MRS. PERSAD-BISSESSAR WAS RIGHT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW ASSOCIATION WAS WRONG

 Has anybody noticed the apparent hypocrisy in the way that Dr. Rowley's Government deals with ethical matters?  Let me explain: nobody (except for a few people), including the Council of the Law Association (which body never bothered to consult its membership over the unfortunate behaviour of the Attorney General over his misleading, or trying to mislead a Judge in Miami) has seemed to think that it was all right for Mr. Armour to apparently "forget" that he had once represented Mr. Brian Kuei Tung in a matter that had to be one of the biggest cases of his entire career BUT when Mr. Armour's predecessor, Mr. Al Rawi, is reported in the Sunday express of 24th July as having said that he recused himself "in every case" in terms of clients whom he previously represented . Mr. Al Rawi  is reported in the same newspaper  as saying that "in accordance with the law and principles of good governance" he recused himself from time to time in Cabinet meetings.

Well, nobody can argue with that point although there are other matters that arise that can be discussed at another time concerning Mr. Al Rawi. The point here is that clearly Dr. Rowley knew or ought to have known that it is simply an extreme "no-no" for a lawyer to act even remotely in a matter against one of his former clients. And while it might be acceptable for a lawyer to say 'look, it was a small matter and I really don't remember all of the people that I acted for or gave advice to some 14 or 15 years ago, in the instant case it is simply unbelievable for Mr. Armour to say that he "forgot". And in the next breath, it is hypocritical of Dr. Rowley as Prime Minister not to call for Mr. Armour's resignation, especially given the Prime Minister's penchant for shouting about the lack of ethics on the UNC's side of the fence.

Apparently, "do so ent like so". And that can be the only reason for his deafening silence.

But then enter the Council of the Law Association who without consultation with its membership decides to issue a scathing rebuke of Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's  commentary of Mr. Armour's behaviour  ignoring completely the rather terrible things that the Prime Minister has said in the past about those who support Mrs. Persad-Bissessar. In other words, no reasonable observer  could fail to come to the conclusion that the Council of the Law Association was quite happy to support those who "sang for their supper" when they supported Mr. Armour at the extraordinary general meeting of the Law Association (which fact, of course, raises other very serious questions about the ethics of the Council.)

 And yes, they did "sing for their supper". How else would you explain their support for a lawyer who lied to a Court  and pretended that he couldn't remember one of the biggest (if not the biggest) cases of his career? And remember how his story changed when the facts came out?  And that, my friends, is what you call lying. And that is why if you really believe that he didn't then I'd like to sell you a bridge.

But the Council of the Law Association thinks that the bigger sin is that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong to say publicly what any reasonable person would conclude: that those who voted in favour of Mr. Armour were not motivated by ethics but by pure greed and self interest. But they don't say a d@#$%^& thing about when the Prime Minister attacks Opposition lawyers and they don't comment at all about the deceit or hypocrisy  of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General. 

No. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar was right in her criticisms and the Council of the Law Association was not only very, very wrong, but also so hypocritical in its criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition that it has lost all credibility. And this is not a good thing for Trinidad & Tobago.

"PRIME MINISTER KAMLA PERSAD-BISSESSAR SAID TODAY ..."

 

Okay. I had promised to say why I think that the UNC will win the next elections, so here goes: it is tempting to sum it up in one word - race - but that wouldn't explain all the nuances that are at play here. First of all, race is a factor; most Africans as well as Indians  - especially the uneducated ones - will vote according to their ethnicity. This is the main reason why in 1986 the then ruling PNM under George Chambers was able to garner almost 300 votes when it was clear that the overwhelming majority in the country had felt that the Chambers' Government had screwed things up so badly that they felt that they could take a chance with the new-born NAR. Put another way, both the UNC as well as the PNM have rock solid bases of approximately 30 percent each of the electorate. Of the remaining 40 percent about 30 percent lean one way or the other and we have only about 10 percent who are genuine "floaters".

And this is why most political observers believe that the situation will stay as it is with the very small minority of genuine floating voters leaning one way or the other depending on the performance and what their guts tell them about the two sides. The PNM has a psychological advantage in that for most of the floating voters it is regarded as the "default" party, in other words, where both sides are viewed as equally bad, the majority of the floating vote traditionally goes with the PNM. Certainly, this is what happened the last time in 2020. But because Dr. Rowley & Co. have been screwing up so badly in recent times, this is likely to change. Please note that the two most important words in that last sentence are "likely to" and one would be foolish to make a bet on this so early in the game. A lot can happen in the meantime that could make them swing one way or the other.

