TWENTY FOUR YEARS

   TWENTY-FOUR years ago yesterday my cousin Monty was kidnapped. His skeleton (that's right: his skeleton!) was found two days later in his burnt out car. The police told me at the time that the burning of the car was done using "an accelerant more flammable than gasoline". 

It took me two years to find out what exactly had happened to my cousin, how it happened and why it happened. Frankly, the story reads like something out of a crime novel. It involves a local as well as a foreign drug lord and police corruption going from the bottom of the Police Service all the way up to the top. I know everything, but, unfortunately, can't prove a damned thing! I know who kidnapped my cousin and I know who pulled the trigger of the gun that ended his life. But, I can't prove it.

At one time when we had the Canadian CoP and his Canadian Deputy I went to see the deputy who knew why and what I was coming about. The deputy met with me and a lawyer friend of mine whom I had brought as a witness. He (the deputy) was surprised that I had somebody with me but hadn't bothered (by his own admission) to read the file. Instead he seemed more interested in finding out what I knew. I told him that I knew a lot but that it didn't make sense having any kind of discussion with him unless and until he had read the file. He promised to do so and also promised that he would call me ... very soon! He never did. Frankly, his attitude raised very ugly and most unnecessary suspicions in my mind that are probably better left unexpressed.

I an very close to a girl that was raped more than 10 years ago and saw for myself up close and personal how devastating that experience was for her. I followed up with the police every day for 6 months after the deed and then on a weekly basis for another additional 10 months, but it was to no avail. The rapist was never caught.

Why am I raising all this now? Because, like most Trinis I have been appalled by the brutal murders (especially of our women) that seem to be climbing almost daily. I felt it when Ashanti, for example, was murdered and I was most upset about Andrea's terrible ordeal. But I also feel for their loved ones who are left with the terrible scars of knowing how absolutely horrible their last hours on the planet must have been.

It is a truism that there is no grief which a length of time will not heal. But it is also very true that when a tragedy (such as the brutal murders of these girls) takes place that no matter that you have no more tears to shed you never forget the injustice meted out to your loved one and you thirst for revenge, i.e., you want their killers to be caught and found guilty and punished. When this doesn't happen you are left with a huge void in your psyche that you fall into again and again ... even after 24 years! The tears go, but the pain never does.

We can pass all the laws we want. We can bring back the death penalty and castrate the rapists. But if we don't catch the criminals everything that we say and do is just so much dust and doesn't mean a thing.

FIX THE SYSTEM AND CATCH THE CROOKS

What is the point of passing all kinds of laws that are designed to secure convictions if you are not catching the criminals in the first place? Criminals don't fear draconian laws; they fear getting caught! Let me put it this way: everybody who has a driver's licence has at one time or another broken the speed limit laws - especially on the highway. But if you put police on the highway with a timer or radar gun you will see people slowing down. Nobody wants to get caught and have to pay a fine.

It is the same thing with violent crime. If the criminal believes that his chances of getting caught are almost zero, and his chances of being convicted are even slimmer, then he simply ain't gonna hesitate to do the crime. And this includes everything from murder to speeding and everything in between.

That is why I am so fed up with the posturing of politicians who claim that this latest Parliamentary Bill (whatever "it" is) will definitely bring down crime and is a vital piece in the State's fight against crime.  And nobody takes them out on these claims. Our erstwhile Attorney General is now bringing to Parliament legislation to amend the Evidence Act which he claims is absolutely vital and most important in the fight against crime. I suppose that he wants to pretend that he is doing something about the crime epidemic.

I'm sorry, but I've heard this song before. Remember the Anti-Gang Act? There were NO prosecutions (let alone convictions) under the Act when it was law, but the Attorney General didn't hesitate to castigate the Opposition for their lack of support when the law came up for renewal, and the mainstream media agreed with him. It was irresponsible not to support this legislation the AG thundered.

But nobody ever went back to the basic question: how many criminals are being caught? How many crimes are committed without being "solved"?

Does this mean that we should be like the Pharisee who gets rid of his sins by crying "Korban" at the gates of the Temple? No.  But we should start at the beginning which is catching the criminals - and quickly. The fear of getting caught is the ONLY effective deterrent against crime. Everything else is just fluff. And we should let the politicians (like the Attorney General) know that we are not impressed with their 'holier than thou' pronouncements. Fix the system by catching the crooks. Don't catch the crooks and we will all have to continue to deal with tragedies like the dreadful story of Andrea Barrath.

And yes, catching the criminals means also convicting them. This means that as part of fixing the problem the Court system has to be fixed as well.

