IS THE COUNTRY IN “1986 MODE?”

Most Trinis will understand the question. For those readers of this blog who are not Trinidadians (and, yes, there are quite a few) what happened in 1986 was that the then PNM Government which had won every single election was severely routed in that year’s general election, losing 33 of the 36 seats in Parliament. (Indeed, there are some who say that they lost Patrick Manning’s seat as well making it a loss of 34 seats, but that it was then Prime Minister A.N.R Robinson who prevented a recount thus saving Manning’s bacon.)

It was pretty clear to most observers for at least two years before the 1986 elections that the mighty PNM was losing support at a hitherto unprecedented rate. By March 1986 it was clear that then Prime Minister George Chambers had run out of steam and that the PNM was going down whenever he decided to call an election. The unions were marching. People were complaining bitterly about everything under the sun. The newspapers were highly critical of the Government. For example, one of the issues then was the amount of vagrants that were on the streets; the Daily Express newspaper ran a “vagrant of the day” picture every day in a prominent position in the newspaper … and many of the Ministers were perceived either as arrogant or corrupt or both! During the election campaign in December of that year one of the less competent Ministers, Desmond Cartey, stood up on an election platform and proclaimed to the world that “all ah we t’ief!” What he meant was that the allegations of corruption were unfair as during the oil boom of the late seventies and the early eighties that there many, many citizens who had cheated in one way or the other, e.g. non-payment of taxes, evading customs duties, overcharging for goods and services, etc. But his most unfortunate turn of phrase was seized upon by opponents of the Government as an admission of guilt (which in a very real way, it was) and is still remembered today some twenty-four years later!

Fast forward to today: What do we have happening? The unions are acting up. The Public Service Association (PSA) has booted out its old executive which was blatantly pro-PNM and replaced it with an executive which (for the time being at least) is fiercely independent of all political parties and which is simply refusing to go along with the Government’s plan to revise the Board of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise by merging them into one authority. The PSA is promising some “serious heat” after Carnival. The powerful Oilfield and Workers Trade Union (OWTU) is also most unhappy with what is going on in the State owned oil company, Petrotrin, where layoffs are being contemplated.

Mr. Manning’s present team of Ministers, with a few notable exceptions, have left a bit to be desired. In a recent debate in the House of Representatives concerning the most contentious property tax, one junior Minister offended just about everybody by declaring that people had been “living off the fat of the land” and it was high time that they started to pay their way. He later attempted to explain this foolish statement away and tried to put a spin on it by saying that he was misquoted. Of course, nobody bought it. This followed a most embarrassing gaffe by the Sports Minister Gary Hunt concerning the erection of a $2 million flag at the national stadium. Mr. Hunt at first attempted to say that the flag only cost about $18 thousand. When the total cost of the flag installation came out ($2 million), the country erupted in anger. Then, four months later, Mr. Hunt, in a prime time television appearance, inexplicably raised the whole issue again by proffering a rather half hearted apology for the mistake and promising that it would never happen again. What?

The Opposition led by the formidable Jack Warner, immediately demanded his resignation. In a First World or developed country, this would have happened a long time ago. But Prime Minister Manning has defended his Minister and suggested that the nation should now “move on”.
Then there are water woes. The Water and Sewage Authority (WASA) has declared that because of a drier than usual rainy season our dams are at critical levels and all the signs are that we will experience a drier than usual dry season. Accordingly, WASA has ordered that there be severe restrictions on the use of water (no washing cars, watering lawns, etc.). On Wednesday (10th February) the Daily Express published a full front page picture of the very green Prime Minister’s residence lawn being cheerfully watered with sprinklers. The gardeners were promptly blamed and fired! But then we are regaled with a story (again in the Express) that President Max Richards’ gardeners having been doing the same thing! Most Trinis are finding it difficult to accept that ultimate blame in these stories do not lie elsewhere.

But the point here is not about water or the lack of it or Ministerial incompetence (real or imagined) or about perceived corruption. What I am trying to say is that there is a lot of grumbling on the ground. On top of that, Kamla Persad-Bissessar is presenting herself quite successfully as a credible alternative to the Manning regime. This factor, more than anything else, is making people think very carefully about where they will put their “X” next time in the coming election which is a little more than two years away. Put another way, the coming election, for the moment at least, is Kamla’s to lose. There are too many similarities between what is happening now and what happened before the 1986 elections for any PNM supporter to feel sanguine about his Party’s chances of success at the coming polls. Not only to me, but to many people who I have been talking to, the country appears to be in “1986 mode”. Can this change? Oh yes! Will it? I don’t know. Based on present performance, the PNM has a lot of work to do.

BWIA AND THOSE ANNOYING HEATHROW SLOTS

There has been a lot of ‘toing and froing’ over the sale of BWIA’s Heathrow slots with critics saying that the slots were seriously undersold and BWIA management saying that the slots were sold at a fair price. The lead proponent of the ‘fair price’ argument is former BWIA Board member William Lucie Smith.

For those who came in late, a ‘slot’ can be defined as a particular landing and departure right at a particular time on a particular day at a particular airport. Put another way, one slot (or pair) can be defined as the right to land and depart at certain times on a particular day. BWIA had seven such slots at Heathrow Airport … one of the busiest airports in the world. Indeed, Heathrow has more flights that wish to land and take off than it can handle. In other words there is a scarcity of slots. To make it worse, prices are controlled so that raising the costs simply to use the airport won’t work … it’s not allowed. The fact that there is an excess demand for slots makes these a valuable asset for any airline that has one or more of them, especially if these slots are at prime times. And BWIA had seven such slots at prime take off and landing times!

