LIFE IN THE TROPICS (cont.)-THE MARLENE COUDRAY AFFAIR





You must admit that life in Triniwonderland is always exciting and interesting. The powers that be (on all sides of tke political fence) are clearly determined that no matter what, they will keep us entertained and looking at the evening news to discover the latest machinations in the ongoing and never ending novella. The latest bit of "excitement" to hit the airways and the print media is, of course, the defection of San Fernando Mayor Marlene Coudray from the ranks of the COP and her election as a Deputy Political Leader of the very senior partner the UNC (in fact, the only political entity that really counts in that partnership) of the People's Partnership (PP) Government.

The Chairman of the COP cried 'foul' when the news broke that she was running for election as a Deputy Political Leader in the UNC and accused the UNC of 'poaching'! The hurt was even greater when it was realised that in order to run for office in the National Executive of the UNC that one has to be a member for at least 12 months! When did Ms. Coudray resign, was the question? And the other question, almost pleadingly and pathetically was, why didn't you tell us?

Most people (whether she did resign a year ago or not) do not believe that Ms. Coudray resigned a year ago. Frankly, although it is entirely possible that she did and that she is telling the truth when she says that she joined the UNC a year ago, it just doesn't have that 'ring' that would convince a reasonable person that such an outspoken person, as Ms. Coudray is known to be, would not have told the world as to what she was doing when she was doing it. Not to have done so is entirely plausible ... it's just out of character, and that is what most people have a problem with. But to prove that she is not telling the truth on this is just about impossible. It all boils down to what you believe and as to how important you think that this particular question is!

For my part, I see the question as to when she joined important only as to whether or not from her answer one could judge whether or not Ms. Coudray is a truthful person or is one who will bend the truth when it is convenient to her. And that is for us as individuals to come to our own conclusions.

The more important issue, for me at least, is what the move signals. A lot of people think that it is really a move by the UNC to prepare a challenge for the San Fernando West seat currently held by Caolyn Seepersad Bachan of the COP. Ms. Bachan is reputed to be quite unpopular with her constituents and the UNC hierarchy clearly must feel that this seat which has a large COP voter contingent could fall its way with the right candidate. Enter Marlene Coudray! In other words, the UNC is moving to take over the COP support in San Fernando West.

But Prakash Ramadar now has a very serious problem. He clearly doesn't want to give up his ministerial office ... even if he is currently 'low man on the totem pole' ... and appears almost desperate not to walk out of the Partnership. On the other hand, his chairman, Joseph Toney, who hasn't shared at all in the 'spoils' of office, seems determined to push the COP to leave the Partnership. In addition, the UNC moves clearly show that they understand that the COP support is critical to a victory at the polls and they are moving to undercut the COP at every chance that they can get. Mr. Ramadar has said on national television that Ms. Coudray must now resign as San Fernando mayor as that post was promised to the COP in the Fyzabad accord signed by the political parties that make up the PP. My bet is that the Devil will sooner turn down the furnaces in hell than the UNC will agree to that demand! But you have to admit that it sounds good on television! What he will do when the UNC and Ms. Coudray refuse (and they will, either by word, deed or both) is, of course, another question. He (Mr. Ramadar) is damned if he does leave the Partnership and damned if he doesn't. His choices aren't 'pretty'.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, former COP leader Winston Dookeran is reputed to have a very lucrative job offer based in Barbados from the Inter American Development Bank which he would like to take up. The problem with that is his seat ... Tunapuna ... which is possibly and arguably the most marginal of all the marginal seats in the country. Most political pundits believe that if there was a by-election in Tunapuna today that the PNM would win it. Assuming (though obviusly not accepting) that this is true, then such a defeat would bolster the embattled Keith Rowley who is widely perceived to be a loser. A victory in Tunapuna would do a lot to turn this perception around and could well be a harbinger of doom for the PP.

So, what will Dookeran do? Will he use 'the Coudray affair' to quit the Government on "principle"? And will Ramadar follow him into exile and certain defeat when an election finally comes? The COP boys (and girls) have a lot of soul searching to do and a lot of hard decisions to make. One thing is certain though: the UNC boys (and girls) couldn't care less about the internal problems of their very, very junior partner. This, they have made abundantly clear. Mr. Ramadar and his COP colleagues are in a trap that in order to get out of, will require a political agility that so far has been patently lacking in everything that they have done or attempted to do. The COP leadership has been (and is being) discredited to an extent where it is doubtful that it can command the vote that it once had. This doesn't mean that that vote is lost; it's just parked and waiting ... but not for the COP!

Life in the Tropics continues!

DEAR GYPSY ( ....or how to take Carnival to the next level)


You have said that you want to take our Carnival "to the next level". This is a noble and highly commendable objective, and, if truth be known, something that could be done with a little "out of the box" thinking. On the basis that Einstein's theory of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result) is correct, and on the evidence before us that nothing really new has been proposed to take us to this "next level", I thought that you might like some ideas to mull over. So here goes:

1) One of the great things about the Rio Carnival is that it is geared not only for the paticipants, but for the spectators as well. While it is true (and a good thing) that our carnival is more participant oriented, we really are not paying attention to the viewing enjoyment (if that is the correct phrase) of the thousands that do not participate but come down to see the Mas'.
Now, there are two basic problems here and both are probably equal, so it doesn't matter which is mentioned first. One problem is that there is always a back log or log jam of bands in the Savannah with it being not uncommon for the masqueraders in the various bands to be forced to wait for several hours before they can get a chance to cross over. The result is that the spectators often have to wait for long periods to see the various bands.
The other problem is that on Carnival Monday (Lundi Gras) most big bands are hardly ever up to strength and their masqueraders almost without exception do not wear their full costumes. The result is that the show on the streets and even on the stage on Monday is never quite what it should be. Visitors often express disappointment with Carnival Monday's presentations.
What about doing the following which would fix both of these problems. There are "X" number of bands who cross the Savannah stage ... let's say for the sake of argument and to make the point that there are ten such bands. Well, in order to prevent the "traffic jams" that build up at the Savannah why not give each band a number. Bands numbered one to five cross the stage on Carnival Mondays and bands numbered six to ten cross on Carnival Tuesdays. The log jams are seriously lessened and the visitors/viewers get "pretty mas' " on both days. Everybody wins and now you have a more attractive product.

