FIXING CRIME

 UNC politicians tend to treat it as an established fact: when PNM is in power crime rises; when UNC is in power crime falls, But party rule does not drive crime. Crime tends to rise when the economy is doing badly and falls when it is doing well.

This doesn't mean that PNM leadership drives crime per se nor does it necessarily lead to more crime. To put it another way, UNC politicians are misrepresenting our country's crime problem. That also doesn't mean that they are entirely wrong in what they are saying. It just means that focusing on crime by itself is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic problem. And, I'll say it again, the basic problem is that the country's economy has tanked. Almost (but not quite) everybody is worse off today than they were at the beginning of the Rowley regime. 

The truth is that there are a few (very few) people who are better off today than they were eight years ago. The truth also is that crime worldwide tends to be higher in urban areas than in country areas and in the cities and towns there tends to be a greater African population than in Indian areas which are largely in the country areas. That is why the general perception that most of the criminal element is largely African rather than Indian. But that is not the whole story.

Poverty and race play a major part in crime. But also affecting the problem is access to guns - which, apparently, is very easy. I am aware that  not a few UNC supporters will read this post and think that I am making excuses for the PNM. Far from it. Crime is a complicated issue driven by the economy, social issues, personal disputes, drugs and almost every other issue. And while a few issues can make a big difference partisanship is not one of them, I believe that fixing the economy is THE major issue, just not the only one.

No. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and the first step here is to define ALL of the problems and to put down clearly and succinctly the solutions to each one. If this has ever been done, I am unaware of it. Remember always: 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.

P.S. Happy Independence Day

THE DUTIES OF NEWSPAPERS

 It is striking, to say the least, how the three daily newspapers are failing to describe to their readers - who count on them and often pay them - in clear eyed terms what is going on in the country and fail completely to remind their readers about what ought to be important to our democracy. Take, for example, what can loosely be described as the Brent Thomas affair.

The reported facts are that Mr. Thomas had been charged with dealing in arms and ammunition illegally. Now these are serious charges, especially given the high incidence of violent crime. However, there seems to have been no restriction on Mr. Thomas who was out on bail. Now, bail is a common law right based on the principle that unless and until a man is found guilty of a crime his freedom cannot or ought not to be restricted.

Mr. Thomas, however, was arrested in Barbados by a combination of Trinidadian and Barbadian police and brought back to Trinidad. The problem here is that there was no warrant of extradition and the Trinidadian police had obviously gone to great lengths to bring Mr. Thomas back. They had even commandeered a special plane owned by the State for this purpose. 

This raises the rather obvious question as to who made this order to have Mr. Thomas arrested and brought back and why were the proper channels (such as obtaining an extradition warrant) not complied with? The erstwhile Commissioner of Police promised that there would be an investigation into what happened and why and that a report would be made in two weeks. This promise was made on the 17th May - more than three months ago! And yet, there hasn't been a single solitary peep out of the media! Nada! Nothing! Its as though it never happened and that page has passed. And meanwhile?

And yet it did happen! Why is this important? Because the facts - which are probably very uncomfortable- need to be spelled out and exposed. Who ordered this illegal action? Who got the Barbadian authorities to comply? Who in Barbados participated in this illegal act? Is any politician involved either here, or in Barbados, or both? If so, who? Why has no report ever been made? Why has the media seemingly dropped this matter? Why can't we (the general public) know what happened here.

Either the country's media lack the understanding of how serious this matter is or they lack the spine to investigate this properly, or both. Neither of these options is particularly comforting given the current state of this country's politics. Ignoring uncomfortable truths affect our democracy  in all sorts of terrible ways. Put another way, the country is not being served very well by its media and our very democracy is at risk as a result. Unfortunately, there are many other examples of the newspapers not doing their job.

Perhaps the best way to describe the duties of a newspaper was written by a man called C.P. Scott who published the following in the Manchester Guardian on theb6th May, 19328:

           "The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly and its first duty is to shun the                 temptations of 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."