These slots have not only a high strategic value for airlines but a high cash sale value as well. Early morning landing and take off slots are particularly valuable for the long haul flights … and again, that’s what BWIA had. Now, admittedly there is a grey area when it comes to determining the value of a slot. But take a look at the following tables and you will get some idea of how much a slot is worth:

Table 1 Airlines Shares of Slots Heathrow (Summer 2004 and change from 2001)

Airline and rank	Heathrow Slots – movements per week	Share	Change from 2001 (%)
BA (1)	3742	40.1	+11.0
British Midland (2)	1096	11.7	-12.7
Lufthansa (3)	416	4.5	+19.6
Aer Lingus (4)	290[1]	3.1	-9.4
Virgin Atlantic (5)	284	3.0	+31.5
SAS (6)	280	3.0	-6.7
AA (7)	222	2.4	-
Total	9332 (9308 in 2001)	100

Source: Competition Issues associated with the trading of airport slots. A paper prepared for DG TREN by the UK Office of Fair Trading and the Civil Aviation Authority, TSO, Norwich, 2005, p. 34. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/oft832.pdf

Table 2. Some Transactions and Implicit Values in the Heathrow Slot Market

Purchase and year	Quantity	Price or Value	Comment
Quantas from Flybe (2004)	2 pairs	£20 million (€30 million)	Primetime take off and landing
Virgin Atlantic from Flybe (2004)	4 pairs	£20 million (€30 million)
British Airways from SN Brussels Airlines (2002)	7 pairs	£25-30 million (€37.5-45.0 million)	Only slots acquired by cash appear on balance sheet (my emphasis)
British Airways from Swiss International Airlines (2004)	8 pairs	£22.4 million (€33.6 million)
British Midland asset valuation (2005)	90 pairs	£425 million (€637.5 million)	The Observer claims a series of writedowns mean that bmi is now worth ‘£225m at most’, i.e. less than its slot portfolio.

Sources: Issues of Travel and Hospitality Industry Digest: 23 March, 2007, 11 June 2004, 06 August 2007, 11 June 2007, 31 January 2005. See: www.e-tid.com.

Now, it is generally agreed by all in the airline industry that the slots will only increase in value. Remember that BWIA sold its seven slots for a grand total of Pounds Sterling 5 million, which seems on the face of it and without any really good explanations to date, to be a sale at a serious undervalue. What happened?

Put another way, I certainly cannot say that there is or was “bobol” in the sale and purchase of the BWIA slots. I have absolutely no evidence to make that suggestion. What I can say (and am saying) is that on the face of it and without any proper explanations having been given to date, it is not unreasonable to believe that the sale was at a serious undervalue. The big question is WHY?

If you can really show that it was not at an undervalue, then do so in a clear and cogent manner. Don’t brush us off with platitudes and obfuscations. Failure to do so will result in very nasty and most unfortunate suspicions that cannot be good for the national psyche. I am not the only one who does not understand why this sale was made at this seemingly low price.

---

^[1] This works out at 145 return (‘pair’) services per week, an average of approximately 20 per day.

IS TRINIDAD & TOBAGO APPROACHING ‘FAILED STATE’ STATUS?

Sometimes it gets difficult to see the forest for the trees. If I ask this question of anybody who supports the present Government I will get a resounding ‘no’ for an answer. But if I ask the same question of those who oppose the PNM I will not only get a shouted ‘yes’ but I will get an added “we are already a failed State!”

So what is the truth? Perhaps we could start with a number of questions? Has the Government made T&T a safer place to live in? Has the economy been well managed or have the various economic decisions made by the Government over the years led us into trouble? Are we doing something now which, given the state of the world’s economy we ought not to be doing? If so, what? Are we doing something now which, given the state of the world’s economy we ought not to be doing? If so, what? Was the bringing in of the infamous Property Tax justified? If so, why? Are the country’s health care facilities in the best order that they could be in given all that has gone before or not? What about our education system? Is it being improved in a way that we can see, or are our children slipping further and further behind an increasingly competitive world?

All too often we argue from our own personal perspective with emotion and without regard to the facts. And our arguments are often tinged with our own political perspectives and prejudices. So, here are a few facts to consider:

There is a most interesting World Bank report which you can access here.

Basically, the report says that we are not doing too badly at all but that there are areas that need improvement and reform. If you go to page 51 of the report you will find a handy chart showing where reforms have been enacted around the world. You will see there that T&T is not doing too badly at all. And then there is another interesting chart put out by The Heritage Foundation for their 2010 Index of Economic Freedoms. You can access it here.

In this study T&T has been ranked at 55 out of 179 countries. Incidentally, neighbouring Venezuela was ranked at 174!

Well, if truth be told, that ranking isn’t bad. We beat Jamaica (57). But little Barbados (40) beat us, as did the Bahamas (47). But we beat Italy (74). Take a look. The chart is most interesting.

What I guess that I am trying to say is that there are “positives” in our situation and things are certainly not necessarily as bad as some would have us believe. On the other hand, I personally believe that we could be doing a lot better than we are and there are many things that are wrong with the way that we are being ruled and need fixing and/or improving.

Put another way, I believe that most (if not all) of us genuinely want to see our little country go forward and really don’t care who are the actual persons in charge (whether they are PNM or UNC or COP or any other acronym that you can think of) so long as things are done properly and that corruption is dealt with firmly. We can and will put up with the posturing of politicians on all sides provided always that they ‘deliver the goods.’ What we don’t want is the endless bickering, name calling and incompetence that we are so often met with.