No. The real 'flea in the ointment' (or whatever the saying is) is Mr. Watson Duke's party, the PDP. Take a look at why I'm saying this: as things stand at the moment PNM has 21 of the 41 seats in the country; the UNC has 19 which is why it is in opposition. But Mr. Duke's party looks set to win the 2 Tobago seats in the next election, which will bring the PNM down to 19. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's UNC is likely to hold on its 19 seats. So? Why am I saying that UNC will win? These numbers would suggest a minority government.

Because Mr. Duke has signaled that he intends to come to Trinidad as well as staying in Tobago. If he does come where do you think that he will get his votes from? Aaaahhh! You got it! He'll by and large get his votes from the poorer or lower class Africans  - the PNM's traditional base. The UNC's traditional base will not move in favour of another black party. So? What do you think will happen in marginal seats like Barataria or St. Augustine for example? The PDP will more than likely take enough votes from the PNM that will cause the UNC in our first pass the post system to romp home to victory even if the combined votes of the PNM and the PDP are greater than the UNC's in the particular constituency. Mr. Duke is most unlikely to pick up any disaffected UNC voters.

And so folks, if (and it's always a big "if" this far off the date for the next elections) things stay more or less the same, the lead story on television the next time around after the elections will likely begin with the words "Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said today ...".

GREED AND SELF-PRESERVATION

 

While most right thinking citizens would be surprised by the mental gymnastics that the lawyers who voted against the resolution to criticize the Attorney General for his part in  a case in far away Miami, for  a minority of observers the outcome was most predictable and could be summed up in three words: "Greed and Self-Preservation".

You see, like everybody else lawyers have seen their business shrink with the Covid 19 pandemic. For some, the shrinkage of their business has been so bad that they have been forced to close down their offices and work instead from home. And as for the rest, there is hardly anybody who hasn't seen his/her business shrink, often to unacceptable levels. But (and as usual there is always a "but") there are a fortunate few who get regular briefs from the one client who always has money and who never (or hardly ever) complains about the size of the bill: the Government. And guess who hands out these rather lucrative briefs ... and your first two guesses don't count! Aaah! You got that right! It's the Attorney General!

And do you think that any Attorney General would give any work to any lawyer who spoke out against him? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. You see, it was always a given that the present Attorney General would not resign. The Prime Minister had already signaled that he wouldn't accept any proffered resignation, so short of a general election (which ain't on the cards at the moment) it means that voting against Mr. Armour would mean that you were potentially cutting yourself off from any potential briefs that could come your way.

Of course, those implacably opposed to the PNM Government will point out that out of a membership of some ten thousand only a little over five hundred turned out and  that those who voted in favour of Mr. Armour numbered less than three percent of the membership. And those who support the PNM will say that the ten thousand who didn't vote could have and should have.  And they'd both be right. But they both would drift away from the central point with these rather esoteric arguments. The central point was that every single person who voted for Mr. Armour and against the resolution did so for personal reasons. Oh! The less honest ones will deny it and present all sorts of arguments to prove that they acted on the highest principles. Some will even say that they don't get Government briefs. but none would say that they would turn down a Government brief if one happened to come their way.

And as for those who voted against Mr. Armour? They were right to do so, of course, even though being right was secondary to the knowledge that they would never get a Government brief, at least not under this Government. In any case, as the old Trinidadian saying goes: 'time longer than time' and a general election is due in about two years, so they can wait. And as things stand right now today (and a week is certainly a long time in politics so things can change) the UNC will win the next election. Why do I say that? Watch this space and I'll tell you another time.

AN ELASTIC APPROACH TO ETHICS

 So Dr. Rowley is back in the country and is operating as if his 3 week absence was no big thing and does not merit more than a line ("I was undergoing medical tests") of explanation. There was no report on his medical condition that necessitated a three week sojourn nor was there any attempt to say why these "tests" could not have been done in Trinidad. And a Prime Minister is no ordinary person. The country is entitled to know exactly what is or was wrong with him and what exactly caused his long absence.

In the meantime, and while he was away, it was revealed that one of his ministers was prevented from getting his Master's degree because he (Foster Cummings) had plagiarized certain content in his thesis. Mr. Cummings has said that this was simply an "oversight" on his part and that he had already explained that. But the fact is that he was still denied his degree and plagiarism is just about the most serious offence that one can commit in the academic world.  

