FIXING THE CRIME PROBLEM ( Part 1)

It's kind of a 'non sequiter',to say that there is a link between (a lack of) education and crime. Let's take an example: there are two boys both born on the same day at the same time. They are both highly intelligent. But (and it is a big "but") one is born to a poor unwed mother who already has 4 children which she cannot support and the other is born to a relatively wealthy woman who is happily married to a man who loves her and takes care of her. The first woman is barely able to teach her child how to read or write. the second woman's child is blessed with all the accoutrements of wealth and receives a good education. The first woman's child is basically left to fend for himself.

So? What do you think happens next? The first woman's child (who you will remember is highly intelligent) grows up resentful of the basic unfairness of life and decides for himself that if life won't give him what he wants, he will simply take it. But he has no way of taking it other than through stealing and murder. So? What does he do? Answer: he steals and murders. The second child grows up blissfully unaware of the difficulties encountered daily by the first boy and joins with his parents in lamenting the fact that the country is daily becoming more violent.

The point here is that T&T's crime problem simply can't fix unless something is done now (and "now" must mean now). But that would mean overhauling the education system completely so that people like our first boy is given a chance to 'get his foot on the ladder'. But that will take at least 20 years to fix - and most governments think only in 5 year terms! So what do you think will happen? Answer: sweet nothing! Everybody will cry long tears and say how wicked and evil the first boy is and will completely ignore the fact that the system that we have put in place for decades suits only a small section of the population. The second boy will be held up as an example of how you can make it if you try while completely ignoring the basic injustices that are proliferating out of control.

I have an idea of how to fix this, but it will take at least 20 years. And we've already run out of time. 

THE DEATH PENALTY

 I happen to agree with just about everything that the opponents of the death penalty say about it: that it is a cruel punishment, that it is harsh, that mistakes can be made, and once made can never be undone, and so on.

I have often wondered whether or not it might be "fairer" to let the loved ones of the victim actually 'pull the trigger'. Certainly, I would find it impossible to pull the trigger' on someone that I didn't know. But then I thought of my dead cousin who was cruelly murdered almost 28 years ago and who I loved like a brother. The thing is, I know who killed him and why. I can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but I really do know who killed him. (For the record, it was a drug lord aided and abetted by a policeman.)

So? What can I do about it? Not a damn thing! The killers have got away with it. Which brings me back to the death penalty. You see, there is (and can be) only one good and sufficient reason for it - the death penalty: REVENGE! There is no other reason. I could cheerfully 'pull the trigger' on my cousin's murderers and go home and eat a nice, big juicy steak afterwards. But I would find it impossible to 'pull the trigger' on somebody that I didn't know.

So? Do I support the abolition of the death penalty? If the choice is black or white then I would have to say 'yes'. But life is never black or white and is often simply a shade of grey. And therein lies my hypocrisy, because I could easily and cheerfully kill the two men who murdered my cousin if I thought that I could get away with it. As it is, I know I can't, so I shan't. Their deaths are not worth me giving up my life for.

TIME TO ABOLISH SILK

 One of the more prestigious prizes in the legal profession is the award of 'silk' or 'senior counsel'. It used to be reserved for those lawyers who had distinguished themselves at the Bar and whose opinions on legal matters carried real weight both inside and outside the courtroom. ( I remember a story about a well known and very able silk (who is dead now, poor fellow) Tajmool Hosein, who was asked by a client to write a letter on the client's behalf to someone who owed him money. Taj (as he was affectionally known) wrote the letter. The client then approached Taj a few weeks later to say that he had received full satisfation from the debtor. Taj then presented the client with a bill for his services which came to $10,000 (and this was at a time when $10,000 was like a $100,000 today). 

The clint complained. '$10,000 for a letter that took you only 5 minutes to write?'

Taj had two questions for him :'Did you get your money?' and 'Would you have got it if my name was not on the letter?'

The client then promptly paid the bill.

And that is my whole point. Tajmool was an excellent lawyer with a well deserved reputation. How many of these newly created silks have any kind of reputation?

The truth is that for the longest while the award is not based on merit but on "who you know". The award is based solely on the Prime Minister of the day wishing to reward whoever he/she wants, whether that person is a good, bad or indifferent lawyer. Also, we have tended to place this award 'before-behind' in that in the old days a good lawyer was invited to take silk. Now, if you want silk you have to apply, and provided that you are not on bad terms with the Prime Minister of the day you will probably get it. I know a number of lawyers who deserve the award but who will never apply. As a result, they'll never get it.