I know that I haven’t answered any of the questions that I asked earlier. That has been deliberate on my part. I am trying very hard to be as balanced as possible and it is so easy to criticise without offering solutions. And I am not here trying to change your mind or opinion on any thing. I am simply trying to make you think and to realise that life is not one or two dimensional, but we live in a 3D world. If I have done that then I have succeeded. But those questions do need answering!

What do you think?

THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION AND PROBLEMS THAT NOBODY HAS THOUGHT ABOUT (YET)!

There are a lot of people (including me) who have been very critical of President Max Richards (or as he seems to prefer being called since he became President, President George Maxwell Richards) for the non-appointment of Integrity Commissioners. Everybody knows the story of the last debacle and so there is little point in going over it. But more or less one year has passed and nothing has happened to lead us to believe that a new board is anywhere near being appointed. Why?

Well, what I have to say may or may not be one of the reasons why a new board hasn’t been appointed, but it certainly bears thinking about. You see, in a judgement handed down on 15th October, 2007 Madam Justice Judith Jones, in High Court Action 1735 of 2005 between The Integrity Commission as Plaintiff and The Attorney General as Defendant (along with several interested parties), handed down a decision which has some rather far reaching implications. Before I go further, I should say that the judgement is under appeal, and that appeal is due to be heard in March of this year.

The matter involved the interpretation of two questions. The first was whether or not judges and magistrates are subject to the Integrity Act and have to file returns. Justice Jones answered this question in the negative. It is the second question which, in my opinion, has far greater and more far reaching consequences. It was

What is the meaning of the expression “Members of the Boards of all Statutory
Bodies and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has
a controlling interest” (emphasis mine) in paragraph 9 of the Integrity in Public
Life Act as amended?

Most of the judgement is taken up with dealing with whether or not Judges and Magistrates are subject to the provisions of the Integrity legislation. The Judge took 221 paragraphs to explain why she thought that Judges and Magistrates could not be subject to the Act. At paragraph 222 (of some 251 paragraphs in the rather well reasoned judgement) she turned to deal with the second question. And this is where the trouble starts. Perhaps it would be best if I simply quoted the relevant paragraphs of her judgement (for the purposes of this post) so that you will better be able to understand the point I wish to make:

248. In my opinion therefore the words “ Members of the Boards of all Statutory Bodies
and State Enterprises including those bodies in which the State has a controlling interest”
as found in the Act must be taken to mean:
‘the members of the management or decision making body (emphasis mine) of:
(i) all organisations established by Statute;
(ii) all businesses or companies controlled by or on behalf of the State (emphasis mine).

249. Further for the purpose of determining control by or on behalf of the State a business or
company shall be taken to be controlled by the State if the State exercises control
directly or indirectly over its affairs; if the State is entitled to appoint a majority
of the directors of the Board of Directors or holds at least fifty per cent of the capital
of that body (emphasis mine).

Now, pay attention: Last year the State took control of the insurance behemoth CLICO and the huge conglomerate CL Financial. I can’t remember which of the two (CL Financial or CLICO) owns the shares in Republic Bank and also One Caribbean Media, the company that owns the Express newspaper, TV 6 and other media outlets in the Caribbean, but whichever one does is irrelevant. What is relevant is that CLICO/CL Financial owns a controlling interest in both Republic Bank and One Caribbean Media, which means that the State indirectly controls both! What this means is that unless this part of her judgement is overturned, all the directors and senior managers of both companies are going to have to file returns with the Integrity Commission.

But, if no Commissioners are appointed then the Integrity Commission will not be able to enforce the Act. Which means in effect, that although the law is there and these persons will still be bound by it (unless it is changed) then they will effectively be able to evade compliance with the law of the land. Perhaps there is a hope that the law will be changed? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps also this is a reason why the President has not acted because he has been told to “hold his horses” while this imbroglio is sorted out? Maybe the ‘powers that be’ are hoping that the Court of Appeal will disagree with the Judge? Or maybe all or none of these/

Whatever the reason, this is something that ought to be noticed by all. Ah! Life in the Tropics! It’s never dull, is it?

THOSE (PESKY) UNC ELECTIONS … THE AFTERMATH

Well, it’s all over and Kamla is now “Queen”, or is she? The latest coming out from the UNC camp is that she has only five M.P.’s (including herself) who are prepared to support her as Leader of the Opposition. The magic number is eight. The five M.P.’s are Kamla (of course), Jack Warner, Winston ‘Gypsy’ Peters, Nizam Baksh and Harry Partap. All the rest are sitting in Panday’s camp. Or at least that is what they are saying. But I have it on good authority that three of the M.P.’s are playing some sort of game in that they are what you might describe as “floating”. By that I mean that each of these three are prepared to “cross over” to Kamla’s side, but each one wants to be the last (and therefore the most important or critical) one to do so. As a result, these three chickens (for what else can you call them?) are sitting on their hands. So we shall see what we shall see. My bet is that when this bit of information seeps into the public domain there is going to be a lot of anger at all the recalcitrant M.P.’s and especially towards what I am calling the three chickens (and, yes, I do know who they are, but it is probably better for me not to call their names at this time).

Even staunch supporters of Basdeo Panday must be dismayed at this latest turn of events. All that this behaviour is going to achieve is that the Party and its supporters will have to face the continuing lack of trust from the general public who definitely do not want to vote a Party into government that does not appear to be behaving in a civilised manner or that does not respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its memembers. Panday and his chicken M.P.’s are condemning the UNC to permanent opposition … at least while Panday is alive. To try and argue that the M.P.’s are not bound to follow the vote of the membership is the most ridiculous and most dishonest argument that I have ever heard made in the history of politics in this country.