2) The next problem has to do with the perennial complaint that the original idea of the Carnival costumes is slowly dieing with the modern bands being not much more than skimpy bikinis and glass beads. The jefes of the Rio de Janiero were faced with the same type of complaints ... and we have all seen the pictures of the even skimpier bikinis that pervade the Rio scene!! In any case, they came up with a rather ingenious idea: There is/was a type of old Carnival costume emanating from Bahia (yes, the same place as the girl in David Rudder's famous calypso) where the ladies would wear these huge hooped skirts. Now, every Carnival band in Rio has to have at its head a section of revellers dressed in these old fashioned skirts. Why not make it a rule that every single band that wants to go across any of the stages has to have a section at its front of old time mas' that they can fit into the particular band's theme, followed by the bikinis and beads. It would be one way of keeping the true mas' alive, and again would be very appealing for the viewers/visitors.

3) Then there is the problem that Peter Minshall complained about ... Carnival is street theatre. But it is degenerating into not-so-soft core pornography. I am the last person to be prudish about anything, but quite frankly, some of the pictures of revellers that were in the newspapers and some of the images that flashed across our television screens this year were outright lewd, vulgar and totally out of place for what is supposed to be a major tourist attraction. There are not a few tourists or potential tourists who will want to come with their children. The raw and vulgar gyrations that took place on stage left absolutely nothing to the imagination and really ought to be discouraged. Perhaps one way of doing this is to announce that if such vulgarity takes place on stage that the band in which it is allowed to happen will be fined a hefty amount. We must try and lift the mas' up rather than allow it wallow in the vulgarity that seems so regretably to be allowed to be taking over.

The short point of all this is that it wouldn't take a lot to turn our Carnival into a world class product. But we ain't there yet! And if truth be known, unless we do something soon we could see such a real deterioration in standards that we will soon lose our place in the Carnival world and the competition certainly is not standing still. Put another way, this is the twenty-first century. Isn't it time that we applied a little twenty-first century thinking to modernise our twentieth century festival?

P.S. I know that Carnival started a lot earlier than the twentieth century. But it really became a "big" or people's celebration in the last hundred years or so which is why I referred to it as 'our twentieth century festival'.

THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION ... and all that!




I have been looking on with interest and not little amazement as to the confusion (and 'confusion' has to be the correct word) surrounding the latest imbroglio to hit the Integrity Commission ('IC'), what with newspaper offices being raided, the predictable howl from the Media, the suspension of a Commissioner (Mrs. Gafoor) by the President and the appointment of a tribunal to investigate Mrs. Gafoor's conduct in refusing to recuse herself from the IC tribunal that is investigating former Attorney General John Jeremie.

The facts as have been reported seem to be these:
(1) Former Attorney General John Jeremie was/is being investigated by the IC
on a matter involving his alleged participation in the infamous 'land deal' with
former Chief Magistrate Sherman McNichols and the prosecution of former
Chief Justice Sat Sharma;
(2) For reasons that are not entirely clear, Mr. Jeremie had objected while he was
Attorney General to the appointment of Mrs. Gafoor to the IC.
(3) Mr. Jeremie, when the IC began to investigate him, objected to Mrs. Gafoor
sitting on the tribunal on the grounds that she might be biased against him as
he had previously objected to her appointment.
(4) The current Chairman of the IC, Mr. Ken Gordon, on the strength of Mr.
Jeremie's complaint only, asked Mrs. Gafoor to recuse herself in the matter,
a request which Mrs. Gafoor, a lawyer, refused.
(5) Certain matters that were discussed in IC deliberations were leaked to the press
in the person of Mr. Andre Bagoo, a reporter for Newsday.
(6) The IC asked the police to investigate the matter and find out who leaked the
information and the police did so with raids on Newsday's offices and the home
of the reporter.
(7) The President, at the fairly obvious urging of the IC,
suspended Mrs. Gafoor and appointed a tribunal headed by former Chief Justice
Michael delaBastide to investigate Mrs. Gafoor's behaviour and whether she
had/has done anything wrong.

And that is all that is in the public domain.

It would be foolish to comment on the rights or wrongs of the matter unless and until all of the facts are in. However, it might help our understanding a little if we went back to basics. A judge (or any person who is sitting on a matter in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity) is disqualified from sitting where he (or she) has a personal or pecuniary interest. As to whether or not Mrs. Gafoor might appear to be biased against Mr. Jeremie because he had once objected to her appointment to the IC is the type of argument that lawyers love for it is not necessarily as clear cut as might first appear on the surface. A judge in the House of Lords once said in a famous case
"My Lords, I wish that the use of the word 'bias' should be confined to is proper sphere.
Its proper significance, in my opinion, is to denote a departure from the standard of
even-handed justice which the law requires from those who occupy judicial office, or
those who are commonly regarded as holding a quasi-judicial office, such as an
arbitrator".

Bottom line: what does all this mean? It means that without looking at or seeing or hearing all the details it is not possible for any of us in the public to say whether or not Mrs. Gafoor was right not to recuse herself or that Mr. Gordon was wrong to ask her to step down. Put another way, the matter is not as simple as all that and there is a lot of law on the subject of bias and perceived bias.

What I think that the IC should have done is that all of the Commissioners (Mrs. Gafoor included) should have gone to a Senior Counsel (a person like Russel Martineau comes to mind) who has a (well deserved) reputation of giving good and impartial advice as to whether or not the claim of bias by Mr. Jeremie could be substantiated. Assuming (though definitely not accepting) that the advice came back that Mrs. Gafoor was right in her assertion that she should not step down and that the allegation could not be sustained in law, then everybody would have been protected. On the other hand, if the advice came down the other way, it is hard to see that such an experienced jurist as Mrs. Gafoor is, would not step down. A lot of unnecessary pain could have been avoided if the IC had done this. Perhaps this makes the case for the Chairman of the IC to have a legal background?