QUESTIONS

 On May 17th 2023 the Commissioner of Police promised an investigation and a report on the Brent Thomas affair. Readers will recall that Mr. Thomas had been charged with possession of illegal firearms and had travelled to Barbados where he was arrested by Barbadian police and brought back to Trinidad by Trinidadian police on a plane especially hired/commandeered by Trinidadian police for the express purpose of carrying out this act. The problem was that the arrest in Barbados was done without a warrant. In other words, no Court whether here or in Barbados had given the police any authority to extradite Mr. Thomas.

Put another way, on the face of it the T&T police appear to have acted illegally.

Now, today marks exactly three months from the date when our erstwhile Commissioner of Police promised a report on this matter "within two weeks". Well, in most people's minds two weeks is  a lot shorter than three months. So? What could the reason (or reasons) be for this delay? Incompetence? That is possible. Indeed, that would probably be the kindest reason. Because it is not beyond the bounds of speculation that some senior person, either in the Police Force or in politics, has indicated that the matter be quietly swept under the carpet so that everybody will simply forget about it.

Assuming (though certainly not accepting) that this second possibility is the real reason that nothing has been done, that would be a most worrying conclusion as it would mean quite clearly that a certain person or persons  can act with complete impunity and break the law whenever he/she/they feel like it.

The fact that the print media has not followed up on this suggests that the affair might have political overtones. While this is by no means certain, assuming (though again not accepting) that this is so, then the question should be what politician had been so offended by Mr. Thomas that he/she would have wanted him to be so punished and humiliated? Alternatively, who in the police service might have had something to gain by this? There are too many questions arising out of this matter, and all the reasonable answers that one might think of relating to this are very ugly. Indeed, there are a lot more questions that could be asked that haven't been asked here, but the basic question is why? Why did the police do what they did?

T&T's BEST PRIME MINISTER?

 

I ran a very unscientific poll last week. I listed all of our Prime Ministers (including the present one) and asked several of my clients who did they think was the best. (I didn't ask why they thought so, though I should have). To my somewhat very mild surprise, Mr. Manning came in first followed extremely closely by Mr. Panday. (One point separated them.) Unsurprisingly (to me at least), Dr. Rowley was at the bottom of everybody's list. But that wasn't good news for Mrs. Persad Bissessar as she was not very far ahead of Dr. Rowley., though she did rank ahead of ANR Robinson who came in second to last.

For everyone's information here are the results of MY poll (which is MOST unscientific): Mr. Manning came first followed very closely by Mr. Panday; next came Dr. Williams then Mr. Chambers and then came Kamla followed by ANR Robinson and finally Dr. Rowley. I noticed that most people tended to put their ethnic differences aside when confronted with my poll. I tried to run it by trying to include as many ethnicities as possible in (very roughly) the same percentages as there exist in the general population. But I probably asked more genuinely independent voters than  really exist percentagewise. Just about everybody that I asked said almost immediately that Dr. Rowley was definitely the worst before they went on to list their preferences.

I was mildly surprised at how low Dr. Williams came relatively speaking. (He came third way behind Messrs. Manning and Panday). But I put that down to the fact that he was Prime Minister a long time ago and few people really remember him. I am very aware that I have no experience or knowledge in how to conduct a proper poll and don't offer my results  as any sort of definitive statement. But I thought that it was an interesting question and so decided to share it with you. So, the question is: who do YOU think was the best Prime Minister Trinidad and Tobago has ever had? I'm not asking why you think so, because I didn't ask it in my "poll". But why you come to your conclusion might be interesting, no?

REFORMING THE CONSTITUTION - Part Two

 

I had promised to set out my ideas for reforming the Constitution as I tend to look with a great deal of scorn upon those who just criticize but do not put forward their own solutions. The premise that I have based my ideas on is that I am looking for a way to give more power to the ordinary person in controlling his/her life, and therefore controlling the politicians.