THE RACIAL ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

 One of the greatest American Presidents, Abraham Lincoln,  once made a famous speech in which he said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I could not find the exact quotation of his famous speech so you will forgive me if I quote him from memory. He said words to the effect that "I believe this government cannot endure permanently half believing in fiction and half in science and logic. The union will not be divided. The house will not fall. But I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become one thing or another."

And that is more or less what he said. If you think about it, you will appreciate that except for the names and a few other changes his words apply accurately to Trinidad & Tobago in 2021. We are hopelessly divided racially, and to pretend that we are not is similar to whistling in the wind. there are two main races in the country: African or Black and East Indian. If you are Black it is a pretty good bet that you vote and/or support the PNM. If you are Indian it is an equally good bet that you support the UNC. If you are neither one nor the other you will support the political party that you believe that you personally can benefit from financially. If you are Syrian/Lebanese this usually means that you will support the PNM because the Indian community has enough wealthy persons that the UNC doesn't need their money. 

You will notice that nowhere in the above analysis is there any statement of the differences in policies between the two major parties. The truth is that there is very little difference between them in regard to policies on anything ranging from health care to education to taxes. The arguments at election time is always about 'we can do a better job than they can and we steal less.' The not so hidden subtext is that both sides not so subtly say vote for us because we are Black/Indian (as the case may be).

It is probably too much to hope that the current leadership of both sides will change anytime soon or do anything for the country that will put us on the right track of not caring about 'us' and 'them' but of 'we'. Oh! The politicians on both sides will bleat about equality and how they are not racists and will trot out persons from the 'other side' which they say prove their point, but nobody is really fooled by that. 

Look: the sooner we talk about this racial elephant in the room the better. And the sooner that we admit to ourselves that we are a society that is hopelessly divided by race also the better. You can't fix a problem unless you acknowledge that it exists in the first place. After that acknowledgement then we can begin discussing how to fix it.

But then, the question will arise: do our politicians really want to fix a system that they benefit from?

TWO KINDS OF TRUTH

 I got the title of this post from a most enjoyable and readable novel by an American, Michael Connely.  In it the author argued that there were two kinds of truth: one is the unalterable bedrock of one's life mission, and the other is the malleable truth of politicians, charlatans, corrupt lawyers and their clients, bent and molded to serve whatever purpose was at hand.

The more I thought about the learned author's proposition that there are two kinds of truth, the more I thought that he was absolutely right.  The only thing that I would change is the first: I would argue that  the first kind of truth is the unalterable bedrock of what exactly is going on in any particular sphere of life. I would leave the author's definition of the second kind of truth  as I believe that it is solidly on point. 

 We see examples of this everyday, not only in the big countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, but in the little countries like Trinidad & Tobago. For example, is it true that Prime Minister Rowley's daughter, her husband and their son have not only taken up residence at the Prime Minister's official residence but are also using official cars, official personnel and official special branch guards 24/7?

If this is true, why is this okay now but it wasn't okay when the accusation was made that then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar's sister was supposed to be living at the Prime Minister's official residence in St. Ann's back in 2012? I seem to remember that Marlene Macdonald, who is now the present Minister of Community Development, made a big stink about this saying in effect that it was not only wrong but evidence of corruption on the part of Mrs. Persad-Bissessar. I really can't remember the details of that particular accusation, but I seem to remember that it was reported that the sister lived in England and was visiting the Prime Minister and assisting her with an illness.

Whatever, it really doesn't matter. What matters is that assuming (though not accepting) that the accusation against Mrs. Persad-Bissessar had merit, then doesn't it follow that if this story/question about Dr. Rowley's family is true that what is taking place is also wrong?  With respect, the ruling PNM cannot have it both ways. Either this is wrong for everybody or it is right for everybody. And either the story about Dr. Rowley's family is true or it isn't! Either way, the facts ought to come out and we ought to be told 'yes, it's true', or 'no, it's not!' 

And we should begin to insist on the first kind of truth from our leaders and not the second one. Speaking for myself, I am fed-up with all the lies that we have had to swallow over the last few years. And I don't care who is telling the lies; they ought to be stopped ... now!  And it is we, the citizenry, who have to stop them from being told.

THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT SENATORS

 

There has been a lot of talk recently about the role of independent senators and how they should or should not have voted in the recent debate on the Bill proposing amendments to the Procurement Act. If you are a UNC supporter you would be very angry over the seeming abdication by all but one of the Independents of their perceived responsibility and even more annoyed over the vote by Dr. Remy in support of the Government's Bill. If you are a PNM supporter you are very happy with the result and are smirking happily while accusing the UNC side of sour grapes.

