UNC Needs Reality Check

Oil rich nation Saudi Arabia which is far wealthier than Trinidad and Tobago in a clear depature from it's decade old generous welfare system has moved to slash subsidies due to the fall in oil prices.  Long accustomed to cheap utilities Saudi's were shocked when their government told them they have to pay extra for fuel, electricity, water and plane tickets. Prices on fuel products were increased by 50%. Saudi Finance Minister is quoted as saying "We have to rationalize unneccessary spending...this requires changes to focus on essential spending.

In light of this information citizens must question pronouncements made by the UNC Opposition Leader in criticizing the Dr. Rowley led PNM Government for first implementing small increases in the price of fuel and seeking to make savings in social programmes such as the food card and free school books for children.

The attempt by Mrs. Persad-Biessessar to blame the new PNM government for our economic woes in light of the excessive waste which occured under her stewardship and in light of prevailing global economic conditions has left many citizens in bewilderment. Is it that the irrational comments coming from the UNC camp is a glimpse of the disaster that awaited us had we retained them in Government?

If the UNC was truly serious about governance they will not at this time be criticizing the PNM Government for making neccessary cuts, they would instead be doing its own work in identifying additional areas of waste/unnecessary spending and pointing these out to the PNM Government.

What we are witnessing from the UNC Opposition is it's continued failures as a political vehicle. The UNC has never been a Government in waiting but a political party in waiting because they lack the necessary Governance philosophy to be a "constructive" alternative. The philosophy and politics of the UNC has always bordered on anarchism, rendering them politically handicap. Thus they often miss obvious opportunities to demonstrate their political worth to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Notwithstanding the recent bruising internal elections, one thing remains abundantly clear, that the UNC and its political leader are in dire need of a reality check.

The Convenient Race Card

There is a phenomenon emerging in Trinidad and Tobago that has me totally flabbergasted. Everyone in Trinidad and Tobago knows that the core support of the PNM are people of African descent and the core support of the UNC are people of East Indian descent. The phenomenon to which I refer to is that every time the PNM is voted out of office, even when their loss is as catastrophic as what took place in 2010, no one claims it's because of race but the minute the UNC receives any opposition or rejection from the electorate the first thing to come out the mouths of UNC pundits is race. Why? 

The entire country literally threw the PNM out of Parliament giving the UNC controlled PP Government an overwhelming majority in the Central Government along with the two Tobago seats, not a single UNC pundit said the results of this win was because of race. Two and a half years into their governance and several "missteps" dragging them down (Reshmi; unexplained and failed State of Emergency; Section 34; total lack of transparency and accountablity), the population is up in arms over the PP Government's performance just as they were up in arms over the Manning led PNM, only this time we are being told it's because of the Prime Minister and her Government Minister's race. Why? 

I feel sorry for my Tobago brothers and sisters, after voting overwhelming for the PNM in Tobago in the 2013 THA elections the UNC pundits are coming out from the wood works and accusing Tobago of voting based on race. Where were these individuals when Tobago gave the PP Government the two Tobago seats in 2010? Where were these individuals when Tobago voted out the PNM in 1980 and did not vote them back into power until the year 2000, a whole twenty years after? To see the UNC pundits cry race after the outcome of the 2013 THA elections not only solidifies why they deserved to lose, it also shows up their total lack of understanding where Tobagonians and Tobago culture is concerned. 

Even the Chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission Dr. Indira Rampersad is making the colossal mistake of interpreting the Tobago vote as a race vote. She is quoted as saying "People are still focused on political parties and personalities as opposed to issues. It may not be just political parties and personalities. It may be another issue, an issue of ethnicity and race. These issues play out in T&T all the time and some people discount it as an issue." First of all as someone who is commissioner of the Equal Opportunity Commission I can't understand how the goodly Dr. could make such a biased and one sided nuanced statement and go unchallenged. If she is going to accuse Tobagonians of voting based on race then she has to equally accuse the UNC dominanted Partnership of having a race agenda in Tobago to ensure an ethnic influence comprised of the UNC support base. To accuse one ethnic group of voting based on race while absolving the other ethnic group of having any race motive discredits anything Dr. Rampersad says and she looses all appearances of objectivity. Dr. Rampersad's claim is also a two edge sword as it tacitly implies that the PP Government is not that multi-ethnic political party it is being touted to be but rather an Indo dominated political party with a few Non-Indos for cosmetic appearances, because if the People's Partnership was truly multi-ethnic then the issue of race would and should never arise.....over to you goodly Dr. 

