Of Balance and Balansingh by Alvin Narine

We live in a Democratic society where as citizens we have freedom of choice governed by law. I take this to mean that should I decide I want to pursue a particular career, a particular calling I am free so to do within my capacity. In our society our peoples pursued many different careers as per their choice but dictated to some extent by the geography of the land where they lived. These career pursuits had nothing to do with ethnicity or religion in the main but parents had a great influence in the direction.

I am fortunate to have lived in this, my homeland, in various geographical areas at various times which stemmed from even our pre-Independence days, those Colonial days. My observations as recorded here have nothing to do with my politics or that of my parents. I saw in the country areas that the land was mainly agricultural and so cultivated by the residents for home use and in the canefields owned by themselves or the factory for eking out a living. This was menial and backbreaking work, seasonal and soothy. No right thinking parent wanted such a living for their sons. Sacrifices were made so that the eldest son would gain a profession, preferably a Lawyer or a Medical Doctor.

Following this the Professional’s obligation was to ensure his next brother is given the same opportunity. And so there were families with lawyers or doctors or a combination of both. Of course there were the situations where the son would return with a ‘white’ wife – the studies were usually in England. In these ‘country’ areas the population was mixed but the career drives were the same regardless of race.

My sojourn in the City made me become aware that the trend was different where jobs or careers were concerned. There was always the public service where one can become employed with job security but also where training was possible for future advancement. For those who failed to make the grade there was the Police Force where one can have promotions and be highly respected in one’s district. There was the power of authority. No matter the ethnicity, the residents of the City mainly comprised though of persons of African descent. The trend was the civil service, the police force or fire brigade. In those days there was no Army except for those who opted to join the RAF or British Army. I can recall a unit or station situated in Point A Pierre on the Hill crossing over to the oilfields and into San Fernando, there was no Highway in those days.

Having looked at this background one would conclude that there is a reason for the imbalance of ethnicity in those government jobs. The qualifications for entrance into the Police Force was stringent and persons of African descent because of the physical build filled the requirements easier. One fact must be understood. These were situations existing BEFORE Independence and while we were under the Colonial rule. Thus there was a continuation of this after Independence.

So now, do we seriously want a ‘balance‘of ethnicity when there is the consideration of free will and choice belonging to the Individual? Do we want a Panel to select an even number of ‘Indians’ and ‘Africans’? So what about Chinese or Syrians and to complicate it even more what about mixed? And what about those looking Indian but the genes say African and vice versa? How ridiculous can we get if we strive to go this way?

In our society there is equal opportunities laid out for all. On the question of government employment, that is left up to the citizens to respond. Employment will be based on examination results and if there is an Interview needed there would be a panel. But do we select the panel on ethnicity – six of one and half a dozen of the other? Do we ensure an equal percentage of passes for each race with a one or two percent for ‘other’.

This is getting really ridiculous the various computations needed etc. I am getting fed up. I must recall my stay in the Telephone Company there were a few Narines. My brother and myself looked as typical East Indians. There were two other brothers not related to us who were of obvious African descent. All of us carried ‘Christian’ names. All four of us were ‘mixed’! Well was there ‘balance’?

To my mind, no matter what is put in place there will always be protests and accusations, some bordering on the ridiculous. In employment we choose the best no matter the ethnicity. If there appears to be an imbalance, well some persons who applied were brighter than others. Did ethnicity have anything to do with that or was it parental training or tutorage? Next thing someone will appeal because he/she was tried by someone of East Indian ethnicity when he/she was of African ethnicity and was prejudiced. Then the police must pair off as African/Indian so if an Indian the Indian police will lay the charge and if African the African police will lay the charge.

I know the solution – For next year Carnival ah go write ah calypso on dat so we cud see how chupid we cud be wit dis ting. If is mas we want, well we go play mas’. ©

Please note that this was composed not by Lord Strange of T&T but by a very distinguished gentleman by the name of Alvin Narine. (All other posts without credits listed are the material of Lord Strange of T&T unless otherwise stated.)

Political Lip Service or Divided Government‏?

The People's Partnership Government through the Office of the Prime Minister sought to 'appear to' condemn the highly inflammatory and racially divisive remarks of Chairman of the Police Service Commission Mr. Nizam Mohammed, a condemnation that no doubt sought to act as a cooling agent to soothe the public out cry against Mr. Mohammed's unfortunate statements and 'insinuations' made in no other place than our country's highest office the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. The release from the Prime Minister's Office describes Mr. Mohammed's statements using some very strong adjectives and phrases such as "reckless, senseless, divisive and serving no purpose." The release continued to state that Mr. Mohammed's views "run against the very grain of the philosophy that now governs this country", presumably under the stewardship of Ms. Persad-Bissessar and the new People's Partnership Government and further stated that Mr. Mohammed must be held accountable for his inflammatory comments because the mission of the government is to embrace everyone.