With respect, both sides are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Senate is supposed to work. So let's start from the beginning. There are 31 Senators. The Government has 16 senators, one of whom is always the President of the Senate, i.e., the presiding officer. He/she has a casting vote IF there is a tie. Convention dictates that the Presiding Officer must ALWAYS vote to maintain the status quo. So, if the votes are tied at 15 for and 15 against, and the status quo is that there must be no change to whatever is being proposed, then the proposal fails. And as almost all the proposals for change come from the Government this tie would mean that whatever was being proposed fails ... the Government loses.

I should have also pointed out that there are 6 Opposition Senators and 9 Independents. All the Senators are appointed by the President of the Republic. The Government Senators are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Opposition Senators are appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. The Independents are appointed by the President on whomsoever he/she may so desire. These last are usually chosen from the general population and are usually persons who are recognized as being leaders of or in their particular fields of expertise, e.g. medicine, religion, law, etc. (As an aside, I saw a rather derogatory comment about Senator Paul Richards where he was referred to as a mere "DJ". This was a most unfair and unwarranted comment. I have known Senator Richards for many years as as a most competent, knowledgeable and balanced news journalist. Frankly, he deserves to be in the Senate and has made some excellent contributions in the past as an Independent Senator.)

But I digress. The Independents are not in the Senate to prevent or obstruct the Government of the day from doing what it wants, but are there to ensure that laws are not passed that would, for example, give the Government dictatorial powers or are so absolutely stupid that no sane person could support it. (for example again, I would expect the Independents to vote against a law that said that all men must wear green pants at all times.) I have known many Independent Senators  who have not particularly liked or agreed with a particular proposal of the particular Government, but have voted for it (whatever "it" was) because they understood that their fundamental role was as a sort of watchdog and not to get involved in the politics of a particular situation.

When an Independent Senator abstains from voting that is a serious warning to the Government of the day. What the Independent is saying in effect is 'I'm not going to block you, but you should know that I disapprove of what you are doing'. A sensible Government will pay close attention to this. An astute Opposition will also pay attention and will look for ways in the future to try and persuade the Independent who abstained not to do so next time, but to vote against the next proposal.

Although I did not agree with Senator Remy's vote on the Procurement Bill, frankly I have seen no evidence whatsoever that she is a "closet PNM" (or whatever other derogatory epithet has been hurled against her.) Clearly, in voting for the Bill she must have felt that she was doing exactly what she had been put in the Senate to do, and she was acting in accordance with that belief. I think that at the very least she should have abstained as did her other colleagues, but once she acted honourably and honestly (and I believe that she did) then whether I agree with her vote or not is immaterial. The most that we can ask of anyone is that he/she acts honourably and honestly.

For the record, I think that the Bill should have been defeated, but I must say that the Opposition Senators have not been reported as dealing with the problems that the Bill will create, but appeared to have concentrated more on the politics. And the reported comments of Senator Jerlean John made after the vote, if accurate, are as unnecessary as they are unfortunate. That the Opposition Senators were unable to persuade the Independents to vote against the Bill speaks more to their failure than anything else.

Perhaps the Opposition Senators should take a course on the role and function of the Senate. The Upper House is supposed to be a place where more reasoned debate takes place and the interests of the country take precedence over the more narrow partisan ones which tend to dominate the national debate. But that is why we have an Independent Bench, and whether you like them or not, most of them do a good job. Certainly, in my lifetime I have only known one individual who was clearly not independent and who always voted for whatever the Government of the day wanted. Fortunately, he is no longer there and the President who appointed him is also long gone. But, to be fair, so far the present crop of Independents is doing a good job. Would that we could say the same for the remaining 22 Senators on both sides of the aisle!

P.S. Even if all 9 Independent Senators had abstained the Bill would still have passed. For the Bill to have failed, all 9 Independent Senators would have had to have voted against it.

THE REFUGEE CRISIS

 It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand exactly how the Rowley regime's handling of the refugee problem can be justified. It is true that we are a small country. And it is true that we simply cannot afford to be effectively overrun by refugees fleeing from a murderously criminal regime in Venezuela. It is also true that we are signatories to several international treaties that dictate how we should treat with refugees. And finally, it is also true that the sanctions that the United States has placed on Maburro's regime is causing serious hardship in Venezuela. 

Now, the argument that is being promulgated by supporters of Maburro, Rowley & Co. is that it is these sanctions by the United States that are the real cause of the hardships of the Venezuelan people and that their removal would help to right things in that unfortunate country. 