Perhaps it is time that we took a leaf out of the Americans' anti Imperialist playbook and abolished this award. Wouldn't it be better for all concerned to let a lawyer's reputation stand or fall on its own merits rather than a politician's opinion?

TIME FOR HONEST ANSWERS

 I consider myself an independent ... neither PNM nor UNC ... only wherever I think it is best for the country to go. In previous posts I had postulated that given the very dismal record of the Rowley Government's time in office that it would be surprising indeed if they (the PNM) managed to win the looming general elections. But from all accounts it appears that despite the Government's many failures both the UNC and the PNM are running neck and neck in the polls. So, if this is correct, then surely my thinking has to be wrong.

But then I read something that made sense ... at least to me: "If elections were decided by simple factual measures of whether the public is better off due to an incumbent's policies {Kamla} would easily be sailing into a landslide. But that's not the case." Why? 

I'm serious; why isn't the UNC not way ahead of the PNM right now? The only answer that springs to mind is that the UNC leadership has failed to connect with the voters of this country. I can see that those who are stanch supporters of the present UNC leadership disagreeing vehemently with me. That's okay. I've never pretended that I have any sort of hotline to God and we will all know soon enough what will happen at the coming polls. But what will they say if events prove me to be right, i.e. that Kamla can't win and that it is clear that her leadership style just doesn't work?

 The stakes are getting higher and higher and the future welfare of the country and of our children is now at stake. And deciding on who you should support or vote for  is now critical. There is no room anymore for wishful thinking ... or even racial thinking.  It's time for some very honest, personal answers. And holding your nose and voting for "your party" (whichever one it might be) just isn't good enough anymore.

DETERMINING WHERE OUR BEST INTERESTS LIE

 There is a choice coming up soon within the next year or so ... do we go with the devil we know, or do we go with the other devil that we also know? I guess the answer is that we should go with the devil under whose rule we were better off ... even if we have serious doubts and have to hold our noses while voting.

It is unfortunate that our system of government only throws up two choices. Sometimes, these choices can be very stark and sometimes (like right now) the choices can be so mixed that it becomes very difficult to decide where your best interests might lie. I say this because, quite frankly, there is little or no differences in policy between the two major parties. Both sides effectively go to the electorate with the same message: "vote for us because we can do it better". I challenge you to tell me where the real differences are between the UNC and the PNM - where exactly are the differences in say, health care, education, crime, the economy? List them. Clearly, your best interests lie with whoever might make things better for you personally. But how do you determine that?

All politics is personal and it all boils down to the question of where you think that you will be better off. At the end of the day, nobody really cares about which side "t'iefs" more, so long as the person voting is able to live his/her life in relative comfort and at an acceptable standard of living. Sometimes (as happened in 2010) all those opposed to the Government in power come together and the combined force prevails. At other times (like now) personal ambitions get in the way and the natural opposition to a Government is fractured thus making it easier for those in power to remain despite massive 'screw ups'.

While it is a given that racial voting plays a part in our politics, it is a great simplification to postulate this as the reason why the PNM has managed to position itself as the "default" party. Self interest is the biggest motivator of everything. When we recognize this simple fact, we can then determine what our next steps should be.

So, if you think that you will be better off under the PNM then stay with them. And if you think that you will be better off under the UNC, then vote for them. At the end of the day, it all boils down to where YOU think that YOU will be better off.

A STARK CHOICE IS FACING US

 I have to tell you folks: Kamla ain't leaving. I know that I am often wrong and don't have a hotline to God, but here are some hard facts;

First of all, she said so. Even Rowley gets that. And in the confidential PNM and UNC polls, nobody is polling better in the UNC than she is.

Secondly, she will have the same chance and use the same arguments in this coming election as she did before, hoping that Rowley's screw ups will push her over into the winner's circle. In other words, the message is simply "vote for me".

I can see you shaking your heads and calling me an idiot. While that may be correct, let me ask you this: if the election was today, who would you be voting for: Kamla or Rowley?

 And there you will have your answer! The truth is that PNM has become the "default" party. In other words, people vote for it because, for whatever reason, they are not certain that their lives will improve under the alternative. The UNC has to show and (more importantly) convince the country that it can and will do better. This is not as easy as it sounds or as it should be.

FAKE NEWS IS KING

 Although the foreign press makes a big deal out of fake news and regularly calls out politicians (and others) for spreading lies and false information, that 'habit' has not yet shown itself to be very prevalent down here in T&T. Whether that is through sheer incompetence of our local media, or it is caused by political bias is impossible to say. ( Frankly, I believe that it is a combination of both, but that will have to be a subject of another post).