It is also interesting that Dr. Rampersad did not see the following as pertinent issues for Tobagonians:- PP Government's total disrespect to Tobagonians by putting forward a bill regarding internal self government on the eve of an election, a bill that does not adequately address internal self government for Tobago and would deprive Tobago of it's resources via the stated 11 nautical miles; Ashworth Jack's inability to explain the funding of his home and provide sufficient evidence to appease Tobagonians that he is not receiving political favours behind closed doors which he undoubtedly would have had to repay; Ashworth Jack's further lack of integrity by refusing to observe the law of Trinidad and Tobago and file his declaration of assets and income with the Integrity Commission. For Dr. Rampersad to totally down play these issues and turn this into an election of race calls into question her own qualification of being able to adequately analyse political issues. For her to be aware of these various issues and say that Tobagonians voted on race and not issues is to insult the intelligence of Tobagonians, and I'm saying that if Dr. Rampersad was running for Chief Secretary of Tobago she too would have suffered a catastrophic loss and it would have nothing to do with her ethnicity. 

A twelve year old in Tobago can tell you that Tobagonians voting for a party they rejected for 20 years has nothing to do with the ethnic composition of the People's Partnership Government, but everything to do with the PP's misunderstanding of Tobago's culture. You cannot win votes in Tobago by bribing them with fancy ads, having helicopters invading the people's air space unnecessarily and you certainly do not win votes by attacking Tobagonians. Tobagonians hold it as their sacred right to criticize their own, as a Trini I learnt that the hard way when I went over there to work for some years. By attacking Orville London and Dr. Rowley on the most spurious of allegations the PP Government secured their own demise. Tobagonians although being part of a unitary state, do not recognise their leader as being that of the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, their leader to govern Tobago affairs is the Chief Secretary. The PP Government's constant disregard for the THA and total disrespect they showed to Mr. London as well as the Prime Minister acting as if it was she contesting to be Chief Secretary and not Ashworth Jack all caused the severe beating the TOP suffered at the polls. 

So to the UNC pundits I say to you, the loss of the THA election had nothing to do with race and everything to do with your leader's colossal misunderstanding of Tobago's culture. Further to that, your convenient and constant reference to race every time the electorate rejects a politican of East Indian descent is not only distasteful to Tobagonians, but also to the Non-Indo electorate in Trinidad. If it is in the minds of the UNC pundits that as long as East Indian politicians do not control and dominate political life in Trinidad and Tobago it means the rest of the electorate are racist then I dare say, these pundits need to do some introspection because when they point a finger at others there are four fingers pointing right back at them.

People's Partnership celebration an erosion of democratic principles

I am of the opinion that last Thursday's celebration by the PP Government concerning their two years in office, is a breach of democratic principles. Since when is it the practice of a government to celebrate what they are constitutionally mandated to do and what they are paid to do? As far as I am aware it is only in monarchies, dictatorships and despotic fanatical countries like North Korea where the achievements of leaders and government institutions are celebrated. Can any of you imagine Barack Obama hosting a million dollar celebration in Time Square to tell the people of America about some community centre he built in Oklahoma? Or David Cameron holding a celebratory rally in London to talk about some colour me orange project he launched in Essex? The practice is unheard of and is also inappropriate and smacks of political 'never see clumsy' and immaturity. 

The Prime Minister has stated that the purpose of the celebration was to 'account to the people'. If my memory serves me right, in the Westminster system Parliament is the institution by which the elected government of the day accounts to the people. Having this discussion last week with a pro PP colleague they jeered at me saying I just vex cause the PP use their money to throw their celebration and account to the people. It is then I indicated to the person that it is exactly that which reveals the perversity of the PP Government's actions. Why must the elected Government of the day spend private funds to account to the people of the country when they can do so freely under the constitutionally charged institutions such as the Parliament? Why can't they via their weekly Cabinet meetings tell the public what they have decided to do as a government and what they have done? Instead they opted to throw a big fete which climaxed akin to that of an all inclusive carnival fete and at the end of the day all they have done is further erode the democratic mechanisms of this country and the citizens of this country are still non the wiser of their achievements.

And while the PP was busy frolicking Thursday night, a CAL Chairman appointed by themselves requested a $20,000 leasing of a luxury vehicle for himself, this from a state enterprise which has incurred a $339 million loss and which he was appointed to steer back to a viable financial status, not withstanding the fact that the 2011 State Enterprises Performance Manual clearly states "company cars or car loans should not be granted to Chairmen or directors". Criminals continue to run amok and the economy is stagnant. It seems we have now become a country which celebrates underachievement and mediocrity.