Arguably the release from the Prime Minister's Office used all the right words to condemn Mr. Mohammed's inflammatory remarks yet that release fell short of informing the general public whether the Government which fiercely defended the appointment of the goodly gentleman in the first place, an appointment that was vehemently opposed to by the Opposition benches, whether they will now be seeking to revoke Mr. Mohammed's appointment as he has demonstrated to the entire nation his unsuitability for the position. This Government should not wait on the President to revoke Mr. Mohammed's appointment. It was this Government that insisted Mr. Mohammed be appointed to this position and therefore they should bear the responsiblity for Mr. Mohammed's reckless conduct and not put that burden on the President. The Government's statement without action is tantamount to a parent spending enormous amounts of energy severely berating a child for a transgression yet failing to discipline said child.

Further to that one would have thought that if the Government was to issue a strongly worded reprimand such as this and in light of the potentially destabilising effect of Mr. Mohammed's comments not only to the Police Service but to the country as a whole, that they would have held an emergency caucus to address the issue and come to some form of unanimity in condemning the comments. This however does not seem to be the case because apparently before the ink can dry on the Office of the Prime Minister's release, we have contrary claims being made by two Government Ministers in the form of Dr. Roodal Moonilal and Chandresh Sharma. In the case of Mr. Sharma, he has taken a most curious stance of blaming the media for the dilemma Mr. Mohammed finds himself, saying "There are times when every media in many parts of the world carry stories that are inaccurate or carry stories that did not at all times reflect the views of the presenter, so that we must at all times listen and not shoot the messenger".

Mr. Sharma's comments are certain to raise eyebrows as Mr. Mohammed's comments were broadcast live on national television via the Parliament Channel, therefore the entire country for the most part heard for themselves the offensive remarks of Mr. Mohammed. For instance can Mr. Sharma explain what Mr. Mohammed meant when he said 'we need protection'? Who is the 'WE' that Mr. Mohammed was referring to and protection from whom? And if Mr. Mohammed is indeed the messenger from where did the message originate? Who's message is he delivering? In addition if as Mr. Mohammed claims that the police service does not represent the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago because there are 41% East Indians (Mr. Mohammed erroneously claimed 50%) and 39% Africans therefore the police service should not have so many Africans, can both Mr. Mohammed and Sharma explain why we have a caucasian Police Commissioner when that ethnic group is not more than 1% and the fact that the Commissioner is a foreigner to boot! In Mr. Mohammed's eyes does Commissioner Gibbs represent the ethnic composition of Trinidad and Tobago? Furthermore was Commissioner Gibbs promoted through the ranks based on meritocracy? Why was he chosen over an officer like say Stephen Williams? It should be noted that it was the Government and not the PSC that was instrumental in the appointment of Mr. Gibbs as Police Commissioner. Mr. Sharma's claim that we should not shoot the messenger is directly at odds with the Government's message via the release from the Prime Minister's Office that Mr. Mohammed's statements run against the very grain of this government. How can Mr. Mohammed be a 'viable messenger' and how can his message be 'worthy of recognition' while at the same time running against the philosophy of the Government of which Mr. Sharma is a member?

Dr. Roodal Moonilal has indicated that Mr. Mohammed's statements can spark a healthy debate, but the question is a healthy debate about what? What was valuable of Mr. Mohammed's claims of feeling intimidated because there were too many 'Africans' in top positions of the police service, especially when Mr. Mohammed gave no credible reason for feeling intimidated other than the fact that the officers he was referring too were not of his ethnicity?. How can Dr. Moonilal say Mr. Mohammed's statements can spark a healthy debate when the Government's leadership via the Office of the Prime Minister has denounced Mr. Mohammed's statements as 'reckless, senseless, divisive and serving no purpose?' Both Sharma's and Moonilal's comments run counter to the sentiments of another top Government member in the person of Mr. Warner who's comments preceded the release from the Prime Minister's Office, stating that Mr. Mohammed's remarks has hurt him deeply and has caused much embarrassment to their Government. With all these different messages emanating from the People's Partnership it's almost as if parts of this Government exists in parallel dimensions, each entity distinct from the other with it's own agenda.