But what is crystal clear is that we are very often not given the facts of a particular situation and are forced to make our own opinions which are often based not only on incomplete information, but also on our own personal biases. Take for example. the whole matter of the closure of Petrotrin; first question: was this closure really necessary or did it have something to do with the disastrous multi million dollar loss that was created by a certain PNM 'jefe'  who was sued by the PP Government under Kamla but  whose case was withdrawn by Dr. Rowley's people when they came into power? According to Prime Minister Rowley and his boys , this accusation is not true. They say that Petrotrin was shut down because it was losing money and was a drain on the Treasury. But published figures from just before the debacle hit showed that Petrotrin had several million dollars in the bank. What is true? 

Next question: does Mrs. Persad-Bissessar really have the majority support of her party, or did her team cheat at the internal election? Were any steps taken to prevent any cheating? If so, what steps exactly?

Next question again: is it true that Dr. Rowley's Government had no idea that the Indian billionaire talking about buying Petrotrin was out on bail and is facing corruption charges? Is it true that there is/was some kind of deal going on with this billionaire and the Venezuelan Government that is/was designed to circumvent American sanctions?

You see, both sides have some rather big possible skeletons in their respective closets. The above is just a small sample of questions that require answers and where there have been none, or at least, no proper answers to questions that, without full and clear explanations, give rise to unnecessary and unfortunate suspicions.

But we don't know. There is an illusory effect to believe false information when it is regularly repeated and that it is true when it is repeatedly presented. People tend to judge truth  based on familiarity with existing knowledge. So, the more a statement is repeated, the more accurate it seems.

We have a real problem. There is little or no factual reporting on important issues, and depending on which political side you happen to fall, will depend on what your opinions are - and not what they should be.  Fake news is king down here in T&T.

IS THE PRIME MINISTER A FASCIST?

 A friend of mine told me that he thought that Dr. Rowley was a fascist. I replied that that seemed a little harsh and that I wasn't certain that the Prime Minister fitted that description. In any case, I decided to look up the definition of "fascist" because it can mean different things to different people. Perhaps the best definition that I found was from a speech made in 1940 by then Vice president of the United States Henry A. Wallace.

He said that a fascist was "One whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures or notices as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.  ... For democracy to crush fascism it must put country first and dollars second."

Certainly, by this definition one cannot call Dr. Rowley a fascist - though some might argue (without justiciable evidence) that he comes close. My point here is that we must be careful  with the labels that we seek to place on some people. They might not either be fair or accurate, though I wouldn't hesitate, for example, to call Donald Trump a fascist. What do you think?

THE OMLY ISSUE IN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION - COMPETENCE

There is some speculation that Prime Minister Rowley may go to the polls early - maybe in August of this year. (The elections are due by September of next year). The speculation is being fueled by various perceptions; the first one of these is that things (mainly the economy) are going to get worse and that now would be a better time for the PNM to go rather than later. The next perception is that the UNC is in disarray  and that it would be advantageous to take advantage of this disarray right now before the UNC has a chance to correct this perception. Both of these perceptions have some validity.

The third and final perception is that Dr. Rowley and his team are more competent than Mrs. Persad-Bissessar's team as well as the UNC leader herself. It is this last perception that the PNM will probably try to hammer home over the next few months. The fact is that the PNM has established itself as the "default" party that the country will turn to if there is no clear or viable alternative, and they will argue that whatever their faults the country is better off with them in charge. And this is arguably the most important perception of all.

 Most people believe that both sides have their share of corrupt people, so corruption will not play in the minds of voters. 

In order for the UNC to win Mrs. Persad-Bissessar has not only to present clearly a better and more viable team than Dr. Rowley's, But also (and more importantly) that she is better and more competent than Dr. Rowley. General elections in this country are always more Presidential in scope than Prime Ministerial - by that I mean that the person at the head of the ticket is always more important than any other particular candidate. 

And so, the question will boil down to who does the electorate think is more competent to run the country. Dr. Rowley will have the advantage of  a weak political opponent as well as the perception  that the PNM is really the "default" party, i.e., the party that people will turn to when the alternative appears to be less acceptable. Mrs. Persad-Bissessar will have the advantage that Dr. Rowley & Co. have screwed up so badly that they deserve to be fired.

But  nowhere will there be any type of debate about the competence (or lack of it) of the two sides. Instead the country will in effect be bombarded (both figuratively as well as literally) with race talk. It says a lot , doesn't it?