In the meantime, Patrick Manning and his PNM must be breathing a huge sigh of relief. After all, if there had been a smooth transition of the leadership to Kamla, especially after Sunday’s tsunami, she could well represent herself as the change that Trinidad & Tobago is urgently crying out for. And then Mr. Manning would have to make some difficult decisions including whether or not to go for an early general election. As it is, with the continuing strife in the UNC camp thanks in large part to a selfish old man who is no longer a force even in his own backyard (he was beaten by Kamla by somewhere in the ratio of 13 to 1), and the cowardice of certain M.P.’s who are clearly not thinking of anybody but themselves, the confusion continues. And you think that these jokers really should or could be trusted with government? If they don’t get their act together quickly then expect that the UNC will lose the next elections big time despite the heroic effort of Kamla Persad-Bissessar. The country deserves a real contest between two opposing political parties each of which ought to be capable of forming a government. But how can we trust these cowards to do the right thing for us then if they won’t do the right thing now? There will be no choice …. Again!!

THOSE (PESKY) UNC ELECTIONS

Well, in a very short time it will all be over … the UNC elections, I mean. It has certainly been a most interesting few weeks. Things began to get interesting when there were serious hints that Kamla Persad-Bissessar was thinking of throwing her hat into the leadership race. Then we had reports from persons who “definitely knew” that she was not going to contest the leadership, only to be proven wrong by the lady’s rather graceful announcement of her candidacy. And then, of course, there was the ubiquitous Ramesh who has tried valiantly to live down his past and the trust issue. Finally, we had the old lion king returning from his Christmas holiday in London only to find that he had a real fight on his hands.

My information is that up to about the end of last week (more or less) Bas was actually in front and would (legitimately) win this coming Sunday’s internal UNC election. However, about four or five days ago there appears to have been what can only be described as a “seismic shift” on the ground in favour of Kamla. What exactly has caused this shift I have been unable to pinpoint, but there are certain “straws” that a seasoned political observer can look at that indicate that Panday is facing a serious tsunami on Sunday. One of these is the late defection of Harry Partap, the Member of Parliament for Nariva. Partap declared for Kamla on public radio on Thursday morning. I had heard earlier that Partap was one of five UNC MP’s that had quietly said that they would support Kamla for Leader of the Opposition if she won. (Jack Warner and Winston “Gypsy” Peters are amongst the five. I know who the other two are, but as I was given those names in confidence you will forgive me for not sharing them with you.) There is obvious speculation as to why Partap would defect at this time. My own personal view is that he is “on the ground” and is reading the signs very well. Putting it shortly, he wants to survive the Kamla tsunami … and you can’t blame him for that!

Another sign is that Panday was virtually run out of Barrackpore last night (Thursday). He tried to play it down on the radio this morning, but my information from people who were there is that the very small crowd (less than a hundred) did not want to hear him and almost stoned him! Extraordinary, indeed! Incidentally, I know Panday very well. I thought that he sounded listless and depressed this morning … more going through the motions than anything else. Certainly, he got a hard time from the presenters … Ken Ali in particular, whose questions were very fair, but tough. (The interview was more along what you tend to get in the First World than we are accustomed to in the Third World. Hopefully, this heralds a new era in journalism in this country where journalists are more prepared to ask the hard questions of our leaders and would-be leaders.)

History has a way of repeating itself. The last big Indian leader to go down in flames was Bhadase Maharaj. The difference is that although it became clear that Capildeo was going to defeat him, nobody was telling Bhadase that they were not going to vote for him. This time Panday is being shown scant respect.

By the way, if I haven’t mentioned Ramesh it is because he is really nowhere to be found. He has restricted his campaigning basically to his constituency in Tabaquite and if truth be told has not been able to excite the UNC heartland in any meaningful way. He does have a few hardcore supporters, but nothing really that would put him in serious contention.

There is a lot of talk about possible cheating at the polls. Jack Warner has been shouting it from just about every rooftop! Even if Panday and his troops wanted to cheat, my information is that it is now going to be difficult if not impossible to do so. The tsunami is too large and there are too many people in place who will be watching. Of course, anything is possible, but it looks like we are going to be waking up on Monday to a new political paradigm … or ‘para-dig-m’ as one ex UNC Minister once pronounced it. If a Kamla victory does occur, then a lot will change … it will have to! But then that’s the subject of another post.

Note: Post from 22 January that did not get published due to a technical problem.

THE HALF EMPTY/FULL GLASS

There is nothing quite that clears the mind and lets you see things through fresh eyes as a short holiday abroad. I went to Venezuela for Christmas, and while I have nothing but praise for the hospitality and generosity of my wife's family and friends, the truth is that I couldn't help but notice how things had deteriorated in that beautiful country. The cost of living has gone through the roof, food is a lot more expensive and people are coping, but they are not happy. Crime in Caracas makes the crime we are complaining about here look like a tea party! They really have problems!

So, when I came back home I looked again at where we are, where we have come from, and where we seem to be going. Let me say from the outset that I agree with most (if not all) of the criticisms that are heard in the street, on the radio and are read about in the print media with what is wrong with our little country. But I always try to be fair (even if I don't always succeed) and because this blog is not about being in a popularity contest but about trying to discuss things that I think need discussing, I thought that perhaps it might be worthwhile to look at where we are from a slightly different angle. In other words, are things really as bleak as we like to make them out to be? Are we really in serious trouble as so many (including me) like to say? Or can we say to our selves that despite everything there is hope?