Then (again while the Prime Minister was abroad) his brand new Attorney General is prevented from acting for and on behalf of the country in a case in the United States because he had acted for one of the defendants in a related matter some 14 or so years ago. The Attorney General offers as reasons that he did so was because he couldn't remember (although this had to be one of the biggest cases of his career) and he was abroad on holiday and didn't have his files with him and that he was prevented from filing an explanatory affidavit in the matter even though the Court records do not show that there was any explanation or attempt to file a supplemental/explanatory affidavit. An appeal has been filed, but one gets the most regrettable impression that this appeal is a losing one. But, we'll see.

Then there is the problem of abuse in children's homes across the country. This is being  (and has been for months) "investigated", but nobody has been charged as yet much less fired. And the PM's silence on this is deafening.

Then there is the problem of the investigation into the deaths of those divers at the beginning of this year. So far nothing has happened and there has been no explanation except that we are being told that the commission of enquiry will begin "soon". How soon is "soon" is, of course, another question altogether.

I could go on, but surely you the point: there seems to be in all of these matters (and more) a common thread which is a most elastic approach to ethics. The Prime Minister refuses to answer a journalist because of a 14 or 15 year old report and will not answer the reasonable question as to whether or not he had done due diligence on Mr. Armour which ought to have raised Mr. Armour's potential conflict of interest.

It is as though Dr. Rowley's ethics are governed by "do as I say, not as I do". If this is true then we have a serious problem because it would mean that the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago is a big hypocrite. In the first world he would be fired for his most elastic approach to ethics.

SHOULD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF T&T RESIGN?

 I have known Reginald Armour for a long time - more than thirty years - and although I can say that we are not, and never have been, friends, I can also say that I never had any reason to doubt that his integrity was such that he would not lie, and certainly not so as to attempt to mislead anybody deliberately, much less a Court of Law, whether in Trinidad & Tobago or in any other part of the world. At least, not until now, because the revelations coming out from that Miami court room are , to put it mildly, most disturbing.

But the facts which have come out since a Miami Judge basically said that Mr. Armour should not be a plaintiff in a matter relating to allegations of corruption involving his (Mr. Armour's) former clients concerning the construction of the Piarco airport have given me cause for deep concern.  The code of conduct that governs lawyers in this (T&T's) jurisdiction includes an injunction that a lawyer must never mislead a Court.  But it seems that Mr. Armour has done just that. Whether he did so knowingly is another matter. He says that because it was almost twenty years ago he couldn't remember.  But this had to be one of the biggest cases in his career and this explanation, while it might be true, certainly appears to be unbelievable to the ordinary observer. It was one in which the whole country was extremely interested in and whether he was a junior lawyer confined to taking notes (which he says, but which has turned out to be untrue) or a senior lawyer leading in a defence in a preliminary hearing (which is what appears from the Court records) his position is certainly untenable. 

One of the leading cases in apparent bias comes from a case in the 1920's, R v. Sussex.  In that case three judges found a defendant guilty of whatever he was accused of (I can't remember what).  But it turned out on appeal that the clerk to the Court was in the room when the judges were doing their deliberations. The Court of Appeal held that there was a possibility that the clerk might have influenced the judges in their deliberations although there was no record that he had. But, the Court of Appeal decided,  it was dangerous because he MIGHT have done so. So they overturned the conviction. Put another way, a lawyer cannot give advice to Mr. X today and then act for Mr. Y against Mr. X tomorrow in the same matter. (Indeed, a lawyer having advised Mr. X in a matter years ago (and been paid for that advice) ought not to take a case against Mr. X in a different matter today.)

Well, using that logic one can honestly say  with hand on heart that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Armour did use his knowledge from his former position  to benefit his new client, the State. But (and you knew that there would be a "but, didn't you?) the POSSIBILITY exists that he MIGHT have. Personally, I doubt that he did, but that ain't the point! The point is in the word "might" and one would expect that this point would be impossible to prove one way or the other.   But an Attorney General as the titular head of the Bar must ensure that at all times that nobody can accuse him (or her) in circumstances such as this, of behaving improperly.   