Unfortunately, this is only a half-truth, and, as everybody knows, a half truth is more dangerous than an outright lie. Yes, the sanctions are hurting the ordinary people, but guess what? The ordinary people were hurting BEFORE the sanctions were imposed. Yes, the sanctions do not seem to have worked in that the regime is still in place. But the Cubans have installed a security apparatus that has given Maburro & Co. complete control over the military ... and 'power comes out of the mouth of a gun' (as Chairman Mao used to say). And the fact is that there really is nothing more than can be done now to remove the jackdonkey  from power. If anybody can think of a solution please put it forward. 

And so, donkeys that we are, we collectively curse the ugly Americans and after drawing up to our full three inch height look into the eyes of the eight foot giant and say 'you are wrong and the fault is yours that we have so many refugees coming over here.' But we don't say diddley-squat to either Maburro or the Cubans. We say nothing when Maburro cooks the election results and installs himself for another (illegitimate) term in office. We don't say anything to Maburro when his people run over here to escape from a crushing economic situation or from serious injustices which could cost them their lives.

Have you ever thought how desperate a person must be to pick themselves up and with very few belongings and almost no money make a dangerous journey by boat to another country that doesn't want them and which speaks a completely different language? 

And then we have a Prime Minister who appears on the face of it to be very friendly with Maburro and makes comments that are really criticisms of the United States. But wait a minute! It is a well recognized principle in international relations that countries don't have friends ... they have interests. Now where do you think our best interests lie when Venezuela and the United States are so obviously at loggerheads? With Venenezuela or with the United States? And please don't forget that the United States is not only our biggest trading partner, but also is capable of crushing us with one stroke of it's pen not to mention it's military. This ought to be a no-brainer.

So? Was it really in our best interests to turn those children away and have the whole world criticize us? Was that a humane action and should we be oblivious to the inhumanity of the Maburro regime? In other words, did we do right to treat those children the way we did?

I'm sorry, but I don't think so. And for the record, I know that the man's name is Maduro but he's such a donkey that I prefer to call him by a name that is more descriptive.

AMAZINGLY IRRESPONSIBLE

 'Amazingly irresponsible' are the word that the Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, used to comment on an Hasidic wedding in the city in which apparently thousands attended and were each fined US$15,000.

I couldn't help but compare that to our own recent Valsayn wedding and Zesser party. I am not going to get into the argument that the police could or could not have done anything about the wedding except to say that (using Mr. de Blasio's words) it was amazingly irresponsible for those wedding guests to attend. And if the reports are true that Government Ministers attended they should be named and shamed. Frankly, they should be fired. And it is not good enough for Mr. Deyalsingh to say that he doesn't about that. He should find out, damnit!

There is a report in today's papers that Mr. Terrance Deyalsingh, T&T's erstwhile Minister of Health, is reported as saying (inter alia) that he knew about the Valsayn wedding in advance and that he knows of another wedding coming up on or about 12th December in which there will be some 300 guests. But he says that this time the public health authorities will act. Really? So, why didn't they act last time?

Let's call a spade a spade: the very strong impression being given here is that the Zessers can be arrested and fined for breaching the health regulations because they are poor and possibly have criminal or underworld connections. Oh! And don't forget their ethnicity! But the Valsayn wedding guests can be given a free pass because they are, amongst other things, protected by Government contacts. Wouldn't it be nice if it could be shown that this impression is totally and completely misplaced? But how do you square this action of shutting down the Zesser party but allowing the big and expensive wedding in Valsayn to take place? Since when does the Corona virus discriminate between the poor and indigent and the rich and powerful and well connected?

We are being fed a big bunch of B.S. (which my history teacher once told me stands for "Baloney for Sure"). And Mr. Deyalsingh (who has developed quite a reputation for uttering a lot of B.S.) should stop taking us all for fools.

P.S. For the record, I think that the organizers of both the wedding and the Zesser party were wrong as hell. But two or even three wrongs do not make a right. And this %^&*()*# virus doesn't care!

THE CONTINUING UNWILLINGNESS TO FIX THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

 

It isn't always easy to avoid criticizing the Rowley regime, but sometimes it becomes absolutely necessary when it becomes apparent that rather than dealing with what is or ought to be important for the well being of the society, that the Government is operating more like a business rather than a government. Put another way, I have often said that you cannot run a country the way you run a business. Running a business entails not only balancing the books but making a profit. Running a country means that decisions have to be taken which are not only in the best short term interests of the society, but also in the best long term interests as well.

What has aroused my concerns is the announcement at the end of last week by the erstwhile Minister of Education in which massive cuts were declared in the GATE program ... the program which provides subsidized tertiary education for a wide swath of students. That the cuts are going to hurt many students is a given. What is also a given is that there will be a sizable number of very poor students who will be unable to access tertiary education. 