Looking at the various systems in place around the world, I have come to the conclusion that there is really no need to 'reinvent the wheel'. With  a few tweaks here and there the American system could work very well for us and achieve my goal of controlling the politicians. Let me explain:

There are 41 constituencies in the country (39 in Trinidad and 2 in Tobago). What if we divided each seat in two and abolished local government. Why do we need so many local councils in any case? The mayor of Miami presides over about 4 times as many people that we have in a land area that is roughly twice as large as ours! We could the elect (let's call them) Congressmen who would face the polls on a given day once every two years. The Congressmen would have all the responsibilities of the present local councils (garbage collection, etc.) but because they would be in Parliament they would have a modicum of control over their own budgets. And because they are only elected for two years if anyone doesn't perform to the satisfaction of the voters then he/she can be bundled out of office fairly quickly.

But because two years is a very short time we could have, say 41 Senators who would serve for six years in the original constituencies. But  one third of the Senators would face the polls every two years. So (to use a rather ridiculous example) if as a Senator I campaigned for a new law to make all men have to wear green pants, what would you say? When I face the polls this year I go down in a rather ignominious defeat over this stupid green pants issue, which, of course, would not be surprising. In the meantime, as a fellow Senator who will be facing the polls in two years after I have been defeated  and who has been supporting me on this issue (whether it is for loyalty to me or the political Party to which we both belong) seeing my defeat on this issue, you will quietly drop it. In two short years you will certainly not want to lose your seat and therefore would probably abandon it. And guess what? The voting public would have won!

I would have an executive President elected once every four years and a Cabinet that was appointed by the President but which would have to be approved by the Senate.

This system (which is basically the American system) admittedly has its flaws. We are witnessing some of them right now with Trump's refusal to accept his defeat and his appealing to the baser instincts of the American people. But, as I said in the beginning, we can 'tweak' it to suit us. Certainly, it would be better than what we have now which is (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) an effective dictatorship punctuated once every five years with democracy.

You realize, of course, that this proposal would effectively eliminate much of the powers of a prime minister under our present system. This proposal as a result will, more than likely, never see the light of day.

TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT REFORMING THE CONSTITION

 

If somebody came down to Trinidad today from another planet he would be forgiven for believing that a general election campaign was in progress and not just a local government election. On both sides there is a clear discussion of national issues (crime, the economy, corruption, etc.) but there is little or no discussion about local issues. To be fair, there have been some minor criticisms about the state of the roads and the potholes that litter all of the country's roads, but other than that there has been nothing. We have all heard the criticisms of the leadership of the two main parties and some have even tried to turn this local government election into a referendum on who is more popular - Kamla or Rowley.

Perhaps it is time to start thinking AND talking seriously about constitutional reform. Seriously. Why do we have Local Government? All the councils are effectively under the control of the Minister of Finance, who is effectively under the control of the Cabinet, which is effectively under the control of the Prime Minister, who is effectively a law unto himself/herself. So? Why do we, for example, have a Port of Spain City Council or  a Siparia Borough Council? 

And if it is true that there is ONLY ONE reason for politics and Government: to make life better for the people - then why is it that most people when they go to the polls, simply vote for exchange rather than real and substantial change? What are the substantial PHILOSOPHICAL differences between the PNM and the UNC - apart from the belief that this one or that one 't'iefes' more?

Again, for example, in the last debate on procurement in both the Senate and the House of Representatives NOBODY, not even any of the Independent Senators, provided any clear and workable solutions that could effectively help to stem corruption. I challenge anybody to tell me in clear and simple terms what  an outside observer would say on listening to the debate in Parliament as to what the differences in PHILOSOPHY are on this issue between the PNM and the UNC. I tried and failed. Essentially, the debate boiled down to 'stealing is wrong and we're against it'. And that was it! From all sides!

It is now definitely and absolutely clear that our present Westminster-type constitution just ain't working. Put another way, if something were to happen tonight that eradicated and destroyed everything so that when we woke up we had to start from scratch would you be happy to put the exact same system back or would you want to do something else? Most people vote for the 'something else' option. But we are not doing that!