Certainly we are better off than our Latin neighbour just to the west of us. I don’t propose to go into any analysis of why Venezuela is experiencing the problems that it has, my point is simply that they really are in trouble. And I genuinely hope that they can get out of it. We are also much better off than our Caricom brothers and sisters to the north of us. All of those little islands are in trouble. Jamaica is facing economic problems that would make a grown Trini cry! Even well run Barbados has experienced a major downturn in its financial affairs! Why do we think that we are or ought to be immune? And, yes, I know what our Prime Minister and his minions have been saying in the past and are saying now. But, for the purposes of this particular post I deliberately do not want to “taint” it with criticisms (or praise) of any particular politician(s). I just want to look at our position right now as coldly and as truthfully as possible.

And if I were to be completely frank I would have to say that while acknowledging all the well known criticisms (or perhaps even in spite of them) the truth is that we are not as badly off as we sometimes like to say. Unemployment (whether helped by CEPEP or nor) is still relatively low. Our economy, while it has been battered is still fairly healthy. Our currency although it has depreciated slightly has not been devalued. (Incidentally, as I understand it a major reason for the present depreciation is that a lot of “big players” have moved their money out and converted it to US dollars! In other words, we are creating our own “crisis”.) Our Court system still enjoys the confidence of the vast majority of the citizenry and the Judiciary still feels that it is able to stand up to the Executive whenever it deems it necessary. And although our press has many (undeclared) biases it is still by and large free and able to criticize the government whenever it feels it necessary or desirable to do so.

You might think that all that I have listed is not important. But it is. You might also say, well all the more reason that we should be vigilant and make sure that we do not lose our rights and privileges … and I would agree with you absolutely.

There is an organisation called Freedom House. It was founded in 1941 with a mandate or objective (amongst other things) to report on the state of freedom in countries around the world.
It is a highly regarded and respected organisation around the world. If you go to its website you will find reports on something like 193 countries. Our little country scores a 2 on political rights and a 2 on civil liberties. The highest score a country can get is a 1. Our status is listed as “free”. The United States gets a 1 in political rights and a 1 in civil liberties and its status is also listed as “free”. The website says that countries whose ratings are between 1.0 and 2.5 are regarded as “free”. Countries whose ratings are listed as 3.0 to 5.0 are regarded as “partly free”, and countries with a rating of 5.0 to 7 are regarded as “not free”. A “2” rating in civil liberties and political rights means that these countries have a slightly weaker system because of “such factors as some political corruption, limits on the functioning of political parties and opposition groups, and foreign or military influence on politics”.

Brazil, one of Latin America’s strongest emerging countries has identical ratings to ours. Neighbouring Venezuela gets a “4” on both political rights and civil liberties and a “partly free” rating. Zimbabwe gets a “7” and a “6” and a not free rating. Jamaica is like us. Barbados is the only Caribbean nation to get a”1” in both political rights and civil liberties!

Put another way, we aren’t doing so badly. Put another way again, perhaps we should recognise that our glass is really half full as opposed to half empty. What do you think?

Haiti

What a shocking and sad turn of events for our Caribbean neighbors in Haiti this week. I am certain that I speak for all the people of Trinidad and Tobago when I say that we are deeply saddened by the loss of life, the injuries and the devastation. The people of Haiti and the brave rescue workers are in our prayers as we mourn this tragedy.

In however small or large a way, we must do what we can to support the rescue and recovery efforts of our Caribbean brothers and sisters. The swift efforts and noble commitments of aid from the world and from Trinidad and Tobago this week are commendable. It is our responsibility to monitor the progress of relief in Haiti and provide as much assistance as possible as their needs become more apparent.

Now, the long-suffering people of Haiti are in the midst of the crisis – in the midst of the darkest chaos of destruction. With the world community and the Caribbean family in particular, we extend our hand to the Haitian people. We must help them climb out of the depths and into a brighter day.

For now, do what you can to support the Caribbean Red Cross and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.caribbeanredcross.org/news/2010/haiti_appeal.htm

THE MULTI BILLION DOLLAR DRUG TRADE - or, we don’t have a money laundering problem in T&T)

A report in The Observer newspaper in England from last Sunday says that the head of the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime, Mr. Antonio Maria Costa, is claiming that he has seen evidence that “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks that were on the brink of collapse last year when the worldwide economic crisis began was drug money. He said that the result was that the majority of the $352bn of drug profits was absorbed into the system and was thus effectively laundered. He is quoted in the report as saying that “…the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital in the second half of 2008, liquidity was the main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor.” He goes on to say that there is evidence that inter bank loans were funded by money from the drugs trade and there are signs that this is how some banks were rescued.

The article is well worth reading. For one thing it certainly highlights how enormously powerful the drug cartels have now become. If most of the $352bn in drug profits are now effectively laundered and that money is now in the world’s legitimate financial system, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realise that this makes the men running these cartels even more powerful … and more dangerous. The line from the old song that said something about money making the world go around is very, very true!

Well, this article got me to thinking: what is happening down here in our own little neck of the woods concerning drug profits and money laundering? A few years ago somebody in Customs and Excise told me that the annual profits from the Trinidad drug trade were almost as big as this country’s annual budget! Is this true? I have no way of knowing or even of finding out without probably getting myself killed. But the question is a very serious one. And what is also extremely worrying is that nobody is talking about it! It is as if the problem simply does not exist!

Put another way, one wag recently pontificated to me that we have neither a serious drug problem (as concerns big drug money) nor do we have any money laundering in good old T&T! When I looked at him with incredulous surprise he laughed at me and said, “When last did you ever hear of a major drug lord being arrested and charged? When last did you hear of a banker being charged … let alone convicted … with money laundering? And the very definition of money laundering requires that it be done through a bank! I rest my case.”

