CROOKS AND MOOKS?

We are constantly bombarded with political promises that promise dramatic life improvement for us and/or relief from our troubles. These promises all come to us saying in essence that "if you vote for me/us then productivity will improve and you will live a happier life". In short, the promise is in one word - Nirvana. We also get pundits telling us that we will be better off if we vote for X instead of Y. Sometimes these pundits give us their reasoning - which is often faulty, but in the end simply goes back to the promises of Nirvana.

Don't buy it!

I was reminded of these promises and pundits this morning when I saw a newspaper article that reported a very prominent former (now retired) banker, Ron Harford, whose opinions I have always respected. Mr. Harford was reported as saying that if you have a choice in voting for a crook or a mook, then it is better to vote for the crook. Now, I can understand his reasoning: while you can be fairly certain that the crook will steal, the mook simply won't have any idea on how to fix things and because of his/her inefficiencies,  inabilities and total incompetence, the mook will simply make things worse. The crook, on the other hand, while stealing, will probably do somethings right, and therefore we will all benefit - not as much as could if the crook wasn't a crook, but still we would get some benefit. The erstwhile Mr. Harford did not identify anybody who he thought might be a crook or a mook.

So, in keeping with the erstwhile Mr. Harford's non-identification of anybody, I have only one question for him: what if the crook is also a mook?

THOSE FOREIGN TRIPS

 I have said it over and over again: there is only one reason for politics - only one reason for Governments : to make life better for the people! Full stop! There is no other reason!

So when Dr. Moonilal told his political supporters that following a Freedom of Information request it was revealed that between 20th September 2020 and 29th February 2024 - a period of a little over 3 years and 5 months -  the Prime Minister, the erstwhile Dr. Keith Christopher Rowley, had spent $10.6 million on foreign travel a reasonable question that needs to be answered is what benefit or benefits did Trinidad & Tobago get out of all these trips? There are some rather obvious supplementary questions such as how much money did T&T make on this $10.6 million investment, and who in the society  (apart from Caribbean Airlines which I presume is what the  Prime Minister travelled on) benefitted directly from these trips? Who benefitted indirectly from these trips? Indeed, did anybody in the country benefit from these trips? And if so, who and how did he/she benefit? What exactly was the return on our investment of more than $10 million?

You see, I consider myself reasonably well informed as to what is going on on T&T but I really can't say what tangible benefits were received by the country - whether in cash or otherwise - that might justify such a huge travel bill. And I certainly don't know who benefitted from these trips. Of course it is always possible that the country or some persons did benefit from these expensive trips. It is just that nobody seems to have answered (or even asked until now) the very basic questions. Isn't it time that our political leaders (on BOTH sides) account to us for everything that they say or do? Or should we be just content to let them do whatever they want? 

EID MUBARAK

 Eid Mubarak to everybody. On this rather auspicious and most important day, it might be a good time to consider a more rational approach to our public holidays - and Carnival Monday and Tuesday are included in this. You see, there are a lot of holidays that are purely secular (e.g., Indian Arrival Day and Emancipation Day). It is also obvious that certain religious holidays can't be moved (e.g., Today, Eid ul Fitr - which marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan - Divali, and Easter. However, for all the rest - the secular, non-religious ones - why don't we celebrate the holiday on a particular Monday? 

Take, for example, the holiday of Indian Arrival Day which celebrates the arrival of the first Indians in Trinidad; this holiday is on the 30th May in every year. But when the 30th May falls on, say, a Tuesday or a Thursday, the country's productivity is adversely affected as many people make it a true long weekend by taking the Monday or Friday off. 

Now, how many of you have had a birthday fall on, say, a Wednesday but have had a party celebrating your birthday on either the Saturday night before your birthday or on the Saturday night after? In other words, what is important is the celebration which you have  to mark the occasion rather than the actual day itself. And I believe that just about everybody has done this at least once.

The point here is (and continuing with the example of Indian Arrival Day) why don't we have it on, say, the last Monday in May?  Or the first Monday in June? The whole idea of this holiday is to celebrate and honour the first people who arrived here and whose descendants have made a sterling contribution to our society. The honouring of our ancestors will be no less if it is not done on the exact day and will create  for everybody a long weekend.

And, please, I have only singled out one national holiday for the sake of brevity; but the point applies to every other secular holiday.

THE DEATH PENALTY

 With crime on the rise perhaps now is a good time to revisit our laws on the death penalty. So, question: what is the best deterrent for crime? Answer: the fear of getting caught along with the fear of being punished after you are caught, Both of these fears go together because if you get caught and you know that there will be a punishment of some kind then you are more likely not to break the particular law

You can test this hypothesis by looking at the behaviour of drivers when they know that the police are timing people who are speeding. Everybody slows down!

But we have on the books the draconian  death penalty for certain crimes, e.g., murder (although we haven't executed anybody recently). Yet still, despite this penalty, murders are on the rise, so the obvious question is why? The answer is equally obvious: if you commit a murder you have less than a 90 percent chance of being caught (and here I am talking about the "hits" and other similar types of crime and not those related, e.g., to murdering your spouse). And then, if you are caught the justice system is so inefficient that you can spend 10 years or more in jail before your matter comes up for trial and by then some of the witnesses could be dead or forgetful or unreliable. As a result, you get off and then might have a claim against the State for damages for wrongful imprisonment.

No. Our entire justice system needs a major overhaul - beginning with the police. If they can't (or won't) catch the criminals then what good are they? Why do we need them? Then the court system needs to be ramped up so that a person charged with a crime faces the court quickly - e.g., within 3 months, although I think that is probably too long. I mean, how would you feel if you were locked up for 3 months for a crime that you did not commit?

As a person who has had a beloved family member murdered and having full knowledge as to who at least 2 of the killers were (they were never caught or even charged - but that's another story) I know and subscribe unequivocally to the principle of the presumption of innocence - even for my cousin's murders. But, hey, his murderers effectively got away with it because of corruption and inefficiency in the police service.

We cannot bring down the crime rate to any kind of "acceptable" level unless we really tackle the 2 problems that I have highlighted here. Then we can look at the other problems.

RUSHTON PARAY - Part Two

 Since Mr. Paray's announcement last week that he was throwing his hat in the ring for the leadership of the UNC he has rather predictably come under a fierce attack from the supporters of the status quo and the present leader, Mrs. Persad Bissessar. It is almost as though she has indicated that anyone who doesn't openly and vigorously support her will be deemed to be against her and will, as a consequence, lose the chance of sharing in the country's largesse when - they hope - that she becomes Prime Minister again.

The attacks on Mr. Paray have ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, one of the attacks on him is that he used to be a member of the PNM. Unspoken, but clearly intended, the message is that as a result of this he cannot be trusted and a vote for him will obviously be a vote for the PNM. Actually, some sycophants have even gone so far as to articulate that thought.

But those pushing that line have not bothered to say that as the Member of Parliament for the Mayaro constituency Mr. Paray had to go through the party's screening committee - not once, but twice! If this was such a bad thing then what does that say about the screening committee which is under the control of --guess who? - Kamla Persad Bissessar! If this is such a bad thing then does that mean that previous membership in a political party that opposes the UNC is a good reason to bar that person from the leadership of the UNC?  Is that implied in the UNC's constitution? In other words, if you made a mistake once in joining another political party  you always have to pay for it?