Then now, we have the matter of press freedom. It is important to understand in discussing this aspect of this multi-faceted imbroglio that the only profession that enjoys absolute privilege as regards confidentiality is the legal profession. There is no law and no right of the press (or even a priest for that matter) to keep sources and/or information secret or confidential. The truth is that in other democracies priests have been jailed for refusing to disclose matters heard in the confessional and journalists have also been fined and jailed for refusing to disclose their sources. In other words, there is no right of the press to keep sources confidential and any action taken against the press in this regard is not necessarily an attack on press freedom.

I am not saying that this present case is not an attack on the press ... neither am I saying that it is. What I am trying to do is to strip away all of the hype ... from both sides ... and to present the facts and the law as simply as possible so that we can all understand it and understand exactly what happened and what the arguments are. Unfortunately, in this Trini Wonderland world in which we live all too often we don't see the woods for the trees. Because we don't analyse things carefully, we tend all too often to get it wrong. But then, blinding emotion has never been convinced by cool, calm and clear logic. And we Trinis are nothing if not emotional!!

TO FIU OR NOT TO FIU .... that is the question!!



Readers of this blog will know that I have in the past been quite critical of Winston Dookeran's performance as Finance Minister. The truth is that I remain critical of his performance and do believe that he could have done better and, perhaps more importantly, ought to be doing better. I am of the view that a lot of unnecessary pain is being inflicted on the economy of Trinidad & Tobago because of his failures to act on many fronts.

However, in the interest of fairness I came across some information over the weekend that a few people are very ... nay, acutely aware of, but of which most people haven't got a clue. It all begins with the Financial Intelligence Unit (the FIU) which came into being a little while ago amidst certain (inevitable?) contraversy as to the appointment of Ms. Susan Francois (... a lady for whom, incidentally, I have always had the highest personal regard). And this information tends to put a slightly different light on the general contractions in the economy that are taking place.

It seems that the International Monetary Fund (the IMF) and the Americans have been putting the proverbial squeeze on good old T&T especially as regards money laundering. The IMF has literally forced the Government to put measures in place that have put a most severe squeeze on the activities of our dearly beloved and protected Drug Lords. It is now (thanks in large part to the activities of the FIU) much more difficult to launder money. In the past, for example, a Drug Lord could have a shop in, let's say, a popular mall. He could use that shop as a front to launder, say TT$100,000 per day saying that this was his receipts. The bank would happily accept it even though if you made a trip to the mall you would ss hardly anybody in the shop and his alleged sales did not match his actual purchases. But nobody was complaining. Everybody was making money!

Indeed, the 'black' or underground economy was as big as the 'white' or legitimate economy. That, for your information, is about TT$50 billion a year ... or if you prefer it in greenbacks, a little under US$8 billion a year! A sizable sum in any currency!!

But now, the banks are being forced to question the deposits and to report them. The FIU is sending its agents to monitor stores (like the hypothetical one used as an example above) to see whether or not the stores are really doing the business that they say that they are. In addition, the FIU is reporting the results to the Board of Inland Revenue who are checking to see whether or not income tax is being paid. And the agents are sitting in front of the stores for weeks and can judge fairly easily that, for example,our hypothetical store is not doing $100,000 a day in sales.

The result has been severe pain for the Drug Lords who have legitimate debts that they can no longer service. If what I heard is true, for example, a certain Drug Lord owes some TT$900 million to a certain bank. He was more than able to service this loan in the past, but all of a sudden he can't. Money/cash is piling up in shoe boxes but he can't get it into the system. The result is that his legitimate businesses are going slowly bust! And he ain't alone!!

Put another way, just at the time that the legitimate economy is contracting, the underground economy is crashing! Trinidad & Tobago is getting a "double whammy" of bad news. Apparently, you can't even buy a million dollar car (Range Rovers, Porsche Cayennes, Mercedes Benz, etc.) without having to show the FIU where you got the money from to buy this (whatever "this"is) car. You can't buy a property without having to report the source of funds! Put another way, the easy days of money laundering appear to be over ... at least for the time being.

One of my cousins told me that he had met a senior FBI official recently who told him that T&T was the place to be a gangster. According to the FBI guy there is no other place in the world where it is so easy to steal and launder money. Hopefully, that will change now. But it is going to be painful. Taking even a portion of $50 billion out of the system will cause pain and suffering ... necessary as it so obviously is.

But, you know, Mr. Dookeran should have told us this. We shouldn't have to find out for ourselves. This is what openness and transparency is all about. And anything that hurts the Drug Lords has to be a good thing.

GLASS HALF FULL?





Almost every businessman that you talk to today will tell you privately that he is worried about the country and where we are heading. They will complain that the country is becoming uncompetitive and is falling behind in just about every sphere of business imaginable. They will tell you that there are glaring weaknesses in the schools and in the graduates coming out of the University of the West Indies, that crime is out of control and that clearly nobody has either the will or the capacity to get it under control. They will also complain bitterly about the stagnant economy and the obvious incapacity of the Government to get things moving. Most of all you will hear them complaining about what they perceive to be a lack of leadership and the stagnant economy.

To be fair, most of the complaints about leadership can basically be summed up like this: Rowley ain't cuttin' it. He clearly can't make. Like Manning said, he is like a dog that barks at every passing car in the hope that one day he will catch one. (This leads to the obvious question: what does a dog do when it does eventually catch the car?) But to continue: on the other side a lot of the businessmen say that they still like Kamla but that she has to take control of her Cabinet. They feel that there are some elements in her Cabinet who exercise undue influence on the Lady (the capital "L" is on purpose) and that she is being given poor advice. Further, they point to the rumours of corruption that are swirling around her administration and say that they believe them to be true. Labour is acting up and it is generally felt that trouble will begin after Carnival.

In other words, what is being said by many in the business community privately (and not so privately) is that they are most concerned about the future. They have absolutely no faith in the PNM under Rowley and feel that he (Dr. Rowley) is simply not a credible alternative. On the other side of the coin they feel that Kamla too is failing, though they prefer her to Rowley.