So? What should Mr. Armour do? In one word: resign. At the very least there has been a dreadful mistake the responsibility for which must stop at his door. And at the worst? Well, let's not go there.                                                                                                                                                                                   

THE ABUSING OF THE CHILDREN HAS BEEN FORGOTTEN

 Well, it looks as though I will win my bet with myself that absolutely nothing will be done for those children at risk in the children's homes across the country. Their stories have been pushed off the front pages (indeed, of all the pages) in the print media by the rather stupid obfuscations of the Attorney General  as to whether or not he lied to a Miami court and by other things. Frankly, I believe that the AG is guilty and can't understand why it is taking so long for people to see that or for him to be fired. But this post is not about Mr. Armour's  (or anybody else's) machinations, it is about the children.

These abused kids are facing individual crises of unimaginable proportions and need help right now. And "now" must mean NOW! Look, if we want to build a country that can be "a shining city on the hill" we have to look out and help the youngest generations. They need our support. Most of them are facing hunger and poverty and some of the most unlucky ones are facing unspeakable abuses ranging from vicious beatings to rape and everything in between. It might be too late to save the older ones, but it isn't too late to save the younger ones. In any case, we should not give up on trying to help the older ones. For crying out loud, they definitely don't deserve to be simply ignored. We MUST HELP.

I am an opinion writer. My purpose is to try and inform the public and maybe change minds. But ultimately I hope to make a difference on important issues and realities. I recognize that it is very difficult to sustain public interest on almost any issue for long enough to make that difference. But I can dream, can't I?

THE ABSOLUTE INCOMPETENCE OF THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE POLICE

 What exactly is going on with the so-called investigation into the abuse of CHILDREN in state owned/funded children's homes? I have written about this problem until I'm sick of it. I have said that I didn't think that anything will come of it, but I did believe that the police might at least pretend that they were treating this matter with urgency. To my absolute dismay I see that they are not!

R9obert Sabga is a friend of mine. He wrote to me this morning (Thursday 8th June) that someone in the Trinidad & Tobago Police Service (the TTPS) had  (finally) called him last night (7th June) and asked him for a witness statement for everything that is in the 1997 report! Can you believe that!? Come on Mr. Acting Commissioner of Police. Come on. Get off your big, fat tail and put down the cup of coffee and DO SOMETHING!  What are we paying you for? The bottom line is that children are being abused. And only now your people are approaching Mr. Sabga for a witness statement!?!? Apart from the fact that the 1997 report has Mr. Sabga's signature on it, don't you, McDonald Jacob, think that this is the height of incompetence?  And this is what you call an investigation? And there is a very strong possibility that children are still being abused?  When are you going to do something to save the children? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? Next year? Never?

This would be something for a comedy movie if it weren't so serious. It is a little like the joke that is going around the country: a man telephones the police to say that there is  a burglar in his yard. The police tell him that they can't come right now because they don't have any cars available. Five minutes later the man calls back the police to say don't bother to come. I just shot and killed him with my unlicensed gun. Five minutes later the police show up but there is no gun and no body. The police then say "I thought you said that you shot and killed a man'. The guy then replies 'I thought you said you had no cars'!

My message to the Acting Commissioner of Police is: move, follow, or get out of the way. This is way past a joke now and you clearly have done sweet nothing. If you don't know what to do then get out of the way. And Mr. Minister of National Security you deal with it. Put somebody in charge who at least pretends to care about the children. There are enough people in this country who have good ideas about what to do. SAVE THE CHILDREN NOW! And stop messing around.

"SLOWLY PROGRESSING"

 You will forgive me for returning AGAIN to this nasty problem that exists in the country of children being abused in State owned/funded children's homes. This morning's Trinidad Guardian (7th June, 2022) reports that the Assistant Commissioner of Police Sharon Cooper in charge of the investigative team that was appointed by Acting Commissioner of Police McDonald Jacob  on 16th May (some 22 days ago) was in the process of "currently interviewing persons"  and "are presently at the point of acquiring statements to obtain evidence". She also is reported as saying that "presently there is no need to relocate anyone" because "at this time none of the persons  interviewed is in harm's way". But on 25th May the Acting Commissioner of Police told the Parliament some NINE days after he appointed the investigative team that the team was in the early stages of its investigation and, "up to that time, they had not identified people within the children's homes that they can recommend being removed from the institutions immediately".

So? What the heck is going on? Is the Assistant Commissioner of Police saying that after more than THREE WEEKS that no evidence has been found or that there are NO REASONABLE suspicions that anybody MIGHT be guilty of some sort of abuse? Because if this is the case then Mr. Sabga's and Ms. Jones's respective committees are going to have to do a lot of explaining as to why their reports are false.