Kamla being more than dishonest with Statistics

With regard the poll conducted by the Ansa Mcal Institute of Psychology published last Sunday, Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bisessar was quoted in Express April 11 as stating that if one "Adds the excellent , good, fair ratings - its almost 80%, so the government is doing fine." Now it is either the Prime Minister thinks the citizens she presides over are complete idiots or she was being deliberately misleading and having no compunction about it whatsoever. A standard five pupil can discern that the Prime Minister's pronouncements makes absolutely no sense and it is a deliberate attempt at polluting the poll results. The following were the Ansa Mcal Poll results:-

Ratings

Overall, how do you rate the performance of the Government to date?

Excellent 4%

Good 30%

Fair 47%

Poor 15%

Extremely Poor 4%

Ratings

If a general election was held today, which political party would you vote for?

UNC 5%

COP 3%

NAR 1%

PP 34%

MSJ 1%

PNM 13%

NONE 25%

DON’T KNOW 19%

NEW PARTY 1%

Ratings

How do you rate the performance of the Prime Minister to date?

Excellent 11%

Good 31%

Fair 42%

Poor 13%

Extremely Poor 3%

If by the Prime Minister's logic we are to add the good and fair ratings of two of the three questions, it would show that the government got almost an 80% rating and thus is doing well, then it stands to reason that if one is adding the good and fair ratings one must deduct the poor and extremely poor ratings to get a more objective view. This would show that the ratings according to the Prime Minister's logic were in fact (30+47-15-4) = 58% and (31+42-13-3) = 57%. Clearly as one further analyses the stats using the Prime Minister's logic it is blatantly clear that the PP Government barely made a passing grade. Out of the 512 people questioned, it would mean that only 296.96 and 291.84 persons gave the PP Government a fair to good rating. 512/2 = 256, one must therefore ask the question what exactly is Mrs. Persad Bisessar boasting about.

It is also instructive to note that the Prime Minister totally ignored the excellent ratings of 4% and 11% respectively, is this an indication that the Prime Minister is quite contented with mediocrity and does not concern herself with exceeding expectations? Of 512 respondents 4% would be 20.48 and 11% would be 56.32 persons, if I remember correctly in primary school when one's report card said "Good" or "Fair" for the term one usually went home with a B, B- or a C. And the most glaring omission of the Prime Minister was the ratings related to the question "If a general election was held today, which political party would you vote for?" Out of 512 respondents a whopping 5% (25.6 persons) said they will vote for the UNC, the party to which the Prime Minister belongs, and 13% (66.56 persons) said they will vote for the opposition PNM. Granted the PP got 34% one must beg the question if the Prime Minister is contented with the fact that the only way the party to which she belongs can win an election is by currying favour with other political parties for the sole purpose of defeating the PNM, because as a stand alone political party the PNM is the only party that got the highest rating.

I would therefore caution the Prime Minister, that the next time she opts to play with statistics to fool the population she should do so with a bit more cunning, as you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can't fool all of the people all the time.

A successful unsuccessful State of Emergency

So just short three weeks of the end to this illegitimate state of emergency I have come to the conclusion that it is a successful unsuccessful state of emergency. First of all during the SOE and the imposition of a curfew murders and rapes continued. After the lifting of the curfew and rentention of the SOE, murders and rapes continued. Last week a claim was made that rapes are on the rise and about two days after the police service published a release saying that sexual offences are on the decline.

After the police and army dug up a bunch of old guns, the security forces along with representatives of the People's Partnership Government all patted themselves on the back and claimed victory in ridding this country of illegal guns and restricting criminal activity. They even had a big public event where they invited the UN to come to Trinidad to destroy guns, yet still three weeks shy of the end of this State of Emergency the country's security forces are on high alert because of death threats against the Prime Minister and curiously enough "only three" other government ministers who seem to have been 'specifically' hand picked for this criminal plot. The Prime Minister has stated that this plot is being commissioned by criminal elements who are angry over the 'success' of the State of Emergency.

I'm not sure I understand this current situation facing our country. If the State of Emergency was successful in stunting the free movement of criminals in this country, getting illegal guns off the streets and destroying criminal enterprises then how come these criminal elements still exist and more so how come they have the capacity and resources to plot an assasination on the Prime Minister if the State of Emergency was successful? If after almost three months of a State of Emergency we have criminal elements in this country that are so powerful that they have the resources to plan an assasination againts the Prime Minister and three top government officials then one can only conclude that this is a successful unsuccessful state of emergency. The question is where does that leave us as a nation?

Under a State of Curiosity

I find it extremely curious that under a State of Emergency certain sectors of this country can protest "without police permission" to have a duly appointed school principal removed from her position, and no action is taken against them. I find it curious that under a state of emergency the board of a denominational school can disregard the instruction of a government commission and refuse to allow a school principal to return to school. I find it curious that under a state of emergency a board of a denominational school can put chains on a school to prevent a government appointed school principal from entering a school thereby putting the education of children in jeapordy & disturbing the peace.