So? Let them eat cake? The problem here is that of all the programs or facilities for people that ought to be cut, I would argue that education is just about the last one that ought to be tampered with. No country can lift itself out of poverty without a good, viable and efficient education system. That the PNM and Dr. Eric Williams did just that in the period 1956 to about 1970 is true and we owe a tremendous amount to Dr. Williams for this is true.

But here we are many, many years later and education seems to have taken a back seat in the Rowley regime's push to modernize the country. There are some people even who detect a certain racism in the regime's effective downgrading and cancelling many of the GATE programs. These people argue that they think this because they see East Indians as being the major beneficiaries of GATE and that this is a way of slowing down the rise of the East Indians against the Africans in the society. I don't know if that perception can be backed up with facts, but the mere fact that the perception exists is as unfortunate as it is disturbing and means that the regime is seen by many to be racist. Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder and not the beholden.  

Look, in my opinion it is better to stay away from thoughts like this. It is my respectful view that regardless of whatever is motivating the regime to slash spending on education it needs to do a complete 180 degree turn and pour ALL the resources into the system that we have at our disposal ... even if this means that badly needed projects elsewhere (e.g., Dr. Rowley's plans for East Port of Spain) have to be put on hold or cancelled. There is NOTHING more important than education. I would even argue that our health care system (which is most important) comes in a close second behind education.

We don't, for example, pay our teachers enough. The starting salary for a teacher is around TT$6,000 per month. That is ridiculous! It should be three times that amount! And it should go up by at least three times for every level after that. If you pay peanuts, do you expect to get world class scholars? 

This country will never fix itself until we start at the beginning. It will take about twenty years to fix the problem. But most governments think only in terms of five year cycles. Time for a new Constitution? But that is another argument again!

But since then our national attention turned elsewhere and we did not pay the kind of attention to the education system that we ought to have paid. For example, in my opinion the salaries that we pay teachers is nothing short of a scandal and a complete disgrace. I understand that the starting salary for a brand new teacher is somewhere in the vicinity of $5,000 per month. This is awful. It should be AT LEAST three times that amount. Then again, it is not 

SHUBH DIVALI

 This weekend (Saturday to be exact) one of the world's oldest and greatest religions will celebrate one of it's most important and symbolic events: the festival of Divali which is supposed to be held on 'the darkest day of the year' and celebrates the triumph of light over darkness. 

One of the nice things about growing up in Trinidad is that one is exposed at a very early age to three of the world's great religions ... Islam, Hinduism and Christianity.  We have large segments of our population who follow one or the other of these three religions with varying degrees of enthusiasm. We also tend to join in the celebrations of the particular religion when it has a feast day and, indeed, recognize these feast days with public holidays.

That this is right and proper is unquestionable. Most religious scholars will readily and happily posit that there are many ways up the mountain, but that there is only one mountain top! Indeed, in conversations over the years most priests, imams and pundits have all agreed that the real differences between the world's religions are more of form than of substance, and that they all, in their own way, preach fundamentally the same core values of love, family, honour and truth. That they approach these core values from very different angles is a given. But ultimately, when all the dogmas are stripped away they all fundamentally say the same thing: there is only one Supreme Being (called by many different names) who sits on only one mountaintop. You might choose to go up the South Eastern slope while I trudge up the North Western side, but we are both going in the same direction. Up!

And so, despite the fact that there are so many worries, conflicts and troubles in the world, the Hindu festival of Divali comes at a most appropriate and welcome time to remind us that no matter where you are or who you are, light will always triumph over darkness. And so to all who might read this may I wish you Shubh Divali.

IS KEITH ROWLEY A LIAR (OR DOES HE ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH)?

 Now that I have your attention, what do you think? Is our Prime Minister a liar or does he always tell us the truth? Does he tell us the truth sometimes but lies at others? If so, when do you think that he tells the truth and when do you think that he lies? Why does he lie (if he does) and when he does lie,  does he tell us the truth  at other times? If so, how can we tell when he is lying or when he is telling us the truth? Put another way, can we trust him to tell us the truth at all times?

This, believe it or not, is a serious question. We need to be certain that our leaders (not just Dr. Rowley ... all of our leaders) will tell us the truth all the time. And the reason that this post is concentrating on Dr. Rowley at the moment is because he is the Prime Minister. Except for the names and a few other changes the same or similar questions would apply also to Mrs. Persad-Bissessar. So, please don't mix the apples with the oranges. Let's deal with one leader at a time.