TIME TO RETHINK PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

It is probably quite fitting to write this article today - Labour Day in Trinidad & Tobago. Nobody who has a modicum of justice flowing through his veins or understands and appreciates history and the significance of this date can grudge this holiday. 

Indeed, I would argue that it is right and mete and absolutely necessary that we celebrate this holiday as well as others. But my argument is a simple one: except for those days that can't be moved (e.g., Independence, Christmas. Eid, Divali, etc.) for reasons that ought to be obvious, we have a  bunch of other holidays, like this one, that we can celebrate by making it fall on a particular Monday in a particular month. For example, why don't we celebrate Indian Arrival Day on the last Monday in May? And we can do so on other appropriate Mondays, (e.g. we can have Emancipation Day on the first Monday in August? Or Republic Day on the last Monday in September?) 

I was thinking about this because everybody I know (except those born on an actual public holiday) has had a birthday fall on a weekday but had the celebration on a weekend. The birthday party is still special but everyone can enjoy the party especially because they don't have to go to work the next day.

So? Why can't our country do the same as we all have done at one time or another? Research has shown time and again that the country's productivity falls drastically when a public holiday falls on, say, a Tuesday or a Thursday - greater than when it falls on a Monday or a Friday. People tend to make it a long weekend if this happens, with the resulting drop in productivity.

Let me be clear: I am NOT arguing for the abolition of ANY holidays. The abolition of any particular holiday (religious or otherwise) would be a whole other argument. I am simply arguing for a rethink or streamlining of certain non-religious holidays in the interest of making T&T (admittedly only a little) more efficient.

THE UNC INTERNAL ELECTIONS

 Well, the UNC's internal elections are over and (surprise, surprise) Kamla's slate won. The fact that it was such a complete wipeout of Rushton Parry's slate raises more questions than answers. The first (and probably the most important) question is what safeguards were in place to assure that there was absolutely no cheating at the polls and that this result is something that can be relied upon? Does this result actually and accurately reflect the opinion of the wider electorate?

The next question that comes to mind is that does this (honest?) result mean that the UNC faithful are 100 percent behind Kamla and have absolutely no qualms about her and her people leading the party in the next general election?

The third question is, will those who so overwhelmingly voted for Kamla's slate admit that they were wrong IF Rowley & Co. are victorious in the next general election? And as a 'sub-question' (if that is a word) what will they do if they discover that Kamla & Co. do not have the support of the majority of the population?

One of the big problems that most people have is that they are very often most unwilling either to admit that they were wrong or that their choice was wrong. If those who voted for Kamla's slate were right then glory halleluiah, don't bother listening to me ever again. But what if they were wrong?

WHY?

 In a book by a man called Robert Paxton Called "Anatomy of Fascism" he quotes Mussolini (Adolf Hitler's good friend and the dictator of Italy) who answered a question about how he planned to govern after he became Prime Minister as saying in effect that his plan was to destroy any and all opposition to him. (He actually said "The democrats of Il Mondo ( a newspaper in Rome) want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better." Authoritarian movements don't just hate truth telling journalists, they also want to destroy any knowable truth other than that which the leader insists on. When you come across someone who is not just wrong but proudly irrational, they are simply looking for a fight.

So, let's look at the fight that is going on inside the UNC for control of that Party. On the one hand you have Rushton Parry's slate which has noticeably refrained from any type of personal attacks  on their opponents while on the other hand you have Kamla Persad Bissessar's team which has chosen to ignore the fact that Mrs. Persad Bissessar has lost just about every election that she has led the UNC in since the general election of 2010 (which she won).

You might say that the Persad Bissessar faction of indulging a little bit of "head-in-the sand" complacency because the general feeling in the country right now is that it is split right down the middle between the UNC and the PNM. And this is at a time when the ruling PNM has screwed up very, very  badly. By all that is normal, the UNC should be way ahead of the PNM right now. But its not. and the supporters of Mrs. Persad Bissessar are not asking the critical question: why?

P.S. Are there  safeguards in place to prevent either side from cheating at this Sunday's internal election? If so, what exactly are they? Don't you think (regardless of who you would like to win) that this is important?

ARE ELECTIONS CONSEQUENTIAL?

 Do you believe that elections are consequential? Will your life change depending on who wins the next general election? If the answer is 'yes', then what changes are you hoping for? If the answer is 'no' then why are you bothering to vote at all? Put another way, if 'your side' wins the election how will that affect you personally? And what happens to you if you 'side' loses?