He had a point. But I don’t believe that there is no money laundering in T&T. I don’t believe that enormous amounts of drug profits are not being accumulated. I don’t believe that we have no really big drug lords in this country. Do you? If you have the same beliefs as I do in this matter, then I have two last questions for you: why isn’t the media highlighting this? Don’t you think that this is an issue that ought to be on the media’s ‘front burner’?

WHAT IF...?

What if your name was Basdeo Panday? What if you had “struggled” for more than 40 years in the political trenches and now as you are approaching the end of your eighth decade on the planet you find the political hounds nipping at your heels and the cloud of possible jail time hanging over your head. What if you did not want to “ride out into the sunset” but you found yourself facing a serious political challenge in just over a month from now that could easily spell the ignominious end of your long and battle scarred career? What would you do?

As I have said before, if ever you want to understand a problem...any problem... go back to basics. So, I found myself asking this question. What if I was Panday? What are my options? Well, as I see it the options facing the legendary ‘Silver Fox’ are as follows (incidentally, these options are those that I can see; if you can think of other options please let everybody know):

Option 1: Roll over and die; admit that I am at the end of my rope and give up.
Analysis: It is most unlikely that I would do this (remember that ‘I’ am Basdeo Panday). This would go against everything that I have stood for and would be completely out of character for me. We can probably safely discard this option.

Option 2: Go up against Kamla and Ramesh in a fair fight and marshall my still considerable strength to beat them.
Analysis: Risky. Polls show that I am not as popular as I used to be. While I could probably beat Ramesh fairly easily (he is the least of my problems), he is likely to take critical votes away from me, and Kamla, who is quite popular, could slip through. Further, there is a risk that the opinion polls are correct, which will mean that Kamla will trounce me and will find myself with no cards at all in my hand left to play, not even a Jack (pun intended)!

Option 3: Cheat.
Analysis: But that is also very risky. I could be caught out, and if the support for Kamla is really strong then her supporters will cry foul, and heaven alone knows where that could end up. They are already saying that I will cheat! So, what do I do? I have to think out of the box. But there is a fourth option that could allow me to stay in power and keep everything together. And it’s one that my opponents will not be expecting:

Option 4: I do not run for Political Leader of the UNC. I leave that for Kamla and for her to lick up Ramesh (which she will do). Instead, I do as I did before and go up against Jack Warner for the chairmanship of the Party. That way I could lick up Ramesh (well, Kamla will do that for me) and I will probably be able to beat Jack as well. The RamjackG faction will be dead like the proverbial ducks and I will be clear. I won’t have to resign as Leader of the Opposition and I can work with Kamla. Yep! This is a good “out” for me!
Analysis: It could work. Nobody will be expecting it and I will have the advantage of surprise. Further, Jack Warner is not as sympathetic a character as Kamla. He will be easier to beat!

Well, what do you think? What if you were the old ‘Silver Fox’? What would you do?

THE UNC INTERNAL ELECTIONS – More Important Than You May Think!

The UNC internal elections are attracting an understandable amount of attention. The UNC is after all the official opposition Party and, some might argue, the only realistic alternative to the ruling PNM. I use the word “realistic” deliberately and in the political sense in that I honestly don’t believe that given its present configuration that the Congress of the People can attract enough voters to win a single seat. Of course, a week in politics (to quote former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson) is a long time and I suppose that the boys and girls in the COP are hoping that something might happen to change their political fortunes, but frankly, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The COP has been unable to attract any new voters to its cause, and looks as if it has in fact lost quite a few who voted for it in the last elections.

In any case, I don’t think that a lot of people realise that despite the COP’s intervention in the last election the UNC came remarkably close to winning it outright! Something like 9,000 votes separated the UNC from a victory at the polls in the last election. Surprised? Take a look at the difference between the UNC votes and the PNM votes in six marginal constituencies (St. Joseph, Tunapuna, San Fernando West, Chaguanas East, Barataria/San Juan and Pointe-a-Pierre) and add them up. The total difference between the 2 parties comes to about 9,000 votes. Now, if you take, say, half the COP votes in each constituency and “give” them to the UNC you will begin to understand the dynamics and electoral strategies of the various UNC players from Panday to Ramesh and back through Kamla. If you had added half of the COP votes in these constituencies to the UNC’s votes in the last elections we would have had a UNC government with 21 seats to the PNM’s 20! That is one of the reasons that Panday is so bitter towards Dookeran. Panday’s argument that Dookeran’s intervention cost the UNC the election is not without some justification.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what the Corridor thinks of Panday or whether the people in the “PNM till ah dead” strongholds believe that he is the worst thing in the world. The truth is that the UNC can reasonably count on 15 seats in every election; the PNM on 20. The real battle is in the six marginals. They represent the difference between ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’; government or opposition.

That is why Mr. Panday defies his critics who all say that he is past it, too tainted to continue, and not acceptable to the country. He knows that they are wrong. He knows that all he has to do is hold his base and win back some of the voters who deserted him for Dookeran in the last election. Of course, the key is in the phrase “he has to hold his base…”. But there is a very real chance that he will be able to do so (i.e. hold the base together) in the next elections if he wins in January. And if he can hold his base together his chances of being able to grab the “missing” 9,000 odd votes is pretty good, or put it this way, quite possible (as opposed to probable). So, don’t write off the old man yet!