Because I tend to be scornful of people who just criticize and provide no solutions of their own, in my next post I will give my ideas as to how the Constitution should be changed. Here's a teaser: abolish local government. I'll say why I think so and with what and how I would replace it. In the meantime, do you have any ideas? Or are you satisfied with what we have?

THE BANKS AND THE POLITICIANS

 If there is one sector of the business community in dire need of reform it is the banking and financial sector. In developed countries like Canada and the United States there is serious bank legislation that effectively prevents collusion and and absolute control of an individual's finances. For example, if money is sent to you from abroad very often the bank will charge you the same amount as it cost the person who sent it. Why? What cost has the bank actually incurred for receiving YOUR money? Answer: none! But it is a nice way to make an extra buck, isn't it?  Do you know that if the banks did what they are doing down here in, say, Canada, that the directors would all go to jail? But, dream on! That ain't gonna happen here. 

Again, if you have a mortgage which you have paid off in full, the bank has to execute a release of that mortgage which has to be registered. Now, tell me, in whose interest is it to have this release done? Yours, right? but if you get your lawyer to prepare the release the bank will send it to THEIR lawyer for approval. And YOU have to pay their lawyer for this service. Why? Why should the bank care if your lawyer made a mistake on the title to your land? They've got back all of their money with interest! So if they want to hire a lawyer for that, shouldn't that be  for their account?

These are just two examples of how the general public is being ripped off every day by these greedy dogs. But the list goes on and on. Why was it so very easy for my son in University in Canada to open a bank account there before he started attending the school but down here you have to jump through hoops in order to open an account? Why do we have to provide all kinds of personal information when we want to do some business through a bank down here? And don't tell me that its because of the Financial Institutions Act (FIA). Other countries have the equivalent legislation but they don't make it difficult for the general public. So? Why? Why are the lines so long at the bank? They don't exist in the big countries.

A local government election is coming up next month. But neither of the two main political parties are putting forward any proposals to make life better and easier for the people. Instead, it is clear that money talks. Bank profits have gone up in this guava season but not one politician has asked why! Why haven't the politicians tackled this? Isn't the only reason for government is to make life better for all of us? Who is going to make our lives better? What EXACTLY are they promising? and yet, we continue to vote for them and the banks continue to rip us off secure in the knowledge that neither side will interfere with their conduct which is downright criminal.

ARE YOU BETTER OR WORSE OFF THAN YOU WERE 8 YEARS AGO?

 At the end of the day, self-interest is the biggest motivator of all. Wouldn't it be great if that statement was true? Unfortunately, like so many things  in this country it is heavily nuanced by external factors. Take the coming elections on August 14th for example: if you are better off under the PNM then you can be expected to vote for that Party. If you are worse off then you can be expected to vote for the UNC. That is why I used the word "unfortunately", because things are not necessarily what they might seem.  Many PNM voters feel worse off under the Rowley regime but the available evidence suggests that they are not ready to decamp 'en masse' but instead will voice their displeasure by simply not turning out to vote.

You might think that this then would be a great time to be a supporter of the UNC. After all, your Party should win. But this is far from being a 'done deal' for Kamla and her supporters. There is a great deal of rumbling and discontent in the ranks of the UNC (although  it seems that the discontent is not as high as with Dr. Rowley). In addition, that crucial element in T&T politics, the swing voters, do not seem to be enamored with either side. A careful reading of the newspapers  shows that the various editors (answering to their bosses, the owners) seem to understand this and are betting that the PNM will survive this election, although it will be a close run thing; closer than it would  or should be if the issue of race was not a determining factor.

Let's face it: the country is (generally speaking) worse off than it was 8 years ago. In any normal political environment, the Government of the day would be blamed unless it was so very obvious that it wasn't the fault of the Government. That's more than a little hard to do when you have been running the show for 8 years ...  because things aren't good at all  Even though it is not being discussed openly, a devaluation with all its adverse consequences is looming on the not too distant horizon. But the PNM certainly appears to be stronger than one might expect and a cursory reading of the newspapers doesn't appear to show much concern about the crashing economy. If anybody can give a reason other than race, I'd love to hear it.