This perception is dangerous in that it creates a feeling of unease in the society that permeates through to all levels. In the past, the PNM was always there as the "default" political party. In other words, we could try ABC party or XYZ but if they didn't work we could always go back to the PNM. The problem is that under Dr. Rowley the PNM is no longer a credible "default" or alternative. The perception is that the PNM has turned sharply to its core African support and really does not care about being multi ethnic or multi cultural. Dr. Rowley didn't help this perception at all with his rather silly criticisms of the Prime Minister's trip to India and her touching the feet of the Indian President ... a gesture that is very acceptable in Hindu culture. Defenders of the Prime Minister have pointed out (quite correctly) that you didn't hear any of these complaints when the Pope visited Trinidad and then President Ellis Clarke ( a sincere and devout Catholic) knelt before him and kissed his ring!

In other words, it was felt/perceived by a sizable portion of the population that these criticisms of the Prime Minister were motivated more by race and ill will than by any honestly held opinion as to her action being an affront to our national identity.

So? What can be done? The present situation is not acceptable and contains within it the possibility of leading to some serious social unrest downstream. The only test of leadership is to lead, and to lead vigorously. The best way for the Prime Minister to get out of this deadly downward spiral that she is now finding herself in is to get the economy moving again. In order to do this she is going to have to deal with her erstwhile Finance Minister and give him the message: lead, follow or get out of the way. There are too many people now who see the nation's glass as being half empty. That perception has to change. We have to be shown that the glass is half full. If she doesn't do that ... and soon ... we will have a very long and dark night to go through.

WELCOME TO THE WILD, WILD WEST



Two completely separate incidents took place at the end of last week which have brought me out of a self imposed hibernation since Christmas. I had taken a conscious decision not to get involved in any of the (for want of a better word) 'scandals' that might erupt in the new year and to stay out of any 'cat and dog' fights that might result. But these two incidents have so upset me that I feel that I must comment on them, if only for the sake of my own sanity.

The first incident that I am talking about is the storming of the headquarters of the Public Service Association (PSA) on Thursday by a breakaway faction that is opposed to the leadership of the current PSA President, Watson Duke. The matter is now before the High Court and I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of commenting on the rights of either of the parties to that dispute. What concerns (and concerned) me is the behaviour of both sides ... which, quite frankly, was absolutely deplorable.

The second incident took place at the Commission of Enquiry (COE) into the collapse of the CLICO empire on Friday. In that enquiry, a very senior 'Silk' of some 33 years standing, decided that he could gratuitously insult a witness by asking him if he was a bisexual. Mr. Martin Daly was clearly peeved at a response that he had got from Mr. Mervyn Assam and threw the comment/question at him, thus abusing his position as a cross-examining counsel and setting an extremely good example of bad taste and low ethical behaviour.

My point in joining these two incidents together is that they demonstrate clearly that our society has now sunk to new lows that are reminiscent of the wild west where anything went and where might was right. If you were rich and powerful you could (and often did) anything. If you were fast with a gun you could (and often did) anything. And there are plenty of cowboy movies and legends about the ineffective, ineffectual, incompetent and often corrupt sherriff and his deputies. The famous "gunfight at the OK Corral" is one such legend that eventually was made into (I believe) more than one movie. The high and mighty in this society do whatever they want. And the "gunslingers" do the same! Nobody cares or has any respect for anything that is good and decent anymore.

In Trinidad & Tobago standards of good taste have gone through the floor when a so called pillar/exemplar of our society can make the kind of statement in a publicly televised hearing and not be thoroughly pilloried for it. Standards of decency and proper behaviour are now in the cesspit when the leaders of no less an organisation that represents all of the public servants in this country can behave in the disgraceful manner that the country saw on Thursday evening.

I am sorry. If the new rules are that might is right and that we can all say and do anything we want then please tell me so. Perhaps the best way to govern this country is that we disband the police force and allow all citizens to simply strap on a gun in order to defend themselves, blow up all the schools which are clearly not teaching our children anything about proper values and look to see where else we can do away with the trappings of a civilised and progressive State. All the money we are spending on these institutions is clearly going to waste, and you know what they say: if you can't beat 'em ... join 'em! Welcome to the wild, wild west ... Trini style!!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS




Christmas is always a wonderful time of the year ... even, I dare say, for those who are not christian. It is a time for family and friends and getting together to share ... especially in the way that every culture in the world shares memorable moments and occasions ... with food and drink and the giving of gifts. On Christmas Eve the excitement in the homes that are fortunate enough to have young children is so intense that many parents wonder if the little ones will ever fall asleep.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about Christmas this week ... not only about its religious and historical significance, but what the festival has come to mean in the hearts of millions of families around the world. When I was a little boy Christmas simply meant toys under the tree on Christmas morning. As I grew older, I began to appreciate the gathering of the family for Christmas lunch/ dinner (in my house we always had a very, very late lunch at about 5pm ... or, if you like, early dinner). I didn't notice the 'empty' chairs at first around the Christmas table ... those family members who had passed on or couldn't be there for whatever reason ... nor did I notice the hint of sadness in the eyes of my parents and older folk who had gathered. There were too many happy songs to be sung and I sang all of them!

But as the years have passed I have become more and more aware of the 'empty' chairs ... grown children in Australia, loved ones who have passed, and others who for one (good) reason or another simply cannot be there.

So, does this mean that those of us who have had the pain and sadness of losing a loved one this past year (or at any other time) should cry long tears at Christmas time? Well, if we want to. But I prefer to remember the words of the poet who said

"Life is real, life is earnest
And the grave is not its goal.
Dust thou art and to dust returneth
Was not spoken of the soul"

No. Christmas is a wonderful time ... and Christmas is (amongst other things) about life, glorious life. Remember those who have passed ... by all means. Shed a tear for them if you want. But on Christmas morning draw a deep breath and enjoy being alive. Christmas is a time for everybody to reflect, be happy and (most importantly) share with family and friends. It is, after all is said and done, a time for love.