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Ramesh is mounting what he hopes will be a strong challenge. Ramesh incidentally also understands the electoral maths and therefore is not as concerned as one might expect as to his general country wide acceptance or lack of it. And, of course, there is Kamla. She is due to give a press conference tomorrow in which it is widely expected that she will declare her candidacy for leadership of the Party. What has been interesting to see is the number of callers on the call-in radio shows in the last few days who have been suggesting that they “know” that she is not going to run after all. She appears to have a lot of support and if the “jungle drums” are any indication she might even beat out Mr. Panday. Well, we’ll see soon enough, won’t we!

And finally, there is the ubiquitous Jack Warner. Although both he and Ramesh are denying that there is a split their respective words and actions certainly seem to contradict this. What happened between them? Nobody seems to know, but clearly they aren’t as close as they were before. Now, I do have a question: what does Jack want? Does he want to be “kingmaker” or does he want to be “king”. His words suggest that he wants only to be the “kingmaker” but his actions seem to suggest that what he really wants is to be “king”.

As you will appreciate, all of this is important. The United National Congress is the only (at this time) credible political Party that has a chance of resting the government from Manning’s grasp. The truth is that if the Party were able to get its act together that chance could easily become a real chance. But, as I said earlier, a week in politics is a long time and the truth is that there are many, many numbers still to play in the game before the next general elections. The message today is simply, pay attention. The UNC is more relevant than you might think!

NUGGETS FROM THE COMMENTS SECTION

A reader named "Marlon" made a valuable contribution on the message boards and asked some relevant questions. I want to get into the habit of answering some of these contributions on occasion to foster a constructive public debate on The Rag. Without further ado, here is the unedited version of what "Marlon" wrote:

I am trying to follow you and I see your point somewhat, I makes no sense but I see your point. May I then ask sir, as a lawyer, are you saying then that you cannot, or anyone for that matter, be impartial to issues. You have made a point of apparent bias on the part of TI's Victor Hart. You have made out a case of case of apparent bias on the part of Prf. John Uff and another commissioner in the CoE, but I am finding great difficulty in following your argument. I must say, if I am to make the assumtions that you have, that you too may be seen as being biased against those opposite to Udecott, considering that you have represented the Harts. I am just following logic and making the very assumptions that you have.


Marlon, your points are all valid, but I would say the this:

Apparent bias is not the same as actual bias. However, in law the effect is the same, i.e., that where there is apparent bias or actual bias the judicial officer must step down or the findings of the court/tribunal will be thrown out. The case that you might say is “the grand daddy” in all this is the Pinochet case. You will recall that in the case General Augosto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator was arrested in London on an extradition warrant from Spain. He appealed the Order of the High Court that he be sent to Spain to stand trial. The Court of Appeal turned him down. He then appealed to the House of Lords (the Privy Council). The House of Lords held that because one of the three judges had a connection with Transparency International (the judge’s wife had been a director of TI) that there was the possibility of apparent bias and that as a result Pinochet could go free! (You will remember that TI had been extremely critical of Pinochet’s regime). The apparent bias of one judge was enough to “contaminate the entire panel.
The House of Lords said that they were absolutely satisfied that the judge in question was a most honourable person and that they believed that he was not biased. But they readily admitted that there could be an argument of apparent bias! And that is my point!
And, yes, you are right. If I had been asked to be a Commissioner in this Enquiry I would have had to turn it down as I once upon a time acted for Calder Hart (though I am not his attorney today). Further I was a lawyer in the Scarborough General Hospital Commission of Enquiry and played no small part in that Enquiry where it was directed that the police should investigate NH International Caribbean with a view to seeing whether or not NHIC should be prosecuted for larceny. (Incidentally, this police investigation has yet to take place!) My comments in that Enquiry would also probably preclude me from sitting as a Commissioner in this one because it could be argued that they show an apparent bias against NHIC. And it would be irrelevant to my protesting that I consider myself to be a fair minded person who would deal with the facts as presented. That may very well be true…….But there could easily be an argument that I had an apparent bias even if (assuming but not accepting) it could not be shown that I had an actual bias.
Having said that, I am not sitting in judgment of any of the parties in this Commission. Further, what I have been trying to do is to alert thinking people like your good self of what I perceive from my knowledge and experience to be the very real dangers of the Uff Commission becoming a monumental waste in every meaning of the word! I have studiously avoided, or tried to avoid, defending either UDeCOTT or Calder Hart. In fact, if you re-read my blog you will see that I have said several times that I believe that there are serious questions that need answering.

Either way, this is the kind of debate that is worth encouraging and I appreciate anyone who takes the time to contribute in a constructive manner.

Robin

RADIO INTERVIEW - December 10, 2009

Dear Readers,

I will on the radio tomorrow, sharing my views on the latest developments regarding the Uff Commission of Enquiry.

What: Morning Panchayat
Who: with Dr. Suruj Rambachan, Ken Ali and Shamoon Mohammed
Where: Sangeet FM106.1
When: 6AM-9AM

I expect to be on between 6am and 7am.

I hope you will tune in.

Robin

JUSTICE WILD WEST STYLE (or Things aren’t always what they seem)

In order to understand a problem, a wise old Queen’s Counsel once told me when I was a brand new lawyer, always go back to basics. I mention this because, no doubt like everybody else, I was more than a little surprised to see the headlines in all three daily newspapers this morning saying that the evidence of Carl Khan, the former husband of Mrs. Sherrine Hart, was being admitted without any kind of challenge from UDeCOTT or Calder Hart. All three newspapers presented this as if it were an admission by UDeCOTT, Hart, etc. that what Carl Khan was saying was in fact true.