Now, last week Dr. Rowley at a public meeting said that a plane had been sabotaged. Apparently, according to Dr. Rowley, some wires had been cut. Obviously, if this is true then it is a most serious report. People could have been killed when the plane crashed ... I presume that the reason for cutting the wires was to cause the plane to crash.  But was this report true? Or was the statement made for some other purpose? If there was another purpose for the statement to be made then what could that purpose have been? Some persons have suggested that Dr. Rowley was hinting that it (the sabotage) had been done by UNC supporters. Now, to be fair, I didn't get that from his statement and if that was his intention then it passed over my head like the proverbial Concord jet. I don't know where those persons could have got that from or how they could possibly have arrived at that conclusion. But questions do abound. For example, why was this not reported before? When was the sabotage discovered? Who discovered it? Is there video footage? If so, can we see it? If not, why not? And so on. I could list a dozen more questions that need to be answered.

And yes, it is important that all the questions are answered. For example, was it a Caribbean Airlines plane? A private plane? What (besides killing people by causing the plane to crash) was the purpose of the sabotage? Who stood to gain from this if it was a CAL plane? If it was a private plane who wanted to kill the owner? Who is the owner and why would somebody want to kill him?

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Dr. Rowley has made what can only best be described as rather curious remarks. For example, do you remember earlier this year when the Vice President of Venezuela came over to Trinidad with some PDVSA executives? We were told (by Dr. Rowley) that they came to discuss the COVID epidemic! Frankly, I didn't and still don't believe that. That explanation simply doesn't make sense. Do I know what they  came to discuss? No, though I have my suspicions which are probably better left unexpressed at this time. So? Were we lied to? What was the reason that they came? To discuss COVID? Really? But our health professionals were not present. So? Were we lied to? Why? And, for the record, these questions are asked 'open ended'. If there is a good explanation or explanations then great! But surely, we are entitled to answers?

Of course, the most "famous" example of Dr. Rowley's rather curious allegations is the scandal known as emailgate where a number of Cabinet Ministers in the UNC Government were accused of conspiring to murder a journalist. But after what felt like a million years of investigations the case was quietly dropped as there was absolutely no evidence other than the copies of the alleged emails produced by Dr. Rowley in Parliament. Dr. Rowley's supporters have insisted that the copies are true, but no evidence has ever been produced to suggest that they are.

And then there is the case of the FSO Nabarima. A release from Dr. Rowley's office says that the ship is not listing and is certainly not sinking. But photographs and videos on social media suggest otherwise. So? Is it true that the ship is NOT sinking or listing badly? Certain eyewitnesses say that it is listing badly and is in danger of sinking.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Is our Prime Minister a liar or does he always tell us the truth or does he tell us the truth only sometimes and lies to us at other times? If he lies to us only sometimes, is this important? How do we know or trust that he is telling us the truth on important matters if he is lying to us only sometimes and telling us the truth at other times? Or does he tell us the truth all the time?

A large part of the problem is because our mainstream media is simply not doing its job. The hard questions are not being asked and all three daily newspapers are clearly biased in favour of the Government. But that's another story!

RACISM IN T&T (and its effect on our politics)

 It is a fact that we are in deep economic trouble. Our debt to GDP ratio is now at around 89.6 percent. Not too long again and it will be over 100 percent. The result is going to be more lay-offs, more unemployment, more slowing down and less money to go around. On Sunday last I received three videos of house break-ins in three different areas of Trinidad : Freeport, Valsayn and Westmoorings. The videos were all disturbingly similar - young black men scouting the area before jumping the respective fences.

Now, my take away from these videos (as well as from the countless reports that I keep getting) is that the very severe economic downturn is hurting the black communities worse than the other communities across the land. The problem is that nobody wants to say or acknowledge this because (heaven forbid) any comments could be taken as being racist or being influenced by racism. To which I say, absolute rubbish!

We need to look at our country squarely, warts and all! We need to acknowledge honestly what is going on and who is being hurt. Okay. Everybody is being hurt, but we need to look at who is hurting the most. We can't fix anything if we continue to avoid dealing with the problems that confront us.

Our leaders on BOTH sides of the political divide play the race card 24/7. And don't pretend that it is not true. I have seen and heard countless times, subtle and not so subtle remarks being made on BOTH political platforms, not only by the respective leaders but by their various supporters. Perhaps one of the worst was the "Calcutta ship" remark made at a political rally in Tobago some time ago, and the leader of the particular party who spoke after the remark was made, did not condemn that remark there and then. What was the message to his supporters when he failed to condemn the remark? Was it not that he agreed with it? Of course it was! Either that or he calculated that such a dog whistle would help him get out the vote. Either way, he was as wrong as hell!