But, wait a minute! Didn't Mrs. Persad Bissessar actually not only belong to another political party (the COP) but actually ran against the UNC as a candidate for that party? So? Is this a case of "do as I say but not as I do"?

Of course, it has to be noted that absolutely no evidence - whether real or fabricated - has been produced to support this allegation. But Heinrich Himmler's injunction about 'the bigger the lie the more people will believe it' is what is important here. (For those who don't remember, Himmler was Adolf Hitler's Nazi Minister of Propaganda.)

It would be a nice thing if the UNC (and especially those who support Mrs. Persad Bissessar) would deal with the issues rather than making personal and often baseless attacks. A proper debate on the issues surrounding the leadership is most necessary at this time. And these issues begin and end with the economy. Then we have other issues like health care, the water supply and crime. What are the proposals from Mrs. Persad Bissessar? What are they from Mr. Paray? Who comes across to you as a person who can lead the UNC to victory at the polls? Who has a history of losing?

Is it possible, do you think, to have a calm and rational debate on the issues rather than the hurling of brickbats at those with whose opinions we don't agree with?

P.S. In my last post I misspelled Mr. Paray's name many times. I do sincerely apologize for that mistake.

RUSHTON PARRY

 Rushton Parry has announced that he is going to throw his hat in the ring for the leadership of the UNC. His presentation when making this announcement was free of the usual bombast of politicians, unemotional and was never about himself but all about his country and his political party. I found myself agreeing with him on all of his points and while he made it clear that he was a party man what came across  (to me, at least) was that he cared deeply about his country - which is what politics should be about.

Frankly, I had been looking at the UNC's leadership contest with rather a jaundiced eye. It seemed that although Mrs. Persad Bissessar had already lost twice to Keith Rowley in a general election the UNC membership was determined to make it a hat trick and lose a general election three times in a row! I mean, how many chances should you give someone who keeps losing and has done absolutely nothing to make you feel that she really does have your interests at heart over her own personal ambitions? Why should anyone continue to support someone who, in the face of the worst Government that this country has ever had, has her party running neck and neck with the PNM in terms of popular support?

No. It is clearly time for a change and Mr. Parry's opening salvo in the present UNC leadership contest demonstrates clearly that he could be very good for both his country as well as his party. One can't help nut wonder what will happen if the PNM and Rowley win again! The UNC membership now has a most important choice to make as well as a great opportunity to fix what has gone so dreadfully wrong. Opportunities lost usually never return.

ROWLEY, THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA

 Keith Rowley is stuck in a hard place - between the devil and the deep blue sea. On the one hand he needs to call a general election now. The economic outlook for the country is only going to get worse and if he doesn't go the polls immediately his chances of winning the next elections are just about zero. His chances of winning now (and 'now' means now) are marginally enhanced by the leadership confusion in the Opposition UNC, but if he waits too long even that very, very slight boost will disappear.

On the other hand, he is faced with a highly disillusioned electorate. Recently, the PNM lost the local government elections and in Tobago, despite efforts to gerrymander the last House of Assembly results by increasing the number of seats from 12 to 15, the PNM managed to win only one seat! One wonders if there had been no gerrymandering if PNM would have been totally wiped out?!

But that's another story; what is relevant here is that based on present information Augustin Farley's party will win the two Tobago seats in the House of Representatives. And if the UNC manages to hold on to its 19 seats and the PNM doesn't lose any of its seats in Trinidad- a feat that looks most possible in the present climate - then, hey, presto! PNM loses and Farley becomes a kingmaker with his two seats! Of course, if PNM loses any seats in Trinidad then that will be it! They are out! And this last point looks increasingly possible.

So? Back to Keith Rowley's problem: he can't wait in the hope that things will get better  - they will not - and he will be taking a huge risk if he goes to the polls now. Thinking about it he will very likely wait. While there's life there's hope and he may very likely figure that things could change in his favour tomorrow. I know that I said in an earlier post that it looked as though Rowley was setting up to call an early election. But, hey, I'm entitled to change my mind and I have never pretended to have a crystal ball.  But trying to look at the situation as dispassionately as possible it does seem as though our erstwhile Prime Minister is caught between a rock and a hard place. What will he do? Your guess is as good as mine! There are other matters not in the public domain that , if they become public, could affect an election result, but it isn't likely that this will happen any time soon.

DEALING WITH OUR CRIME PROBLEM - Part Two

 It is abundantly clear that most of the crime - especially the violent crime - is being committed by badly educated young men (together with a few women). Our education system is a mess - the last time it was completely overhauled was by Eric Williams around 1962. Since then successive Governments have tinkered with it  but nobody has had either the courage or the "smarts" to overhaul the system completely. The result has been the massive growth of an underclass who can barely read nor write, but who are smart enough to see that they are cast upon the rubbish heap of life with no way or means of getting ahead except through a life of crime. "Live fast and die young" has become their motto.

Clearly, this is totally unacceptable - or should be - for everybody. But how to fix it? My solution would take about twenty years before we see or feel any benefits. but  the sooner we start the sooner we reach our goal of creating a more just society.

I have heard criticisms of the teachers. In my view these criticisms are unjustified. What I think is that we are woefully underpaying our teachers. I believe that a starting salary for  a teacher right now is in the region of about TT$5,000 per month. Thereafter there is a scale that increases the salaries of teachers with time and experience. I would keep the various grades BUT I would treble the salaries of all qualified teachers now. And for the record, I would consider a teacher to be qualified if he/she held a teaching diploma or certificate and had an undergraduate degree. If a teacher had been teaching for 30 years or more this requirement would be waived. But for everybody else this would be non-negotiable.

Then, in order to get the new salary the teacher would have to agree to certain conditions. First of all, the teacher would have to agree to an annual performance review  based on how effective his/her teaching had been over the last year. If he/she fails this performance review he/she is fired with no severance. I am aware that the teacher's union will not like this at all. My answer would be all the original terms and conditions of the person's teaching job INCLUDING the original salary would apply, but once you take the new salary you give up your rights to the benefits under the original contract of employment and will be governed by the new rules. But "no money, no love" will be the rule and if you want the new salary then you will have to give up something. 

Crime is as a result of a failure of the education system. We simply can't afford not to pay first class salaries if we want to get first class results. Obviously, a young person who has just graduated from high school would not be a qualified teacher. But yet we continue to employ young, unqualified people as teachers and somehow expect our children to learn!?!

Well, this is my idea. Why do I say it will take about 20 years? Because I believe that it will take about that long to effect the changes that are so badly needed. Obviously, what has been set out here are simply the bare bones of the idea. There will have to be a great deal of "fleshing out", but hopefully you have got the basic idea. We need to have a system in place that gives EVERYBODY the belief and the hope that he/she can improve his/her life without resorting to crime. And we don't have that now.