But then I read all three reports again and noted that nowhere in any of the reports had any reporter bothered to find out why this rather (on the face of it) extraordinary decision had been taken by the UDeCOTT etc. team. Put another way, if any reporter had indeed tried to find out, such efforts did not form part of the story. And again, I had to ask why? One of them had bothered to contact Dr. Rowley, who unsurprisingly was only too happy to put in his own two cents worth, which was (of course) anything but flattering of Team UDeCOTT. But nowhere had anybody apparently tried to find out why the decision been made not to challenge the evidence?

Let me state very quickly that I do not know. I have no hotline into Team UDeCOTT and not being an accredited journalist I don’t really feel that I can call up and ask anybody questions. (Maybe I can, but I think/hope that you understand my point). But having regard to all that has gone before and having regard to the fact that the Uff CoE is being challenged very seriously in the High Court by way of Judicial Review (JR) it would be surprising to say the least if Team UDeCOTT was just going to roll over and die and allow this kind of knock to go unchallenged.

Carl Khan’s evidence could easily be challenged (even if, assuming though not accepting, any or all of it was true) and from his statement published in the papers it would not be difficult for a skilled cross examiner to attack his credibility. So, I for one, refuse to accept that Team UDeCOTT is just rolling over and dying. You remember the saying: ‘It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings’… and she ain’t singin’ yet!

Readers of this blog will be aware that I have been at pains to point out mistakes that Uff & Company have been making in this CoE. I have been warning all who would listen that the whole enquiry could go down the drain and become a total waste of taxpayers’ money if attention is not paid now to correcting these mistakes. I have also warned about the question of bias or apparent bias and how there is a lot of evidence to support Team UDeCOTT’s allegations in this regard.

So, why has there been no response and why is Team UDeCOTT nowhere around right now? The answer could lie in the JR proceedings coming up early in the New Year. Depending on a number of factors a good lawyer might advise his client in these type of circumstances that it would weaken his case for the JR proceedings if he were to continue to take part in the enquiry. So, the advice would be don’t take any further part. Leave Carl Khan alone. There is no profit in dealing with him, and in fact dealing with him could hurt the (JR) case. Conversely, Uff & Company might be well advised (for reasons which hopefully are obvious) to halt what they are doing and wait on the High Court before proceeding further. Of course, waiting might not suit some people even though it would ensure that justice was in fact done! Of course, it could be argued that “justice” Wild West style is still justice… but I don’t think that many fair minded people would buy into that argument!

CALLING TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL: State Capture is Not Only a Danger for Jamaica

The Trinidad Guardian carried an interesting article today (December 4th) coming out of Jamaica concerning a warning from Transparency International (Jamaica, unlike Trinidad and Tobago does not have a local chapter) that Jamaica is in danger of succumbing to what TI calls “State capture”. The report says that the term “is used to describe a situation where powerful individuals, institutions, companies or groups within a country use corruption to influence policies, the legal environment and economy to benefit their own private interests”. The report goes on to highlight the lack of transparency and accountability in the funding of political parties.

Now, everybody who has been reading this blog knows that I have had serious concerns with the Uff Commission of Enquiry into the Construction Sector. And those who have tried to keep a fair and open mind will also recall that I have had serious concerns with Commissioner Sirju’s connections with the Construction Industry and in particular with NH International Caribbean (NHIC), the very large, profitable and powerful construction company.

You see, Professor Uff and his fellow commissioners have appeared to be concentrating only on UDeCOTT and appear to be ignoring completely the very real concerns that reasonable citizens had or ought to have had with the behaviour of the construction industry, which some would say was taking a cartelized character.

Before UDeCOTT came on the scene with its design/build philosophy I cannot think of a single major project carried out by any of the big ‘players’ in the construction industry that came in on time and within budget using the much criticised design/tender process. UDeCOTT does have at least to its credit the waterfront project as coming in on time and within budget. That there are questions (and serious ones at that) to be answered, for example, the Tarouba stadium, by UDeCOTT does not take away from this fundamental point. That being said, the Tarouba stadium was managed as, ...yes, you guessed right a design/tender project.

[You should really read the hyperlinked Wikipedia entries on the two processes, they are very helpful in understanding the pitfalls of design/tender and how a developer can, in the worst case, fall hostage to the construction contractors].

Further, there is the as yet unexplored question by the Uff Commission (at least, if they are exploring it this has not been widely publicised) concerning funding of political parties and politicians. Wasn’t it Emile Elias who admitted that he had “contributed” to Dr. Rowley’s campaign? Or was it Dr. Rowley who made that revelation? Either way, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that we have had a public admission that Mr. Elias has made political contributions to a politician with whom he has had a close personal relationship and with whose wife (I am referring to the “Landdate affair”) Mr. Elias through his company has had a business relationship.

Now, I would be the first to agree that any person or entity has the right to make any political contributions to anybody they like and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with political giving, whether the recipient is a personal friend or not. But, life is never that simple. The obvious question that arises is how much did he give? A dollar? A hundred dollars? Thousands of dollars? More?

Why does this matter you ask? Because while there is nothing illegal or intrinsically wrong with X making a political contribution to Y’s campaign, nobody would really be concerned where the contribution was small, say, a thousand dollars, whilst serious questions ought to arise if, say, the amount was a million dollars.

In other words, large contributions from wealthy and powerful persons who are in a business that involves bidding for government/public contracts need to be able to withstand the kind of scrutiny that they demand of those who hand out the contracts. What is sauce for the goose!

Let me be clear: there is no innuendo of possible wrong doing by Mr. Elias or NHIC in this post and none is intended. As of today there is absolutely no evidence of this at all. But that does not mean that we cannot ask questions or pay attention. Whether we will ever get answers is, of course, another story.

And we have to be vigilant on this and related issues to ensure that the spectre of ‘state capture’ does not become a Trinbagonian haunt.