It would appear from the different sentiments being expressed by this Government that it is a Government speaking with a forked tongue, a Government with multiple heads, positions and agendas. It would also seem that the various heads of this Government are ignorant to the agendas of each other. As a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago I for one am dissatisfied with the release from the Prime Minister's Office and the position of this Government with regards Nizam Mohammed's statements and tenure as Chairman of the Police Service Commission. Until this Government takes collective responsibility for unleashing Mr. Mohammed on the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, revoke his appointment and speak in unison as a Government, I can only conclude that the release from the Prime Minister's Office is nothing more than 'lip service', a gesture of appeasement to calm the masses while not categorically condemning Mr. Mohammed's claims. The failure of this Government to surgically remove itself from the sentiments of Mr. Mohammed can only lead one to conclude that Mr. Mohammed's comments does in fact reflect the present agenda of this Government irrespective of whether all the key players are aware of what that agenda is. ©

Nizam Mohammed Must Go!

I have called my lawyer and put him on standby prior to publishing this blog in the event that the police comes knocking on my door for daring to call for the removal of a public official who has brought his office into disrepute. This is an open letter to the President of my beloved Republic Trinidad and Tobago, to revoke as soon as is convenient to him the appointment of Nizam Mohammed as Chairman of the Police Service Commission. Mr. Mohammed first brought this office into disrepute by blatantly disregarding the lawful instruction of an officer of law and then subsequently using his position as Chairman of the PSC to undermine and subvert the course of justice, not to mention demoralise the two officers in question along with the entire police force. In addition, Mr. Mohammed's actions have fueled the perception in this country that the law is made only for the lower classes while the higher classes and those in high office can do whatever they wish without compunction, such a perception can only further fuel the already pervasive air of unlawfulness currently blowing through this land and the Prime Minister and Minister of National Security will do well to take heed.

Mr. Mohammed further brought his office into disrepute by going to Parliament last week and making a declaration that he is going to seek to adjust the racial imbalance of the police service because East Indians are 50% of the population. Firstly I have no idea where Mr. Mohammed got his statistics from but East Indians are roughtly 40% of the T&T population. Secondly I find it quite ominous that Mr. Mohammed would not suggest that more people of mixed descent be promoted into the police service because apart from the roughly 38% African population we have a mixed population of roughly 20%. What about the minority groups? Does Mr. Mohammed not want to see more caucasians, chinese and syrians in the police service? His focus on the East Indian population alone has revealed all too well what his inner thoughts are and the citizens of this country would do well to disregard and rebuke sentiments as espoused by the likes of Mr. Mohammed. There is no place in a cosmopolitan country such as Trinidad and Tobago for comments and sentiments such as Mr. Mohammed's. Secondly Mr. Mohammed's vow to interfere with the racial composition of the police service should be of grave concern to all citizens because that is not in the remit of his office as the purpose of the PSC is to review the performance of the COP, his deputies and the police service as a whole. Once Mr. Mohammed commences on his crusade of 'racial fixing' he will be stepping outside his bounds and then he would be doing the very thing he seems to want to allude others are doing i.e. giving preferential treatment to people of East Indian descent while sidelining persons of African descent and all other ethnic groups.

In addition Mr. Mohammed's aim should actually be the reverse, i.e. ensuring that there are sufficient Africans, Syrians, Chinese etc in the police service. In countries like England and the USA there are provisions for minority groups and a certain percentage of government positions are allocated for minority groups to ensure that the dominant ethnic group does not over power the minority groups. Mr. Mohammed seems to be advocating the reverse of that, because there are more East Indians than any other ethnic group in Trinidad & Tobago that they ought to dominate all aspects of our country. This indeed is a very dangerous advocation being made by Mr. Mohammed and all citizens ought to pay very close attention to the response of the Prime Minister who is of East Indian descent and who's core supporters are of East Indian descent. Out of curiousity would Mr. Mohammed advocate there being less East Indian doctors and more African doctors? How about lawyers? I wonder if Mr. Mohammed would be happy if someone charges that there should be more Africans and Mixed Peoples in the police service and government jobs than East Indians as the 38% Africans and 20% mixed gives you 58%!!

Mr. Mohammed has charged that he feels threatened by newspaper articles calling for his removal and has suggested that the Police Commissioner as well as the Minister of National security 'act' on it. Whatever Mr. Mohammed means by that I do hope he understands that he is a public official and any citizen can exercise their democratic rights in whatever way and call for his removal if we feel he is abusing his power or bringing his office in disrepute. Whether we choose to print 8 pages a day in the Express, write a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister, President or any of our Members of Parliament that is our constitutional right! I do not recall Mr. Mohammed or any current public official calling on the Police Comissioner a year ago to deal with all those people who were publishing weekly full page ads about Mr. Manning and Calder Hart. The mere fact that Mr. Mohammed does not seem to understand the constitutional rights of citizens when dealing with public officials is further proof that he is a public official gone astray and he needs to be removed forthwith! No public official is above the law or beyond criticism and the minute we start to go down that slippery slope, the end result is sure to be of dire consequences. ©