But a better educated population will result in (amongst other things) a better and more effective police force. A better and more educated police force will result in a reduction in crime. The best deterrent for crime is the fear of getting caught and punished. And right now this just ain't happening! Its high time that we create a system based on performance. We simply can't afford to continue on the road that we are on

DEALING WITH OUR CRIME PROBLEM - Part One

 Two boys were born at exactly 1:10am, sixteen years, three months and two days ago. Both boys are black and both boys were their mothers' third child. Both boys are very bright with a natural inborn intelligence. 

 But that is where the similarities end. They were born approximately one and a half miles apart. The first boy was born in am upscale private nursing home while his mother was attended by a private doctor. The second was born in the Port of Spain General Hospital. No doctor was present. The father of the first boy was a lawyer; the mother was a real estate agent with a university degree` in sociology. The mother of the second boy never graduated from High School and doesn't know who is the father of the second boy. While she knows who the father of her first child is, she has no idea who the father of her third child is. She is living off and on with a man who beats her and her previous two children regularly. She hooked up with him just after she became pregnant with the second boy in this story. She too can barely read or write; indeed, she has never read a book in her life. She has had  four more children after the second boy was born - making a total of seven children. The last two were fathered by the same man. The mother of the first boy in our story had no more children after he was born.

The first boy was brought home to an upscale neighbourhood by his proud and loving parents and given the best education that money could buy. The second boy was taken home by his mother to a very poor neighbourhood and more or less left to fend for himself as he grew older. He sometimes went to a public school and barely learned how to read or write. By the time he was eleven he had started to roam the streets at night where he learned how to steal and he learned how to fight. At age thirteen he joined a gang and began his life of crime.

In the meantime the first boy had moved on with his life. His father had promised him that if his grades were good enough and he got into university that the father would buy him a car. The first boy wants to become an engineer. The second wants to have enough money by the time he is twenty-five to be able to buy anything that he wants from a nice house and a luxury car to nice clothes. He also wants to live long enough to enjoy all these things and sometimes in his darker moments rails against the injustice of being born poor and effectively cast upon the rubbish heap of life. He sees quite clearly that his only hope of escape from his present existence is in a life of crime. In any case, he doesn't know how to do anything else.

So, take this story and except for a few changes here and there you will find that most of the crimes being committed in this present crime wave plaguing our country are being committed by boys who are of a similar age (give or take a few years) and a similar background to the second boy in this story. So? What can we do? How can we help?  How can we fix this? That it needs to be fixed is clear. 

Because I tend to look with scorn upon those who see a problem but offer no solutions, I should say that I have an idea on how to fix this, but my idea will take about twenty years to fix - from when we start. In one word that solution is "EDUCATION".  In my next blog I will spell out as clearly as I can what I mean by this.

THE PNM'S MESSAGE

 

The PNM is a master at playing democracy against itself. The party always presents itself - no matter what it does - as representing the will of the people of Trinidad & Tobago. In some ways this trust is justifiable; the PNM has won more general elections and been in power and lasted longer than any other party in the country.

But the playing field is far from even. The PNM has been guilty of gerrymandering and allowing voters to register - even where they are not citizens or don't live in the districts. At the moment the big thing about Venezuelans coming over here is opposed by the party mainly because it is perceived that most of the Venezuelan immigrants do not favour the PNM and are brown - not black. Of course, this was different when the PNM let a lot of people in from the small islands. The PNM also spies on citizens.

The PNM has also learned  how to use the Government to shape and skim public opinion. One example: the Prime Minister's  recent program on all three major networks at prime time "Conversations with the Prime Minister". They have learned how to carefully control the message which is always that the Government represents all but a tiny minority of the people - and the underlying question is whose side do you want to be on? The vast majority, or the troublemakers?

Media freedom has,  until now, been carefully controlled by the PNM. The party has relentlessly squeezed the space for critical voices in the traditional media by getting business cronies to buy up independent media and not sharing and starving the few others of advertising revenue. A classic case in point is the recent shipwreck of that oil barge in Tobago. We still have had no explanation as to why reporting on this took so long - more than a week - to make the national news. Even now  it has become a bit of a 'nine day wonder' and we still don't have the full story. 

The 'canary in the coal mine' responsibility has fallen to social media which is not always exactly reliable - much to the detriment of our society. But the Government has completely failed to give any proper explanation and the traditional media has failed to "hold the Government's feet to the fire" in order that we, the citizenry, can know what happened in that case. 

So? Should we just turn the page and get on with our lives?

ALL THE SIGNS ARE POINTING TO AN EARLY ELECTION

 If anyone paying attention to the political scene was in doubt he/she should take careful note of Dr. Rowley's latest pronouncement on Thursday last (7th March) when he said that elections were "coming soon". The Government-in-waiting (aka the UNC) still hasn't got it's act together and its leader seems to be living in another universe. Dr. Rudy Moonilal and Senator Lutchmedial together with M.P. Rushton Parry are the only ones who seem to be trying to keep the UNC flag flying. But if the others are working they are not being reported, and for any politician that is tantamount to being seen as irrelevant. 

In the meantime Dr. Rowley is continuing with his version of what happened  and why, for example, Petrotrin was shut down. He also said that the UNC was only focused on crime and nothing else. Now, this isn't exactly true. To my knowledge the UNC has criticized the failure of the education system (which by the way is a major cause of the present crime wave - but more on that later), the absolute failure of the country's health care system, the dismal state of the roads with potholes everywhere, along with the lousy state of security in the country. But whose message is getting across? Dr. Rowley's or Kamla's?

But while Dr. Rowley stands head and shoulders above any other politician in the country, the facts just aren't there to support his increasingly wild (and mostly untrue) accusations against the Opposition, nor do the facts support his allegations that his team has done a very good job. Of course he is being ably assisted by the rather obvious incompetence of those holding the leadership reins in the Opposition - and here I am not talking about Mrs. Persad- Bissessar alone. Her entire leadership team is hopelessly and helplessly incompetent, unable to sell an ice cream cone to an eskimo in the desert. They seem to be banking on "vote for us and not the PNM who have dragged the country down" -  not a bad line, but it obviously needs more - much more - if they want to win.

The UNC needs to say how they are going to fix things - and to say it now, over and over again. Politics and Government is ONLY about making YOUR life better. If they can't or won't say that then a reasonable question to ask is what's in it for you? Why should you vote for them (whoever "them" are)?

THE OPENING CAMPAIGN SALVO

 I must confess that I felt as if I had wasted my precious time when I listened to Keith Rowley's "Conversations With the Prime Minister" last night. On the positive side I had to admire his presentation. He is nothing if not an excellent salesman and listening to him, even though I knew that what he was saying was either simply not true or was absolute rubbish, I couldn't help thinking that an uncritical or unthinking listener would have been persuaded that he was doing a good job and that everything that had gone wrong was the UNC's fault. Certainly, I found myself more than half believing and accepting his arguments and had to remind myself constantly that what he was saying was a gross distortion of the facts.

For example, when he touched on the closure of Petrotrin I thought that we might at least have gotten some sort of apology or admission that it was a terrible mistake. Instead he brushed it off by saying in essence that it was in the country's interest that the company was closed down and rather conveniently ignoring the GTL project and the fake oil scandal which had been exposed immediately before and had saddled Petrotrin with billions of dollars in debt. Also he rather conveniently ignored the fact that some 10,000 workers had lost their jobs but that the persons responsible  for that disaster had gotten away Scot free and that there has never been any type of public  (or even private) accounting for what had happened. Nobody (except the taxpayers) has ever had to pay for that mess.