Frankly, I don't believe that the reports are false and I do believe that there has been some serious abuse which is still continuing, And this is where my problem begins: if the abuse is still going on don't we owe it to the children to take action IMMEDIATELY? NOW? And 'now' must mean 'now' - today, not tomorrow, not next week, but today! What is better? To suspend an innocent man or woman from his/her job, or to risk having an innocent child being abused? And that is the choice! We can pay the innocent man/woman to stay home while the evidence is being collected. But we can't pay for the abusing of an innocent child.

Right now there is a very real possibility that children are still being abused. But the police investigation is slowly progressing and a confidential report will be made "soon". And the authorities  are "investigating"! And we wonder why the crime rate is so high? Nobody is ever caught and prosecuted. Nobody! I have a bet with myself that absolutely nothing will come of this "investigation". Perhaps one or two very small fry might be caught, but this whole mess will be like the Akiel Chambers thing. No charges at all! But, we must be happy because the investigation is "slowly progressing".

 

INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND SNOW JOBS

  There is only one test for leadership: to lead, and to lead vigorously.  But just as important is effective  leadership. Of course, if a person (0r a group of persons) aspires to be a leader then one would hope for his/her leadership to be effective. A good example of ineffective leadership is the donkey that is in charge of Venezuela right now. More than six million of his countrymen have fled, most for economic reasons, and some for political ones, but this has taken place in what is potentially one of the wealthiest countries in the world. But Maburro stays in power with the very competent help (in staying in power) of the Cuban dictatorship. Without the Cubans and their very efficient security system which takes out (either by murder or lock up or both) any potential opponent the idiot would have been toppled long ago.

But this is not about Maburro and his incompetence, nor is it about those hypocrites who are clamoring for Cuba et al to attend the Summit of the Americas but are refusing to criticize Maburro and company as vigorously as they do the United States. This is about Trinidad & Tobago and the total and complete ineffectiveness of our leaders in dealing with the crisis concerning children's homes in this country. And this is about the snow job that those in charge are trying to pull on us  on this issue. A 'snow job', by the way, is defined as "an effort to deceive, persuade or overwhelm with insincere talk". And that is exactly what the Government is trying to pull on us: a snow job.

But let's deal with their ineffective leadership first. As this is being written (today, Saturday 4th June) nobody has yet been removed from his/her post or even suspended. And yet the evidence in the public domain suggests strongly that last night and the night before, and the night before, and so on, that a child was abused and that she/he will be abused tonight.  In a million years you cannot argue that "appointing a committee" and leaving everyone in place for the time being until the committee reports is an example of effective leadership. Look, I'm not going to argue about the ineffectiveness of the Government's economic policies nor am I going to argue about the proposed sale of the Petrotrin refinery or anything else for the time being. While all these issues (and more) are important they pale in comparison to this one.  My overriding concern is for the children - and the sad fact that abuse is still taking place and NOBODY has been charged or held accountable.

And here is where we come to the various snow jobs. Although, one can say with a great deal of justification that BOTH sides of the political divide have clearly dropped the ball on this one, the fact is that the Rowley led Government has been in power now just a few months short of seven years. And yet in that time the only thing that appears to have been done to save the children has been the appointment of several committees. Dr. Rowley's ministers, like Camille Robinson Regis and Ayanna Webster Roy, have tried to say that this Government cares, to which I say: really? But nothing has been done. People who were there yesterday are still there today. Let's not even talk about the millions that have gone down the drain. So? What exactly is being done RIGHT NOW to prevent further abuse? And don't tell me that you are "investigating". 

Mr. Prime Minister, the house is on fire and instead of arguing about who started the fire, use your office to put it out - NOW! We can argue later about who is really to blame. Of course, you needn't bother if you really believe that these kids aren't worth saving. But most right thinking people (including me) think otherwise. ACT NOW! SAVE THE KIDS!!

PRIORITIES

 It would be a joke if the consequences weren't so serious and tragic. In this morning's newspapers Camille Robinson Regis spends her time in castigating Robert Sabga for allegedly doing nothing when he submitted his report on the abuse being suffered by children and alleged that he (Sabga) was "rewarded" for his report by being made High Commissioner to Canada. Of course, the minor fact that the process of appointing a person as an ambassador starts about six months or more before the appointment is actually made is ignored; that and the fact that within a very short time after handing in his report Mr. Sabga was sent to Canada. But somehow it is his (Sabga's) fault that no action was taken and that it is to the credit of this Government that this has come to light now and that they are doing something about it now such as holding meetings and drinking coffee.