Everybody knows that if you are Indian you must vote UNC and if you are African you must vote PNM. And then you have one or two Indians in the PNM who are there for their own personal reasons saying things to the effect that all Indians are not bad and the "good" Indians vote PNM! When I heard that I shook my head in dismay. Unbelievable. And yet there has been no condemnation of these terrible remarks ... at least, none from the PNM side! So? What is the message there from the PNM for their failure to condemn those highly publicized remarks?

Look, a person should join a political party because he/she agrees with its policies and the principles for which it stands. So? What are the policies and the principles of both the PNM and the UNC? How or where are they different? And don't tell me that one is more honest than the other. That simply is not true. The allegations of corruption on both sides are huge. How are their principles and policies different? Or is it that corruption is acceptable because "we" are doing it or "we" are stealing or stole less than "they" did?

Look, it's like having a business that is making a million dollars a year but the manager is stealing a hundred thousand dollars a year. So, the owner of the business changes managers. The new manager continues to steal the same amount as the old manager did, but instead of making an annual million dollar profit he loses a million dollars a year. Obviously stealing is bad and ought to be condemned, but isn't the owner better off with the first rather than the second manager? And shouldn't we also look at that?

So? Besides race, why do you support and vote for the party of your choice? A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step and for us, I most respectfully suggest that the first step will be to stamp out the racism in our society.. But in order to do so, we are going to have to be honest with ourselves. Only then can we really solve our problems. And that means that you have to be honest with yourself. But that is always difficult, isn't it?

BENCHMARKS

 It is impossible to comment intelligently on Mr. Imbert's latest budget without being accused by one side or the other of being biased. Those who think it was a good budget will be criticized by those who think it was a lousy one ... and vice versa. In true Trini style these criticisms will be laced with personal insults and other invectives.

But what is noticeable is the complete lack of benchmarks. Indeed, nobody over the last six budgets seems to have paid attention to this point. How can anyone say that the Minister will fail if we don't have agreed benchmarks setting out what we expect/hope to happen, say, within the next six months? The next nine months? The next twelve months? What is the measure of success against which we are placing the Governments economic proposals and plans for the next year? Will it be, for example, the creation of a thousand new jobs? Or will it be considered a success if no more jobs are lost? If 'only' a thousand jobs are lost?

I have been listening very carefully to both Government supporters as well as it's opponents. If you fall in the former camp the message is that it is the best that can be done in all the circumstances in this COVID and falling oil and gas prices era. If you fall in the latter camp you will say that the budget was lackluster and has done nothing to give our citizenry any hope whatsoever.

So? What is the truth? I don't know. I'm not an economist and I find that what little brain I have seems to work very differently from the ways that the brains of those who occupy the lofty financial heights of our economy do regardless of whichever side they fall. But I have always found that the best questions are always the ones that go to the root of whatever problem those questions are considering. And I have always found that it is always best to ask what exactly are the benchmarks? What will show us before the end of your experiment (or whatever) whether or not you are succeeding or failing? 

It is unquestionable that we are in deep, deep trouble. And we are looking to our Government (and yes, it is 'our' Government whether you voted for them or not) for leadership. Only the most crass and unpatriotic are hoping that our Government will fail. But, it cannot be unpatriotic to ask them to explain not only their plans, but, what  they say will be the benchmarks by which we can judge them as to whether they are failing or succeeding. And, please; I don't want to hear about the UNC and how they might have done better or worse. Dr. Rowley and his people are in charge ... whether you like it or not! It is up to them to lead us out of this morass in which we find ourselves. I have said it before and I'll say it again: the only test of leadership is to lead, and to lead vigoursly. So, to the Rowley regime I say two things: the first is to lead, follow or get out of the way. The second thing is to ask them what are their benchmarks? What are their standards by which we can judge them as to whether they are succeeding or failing?

A FAILURE OF IMAGINATION

That we are in deep, deep "doo-doo" is unquestionable. The problem is that even before this Coronavirus business knocked everybody sideways we were in deep trouble with falling energy prices, rising unemployment and plant closures (not to mention the closing down of the Pointe-a-Pierre refinery). That is why an active imagination is so important - not to assume the worst but to prepare for all eventualities.

In talking with energy experts over the last few years they all sang from the same song book that oil and gas prices would go down ... and that the drop would be fairly radical. But apart from some 'lyrics' about deals with Venezuela and the Dragon Gas Fields the truth is that the Rowley led regime in the last five years appears to have done nothing. Oh! The Prime Minister did go to Houston and came back boasting that he had made a great deal on gas prices only to have big downstream users of natural gas at Point Lisas close their doors because they couldn't afford the new prices. The end result has been that the National Gas Company (NGC), once the crown jewel in the State's business enterprises, is now in dire financial straits.