On another note he placed the blame for the delay in the implementation of the Property Tax squarely on the UNC and even had his erstwhile Finance Minister give a (rather garbled) `explanation of how the UNC had screwed things up.

Again, while he has to be admired for his salesmanship, unfortunately for him, the facts and matters about which he spoke do not quite line up with what he was trying to pitch. 

But all that will be for the UNC to deal with. What I want you to notice is that his presentation clearly resembled an opening salvo in the looming election campaign. The fact that he used his Prime Ministerial office to make that presentation (and presumably not pay for the prime time on the 3 major television networks) is something that should be carefully noted and put in the back of your mind. How Mrs. Persad Bissessar will deal with this, is, of course, another matter. But it does need to be dealt with - by her personally - and soon!

MAKING LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE

 All the signs point to Dr. Rowley going to the polls early. The general election is due in September next year, but the one who decides the date when it will be called ain't saying a thing! This is of itself not surprising. It is normal for Prime Ministers who have a certain discretion on matters such as this to keep absolutely mum on the issue for obvious reasons. So for everybody else we have to read the tea leaves and make our best guesses as to what the leader might do.

With that being said, the important question as to who you should vote for is: are you better off today than you were when there was the last election some 8 1/2 years ago? If the answer is 'yes' then it is obvious who you should vote for: the PNM. The next question that you will have to ask yourself is do you think that given the present circumstances and policies of this Government  that the good times that you have enjoyed will continue under this Government? If the answer is 'no' then you have to seriously consider voting for the UNC. But then you will be faced with the obvious question: do you think that Kamla and her team can make your life better? If the answer to this question is 'yes' then you should cast your ballot for the UNC. In many ways this question is more important than the first.

But here is where your difficulty comes in. Almost everybody - and certainly most thinking people - believe that the Rowley Government has failed miserably. They also worry -not unreasonably - that Kamla and her crowd simply don't have the wherewithal to fix what's wrong nor do they have the necessary ideas about  governing so that people (like you) can continue more or less happily with their lives. Which brings us back to square one : are you better off today than you were just before PNM came to power? Do you think that Kamla & Co. can make your life better or should you stick with the ''devil" you know?

There is only one reason for politics - one reason for government: to make life better for the people! There is no other reason.

WILL THERE BE AN EARLY SNAP ELECTION IN T&T?

 The political state that T&T finds itself in today is nothing if not interesting. There are two main dominant parties - the PNM and the UNC. Both are very similar in almost everything; both draw heavily on the racial division in the country with PNM drawing mostly Black/African support and the UNC drawing mainly Indian/Hindu support. Both basically have the same economic policies - the argument here is that the PNM claims that the UNC steals more while the UNC claims that the PNM also steals just as much, if not more, but that they (the PNM) can't manage a children's party let alone the country's rather complex economy. On crime both parties declare boldly that they are against it. Here the PNM is at a slight disadvantage because they have been in power since 2015 and the situation as regards crime has clearly deteriorated. Unfortunately, the UNC has to date not shown how they can improve this situation and appear (whether true or not) that their co called forums on crime are simply just a PR stunt designed simply to produce no real solutions but to fool people that they have ideas to deal with the situation.

On foreign policy both parties tout the line of 'non-interference', but the PNM is clearly leaning more in favour of countries like Venezuela, while the UNC tends to view the United States more favorably. That this could or might have consequences for T&T is the subject of another discussion.

The contest at the end of the day is really one between the leadership of both parties. Dr. Rowley seems to be relying more on the racial vote with the gerrymandering that has taken place over the years than on his record, which is really rather dismal. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar seems to be relying not only on the Hindu vote, but on the fact that she was once the Prime Minister and that Dr. Rowley seems to be screwing up so badly that nobody in his/her right mind could ever vote for the PNM again. Neither leader appears to take into account the issues that ought to be discussed and on  how they plan to make the average person's life better. You simply don't hear falling from their lips exactly how they plan to improve things in the country for the individual voter if elected/re-elected in the next election. And neither leader has surrounded himself/herself with any competent,  politically attractive people. The criteria for belonging to either inner circle seems to be unquestioning loyalty to the leader. Rowley's man of business, Stuart Young, is perceived to be competent, but he is not popular either in the country or (more importantly) in the party. Persad-Bissessar has two competent persons on her side one of whom (Rudy Moonilal) has been so badly tainted by the PNM that he is now politically unacceptable to the broader electorate as well as a large portion of his own party, and the other (Rushton Parry) who has shown himself to be competent as well as popular; his sin is that his popularity makes him an acceptable alternative to Mrs. Persad- Bissessar, which means that she may very well decide to cut him as a candidate in the next election campaign. Both leaders can control who their parties put up as candidates.

This discussion is appropriate right now for all the signs are pointing to Dr. Rowley calling an early election this year - my bet is for May/June. I say this because the economy is looking to get worse between now and September next year (when the elections are constitutionally due) and, on the basis of all publicly available evidence, there is a real possibility that the Americans might conclude that the Rowley Government was actively trying to help Venezuela evade sanctions with that sunken barge off Tobago. Sanctions on T&T's economy would be devastating. (Again, this is a possibility and not a certainty, but certainly it is one that thinking people ought to be aware of.) Also, if (and it is a big 'if') the UNC changes leadership any  time soon, then he will not want to give the new leader time to settle in.

 That things can change overnight that could force a change in any prediction is a given. All we can do at this stage is to speculate on the possibilities. There is a lot going on that we simply don't know about. But, as I said earlier, based on the evidence that is publicly available at the moment, look for an early election. As to who will win? That is also very much up in the air also. By all that is normal, the UNC should be way ahead in the polls; but they are not. This is not simply  a reflection of the racial divide in the country, but it is also reflective of the rather negative opinion of Mrs. Persad- Bissessar that is held by many. Fortunately for her, on the other side there are roughly an equal number who also do not have a high regard for Dr. Rowley.

PNM v. UNC - WHAT DOES T&T NEED?

 For better or worse we are stuck with two main political parties - the PNM and the UNC. There are certain problems with both of them, the most glaring being that, at least economically, there are no policy differences. Basically, both sides are saying that 'we can do it better' than the other side. The PNM's basic mantra is that a vote for us will ensure business as usual and no 't'iefing', while the UNC's mantra is 'we must and can do better - and the PNM is full of thieves in any case'.

So with both sides claiming that the other will steal (translation: will steal more) and that they can do better the contest boils down to a leadership one: who do you like better? Kamla or Rowley? On the UNC's side you have a leader that is perceived as being weak and ineffective. She has surrounded herself with persons who are also perceived as being incompetent and who owe their loyalty to her rather than the people who support and vote for the UNC. This, they say, is  typically symptomatic of weak leadership. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's opponents also say that at a time when PNM is demonstrably very weak they seem to be running neck and neck with the PNM. Certainly, this last appears to be a valid observation and a good point for changing the UNC leader. 

Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's supporters counter with the argument that this is not true and in any case now is not the time to change horses - that Rowley will call an election immediately if the UNC changes leaders, especially if that change was acrimonious.  This last point is a good argument as it is most unlikely that Mrs. Persad-Bissessar will gracefully step down. She obviously prefers to 'rule in Hell than serve in Heaven'.

On the PNM side, Rowley is also seen as weak and basically ineffective. Crime is now so clearly out of control that people hesitate to call the police. Rowley's Minister of National Security is seen as bumbling and incompetent as is his Commissioner of Police. His preferred method of doing any kind of business is through his Minister of Energy whose claim to fame is that he is supported by the big boss; without that support, Stuart Young would be yesterday's news. He has absolutely no support - anywhere!

So? Where are we? On the one hand we have an alternative Government which is led by a woman who, together with the persons that she has gathered around her, is widely perceived as incompetent and on the other  we have a Government which is led by a man that has demonstrated time and again that he hasn't got a clue about anything: crime, health care, the education system, the roads and more -  which are in a mess. And don't even mention the latest scandal about the shipwrecked barge in Tobago!

What is clearly needed is what we simply don't have: leaders who care more about the country and put what is best for the country first than about themselves. Anybody care to dream?

AND NOW THE STORY HAS COCAINE IN IT

It has now been reported that (1) one kilo of cocaine has been found near the Gulfstream barge - the one that capsized and caused the disastrous oil spill, and (2) that satellite tracking shows the barge was in Venezuela before coming here.

Now, this raises even more questions and makes it now most important that we find out who the individuals are that owned the barge and who stood to benefit from this cargo. Also, it is important to note that we still don't know where the crew is nor do we know exactly what happened. 

One thing is clear though: if we know that the barge was in Venezuela then the Americans do too. They probably have all the answers to our questions and are now biding their time to see what the Trinidadian authorities do next. Put another way, this ain't good news for us at all! You see, if there was Venezuelan oil mixed with Trini oil in the barge then reasonable conclusions to be drawn are that some person or persons high up was complicit in what was essentially a sanctions busting exercise. The story that there was a kilo of cocaine found near the barge seems to suggest that the ultimate beneficiaries are (or were) drug lords based here in Trinidad. Who are they? 

But there are now very ugly and what ought to be most unnecessary suspicions of both the Prime Minister and the Minister Of Energy. Were they involved somehow? If so, how were they involved? And why did it take so long for the news of the oil spill to leak out (pardon the pun)? And why is nobody in the Opposition asking any questions? What exactly went on? It can't be a good thing for this country to have the Prime Minister et al under this kind of suspicion. And let's be frank: the unspoken and unproven suspicions are that there have been a series of coverups stemming all the way from the top. Are any of these suspicions unreasonable?

What do the Americans know? Are we in danger of being sanctioned? If so, who was responsible for this? We need (and deserve) the clear evidence - one way or the other.

There was at least a loss of US$10 million. That is a lot of money. Who is taking that loss? Who were the banks involved? Put another way, was any local bank involved in the transaction? If so, which bank?And don't tell me something like ABC Inc. from Panama. Please state the names of the actual persons. I don't think that many people realize how precarious our position is. If this was in fact a sanction busting exercise and possibly coupled with drug smuggling we are going to be punished. Who would have brought this on our heads?

MORE QUESTIONS AND NO ANSWERS

The story of the half-sunken barge off Tobago continues to raise questions that ought to be answered. For example, there are reports that the barge was transporting Venezuelan oil. Is this true? If so, was this an attempt by Venezuela to evade American sanctions? Also, was T&T complicit in any way in this alleged attempt to evade sanctions? If so, who in T&T was colluding with the Venezuelans to do this? And, if this is true, then does T&T face getting on America's blacklist in helping Venezuela?

Again, I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. The matter has become even more curious by the visit of the Minister of Energy yesterday to Caracas. What was he doing there? Don't we deserve some kind of explanation? Because an inference to be drawn if there is no explanation is that he went to collude with the Venezuelan authorities  in order to make sure that everybody's stories lined up. Now, if that is true, then it would mean that this matter is much more serious than we imagined and that we here in T&T are probably exposing ourselves to American retaliation.

Countries don't have friends: they have interests. So it is possible that if America decides that somebody in authority colluded with Venezuela to break their sanctions then unless we deal with that person or persons ourselves America may decide to punish us for helping Venezuela to breach their sanctions. 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' and America could decide that T&T's helping the Venezuelan regime is evidence that we are on their (Venezuelan) side. So? Is it worth our while to help Venezuela if they were indeed trying to evade American sanctions?

And don't forget that the crew hasn't turned up yet! Why not? Who was the ultimate owner of this oil? Where was it going and who was buying it? And I am asking for the names of the actual persons who stood to benefit from this transaction. Why is this a secret?

Bottom line: is anybody in T&T involved in this matter? If so, who? And what was/is their role? What happened to cause the barge to break loose from whatever was towing it? Was it some sort of violence? An accident like a tow rope breaking? What? And if it was an accident when was it reported and to whom?

I could go on all day, and frankly the media should. But the evidence suggests that this "accident" (for want of a better word) is being covered up? If this is true then, why? We really do deserve a complete explanation. These suspicions are not healthy and there may be reasonable explanations for everything, But we deserve the truth. After all, if sanctions are to flow from this they won't come immediately - they'll come later, probably after the coming general election - but when they do, we will all hurt, and badly.

TOO MANY QUESTIONS - NOT ENOUGH ANSWERS

The news about a ship full of oil being wrecked off the East coast of Tobago raises more questions than answers. For example, take a look at some of the questions that need to be asked and haven't been answered:

1) Who is the owner  or owners of the ship?

2) If it is a company who are the shareholders, i.e., the actual individuals? I ask this because a company can be owned by another company and so on, but ultimately there has to be a group of persons or a single person who owns the company that owns the ship.

3) Did the oil come from Trinidad? It should be easy to check this. After all, how many ports are there in Trinidad that can load up a ship with oil?

4) Where was the ship going? 

5) Who was buying the oil? Again, if it was a company the same subsidiary questions as in (2) above apply.

6) Did the oil come from Venezuela? If so was this an attempt to evade American oversight? And if so, was anybody in Trinidad complicit in this?

7) There were some reports that about 14 seamen were found dead in Tobago waters. Was this report true? Because this particular aspect seems to have disappeared from the narrative. Assuming (though not accepting) that it was true, did these dead seamen come from the ship?

8) Assuming that the report was not true, where are the crew members and the Captain? They seem to have simply vanished.

9) A ship of this size is worth a lot of money as is the oil that it was carrying. Together I 'guesstimate' that some where in the region of US$10 million (if not more) has been lost. Who lost this money?

10) How did this ship get wrecked? There were no storms off Tobago - no unusual weather. So? What exactly happened?

11) How could this ship get itself wrecked without the coast guard being aware of that?

12) Can a boat or ship pass through our waters without being detected? If so, didn't we spend a lot of money to prevent this from happening? And if it was detected by the national security people, do they know where the ship came from or where was its last port of call? If they don't know, then why don't they know?

13) I've asked this already in a slightly different way: did the voyage that ended in disaster start in Trinidad? If so, are there any records in Trinidad listing the names of the captain and crew as well as who the owner(s) is/are?