Merry Christmas to all my readers and to your families.

IS LAVENTILLE 'FIXABLE'?



Driving to work this morning I was indulging in my usual 'surfing' of the radio talk shows when I stopped on one that caught my ear. The hosts were talking about the problem that is Laventille and how nothing seems to have worked there for the last fifty or so years ... if not longer. Everything seems to have been tried and everything seems to have failed.

Like most Trinidadians I am acutely aware of the human disaster zone that is Laventille. I am also very aware of all that has been done (and not done) and the fact that so long as we don't fix it that we are all simply waiting for the moment when it explodes ... again!

So? What to do? I am of the view that there is no short term fix. This is a problem that took decades to come to where it is today and that short of dropping a nuclear bomb on the place (and, no! I am certainly not advocating that!) `the problem will not go away with a social program here ( a la "Colour Me Orange") or a basketball court there (a la PNM). And although we profess to be familiar with Einstein's edict concerning the definition of insanity, successive regimes continue to do effectively the same thing (though calling it by different names) while expecting a different result. And, of course, the different result never comes!

When I was a young lawyer I was told by an old (and very wise) Queen's Counsel that if I ever wanted to understand a problem I had to go back to basics. That sage advice has helped me enormously as I have journeyed through the adventures that have made up my life. So, applying that advice to Laventille, what is the basic problem there? Answer: extreme ignorance fuelled by excrutiating poverty. I know that a lot of people are going to take offence at the label of extreme ignorance, but it is unfortunately true. I admit that I have no figures to back me up on this, but I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the level of illiteracy in that unfortunate place is intolerably high. I will bet that most of the gang members (if not all) are functionally illiterate. And I will bet that most (if not all) of the pregnant teenage girls can't read or write properly (if at all) either! So, how do you ... we ... fix the social problem that is Laventille? And while I will admit that the ability to read and write may not be everything in this world it does pave the way for a child's mind to be opened. No society in the whole history of mankind has ever succeeded with an illiterate and ignorant population.

The answer has to be by education. The only way out of poverty and to raise a society's standards is by educating the population. In this regard I must say that I believe that our education system is an abysmal failure ... that it is failing our society, not only in Laventille, but in the country as a whole. But that is grist for another post. Let's just concentrate on Laventille for the moment. The schools that cater to that depressed area need to be revamped so that the kids that are churned out at the end are capable, responsible and right thinking. Now, that's a tall order! Those kids already have the terrible hurdles of badly educated (if at all) mothers, terrible and totally unacceptable male role models, and politicians of all stripes (but unfortunately mostly in the PNM) who seek not to help them but to use them for narrow political and sectarian purposes.

But it can be done. It will take time ... more than five years, which is why it probably has never been done. Nobody in power now will get the credit for something that will take about twenty years to fix. But don't fix it now (and 'now' means now!) and it will only get worse. Don't the Chinese have a saying about a journey of a thousand miles beginning with the first step?

A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY



"Prime Ministers tend not to lose all their credibility in one go ... Rather it erodes in fits and starts amid accumulations of misstep and scandal".
The Economist - July 14th, 2011


The Government is facing a serious credibility problem that is largely of its own making on the question of the allleged plot to assassinate the Prime Minister and three other Ministers. This follows on the heels of other missteps and scandals such as the Reshmi Ramnarine affair, Caribbean Airlines, the Sat Maharaj/School Principal matter, and (what feels like) a host of others too numerous to count. Why they didn't let the Commissioner of Police announce the alleged plot is beyond me. At least if everything fell apart later (as it did) then he ... and not the Prime Minister ... would have taken the credibility "hit".

This supposed plot to kill the Prime Minister et al was a classic case of misstep that could and should have been avoided from the very beginning. First of all, assassinations of Prime Ministers and Presidents are usually carried out by one of two types: a "crazy" or a small group bent on regime change. But a group of 16 or so plotters is anything but small, and, assuming (though not accepting) that the allegations are true, then the sheer size of the group is practically a guarantee that the plot would leak out. The alleged plotters therefore could not have been very competent.

Put another way, something is missing from the information that we have been given, for the story that we have been given really doesn't make sense. The apparent aim of the assassinations was to cause panic and confusion in the society? Really? For what purpose? Who would benefit from this? For somebody has to benefit. You aren't going to do something as serious as this just to create confusion and panic ... unless you are crazy. And theer is no allegation that the alleged plotters are crazy. So, what could the purpose possibly have been?

The creator of Sherlock Holmes put these words in the mouth of his famous detective:

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

So, using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's logic, what can we deduce from what we have been told? Remember, we were told (a) there was a plot to kill the PM, and
(b) the aim was to create panic and confusion.
Now, assuming (though again not accepting) that this is indeed true, who would possibly benefit from the resulting panic and confusion? Would it be ... could it be ... somebody who would hope that the UNC would turn to him(her) for guidance and leadership and that he(she) would then tell the Party who to appoint as Prime Minister and thus become the "kingmaker" with all the resulting power that flows from such a position because the new "king" would owe his position to the "kingmaker"? Who?

I agree that this scenario is highly improbable ... but you have to admit that it makes a certain sense if what we were told is true! I will also admit that there are other possible scenarios that I have not been able to imagine. But something has to make sense! And I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister lied to us about the plot. So, if she didn't, what is the piece of information that we are missing in order for the plot to make sense?

REALLY? 1.3 MILLION PEOPLE?


Okay! I should say up front that I have absolutely no statistic to prove or disprove my belief in the real size of our population ... just a certain amount of skepticism and common sense. You see, for at least the last 20 or so years politicians (and everybody else for that matter) have been saying that we are a nation of about 1.3 million people. But that just can't be true! Look! The Elections & Boundaries Commission (EBC) said in the elections last year that there were more than 900,000 people on the electoral register (I can't remember the exact figure, which isn't important any way, for I am not dealing here with completely accurate figures). So, if that is the case, what percentage of the adult population do you think is not registered to vote? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? What? Most people that I ask this question say that they think that the percentage of the adult population that is not registered to vote is somewhere between twenty and thirty percent! (You see now why I said that I wasn't concerned with absolute accuracy of figures!) So, let's take the lower figure of twenty percent, and rounding it off we would say then that there are about 300,000 people who are not registered to vote. In other words, there are about 1.2 million adults in this country (900,000 registered voters plus 300,000 unregistered adults).