For the record, I understand why the newspaper reporting is as incompetent as it appears to be. The editors have to answer to their bosses ... who are heavily invested in the PNM. Therefore, there is very little 'wiggle room' for these editors, even when they see things going down and crashing all around them. Money talks and you know what walks!! So we come back to the age old question: are you better or worse off than you were 8 years ago? The answer to that question should dictate what you should do. What you will do is  a different story.

ELECTIONS - Both Local and General

 Human beings love arguing. There's something gratifying about pointing arrows and playing devil's advocate. It seems to bring a sense of satisfaction that outweighs the sense of harmony that stems from agreements. Most Trinbagonians are in a tricky mental space, brought about by poverty and huge doses of lies and propaganda that sow hatred, fear and a simultaneous sense of superiority and helplessness.

With the economy in freefall is a UNC general election victory certain?  The short answer to that question is 'no'. There are too many rumours coupled with racist suspicions, accusations and innuendoes from both sides. For example, the very recent resignation and crossing of the floor by this fellow Tabiska Obika. He is a black man who occupied a high position in the UNC until very recently. He resigned his position and immediately declared his support for the PNM barely two months before  a local government election. That a black man would leave the UNC for whatever reason is a big thing and going across to the PNM in the way that he did sends a very clear message: "There is no place in the UNC for anybody who is not Indian." 

Unfortunately, he watered down this news by immediately joining the PNM in a very public way giving rise to rumours that he had been bribed away from his position in the UNC by the PNM who has promised him the mayor's seat in Point Fortin (which, of course, they hope to win in the upcoming local government elections.) Well, it's going to be a very short time  when we will know for certain whether or not Mr. Obika will get any sort of "reward" for his crossing (whether its a mayoralty or otherwise), and if he does then people will draw their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, "back at the ranch" Kamla Persad Bissessar's best chance/hope for the Prime Minister's chair rests on her ability to present herself as a capable, caring technocrat capable of solving the country's economic woes. So far, she has been unable to show to the general public that she indeed has that capability. People look at her team and with only a few notable exceptions, regard them as weak. Unfortunately, the racial division in the country will dictate that if you are an Indian you must vote for the UNC, and if you are an African you must vote for the PNM and ability (perceived or otherwise) is not as important as it should be.

The PNM's big problem in the coming general elections (which are some two years away) is whether or not they can persuade enough of their supporters to come out and vote for them today. Many of their supporters are saying that they are fed up and simply will not vote. With the gerrymandered seats in the Parliament this then should be the UNC's best chance as most of the UNC supporters know that there is a great deal of disillusionment with the PNM at the moment. But all indications are that the local elections that are to be held on August 1th will have a very low poll. The problem that Mrs. Persad Bissessar has, is that the UNC, at the very least, has to ensure that it comes out with the same number of seats that it had going into the election. To this end, control of Sangre Grande's council is crucial. Control of this Council is currently with the UNC, but this is very "iffy" for both sides. If the PNM can take the Council at this time that will be an epic disaster for the UNC. Conversely, if the PNM more or less is able to maintain the status quo that will not be good news for Mrs. Persad Bissessar either. Her detractors (of whom there are many) will say with some justification that if in these bad times the UNC cannot improve it's position then the UNC can never win. In other words, the UNC has to do well in these local elections in order for Mrs. Persad Bissessar to be able to present herself as a credible alternative to Dr. Rowley. 

SHOULD TELEVISION AND RADIO BE ALLOWED IN COURT?

 Looking on with great interest at the circus that is the Donald Trump trial it occurred to me that the bedrock of the criminal judicial system - both in the United States as well as here in Trinidad & Tobago - is that the system is designed so that trials can be held in public. Indeed, anyone can enter a courtroom at nay time during a criminal trial and sit and listen to whatever is going on. But this system evolved over the years long before television - or even radio, for that matter - was ever invented.