14) who insured the ship? Who insured the cargo? What  amounts was the insurance for?

15) What type of person(s), firm(s) or corporation(s) can afford a loss like this and everybody just keeps quiet about it?

16) What was the name of the ship? And where was it registered?

17) Does or did Venezuela have anything to do with this?

18) was this a drug deal gone wrong?

I could easily go on, but hopefully you get the point. There are too many unanswered questions and the longer that they remain unanswered  the more that ugly suspicions will arise, which suspicions ought to be totally unnecessary. 

STANDING BY MY RIGHTS

 I have received a report that my last post (headed ' An Interesting Year') has annoyed Mrs. Persad Bissessar so much that she has given instructions to try to have my post removed from Facebook. Now, I have no way of knowing if that is true or not, but assuming (though certainly NOT accepting) that there is some truth in that report then all I can say is that assuming the report is true surely the proper thing to do would be to get in touch with me directly and ask me to remove it giving reasons why it is considered offensive.

I have reread the post and must confess that while it might appear critical of Mrs. Persad Bissessar I can see no reason why I should withdraw it. If there is anything ... ANYTHING .... that is remotely untrue then I do most humbly apologize and withdraw the offensive remark(s), whatever it or they might be. But the last time I looked, giving an opinion (whether offensive or not) was certainly not illegal so long as it was not defamatory. And I must say that I don't see anything remotely defamatory in my post. Put another way, I stand by my absolute right to have an opinion and share it subject always to the law of defamation.

AN INTERESTING YEAR

Of course you can't always tell anything from a television report. But sometimes the tv report might show something that might be usually unintended. (And please note the two "mights" in that sentence.) What got me to thinking was that on the news report on Ish Galbaransingh's funeral there were some clips of UNC leader Kamla Persad Bissessar. Although there were a lot of people there the clips on television showed her largely being ignored by the crowd that was there. This was more than a little troubling for a UNC supporter who hopes that his/her party will win the next election  ... at least, it should have been!

So the question is: was this deliberate on the part of the television editors or does it in fact tell the unintended truth, i.e., that the erstwhile  Opposition Leader does not enjoy great popularity? Assuming (though obviously not accepting) that this latter might be true (another "might") then this would mean that the rumors of a general election this year might (again) have some validity. You see,  things are crashing all around Dr. Rowley right now. Crime is rising - or at the very least perceived to be rising - and the economy looks set for a major crash with no bottom in sight. Every where he turns there seems to be bad news.

By all that is normal, this would mean that the Government is on a path that will surely end with its destruction at the polls. But things are not normal. The UNC leader is not very popular with the rank and file supporters and looks set for a third defeat at the polls. Dr. Rowley, who is nothing if not a clever politician who knows how to appeal to his base, may very well figure that this year will be his best chance to make it three times in a row and call an election early. One can expect some subtle (and some not so subtle) hints to be thrown out on race by both sides when the 'action' starts.

That a lot of Dr. Rowley's base is disillusioned is clear and he should be worried as to whether or not he will be able to get his people to come out and vote. At the moment it certainly looks like they won't, but hey, that can change. On the other side of the coin The UNC base is (perhaps understandably) not too thrilled with their leader either. The main difference between the two sides is the UNC hope that enough people on their side will come out and vote, even though they are unhappy with their leader, because they figure that they just can't take it any more. This seems to be what Mrs. Bissessar is counting on. And once she wins .... well, that's it! She's 'home'!

Its going to be an interesting year!

WILL THE UPCOMING US SANCTIONS ON VENEZUELA AFFECT T&T?

 I was always taught that if you want to understand something you first have to go back to basics. I was somewhat confused by a report in the media that the United States has confirmed that Trinidad & Tobago will not be directly affected by the US's upcoming reimposition of sanctions on Venezuela's energy sector. This assurance was apparently given to Prime Minister Keith Rowley during his recent trip to the US.

So? Going back to basics, the question that arises is what does this mean for the Dragon Gas deal upon which the whole country is depending?  What exactly does "will not be directly affected" mean? Because when I read that to me it means that the Dragon Gas deal will not be included in the upcoming sanctions. 

To me "not be directly affected" has to mean that because if that particular deal is included in the upcoming sanctions either directly or indirectly then it sure as heck is going to affect us directly. and is not a true statement.  And it could be included in the sanctions by the use of indirect language such as 'any energy project from which Venezuela will benefit one way or the other.

So? What exactly is this "assurance"?  Did Dr. Rowley deliberately try to mislead us with that rather equivocal so-called  "assurance"? If so, why did he do that? Is he planning on calling a general election before the sanctions are put on his good friend in Venezuela, Maburro, and reimposed by the US thus putting our deal in jeopardy? Because that is one possible explanation for his deliberately trying to mislead us if to mislead was his intention. Of course, if it was his intention to mislead us there could be other reasons. And if he was not trying to mislead then surely he could have used language that was clearer, e.g., 'the Dragon Gas deal will NOT be affected'.

But then, we would not be kept guessing, would we?

WHY IS DR. ROWLEY GOING TO WASHINGTON?

 So Keith Rowley, the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago, has flown off rather suddenly to Washington on an unannounced trip. As to why he is going to Washington at this time and who he is going to meet, is not in the public domain;  neither is what he hopes to accomplish  while he is there.

While it is very easy to criticize any leader of a democracy for failing to inform his/her people as to why he/she feels that he/she has to travel and not explaining in full what he/she hopes to accomplish by an apparently sudden trip, one of the nice things about a democracy is that we are all free to speculate on any action or actions of our leaders even when (as in this instant case) they choose  not to give us any information other than "I am going To X".

But it is fairly easy to "read the tea leaves" as to why the Prime Minister has chosen to travel now and it can be summed up in two words: Dragon Gas.

In order to understand the problem it is necessary to look across the Gulf of Paria and  at what is taking place in nearby Venezuela. That country's Supreme Court has recently disqualified the leading (and very popular) opposition candidate, Maria Corina Machado. The problem here is that Venezuela's Supreme Court is stuffed with President Maburro's cronies (I refuse to call him Maduro; Maburro suits him much better). Now, Maburro had given an undertaking that the Presidential elections due this year would be free and fair. In return, the United States had lifted some of its sanctions. But Maburro controls the Supreme Court. What he says goes, and, as we say in T&T, who vex 'lorse'! And he doesn't want anybody opposing him who might have the remotest chance of beating him. So it is crystal clear that Venezuela's Supreme Court does whatever he wants.

Now that Ms. Machado has been barred from contesting the elections, it is quite clear that Maburro is not going to trust the Venezuelan electorate and that the Donkey will simply revert to what he has always done: cheating at the elections.

So? How does this affect us in good old T&T? If the USA decides to reimpose sanctions the Dragon Gas deal that Messrs. Rowley &Co. are pinning their hopes on could well be under sanction again. So it makes sense for Dr. Rowley to fly to Washington to try and get the Americans to hold their hands and do nothing that might affect our economy which is presently tanking.