Now, if there are 1.2 million adults in the country, how many children do you think there are? (And by 'child' I mean anybody under the age of 18). Do you, for example, believe that the ratio of children to adults is one child to every adult? More? Less? Most people tell me that they think the ratio is about one and a half children to every adult. So, assuming (though not accepting ... but it sounds right) that this is so that would mean that there are about 1.8 million children in the country. Add this to the 1.2 million adults that we calculated above and you come up with a figure of about 3 million people living in this little twin island Republic.

Why is this important? Because if all of our plans, financial and otherwise, are based on a population of 1.3 million and the reality is that the population is more than double that then it must follow that all of our plans are useless! Our statistics as regards GDP would be wrong and the fiscal plans to prevent a further worsening of the recession would be totaly inadequate. We need to get a firm fix on where we are as regards poulation size ... and we need this information like yesterday! A census was done sometime ago. Its results need to be published ... now.

FLOODING (or, if it ain't my responsibility it ain't my fault)!




Have you ever noticed that when anything goes wrong in good old T&T that Nobody is to blame. Poor old Nobody! He gets in trouble all the time! But then it's always his fault! When you ask 'who did this?' or 'who is responsible?' you always get the answer 'Nobody'. As a result, nothing ever gets fixed. Nothing ever gets changed. And Nobody gets fired!

I know. I am being ridiculous. But, unfortunately, I am also being deadly accurate. Nobody ever gets blamed or punished for anything! It is never anybody's responsibility to make certain, for example, that applications for planning approvals for development include plans for proper drainage. It is never anybody's responsibility to deal with unapproved and unauthorised development ... even when this unauthorised development causes drainage (read "flooding") problems.

Patrick Manning used to boast about his Vision 20/20 plans. But in the seven year period in which he boasted and promoted it never once did I ever read of bench marks that would be able to tell us whether or not the implementation of this vision was on track. Even more importantly, nowhere did I ever read that people were going to be made responsible for things ... especially when they went wrong!

The flooding in Port of Spain and its western environs that took place after very heavy showers, that lasted only for about one hour, on Saturday has caused terrible damage and a great deal of unnecessary suffering that ought to have been avoidable. But when you ask whose fault it was you get answers like "developers" or "clogged drains" or some other vague reply. Who are these developers? What are their names? What developments? Who were the engineers? Who were the builders? Were things done according to approved plans? If so, who approved the plans? If the plans were not approved, then why didn't the relevant authority stop the development and do something about it? Bottom line: Who is responsible? And the answer? (Sound the trumpets) Nobody!

I am reluctantly coming to the very sad conclusion that we are all insane ... mad ... crazy! For we continue to do the same things over and over again and continue to expect a different result. Take the Office of Disaster and Preparedness Management (ODPM) for example. What exactly is its function? To hand out matteresses? If it is supposed to help prevent disasters then what exactly is it doing to prevent them? What? What steps has it taken to mitigate or prevent disasters? But what have we done to make this office function the way that it should? Where is the media in all this? Why doesn't the media ask for the names of those responsible and publicise them? Why? But Nobody has been fired from the ODPM for not doing his job!

And we continue to accept mediocrity. When somebody complains he/she is usually met with 'well, this is Trinidad!' as if that is a good reason (not even an excuse) to put up with the particular incompetence or inefficiency. We continue to allow ourselves to be sidetracked over stupid and unimportant issues (the PNM's present raging debate over whether or not their MP's should wear a balisier tie is a classic example of our collective stupidity on focusing on things that are unimportant) and do not tackle head on the things that are important and affect our lives, and most importantly, solve them!

But then Nobody is to blame for anything and everything. And the problem is that we can't fix it because it's Nobody's responsibility. Nobody will fix it ... we don't have to! But my guess is that Nobody is gonna fix things anytime soon. Why should he? We can't fire Nobody. He's got a job for life!

THE DEATH THROES OF THE PNM


A lot of people may not realise it, but we are witness to history right now. The once mighty and invincable PNM is on its death bed and the last rites have been read. Oh! Don't get me wrong. The brand will be around for a long time, but the once great Party and all that it stood for is effectively dead and gone and the present leadership is totally and completely incapable of bringing it back to life. It simply is no longer a credible alternative government and is totally and completely incapable of uniting this little country of ours.

Although most of us might not have recognised it at the time, with the benefit of hindsight the Party clearly was mortally ill long before the May 2010 elections which effectively dealt it a mortal blow. Indeed, there are a lot of people (especially PNM people) who simply cannot understand why Manning called the election so early. The obvious answer was that he was facing a potentially devastating vote of no confidence which was being brought by then Leader of the Opposition Kamla Persad Bissessar and he didn't want what the then Opposition had to say to come out. If it had, his moral authority (which was already tenuous thanks to the UDECOTT Commission of Enquiry and its very public revelations) would have evaporated completely. Further, he was was facing a very serious rebellion in his own ranks. Dr. Rowley, because of his attacks on Manning up to that point, would have had to join with the Opposition against Mr. Manning, or lose complete credibility both within as well as without his Party. It was also quite probable that Rowley would have pulled a few of his supporters with him. All of this meant that even if he had been able to defeat the vote of no confidence in the Parliament, Manning would have lost it outside ... and outside is where it really counts!

Fast forward some 17 months later and only the most obtuse would not recognise that his so-called apology was a case of too little too late. After a truly dismal record as Prime Minister Mr. Manning came forward to apologise to "all those whom I have caused to be disenfrachised". What? Who did he disenfranchise? The Indian community? Most certainly he did do that! But did he mean them? I doubt it. And if he did then I really don't believe that the apology was sincere. Sorry. But actions speak louder than words. He hasn't done a thing to show that community that he is truly sorry for his actions over the years that effectively discriminated against them. And he did, people. He did!