So if the 'raison d'etre' of criminal trials includes the fact that we all agree that criminal trials ought to be held in public because we (the public) have an inalienable right to know, then why shouldn't television and radio be allowed in our court rooms? It seems to me that the fact that modern technology has made it possible for us to "attend" an event even though we are not actually physically present, then we should go with the times and allow radio and television into our courtrooms as a matter of course. Naturally, there would have to be some rules about this. For example, the cameras and microphones would have to be static (i.e., not capable of being moved). Also, there would obviously be no commentators allowed inside the courtroom. Obviously, nothing should be done that would create a distraction.

If we all agree that criminal trials should be held in public in keeping with the public's right to know, then there is absolutely no good reason why cameras and microphones should not be allowed. It is only our innate conservatism that prevents us from moving boldly with the times into the twenty first century.

What do you think?

QUESTIONS - PART 2

 I had such a good response to my last post that I thought of some more questions for you to think about. The same rules apply: this is for you only to answer to yourself and nobody else. Here goes:

11) If a crystal ball could tell you the truth about yourself, your life, the future or anything else, what would you want to know?

12) Is there something you've dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven't you done it?

13) What is the greatest accomplishment of your life?

14) What do you value most in a friendship?

15) What is your most treasured memory?

16) If you knew that in one year you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way that you are living? Why?

17) What does friendship mean to you?

18) How do you feel about your relationship with your mother?

19)When last did you cry in front of another person? By yourself?

20) If you were to die this evening without having an opportunity to communicate with anyone, what would you regret most not having told someone? Why haven't you told them yet?

Okay. That's it! Next week I'll go back to discussing politics and the world as I see it. I do hope in the meantime, though, that my questions have helped you a little to think about who you are and about your life. I know that some of the questions as well as the answers may be uncomfortable for you, but if my questions have helped you a little bit to think about who you really are then I will have achieved my goal.

QUESTIONS

 I think that I once read a list of rather interesting questions somewhere (but I can't remember where). But thinking about it again I thought that you might like to answer them to yourself and for yourself only. So, here goes:

1) Given the choice of anyone living or dead in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

2) Would you like to be famous? In what way?

3) What would constitute a "perfect" day for you?

4) When last did you sing to yourself? To someone else?

5) Do you have a secret hunch about how you would die and when?

6) Name three things that you and your partner have in common.

7) For what in your life do you feel most grateful?

8) If you could wake up tomorrow having gained any quality or ability, what would it be?

9) What do you value most in a friendship?

10) If you knew that in exactly one year from today that you would die suddenly, would you change anything about the way that you are living? Why?

I hope that you find these questions interesting. Life ought not to be only about politics.  I thought that these questions were interesting and that you might enjoy them. I'll try and think of some more.

JOINING THE RANKS OF THE INSANE

 I came across this saying from the ancient Roman philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, the other day: "the object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Thinking about the political situation here in Trinidad & Tobago, I felt that this particular saying was most appropriate. This country is dominated by two distinct political tribes. If you are Indian you must vote for the UNC and if you are African you are a traitor to your race if you don't vote for the PNM. And that's it! Punto final!!

There is no discernible philosophical difference between either of the two parties. You can't say that one is better than the other in anything - except perhaps on the issue of corruption, and even there you will find members of both tribes saying that "they" are more corrupt than "mine". But I challenge anybody to lay out clearly and concisely exactly how the two parties differ from each other in policy. Both say that they are better at governance than the other and both cite all kinds of statistics, whether true or false, to justify whatever issue they might be on at the moment.

But in the meantime, the average citizen is suffering. Crime has reached unprecedented levels of violence and our economy is crashing. Haiti has shown that there is no "bottoming" out for a country, The descent is unending and things simply get worse. Put another way, there is no brighter tomorrow on the horizon.