The problem is that Dr. Rowley is publicly on record as effectively being on the Donkey's side. The best that he can hope for therefore is that the Americans say that they won't do anything adverse to T&T's interests and thus will not interfere with our own upcoming elections, which would effectively mean that the Dragon Gas deal will be allowed to go forward. The Americans will look at this and determine what exactly is in their best interests (and not T&T's). What they decide to do will determine whether the Dragon Gas deal will go forward or not.

In the meantime, expect more political machinations on this particular matter -  from everybody!

WHY WE NEED CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM - PART TWO

 As I've said in my previous post, what we have in Trinidad & Tobago is a 'party-led' as opposed to a 'people-led', democracy. By that I mean that people generally vote for a particular political party and not for the individual candidates who are making up the political party's list of wannabe parliamentarians. On top of that,  people tend to vote for the particular party of their choice because they like a particular leader, or don't like, who the 'other' party has as a leader.  And they understand that a vote for "X" is really a vote for leader "Y".

If you look at this problem dispassionately you will quickly come to the conclusion that our political system doesn't really reflect the principle of 'one man/woman - one vote', but really a system whereby control of the country is being handed over to a relatively small number of people on BOTH sides.

So? How can we fix this? My proposal is that we scrap the present system which allows the leader of the winning side to call an election at any time within  any given five year period  and have a fixed day for elections. Next, I would abolish all local government as well as the Tobago House of Assembly. For crying out loud, the mayor of Miami presides over a larger land area and  more people than the whole of T&T! Then I would divide the present 41 seats in the Lower House in two and make it so that we have 82 representatives who would be full time workers as opposed to the part time workers that we have now. These 82 representatives would take over the duties and responsibilities of the local governments in their areas or districts in addition to their Parliamentary duties. As such, they would obviously have to have a staff in order to support them. Some of the staff could be political appointments,

The present system which has created the Tobago House of Assembly effectively makes Tobago a self-governing colony of Trinidad. Under my proposal, Tobago would have a block of four representatives, or a vote in the Lower House of just about five percent. Because (amongst other things) the Lower House would have to approve budgets in order for the representatives to have money for their areas, the Tobago reps would effectively have more say over what money Tobago gets than it does now.

Finally, these representatives would face the polls on a fixed day (eg., the first Monday in September) every two years.  This short time would mean that if the representative did not perform  but was a favourite  of his/her political leader then  a die-hard supporter of that particular party could effectively force the removal of the rep by voting against him/her. After all, it would only be for two years and this would effectively cause to be loosened the particular party's grip on power and force it to perform or get out.

But two years is a very short time for any meaningful policies to take effect. So, I would have an elected Senate made up of, say, 41 Senators from the existing 41 constituencies serving for six years with one third facing the polls every two years. So, if somebody from the majority party decides that we need a law, say, that all men should wear green pants, and that party's candidates go down to (an unsurprising) defeat on this issue in the Lower house, those Senators facing re-election in a short two years hence are going to drop this 'green pants' law or face certain defeat.

Then I would have a President elected once every four years but who can't be removed if his party loses a vote in either the Senate or the Lower House.

Obviously this proposal is not original and would need a lot of 'tweaking'. It is not a perfect solution. Maybe, there isn't such a thing as a 'perfect solution'. But it is put to you as a way to solve the problem and to try and create more of a 'people-led' Democracy. What are your proposals?

WHY WE NEED CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

 I have often wondered: are we in T&T really a practicing democracy? Last time I looked a democracy was defined as being 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. But it seems that what we are getting is a 'party-led' democracy as opposed to a 'people-led' one. In other words, if you want to rule this country, you don't need to worry too much about what the people think, you only have to worry about what the people in YOUR party think. Take control of your political party and you can end up as the prime minister. And you don't have to be a genius to realize that I am talking about both sides of the political divide. Most people vote 'party' and very few vote for individuals - no matter how incompetent the party nominee might be or how competent the individual might be.

If ever there was a case for constitutional reform this is probably the most telling argument. What exists now could never have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution; the idea was always let the people have the power - one man/woman, one vote! But it isn't like that. The peoples' needs and wants are always secondary to what the party thinks and wants. And by 'party' I mean BOTH of the two main political parties in T&T. Can we fix this? Maybe. But it would mean putting in place a system of government that would reduce the power of the two parties - something that both sides would resist tooth and nail because it is always easier to preach to a small number than it is to preach to a large one. And any system that reduces the power of the political parties is obviously a big 'no-no'.

I do have some ideas on how to do this, but I won't give them now. I'll wait until you have digested what I have said here. If you agree then read my next blog. If you don't agree that we need to change our Constitution then don't bother reading it for you won't agree with any of my ideas. But pay attention to to my central point: we need to transition away from a party-led democracy to a people-led one.

I have always been taught that the first step towards fixing a problem is to define it.  You might need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain the sentence. But if you can't define it in one sentence then you really don't understand the problem- or you may not have one at all.

IS THE CRIME SITUATION GETTING BETTER?

 IT IS sometimes very difficult to understand exactly what the TT Prime Minister, Dr. Rowley, means when he makes certain comments. For example, he said that there had been 29 fewer murders that there had been in a previous time period and that this therefore was evidence that his handpicked Commissioner of Police was being effective in her controlling crime in this country and that his confidence in his Minister of National Security is justified.

Well, that is all well and good, and might well be true. But how are we to know? The statistics on crime are not published or are not easily available. I suppose that we ought to be grateful to Dr. Rowley & Co.  that the most awful crime statistic seems to be going down (according to them). Why this is so is left unexplained. Were there more arrests? More convictions? What exactly has caused this particular statistic to drop by 5 percent? I suppose that the point is that it is dropping and why it is going down is because of "improved policing". But the message clearly is that we don't need or deserve any kind of explanation. Put up and shut up, is the message.

But If that is so, why does everybody that I talk to feel more afraid now than before? Let me put it this way: 8 years ago everybody knew somebody who knew somebody who had been a victim of some sort of crime. Today it is a lot closer: everybody knows somebody who has been a victim of some sort of crime. Check it yourself and see. Nobody is going to say that they don't know anybody who has been a victim. Now, if that means that there has been an improvement in the suppression of crime that would be most surprising indeed. On this fact it is not possible to say that things are improving even if the actual murder rate is going down. (By the way, what exactly counts as a murder? How is this particular statistic calculated? Is murder defined as an unlawful killing? Does it include unlawful police killings? Or is it that we simply don't deserve any type of explanation at all?)

One reads in the newspapers and sees on television our leaders led by the Crime Minister and backed up by his underlings saying in effect that they are working very hard to contain the problem and have been seeing some light at the end of this particularly long and dark tunnel. This is in direct contrast with how people are seeing (and feeling) the situation. But the media is soft on the Government and collectively they are not critical - although to be fair, there are  many more critical articles appearing than there used to be. Question: is this last fact evidence that the media is slowly coming around to the realization that the crime situation is indeed getting worse and not better as is being claimed by the Crime Minister & Co.? Indeed, is the crime situation really getting better?

 Below is what I thought was a most relevant post from the Los Angeles Times for T&T. I thought of paraphrasing it but decided to post it in full. The argument basically is that our crime wave (as well as Palo Alto's) is/was fueled by poor economic circumstances. It is an argument that resonates with me.