But leaving all that aside and assuming (though not accepting) that the goodly lady is right to castigate Mr, Sabga, Mrs. Robinson Regis defends the Government's seeming inaction by saying that a meeting has already been held and actions will be taken and the Prime Minister really cares about the children and , in any case, the wicked and evil UNC sat on its hands for twenty-five years and did nothing about it until the PNM came along.

Oh crikey! This woman can't be serious! First question: in the last twenty-five years who has been in power and when? Did the PNM at any time know about the report? Didn't the good lady herself refer to it in Parliament, or is the Hansard wrong?

Next question: what is the Government doing NOW to save the children who (it seems) are STILL being abused up to today as you read this?

You see, it is as if a house is on fire and the Government instead of trying to put out the fire is appointing a committee to discuss the best ways to put out the fire. The fact that the house is burning down is less important to them than trying to put out the fire. In fact, they seem to think that it is more important to find out who is to blame for the fire in the first place rather than putting it out. And when somebody asks them to put out the fire FIRST and then argue afterwards, that person who made the unreasonable suggestion of putting out the fire first is totally ignored and regarded as some sort of crazy person who doesn't understand how the thing works. If somebody is removed (much less arrested and charged) then, heaven forbid, the whole ugly story might come out and we  (whoever 'we' are) might be blamed for it.

But, the abuse in the children's homes is continuing. And now, twenty-five years later nobody is doing anything about it other than sitting around a conference table and drinking coffee. But the people in charge care. At least, so they say!

CRYING 'KORBAN'

 The Judith Jones report on the continuing abuse of children was laid in Parliament a month ago and NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE.  A few days ago I took a bet with myself that nothing would be done ... and unfortunately it looks as though I will have won (or lost) my bet.  The Guardian is reporting  the Acting Commissioner of Police  today (Thursday 26th May) as saying that  "the investigative team is in the early stage of doing the investigation and yes some persons have come forward and given statements, but have not identified persons within these homes that they can recommend to be removed immediately from the homes, that is ongoing".

Really? So what exactly are the police doing? Because it sounds like they are sitting in their airconditioned offices waiting for people to come to them. It doesn't sound as if they have visited any of the homes in question nor conducted any confidential interviews with any of the victims, nor  does it sound as if the ACP is overly concerned about this. Certainly, there are many who have very, very strong suspicions that children are still being abused. Now, assuming that this is true, what does it say about those whose responsibility it is to put an IMMEDIATE STOP to the abuse? I would use words like monsters, hypocrites, criminals, crooks, selfish and self-centered, dishonest, along with a host of others that are unprintable. But a whole week has passed and nothing has been done! Why? Do you want to bet if some big wig's child was involved that somebody would be in custody by now? Is it that 'little people' don't count? Or is it that children don't vote? Or is somebody high up protecting somebody? What is it? Don't we deserve an answer? My bet with myself is that absolutely nothing will happen.

It is absolutely incredible and most unforgivable that almost two weeks have passed (not to mention twenty-five years) since this scandal exploded into the public consciousness and NOTHING has been done as yet!! What are the names of those who have the responsibility? What are the names (all the names) of the people who work in these homes? What are their positions? Why don't we publicize all the names and then let's see what happens next? 

And it is very wrong that the politicians on both sides continue to throw stones at each other and ignore the festering sores created by the abuse instead of dealing with what is happening now! I am of the view that after we have fixed the problem then we can throw blame at this politician, or that politician, or the other politician. But we need to fix the problem first. This is what is urgent!  And , unbelievably, what seems to be more on the minds of the politicians on BOTH sides is that it is YOUR fault (whoever 'your' might be). Oh crikey, just fix it! You don't argue about who started a fire when it is raging out of control. Your first move is to put it out. After the fire is out then you can argue about whose fault it was. And if the Acting Commissioner of Police can't fix it then get somebody else who can and who will start protecting the children immediately. But let's not be like the pharisee who gets rid of his sins by standing at the gates of the temple and crying 'korban',  because that is exactly what we are doing! And the abuse is not stopping.

TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

In the Sunday Guardian of today (22nd May, 2022) the Acting Commissioner of Police is reported as saying that he only got a copy of the Sabga report on Thursday last (19th May, 2022) and that his "investigation" has begun and he has ordered it to take place within a very short time - three months or less!! To which I can only say a loud 'WHAT'? Three months to "investigate" this report is a reasonable and short time? Before I start to curse, tell me, does anybody reading this believe that children are STILL being abused? Or do you think that the abuse has stopped? 

If (like me) you still believe that children are being abused, do you believe that we should have to wait for another three months for Mr. Jacob to complete his "investigation"? Do you believe that anything will come out of this "investigation"? Do you think that anybody of any significance is going to go to jail for his/her part in this scandal? Or do you believe that Mr. Jacob is simply kicking the can down the road in the hope that it will simply go away as so many scandals have done before? Do you, for example, think that it was reasonable for the Acting CoP to receive the Sabga report only on Thursday 19th May when the scandal erupted with an Express newspaper report some four days earlier on Sunday 15th May? Who was supposed to send it to him? And why did it take FOUR days to be sent? Is this what we call in this country "acting with dispatch"? 

Why does everybody that I talk to believe that nothing will happen? Why does everybody that I talk to believe that the abuse of children is still going on in these homes? Why is the Acting CoP dragging his heels over this one? In any case, why is this 25 year old report now being "investigated", seemingly for the first time, by the police? Why?

There are too many questions and too many obvious 'cover-ups'. But nobody is asking the hard questions. I guess they just don't want the hard answers. So Trinidad & Tobago will continue with no accountability for or by the well-connected. And nobody will be blamed for anything. And as for the children? Well, they simply will never get justice in this life. You can be sure of that!

THE SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS: TO BOYCOTT OR NOT TO BOYCOTT

 

I would have a lot more sympathy with those who are calling (rather loudly) for a boycott of the Summit of the America's  if Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are not allowed to attend or are not invited. You see, these three countries are ruled by bloody and ruthless dictatorships, and if the Summit of the America's is to mean anything, those loudly calling for a boycott should also be calling for these three countries to become proper democracies and to free their peoples from the nasty boots of the dictators. But the critics of the Americans are keeping very silent on this point ... which, at the end of the day, is the only point.

You can't have it both ways: either you are about freedom and justice for everybody or you are not. It is very easy to sit in your comfortable, airconditioned office and drink coffee and criticize the evil United States and then jump on a plane for Miami to enjoy the so-called evils of the world's strongest democracy and go shopping or whatever else you might want to do. 

It is very easy to criticize the Americans. They are far from perfect, make a lot of mistakes, and at the end of the day they are really about their own interests. But the fact is that however bad you might think that they are and whatever sins you might wish to ascribe to them (of which they are probably and more than likely guilty) the fact is that if given a choice of whether to live in the States or, say, Cuba, you will ten times out of ten opt for America. Nobody wants to live in a dictatorship (unless you are the dictator.

But those who are so loudly critical of the USA keep amazingly silent on the ills of the brutal regimes that are inflicting so much misery on their citizenry and they certainly don't want to live in any of those places where their citizens have been fleeing in the millions. 

 And it is clear that what is sauce for the goose simply isn't sauce for the gander. I would be in favour of admitting the Cubans et al to the Summit, BUT I would in the next breath demand that all those who are threatening a boycott in the name of freedom apply that sentiment to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela and criticize them as fiercely as they are now criticizing the United States. Any bets that the critics will say absolutely nothing about the lack of freedom in these countries?

And although it is not a "big thing" for most people who live in this part of the world, it is a big thing for those unfortunate enough to have to live in those countries because they have absolutely no choice. But you don't see that in the headlines, do you? Talk about dishonesty and hypocrisy!!

RE-OPENING THE SCHOOLS NOW

 It is not often that I think that the Rowley Government has done something right, but when evidence seems to point to them doing so, it is only right and proper that we acknowledge that they have done so. What I am talking about is the decision to reopen schools for the last two months of the school year. I have seen arguments, which quite frankly tended to sway me in their favour, that it would have been better to reopen the schools in September. The argument in essence was that re-opening them now was placing an unnecessary hardship on the parents as far as finance was concerned and that the kids could simply continue to learn online as they have been doing for what feels like an eternity. The children, so the argument goes, would not be suffering any great loss if they continued with the online learning for two more months.

But (and here it comes) a recent study in the United States conducted over a two year period showed that approximately twenty percent of those students who attended in person classes for most of the last (2020 - 2021) school year lost about twenty percent of their maths skills. BUT students who stayed home fared much worse:  they lost about fifty percent of their maths skills over the same period.