Why do I say this? Take, for example, the latest imbroglio for the as yet to be announced Local Government election. (And take note that the Privy Council ruling on this matter was more than 10 days ago at the time of writing this post.) In other words, it is not unreasonable to assume that "things" are being put in place to ensure a certain result at the polls before the election is called. The Leader of the Opposition has called for international observers for the upcoming poll. Isn't it reasonable to assume that a Government committed to the Rule of Law would have reacted and obeyed immediately?  The Prime Minister says that it is insulting to us as an independent nation to have independent international observers, despite the fact that HE made a similar call at the 2015 general elections, which, incidentally, his party won. So? Why is the call insulting today when he is in power but it wasn't yesterday when he was not? Because he would never cheat at elections and the UNC would?

As we like to say in this country, you can't play mas' and  'fraid powder. And if the Leader of the Opposition really believes that there is a real possibility that there might be cheating, then SHE can invite international observers here. But she hasn't done that  - at least, not yet - and she hasn't threatened to do so. Why not?

And finally, the media is simply avoiding calling these two leaders to account. Why not? Isn't this something of importance to the country? And we are quietly putting up with all of it! And you say that we are not finding ourselves in the ranks of the insane?

DICTATORSHIP ANYONE?

Looking at the present political landscape in Trinidad & Tobago many people have expressed the fear that we are heading the same way as Venezuela did under Chavez and Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) and we soon will be under the crushing heels of untrammeled dictatorship. Certainly, there are rather disturbing signs that this may be so. For example, the recent Judgement concerning Brent Thomas who was arrested in Barbados and brought back to Trinidad without a warrant of extradition and the rather strange defence being put out in the public space that he was involved in rather nefarious criminal activities as justification for this action although no evidence was ever led in Court about these alleged "criminal activities". Whatever happened to the old adage: it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang?

 Then there is the rather blatant attempt to interfere with the democratic process by postponing local government elections for more than a year and (so far) refusing to acknowledge that the matter has been dealt with by the country's highest court and that should be the end of that. Instead we have had no less than the country's Attorney General saying in effect that the Government was not wrong because five judges agreed with him (the AG). It didn't matter that the system dictates that the decision of the highest court is the one that counts. Instead it seems that the decision of the highest court is only valid when the Government agrees with the verdict! And the list goes on.

But the question is: are we on the road to a dictatorship? And the answer is that there are certain signs that we are indeed heading in that direction. There are still some judges who fiercely fight for their independence, but certain judgements falling from certain judges are not only clearly wrong, but carry with them the appearance of being heavily biased towards one side or the other.  It is becoming so that one can almost predict which way a decision on a constitutional matter will go until it reaches the Privy Council. And whether it is true or not some judicial decisions seem more to be based on race than on law, at least, that is the perception. And in politics perception is reality.

And if that wasn't bad enough we are witnessing the death of truly independent journalism. Independent journalism insists on showing us what we learn - fully and fairly - regardless of whom it may upset or what the political consequences might be. Independence calls for plainly stating the facts. And it calls for carefully conveying ambiguity and debate in the more frequent cases where the facts are unclear or their interpretation is under reasonable dispute, letting readers grasp and process uncertainty for themselves. Somebody once said comment is free but facts are sacred. And we get a lot of comment masquerading as fact from our newspapers.  But a free and independent press is an absolute requirement for a democracy.

Put another way, if we are indeed heading towards a dictatorship like Venezuela then the newspapers are helping greatly in that regard. They are neither truthful nor neutral. Drawing false moral or factual equivalence is neither objective nor truthful. You can also ask (if you think that Maburro is such a great leader or that a dictatorship is not necessarily a bad thing) why has approximately one third of Venezuela's population of some thirty million people fled that unfortunate country. 

AWARDING SILK

 A big thing in the newspapers this morning has to do with the awarding of the title 'senior counsel' to a group of 18 lawyers, which group includes both the President's brother and her husband. The title of 'senior counsel' is meant to be a recognition that the lawyer who receives 'silk' (as it is sometimes called because the robes that lawyers wear in Court are made of cotton, but the robes of senior counsel are supposed to be made of silk) and entitles the lawyer to charge more for his/her fees.