January 10, 2024   View in browser Cars pass a Facebook sign in East Palo Alto in 2021. (Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times) By Ryan Fonseca Good morning. It’s Wednesday, Jan. 10. Here’s what you need to know to start your day. How East Palo Alto went from U.S. “murder capital” to murder-free California’s biggest winter storm so far is on its way 10 under-the-radar spas to rejuvenate in hot water in and around L.A. And here’s today’s e-newspaper From U.S. ‘murder capital’ to zero homicides In 1992, the small Bay Area city of East Palo Alto made national headlines as the “murder capital” of the U.S. At the time, 42 people were murdered in the city, which had a population of 24,000. That works out to a murder rate of 175 homicides for every 100,000 residents. “Officials attributed the upswing in homicides to an increasingly violent drug trade that lures buyers from throughout the Bay Area,” former Times reporter Jenifer Warren wrote at the time. “More than half of the homicides were narcotics-related, statistics show, and 70% of the victims were involved in criminal activity when they were killed.” Just over three decades later, the city is making headlines again — this time as a success story. After years of declining killings, East Palo Alto ended 2023 with an important local milestone: zero murders. So how did the small city go from murder capital to murder-free? Times reporter Brittny Mejia spoke with city and police officials past and present, along with community leaders, to find out. As she explained this week, “a complicated mix of circumstances” helped reverse the trend. One reason that’s been floated: gentrification. The Bay Area’s tech boom brought new residents, raised housing prices and pushed out some longtime residents. But as Brittny reported, community members and leaders in East Palo Alto “argue that poverty and crime don’t necessarily go hand in hand.” “They point to increased development since they earned the grim title of murder capital, including an Ikea and a Four Seasons hotel,” she wrote. “Also: more job opportunities, programs for youth and community policing. And time.” In the wake of its 1992 designation, the short-term response was more cops and more arrests. The city more than doubled its police presence as the county and nearby cities sent officers to help. That crackdown helped bring the number of murders down to four in 1993. But city leaders held that more policing alone was not a long-term solution, Brittny noted. They took the view that true progress would be achieved through economic development, better job opportunities for residents and a concerted effort to build community trust with law enforcement. A newly developed shopping center hired local residents. Local nonprofit and faith-based groups launched after-school programs that kept young people off the streets. Some residents went out in groups to intimidate drug dealers and take photos of cars driving into neighborhoods to buy drugs. Community members shared those photos and other information with police. In the 17 years between 2006 and 2022, homicides in East Palo Alto numbered in the single digits. Then, in the early moments of 2024, city officials celebrated their new milestone — and they hope to keep it that way. “It really is a testament to the commitment of the community to fix itself,” Sharifa Wilson, who was mayor of East Palo Alto in 1992, told Brittny. “The fact that we were labeled the homicide capital gave us an attention that we needed, and then we took that attention and turned it into something positive. If you give us lemons, we’re gonna make lemonade.”

POLITICAL MUSINGS

 WE ARE still about 19 months, legally, from when the next election in T&T is due. Clearly, so far out it is not really possible to make any kind of accurate prediction about what will happen. The truth is that as things stand right now, any number can play. But it might be helpful to look at some straws in the wind.

The first 'straw' is definitely crime. Apart from the obvious incompetence of both the Minister of National Security and his hand-picked Commissioner of Police as well as a climbing (and seemingly out of control) murder rate, just about everybody in this country has either been a victim of crime or knows someone who has been a victim.  Every single day there is a report in the newspapers of a murder or a robbery or of a beating of somebody. How this will play out at the polls is anybody's guess, but this problem is causing some PNM core support to slip. What is interesting though, is that this support is by and large not going over to the Opposition UNC but seems instead to be just "parked" up. The UNC has so far been unable to convince anybody (except for its core supporters) that it can and will do a better job on this issue.

The second "straw" is the economy. While most voters understand that a large problem with our economy is that just about everything that we eat is imported and people do understand that a sizeable portion of the current inflation is imported and therefore, not the Government's fault. But many people have lost their jobs and the cost of everything is going up. We all read about the price of oil going down sometimes, but our gasoline prices never do. People notice these things, especially when times are tough - as they are now. As it is, too many people have lost their jobs for the PNM to feel comfortable.

The third "straw" is that people generally are not enamored with either political Party or their respective leaders.  The UNC has not addressed this problem, and while it seems that they are trying to do something about it and are aware that it exists the UNC hierarchy seems to be banking on the fact that the "fed upness" with the PNM is such that a sufficient number of PNM voters will simply stay home and not vote, while most of their supporters will turn out and vote.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the opinion of Dr. Rowley generally is not a good one. A sizeable proportion of the population do not seem to hold him in very high regard. Unfortunately for the UNC, the same can be said of their leader.  Whether either or both can fix this problem remains to be seen. There is a lot of time left  and anything can happen. Meanwhile, there are a number of (for want of a better word) 'fringe' parties that so far haven't been able to make a note. They have all been campaigning and crying out for change, but so far none of them have set fire to the population in a way that they can seriously be considered as a viable alternative, although, to be fair, many of their criticisms are most valid. What they can (and probably will) do is to take enough votes away in a marginal constituency and thus hand the election to one side or the other. Both the PNM and the UNC are aware of this particular problem but neither has done anything about it  -  yet! 

I have been making a joke that because of this situation that I'm going to form my own political Party. People take me seriously until they hear my name for the new Party: the Free Democratic Action Trinidad & Tobago Party, or FDATT for short. Everyone who has heard the name of my new party says that they will vote for it!

HONOURABLE MEN

 I HAD PLANNED on writing about the state of the country after Christmas and the New Year had passed. But after learning of the death of Basdeo Panday on January 1st I decided that for the first post of this year I would  write a few words about him before resuming my various musings and commentaries.

I have read with great interest and taken not little pleasure in the many accolades that I have seen about the great man. And yes, Basdeo Panday was a great man. So to paraphrase William Shakespeare, this post is about burying Panday, not to praise him. And continuing with the Shakespearean analogy I would say that "the evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with ..." Panday. 

Our noble Prime Minister, Keith Rowley, in referring to Mr. Panday called him "an actor, Lawyer, labour Leader and Politician". Nowhere did Dr. Rowley refer to Mr. Panday as a former Prime Minister although this omission  was glaring to many and obvious to both sides of the political divide. But, again paraphrasing Shakespeare, Dr. Rowley is an honourable man. So if he neglected to mention in his eulogy that Mr. Panday was once a Prime Minister that sin of omission can be forgiven because he (Dr. Rowley) is indeed an honourable man. Indeed, Dr. Rowley's Government has ordered that the nation's flags be flown at half mast as  a symbol of mourning for Mr. Panday, and has also ordered that the State will meet the Panday family's funeral expenses as well as a State funeral for his predecessor.

Dr. Rowley is an honourable man and will doubtless mention these actions as evidence that he is an honourable man. Paraphrasing Shakespeare again, I am not writing here to criticize any honourable persons but simply to mourn for Basdeo Panday. That Mr. Panday would have had a suitable comment concerning Dr. Rowley's omission is beyond doubt, but he would never have hesitated had the shoe been on the other foot,  to mention that his successor was once a Prime Minister and would have recognized him as such. But then, Basdeo Panday was indeed an honourable man.