Now, I'm fairly certain that despite what anyone says now, that no such study has been done in T&T and that those in charge did not know about this study.. But it is not unreasonable to assume that the results of the American study will and can apply to other countries. This means that whether by design (which is most unlikely based on this Government's past performance) or happy circumstance they were right to reopen the schools now. And if that is the case, we should all applaud that particular decision whether we were lucky or not. It stands to reason that the sooner we can get the kids back in class the better if you accept the results of the study. 

And at the end of the day, what we all should be concerned about is what is best for the children. And whether or not the Rowley Government knew about this or they didn't know is irrelevant. It certainly appears from the American study that re-opening as quickly as possible is/was best for the kids. We can indulge in pendanticism when the election comes around. Until then let's 'give Jack his jacket'. Re-opening as soon as possible was the right decision for the children. Next point! Because we should be primarily concerned with what is best for the children. everything else is just fluff. Stick to the point and you will understand the problem. 

THE (RATHER TRAGIC) FAILURE OF THE PEOPLE'S PARTNERSHIP

 

The People's Partnership was a formidable political project, but it never won real political power. In my view, it failed on its own terms to build a new Trinidad And Tobago. It was a good move, a clever move that sought , on the surface at least, to bring everybody together and to end the awful race war that we have been suffering from since the infamous "recalcitrant minority" speech of what feels like a million years ago. Let's call a spade a spade: if you are Black/African you are expected to vote for the PNM; if you are Indian you are expected to vote for the UNC and it has been that way at least since 1961 and before.

But the PP  (People's Partnership) Government was dominated by the Indian UNC and within a very short time afterwards most people felt that it had betrayed the sentiment of yearning for a better and more equitable State in which the only thing that mattered was whether you were a citizen or not, and not your race. The PP Government did a lot of good things. Certainly, they proved to be far better managers of the economy than Dr. Rowley's Government, even on it's best days, has proven to be. But the PP Government failed to deal with a press that was always biased in favour of the PNM nor did it succeed in a fairer or more equitable distribution of wealth. It's relations with the trade unions could have been better and there was always the lingering scent of corruption. To be fair, most people also believe that this present PNM Government is also very corrupt, but that is another story. And the argument that "you t'ief more than me'  or 'dem is more corrupt' (whoever 'dem' might be)  is also irrelevant to this post.

The PP Government failed to democratize the civil service  so that it would operate more fairly and (perhaps more importantly) be SEEN to operate more fairly. Old systems that allowed any manner of ills (ranging from nepotism to corruption and everything in between) were left untouched and those that the PP Government did try to tackle were not changed enough so that when the PNM came back to power it was 'business as usual' all over again.

Real political power comes from having the support of a majority of the people. The PP Government lost that support very early on in it's tenure. Perhaps it was the fault of the non Indians in the Cabinet who having no real political following of their own and riding on the back of the country's urgent, but badly articulated desire to create a better place, got 'high on their own supply' and behaved as though they themselves were so very important? 

Whatever the cause was, the fact is that fairly soon after their victory it became apparent to the population that the PP Government was really a UNC Government in a not very good disguise. And this is definitely not what people voted for.

So? Where are we today? We have on the one hand  a Government that only the most rabid and/or racial persons think or believe or can argue it to be competent and on the other hand we have an Opposition that has retreated back to its racial base. And then we have an incompetent and biased media that fails dismally either to ask relevant questions or to report the facts of what is going on at any particular time. Then we have a most incompetent Commissioner of Police who appears to be under the control of the politicians ("appears" being the operative word in that sentence) and under whose watch violent crime has been rising seemingly uncontrollably.

But most people whether they are Black or Indian want things to change. Most people want to see an end to the racial divide and most people are desperately hoping that a 'knight in shining armor' will come and save them. The truth is that most people are not racist and do not buy into the racial claptrap that is spewed forth not so surreptitiously on both sides. At the moment, both sides are simply appealing to their respective African or Indian bases. The UNC is hoping that enough of those on the fence will 'smell the coffee' and return them to power and the PNM is praying that despite the multiple screwups so far, that enough of their base will hold to keep them in power and that people will forget how bad things really are. 

Does this mean that we shouldn't try again? No. It simply means that the PP Government failed but it's cause and the sentiments behind it's formation were both noble. We should try again ... and again, until we get it right!