Let me deal with the nepotism charges first: I don't know the President's brother, Collin Kangaloo, but I have had a professional acquaintance with her husband, Kerwyn Garcia. In my opinion Mr. Garcia is a good lawyer and deserving of the title 'senior counsel'; I don't know the President's brother at all and therefore cannot comment fairly on his abilities as a lawyer or lack thereof. But I do know the Kangaloo family from San Fernando and although I don't agree generally with their politics I do believe that they are honourable people. And if a senior counsel is supposed to be honourable then certainly on this score Mr. Kangaloo qualifies.

The problem comes in because of their relationship with or to the President of Trinidad& Tobago. There is a not unreasonable perception that their being awarded silk has something to do with their relationship with her. That this perception is most unfair to the goodly gentlemen is a given. They shouldn't have to turn down an award just because of birth or a marriage that took place a long time ago. And yet the perception lingers whether it is fair or not or true or not. And in the world of politics perception is reality.

The problem really comes in because (despite how some might choose to dress it up) the fact is that there is only one person who really appoints silk - and that is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. If he/she decides that a person should or shouldn't be awarded with the accolade then that person will (or will not) get it. Full stop! So nobody can get silk if the Prime Minister says 'no'. And anybody can get silk if the Prime Minister wants that person to get the award. And no explanations need to be given.

In other Commonwealth countries they have dealt with this by removing the politicians from the process and having the appointment being made by a non political committee (appointed either directly or indirectly by the politicians - but at least they recognize the problem).

I tend to prefer the American system where a lawyer's worth is measured by his/her reputation and nothing else. The Americans have even done away with the anachronistic and colonial robes that our lawyers have to wear. Let's face it: there are some silks who have done nothing in their legal careers to get this award and there are others, who because they have offended a Prime Minister whether deliberately or not, will never get it. The reputations of these attorneys are irrelevant. Put another way, the appointment of senior counsel is heavily tied into politics. Oh! Sometimes a lawyer from the Opposition might be appointed if only so that a Prime Minister can pretend that he/she is not politically biased. but when last did you see a prominent  Opposition lawyer being appointed as a senior counsel?

Let me put it another way: ALL judges in our jurisdiction are lawyers. I am not aware that any of them have ever been awarded the title of senior counsel. But is it right that a person who is a senior counsel should have to bow before a person who is not? In other words, you are smart enough to be a judge and sit in judgement but you are not good enough to be a silk! What's wrong with this picture? If you are good enough to be made a judge surely you are good enough to be made a senior counsel?

But when that happened a few years ago with no less a person than the present Chief Justice there was a hue and cry resulting in the Chief Justice returning the award!

Then again, the head of the country's Bar is the Attorney General. If a lawyer is good enough to be the Attorney General surely he/she is good enough to be made silk on his/her accession to office. Actually, I think that any person who becomes Attorney General should automatically take silk. But when that happened with Mr. Anand Ramlogan  a big fuss was made. (The fact that Mr. Ramlogan has since demitting office proven time and again that he definitely is senior counsel material has been rather conveniently ignored by his former critics.) Let me put it to you this way: the first row of desks in an open Court is specifically reserved for senior counsel. You aren't supposed to sit there if you are not silk. So if you are the Attorney General of the country and therefore head of the Bar but you don't have silk you can't sit in the first row even though you are head of the Bar! But a person that YOU helped to be made a silk yesterday can sit in the first row and you have to sit behind him/her.

It is time that we cut the remaining ties to our former colonial masters and become truly independent. We should stop trying to mimic them and to act like pseudo Englishmen. We are not. We are Trinbagonians and should be proud of who we are. I agree that we should stand and bow to the judge when he/she walks into the Court. That is not only good manners but respect that the office deserves. I don't agree with calling judges "my lord" or "my lady" and prefer the American "your honour". But I'm going off topic here.  Left to me I would abolish the title of 'senior counsel' or 'silk'. It adds nothing to the justice system and sometimes even causes divisions where there ought to be none. And sometimes it can even cause unintended damage to a person's reputation.