So who was he referring to? Those PNMites who were feeding at the public trough? Quite possibly. That at least would be more believable. But that apology was really too late. It could have and should have come a lot earlier.

But the truth is that Mr. Manning really couldn't care less. What he was (and is) trying to do is to undermine Dr. Rowley ... who, God bless him, is trying as hard as he can to help Mr. Manning do just that! Everybody understood what Mr. Manning meant when he said that he wasn't going to be like "a pothound chasing after every passing car". What he was doing was demoting Dr. Rowley from rottwheiller status to that of a pot hound. And good old Rowley has cheerfully re-confirmed that he does just that when he made such stupid and silly comments about businessmen Steve Ferguson and Ishwar Galbaransingh winning their extradition matter that it provoked a meeting of the Law Association to discuss whether the comments constitute a contempt of Court.

Rowley clearly did not bother to read the 57 page judgement nor did he bother to acquaint himself remotely with the law of extradition. If you are going to criticise, by all means do so. But at least do it from an informed perspective. Nobody says that you have to agree with everything a judge decides ... even if it is a decision coming from the Privy Council! But if you are going to disagree, then for crying out loud, do so from a point that clearly understands all of the arguments.

I don't want here to go into that "Ish & Steve" case. We can deal with it at another time if necessary. The point here is not the decision of the judge, but how Rowley dealt with it. Rowley simply does not have the intellectual capacity nor the political "smarts" to lead a national political party. He is clear evidence of the "Peter Principle" at work.

The PNM has no effective or national leadership. There is nobody in its present hierarchy that looks remotely like an alternative Prime Minister and the Party is reaching more and more down into its more racist elements in order to be able to show that it has some modicum of support. Most of its educated and more sober minded supporters now look on with not little dismay. They can't bring themselves over even to support the COP (and that tells us something about the COP ... but, again, that's another story), and certainly they feel most uncomfortable with the UNC, but they can't bring themselves to vote for the Party that led this country to independance almost 5o years ago. So, those voters are parked up now and the PNM is about to die (if it ain't dead already)!

The problem here for Kamla is that politics (like nature) abhors a vacuum. There is no guarantee that a new third force will not rise to take the PNM's place, and if it does, and the economy remains sluggish, it could cause serious problems for the Partnership. We'll all continue to watch with interest.

"NEW" ECONOMICS


We all are (or ought to be) familiar with Albert Einstein's famous definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. It seems to me that this is what we have been doing for a long time ... too long. Quite frankly. I cannot discern any real difference between the economic philosophies and policies of this administration from the last, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary and despite all the previous hype about "new politics". If there are policy differences, then could somebody please explain them to me.

The economy is central to everything ... the war against crime, the making of a better life for the citizenry, better health care, better education, better roads ... everything! If the economy fails then everything else sooner or later (and usually sooner) will also fail. Once you understand this fundamental fact then you will understand why I keep going on about the economy and what the Government is or is not doing about it.

Back in 1987 the "flavour" of the time was "trickle down economics". This was an economic theory that had two powerful adherents ... Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. When the NAR Government came in under A.N.R. Robinson it followed the principles of this theory slavishly. The argument then was that T&T needed to adopt these type of economic principles in order to get out of the rather deep hole that we had dug ourselves into. At the time I was an Opposition Senator and argued that you could not run a country like a business ... a country was not a business, and that if you attempted to do so then while you would get the country out of the hole what would happen is that the rich would get richer and that the poor would get poorer and the middle class would be squeezed out of existance.

Well, Manning came to power in 1991 and persued the same economic policies. Then came Panday in 1995, and Manning again in 2001. As far as economic policies are concerned nothing changed. (This has nothing to do with Manning's squandermania ... we are talking about economic policies! Even the best policies go awry when the wealth of a country is squandered). And here we are back at the beginning as it were ... 1987 all over again. (It is interesting to note, by the way, that Mr. Dookeran was the Planning Minister in Robinson's Cabinet back then).

Time has, most unfortunately, proven my 1987 arguments correct. The gap between rich and poor is now much greater than it ever was, and the middle class is gasping for breath on its death bed. If the present Finance Minister continues on his present course he might get us out of the hole, but at a terrible cost. It would be like the famous medical joke: the operation was a success but the patient died!

So, what to do? We ought to take another look at how we are doing things. Maybe we should take a leaf out of former President Bill Clinton's idea of "invest and grow economics" as opposed to the outdated and discredited "trickle down" theory. We need to start creating ... like yesterday ... a new investment paradigm. We need to make T&T a place where people will want to come and live and invest. Do you know, for example, that Brazil is enjoying an influx of qualified and educated Europeans who, unable to find work in their own countries are now migrating en masse to Brazil? This 'reverse' brain drain is beginning to cause such concern that just last week you had the BBC reporting on it. Educated immigrants build a country. So, why don't we look at this possibility? And if you tell me in a rather smug manner that you are, then what are you doing about it?

Put another way, the time has come to stop all the "ol' talk" which we are so good at. No! The time has come to perform ... get things done! As the old Basdeo Panday used to say ... and he was right ... performance beats old talk every time! We don't need a lot of half baked theories, nor do we need a bunch of badly articulated speeches. We need action ... now! And just in case you didn't understand "now" means now!

REAL "NEW POLITICS" - CHANGING THE PARADIGM



The just concluded budget debate was as uninspiring as the erstwhile Finance Minister's budget presentation. It is almost as if every single Parliamentarian was absolutely determined not to outshine the Minister when it came to his ideas on the management of the economy. Everybody payed lip service to the old idea that "we have to stop depending on our oil and gas" (and I have put the phrase in inverted commas on purpose), but nobody came up with any new ideas as to how we should achieve this obviously desirable goal. Nobody stood up and articulated a vision as to how we should or could achieve this highly desirable goal. Because let's face it, the oil and gas will run out one of these days! And then what?!