You see, the only reason for politics - the only reason for Government - is to make YOUR life better. Full stop! There is no other reason. You can understand why those who are offering themselves want the job - they will certainly become better off if they win. But how will YOU benefit?  Okay, you will prevent 'them" (whoever 'them' are) from having a better life. But what's in it for you? This is a very serious question that I don't think that a lot of people think about. We all get caught up in the hype - 'vote PNM' or 'vote UNC'. But do you ever stop to think about what's in it for you? Of course, the reality is that the answer to this basic question is often overlooked in all the excitement surrounding an election - whether it is an internal or a general one.

Have you noticed, for example that most people are worse off today than they were ,say, 10 years ago? And yet, the PNM seems to be running neck and neck with the UNC. Why?  Certainly, one can look at the UNC's leadership and say that it is falling short, but isn't the PNM leadership also wanting? The UNC has some internal elections about to take place that will almost certainly impact how that party is perceived by the wider electorate. So the question for a UNC supporter is do you think that your party has done a good job of keeping the PNM Government on its toes? If you do, then why is your party doing so badly in the polls when by all that is normal at this stage the party should be preparing for Government?  And they are not!

And if you think that its all the fault of those who oppose the current UNC leader, do you think that she can heal the party enough to persuade non UNC people (the floating voters) to vote for her in the next round? So? Do you vote to change things or are you happy with the status quo?

 The last 9 years of PNM rule have been marked  by a series of disasters - the closure of Petrotrin, austerity, the pandemic and a series of other vague, but just as troubling, marks of failure. It has been argued that while the State withers the charlatans take over and you give up on progress and simply hope that this particular chapter of all this nonsense will end. But a country cannot move forward without honestly reckoning on where it has gone wrong. There is enormous social inequality and exasperation with corruption that is generating massive discontent. Which leads back to my original question: do you believe that elections are consequential?

THE BANKS

 While existing legislation is supposed to keep the banks in check, the balance of power has swung far in their direction and they are acting with deepest impunity. Don't believe me? Have you seen how many millions the banks are reporting in profits every year? Their profits are up - way up - not down - in a time when people are catching hell to make ends meet. 

For example, how many people have noticed the small bank charges that seem to proliferate just for the privilege of having an account? And I thought that computerization was supposed to make things quicker and easier and less expensive; it hasn't. Why does it not in Trinidad & Tobago? In Canada, for example, my son reports that it took about 10 minutes for him to open an account when he went to university. Compare how long it takes down here. The banks in the North are very efficient, but they actually provide a service. Down here they operate as if they are doing you a favour by taking your money and holding it. Most diplomats report that it takes them about two days to open an account. Why? And  then they ask you all sorts of rather intrusive and personal questions.

And yet the big banks and their big clients are reporting record profits. But more people are being pushed into poverty than ever before. Why? Is there no co-relation? Why is no politician talking about this? Is it because  'money talks and you-know-what walks'?  But I have always thought that the only reason for politics was to make life better for the people! I guess that the old saying about money talking is very true - at least in T&T! Certainly, unless you are a 'big-wig' in a bank or a big company, but just an ordinary person, you are not better off. Is this right? Is it fair?

IS RACE BEHIND THE SEDITION CHARGE?

 I looked up the Sedition Act Cha. 11:04 to see if I could find the meaning of the word "sedition". I couldn't. The closest thing that I could find was in Webster's dictionary which defined 'sedition' as "1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. 2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion."

So, going back to the Act  the law says in effect that until the contrary is proved, anybody knowingly in possession of a seditious publication is guilty of sedition. It goes on to define  a seditious intention as an intention "(a) to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against Government ... ."

It would seem therefore that the charge of sedition under this rather antiquated British colonial law MIGHT have a chance of succeeding against the Canadian vlogger who seems to have been caught up in the politics of this country. (I have emphasized the word "might" because I haven't seen exactly what he posted or said.)  Certainly, if he was advocating the violent overthrow of the government of our Republic then I have no problem with "throwing the book" at him. 

But if he didn't, what then? Certain very nasty and most unfortunate suspicions would arise. In any case there are certain questions that need to be asked and answered, e.g. how come a Canadian can find alleged gang members IN POSSESSION of guns and the police can't find or charge them? Are these charges racially motivated?

You see, it is interesting that the person who has been charged is the reporter while the people being reported on are left to go free. And the person being charged is a white foreigner and the people being reported on are black. And the present Government is black. Is it unfair to notice this? Why? It has been hinted that a senior black PNM politician was behind this charge because what was said was embarrassing to the Government. Is there any truth to that rumour?

Let's see what happens next. But unless this whole imbroglio is settled soon there is going to be a bad taste in everyone's mouth.