious debate and not one in which one should play games. If an opposition does not want to partake in the debate, for whatever reason, the Ministers should still account for their respective Ministries. Unfortunately, a lot of them didn't. One gets the most unfortunate impression that the Government was more interested in 'scoring points' than in accounting to the people. Either that or they were simply too incompetent to give an accounting.

As for the Opposition, while it is true that the Government has superior numbers and they were obviously trying to 'hold their fire power' for when the Ministers deigned to speak they could and should have put in a speaker with instructions to him/her to lambaste the Government for not putting in their Ministers to speak and risk being criticized. (Instead of Ministers, a lot of backbenchers spoke who seemed to delight more in politics than in getting a proper accounting for the people that they are supposed to represent.) It wouldn't have been difficult to do that and the Government's rather cowardly action could and should have been exposed. But the Opposition was also obviously more interested in 'scoring points' rather than looking out for Trinidad & Tobago. That they chose instead to 'play games' is deplorable. Two, or even three wrongs can never make a right. And the Opposition was wrong to allow the Government to get off the hook like that. And so I say that the time has really come to look at our whole Parliamentary system and fix the obvious problems before they get worse. And believe me, there is no 'bottom'. Things can get worse. (But that is a whole other discussion. I do have some ideas which I will put out later for discussion).

Right now we have a system that encourages division in the society rather than creating a country where everyone feels that he/she has a stake in it. But until that happens (or snow falls in Trinidad) we can at least be honest with ourselves and tell BOTH sides to stop playing the fool and get down to representing us. Because right now we are being very poorly represented by BOTH sides. I could write a book on everything that BOTH sides are doing wrong. Perhaps (despite the failures of the NAR and COP) the time really has come for a third political party?