And now? Now we are faced with version 2 of the Rowley regime which looks very much like version1 with the only change in the line up of top ministers being the removal and replacement of the hapless and hopeless Dennis Moses, the former Foreign Affairs Minister. But wasn't it Albert Einstein who once famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result?

No. Frankly, I don't expect any new or innovative thinking to fall from the lips of Finance Minister Colm Imbert on Monday next. He has shown himself to be devoid of any imagination whatsoever and all the evidence points inexorably to a complete failure of imagination on his part. If I am wrong then tell me: what will your bench marks be for the next twelve months that will show that at least we are on the right road? But if I am right, then I predict that things will simply get worse. Haiti has already shown that there is no 'bottom' at which a country can reach and go down no further. That things are worse today than they were a year ago is unquestionable. And while it is true that a lot of this fall in our fortunes was caused by the %$#&*#@% virus, not all of it was; a lot of it was also caused by a complete and disastrous failure of imagination on the part of Dr. Rowley & Co. 

A PERFECT STORM

 To say that I am worried is putting it mildly. The available evidence so far is that the Rowley led administration really doesn't have a clue how to mange the country's finances and has made to date a real mess of things. And as if their incompetence was not enough we put them in charge to manage the economy just when a 'perfect storm' of a crash in energy prices and a global pandemic combined to create a situation that would tax even the best and brightest minds. Unfortunately, they are neither the best nor the brightest so things are now worse than they might have been.

On top of their incompetence is the fact that they simply don't tell us the truth ... about anything! Take the pandemic, for example. Do you really believe that they handled this so well that we were number one in the world? Really? If you are that gullible I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you ... cheap!

But what has really scared the living daylights out of me is a report from a man called Harry Dent who is the founder of Dent Research and editor of  the "Economy and Markets" newsletter. He says that stocks are nearing a day of reckoning and is predicting a stock market crash of somewhere between 80 to 90 percent early next year. His forecasts are predicated on several variables which include exorbitant debt, aging demographics,  lofty stock and real estate valuations, diminishing central bank control and uncontrolled monetary policy. (Sounds a little like T&T, doesn't? But that's another story.)

Dent said "when this happens, you don't get a 30 to 50 percent stock correction. You get 80 to 90." He went on to say that this type of correction occurs once every 90 years ... and that puts us (meaning the world) right on target. The last time this happened was in 1929 when the stock market crashed leading the whole world into the Great Depression ... which caused (amongst other things) the right conditions for the demagogue that was Adolf Hitler to rise.

Dent calls the Corona virus the "perfect trigger" for the coming economic storm.

So? Obviously there ain't a heck of a lot that we can do about a world wide depression if Dent is right. But we should be preparing ourselves for the coming economic storm in much the same way that we prepare for an approaching hurricane. If it passes us by, then that would be great. But we should be prepared to deal with it if it doesn't! And that's my problem. Because I don't think that this Government ... OUR Government ... has a clue how to deal with the present difficulties, much less Mr. Dent's "perfect storm."

WHY?

 

With the big news in the USA this morning being that President Trump deliberately downplayed the effects of the Corona virus way back in February/March of this year in order not to create a panic, the question here in good old T&T is did our 'favourite' Minister of Health, Terrance Deyalsingh do the same thing when he refused to cancel or postpone Carnival? Next, is what we are experiencing now really a 'second wave'? Or is it that now the election is over that the Government no longer feels it necessary to cover up the amount of cases that there are really in the country?

You see, there is the very reasonable suspicion that we were lied to by the erstwhile Minister and his cohorts from the very beginning about this virus and its effects. Look at what is happening now: we have had since the elections some 2,662 persons tested positive and the number of deaths is now at about 40. And all this is within the last month with the borders closed! I'm not even going to bother with the number of reported cases after Carnival. But do you remember the great Minister telling us that masks were not really necessary? Do you remember him telling us that we were ranked number one in the world for our handling of the virus?

If we were doing such a great job then why is there even this so-called 'second wave'? And why is the number of tests still less than what little Grenada did before we had our elections.

Look, there are a lot of other questions. For example, why is the mainstream media giving our 'favourite' minister such a free pass? Why isn't he being held to account and why is he not being asked the hard questions? 

Tell me, do you think that there was more 'social interaction' over the election period (when the borders were closed) than there was over Carnival (when the borders were open)? And that is why we have this 'second wave' now?

I have my own theories, all of which can be summed up by saying that I think that we have been lied to from the very beginning. I also have my own theories as to why we were lied to ... but its all irrelevant now. The election is over, isn't it? and Deyalsingh is back again back in the saddle!!  He has a job... and a well paid one at that too! Isn't that just great?!