Looking at the relationship between Government and the private sector in this country since dinosaurs roamed the earth (or at least since independence) it is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that the private sector has failed miserably and/or been unable to meet the great challenge of being able to pay its own way as far as exports are concerned. In other words, if it weren't for the oil and gas revenues we would not be anywhere near the level of development that we now enjoy. So, the big question is why? Why hasn't the private sector 'stepped up to the plate and performed as it should have? They have had almost fifty years to do this! So? Why haven't they?

A friend of mine has suggested to me that one of the reasons for this is quite simple: all elected governments tend to become elected dictatorships for their term in office. In good old T&T the business class has tended to "suck up" to the Administration of the day and behave as supplicants rather than as partners. The result to date has been that the elected politicians tend to preen their feathers and enjoy their temporary and apparent superiority without bothering to realise that this attitude has stymied economic growth for the last fifty years! It is more fun to deal with a supplicant rather than with a partner. Having to deal with a partner would mean that you have to listen to his views ... which can occasionally be inconvenient. But if the rules mean that any time you want to get something that you have to come to me for permission then my ego is inflated and there is a good chance that I can get my pocket fattened as well. So, it ain't really in my interest ("me" being a politician of any political party who is either in office at the moment or who has hopes of one day being in office) to fix the problem or change the rules in any meaningful way that would allow you to make decisions without having to beg or ask me for a favour.

Let me put it another way: there are a host of things that require governmental approval or licences. At any given time on any given subject, the businessman has to jump through hoops to get his approval. There is no such thing as a fast track for anything, ranging from the simple application for a passport to the obtaining of an energy licence to do exploration. Work permits continue to be difficult to obtain, even when the foreigner invests substantial sums in the country. The prevailing attitude from those in charge of the State apparatus is that they are doing us a favour ... and not the other way around ... by giving us a licence or permission for whatever!

If you compare Trinidad and Tobago with Singapore you will get an idea of where I am coming from. In Singapore the Government treats with the private sector as partners, not as supplicants. Decisions on all matters are quick and informed. The Government there does not try to supplant or dominate the business community.The result has been that a small country with no apparent physical resources has boomed in the last fifty years. Things work there ... and work well! A lot has to do with attitude, especially the attitude of the politicians and the civil servants.

We have to start realising that it is not sinful to make money and to start creating an environment that is truly "business friendly". This is not to say that the business community is without sin. Don't let me get started on that! Maybe the sins of the business community can be the subject of another post, but let's deal with one thing at a time.

"New politics" (that grossly over used and over abused phrase) ought to be revisited again ... and this time it ought to mean something. It ought to mean creating a new and efficient business environment. It ought to mean that we are finally growing up and realise that our favourite colour should be the colour of our hundred dollar bills ... blue!

AN OLD COWBOY & INDIAN MOVIE


Okay. I think that now is about the time in the old cowboy movies when the wagons had been circled and the Indians were riding around shooting flaming arrows into them and amunition was running low that you would hear the sound of a bugle and you knew that at the last minute the cavalry was going to appear from just behind the hill and chase the Indians away saving everybody except for a couple of bad guys in the wagon train who had been conveniently killed by the Indians. In other words, now is the time for the cavalry (in the form of the Prime Minister) to take charge and fire her Finance Minister before all the wagons (the economy) are completely burned and the Indians (the economic problems facing us) completely overwhelm the wagon train (the country).

The budget presented by Mr. Dookeran was wooly, lacked any kind of detail, pretended that nothing had been promised last year and therefore there was no need to refer to any of the unkept promises from last year (because they simply didn't exist in his mind), and did absolutely nothing to engender confidence in his stewardship of the economy. It was a hodgepodge of good wishes and vague promises. In simple English, look out for more of the same that we have endured over the last year. Things just aren't going to get better ... in fact, they will probably get worse!

If I am proven wrong then I will be the first person to sing 'Glory Halleluiah!! Thank goodness that I was wrong!" I genuinely do not want to be right! But if I am right ... and, unfortunately, I believe that I am ... what are we going to do? Hold our collective heads and bawl "woe is me!"? Well, that is one solution. Another would be to take charge of our destiny by telling the Prime Minister that while we still have confidence in her, regretably, we do not have any confidence in Mr. Dookeran's ability to manage our economy. Let's face it! He has failed to deliver! And the sooner that we face up to this the better. I know that I am mixing metaphors here, but we have to stop being the people who see that the Emperor is naked and pretending that he isn't.

Can the economy be saved? The short answer is 'yes'. But it cannot be saved and will not be saved unless there is leadership with clear and well articulated policies and ideas to get us out of the stinking morass that we find ourselves in. And regretably, that just ain't comin' from our hapless and seemingly helpless Finance Minister.

Actually, he should count himself lucky, because the Opposition PNM is even more hapless and helpless than he is. Dr. Rowley and his cohorts are continuously reminding all of us why we voted them out last year. Dr. Rowley's budget contribution failed to gain any traction, nor has he been able to articulate even his good points (because he did have a few) in a way that resonated with the average person. The truth is that the PNM is suffering from a dearth (as well as a death)of leadership. It is hard to believe that it could have ever happened, but Dr. Rowley's performance over the last 16 months or so has had the obviously unintended effect of making Patrick Manning look good!

But Kamla should not sit back and take too much comfort from the PNM's obvious disarray. The old truism that oppositions do not win elections ... governments lose them, still holds true today. The Prime Minister cannot rest on the fact that she is today the most popular politician in the country. Nor should she take comfort from the fact that the majority of the population still supports her Government. She should remember that the Indians in the old cowboy movies were able to inflict tremendous damage on wagon trains that carried with it incompetent persons who failed to live up to their responsibilities to guard the wagons and the people inside. How many old movies have you seen where a guard fell asleep and the Indians were able to sneek up, kill him and then cause serious damage to the wagons and their occupants? Usually in those old movies, the hero/heroine would see the Indians sneeking in and raise the alarm. We need the heroine in this real life cowboy and indian movie to raise the alarm right now. She is the only one who can do it. Put another way, give Mr. Dookeran another job. Anything! Send him to China! Anywhere! Just get him out of Finance. We can't afford him there much longer.