I find it curious that under a state of emergency a goverment minister will go to the police station to support a 'friend' on the board of a denominational school that is engaged in disregarding instructions from both the Ministry of Education and Teaching Service Commission. I find it curious that under a state of emergency people can come on our national television and insight violence with impunity. I find it curious that under a state of emergency the Government of Trinidad and Tobago seem unable to bring the board of a denominational school to order yet they claim to be taking on criminal "big fish". I'm under a state of curiosity.

State of Emergency Lacking Constitutional Validity

It has been two weeks since the People’s Partnership Government declared a state of emergency and citizens still remain in the dark as to the reasons for having our constitution suspended and thus being deprived of our fundamental democratic and constitutional rights. As per section 1 (9) of our constitution “within three days of making the proclamation, the President shall deliver to the Speaker for presentation to the House of Representatives a statement setting out the specific grounds on which the decision to declare the existence of a state of public emergency was based”.

Mr. Sandy in his contribution to the debate on the motion to extend the state of emergency for three months repeated the Attorney General’s claim that a major crisis was averted and that there was an immediate threat and endangerment to public safety. To date however, both Mr. Ramlogan and Mr. Sandy have refused to give this nation the “specific grounds” on which this state of emergency was called. In a most ingenious way, the Minister of National Security resorted to the cover of “matters of national security” as his reasons for not telling the citizens of this country why exactly a state of emergency was called.

The refusal of the Attorney General and Minister of National Security to inform this country as to the “specific grounds” for having declared a state of emergency does not seem to be in accordance with our constitution. The constitution is quite clear the President must tell our Parliament the “SPECIFIC GROUNDS” on which the state of emergency was called. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that if the state of emergency pertains to a matter of national security that the government can withhold information from citizens. As a matter of fact that entire notion proffered by the Attorney General and Minister of National Security is vulgarly nonsensical as the very purpose of having the provision for a state of emergency in our constitution is to deal with matters of national security in whatever form they may arise, be it natural disaster, disease pandemic or an attack on our democratic institutions by way of a coup.

In seeking to allay justifiable concerns as to the governments declaration and handling of the state of emergency, during his debate Mr. Sandy recapped all the previous state of emergencies our country has been under. What Mr. Sandy did not say in our Parliament as he ought to have, is of all our previous states of emergencies the citizens of this country knew exactly why we had a state of emergency. This is the first time in the history of our country that a state of emergency has been called and citizens have not been appraised as to the ‘specific grounds’ for declaring such. Therefore, what this People’s Partnership Government has done is set a dangerous precedent where any government in the future can call a state of emergency to further their agenda, be it genuine, political or even oppressive and all that government would have to do to circumvent the constitutional and democratic rights of citizens of this country is use the cloak of “matters of national security” and thus avoid accountability to the electorate.

Whether one is in support of the ‘reasoning’ behind this government’s state of emergency or against it, one must take note of this dangerous precedent that has been set by the People’s Partnership Government and its implications for our democratic survival. It seems foolhardy that in order to get a temporary relief from crime because of the abject failure of our security services that we should allow such a colossal undermining of our constitutional mechanisms. Quite frankly I’m not sure which frightens me the most, the government’s reckless manipulation of our constitutional apparatus or citizen’s ignorance to the implications of government’s actions.

Trinbagonians would do well to heed the words of Netsanet Belay, Director of Policy Research at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation regarding our state of emergency, “The State of Emergency, inappropriate legislation and broad implementation of a curfew represent a disproportionate interference with fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly enshrined both in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago and throughout international human rights law. After just two weeks, Trinbagonian citizens risk signing away civic freedoms that have taken forty-nine years of hard struggle and nation-building to win. Persistent crime and personal insecurity are very real threats to many Caribbean nations and need to be taken seriously. Nevertheless the trend we are witnessing across the Caribbean region of using disproportionate security-based measures will only weaken trust in state institutions and could lead to a virtual close down of space for citizens and civil society participation.”

Anand Ramlogan The Transformer

I am without a doubt convinced that Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is a transformer, our own local version of 'Bumble Bee'. As the current Attorney General Anand Ramlogan is in his glee, using non-bailable law such as the Anti Gang Act to detain alleged criminals. But this was the same Anand Ramlogan who wrote a long diatribe against the anti kidnapping bill and it's consequences re: it being a non bailable offence. Now Anand is singing a totally different tune. But you see unlike most Trinidadians my memory eh short! I WILL HIT YOU FOR SIX RAMLOGAN. SEE THE FOLLOWING TRINIDAD GUARDIAN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY NONE OTHER, THE INCUMBENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ANAND RAMLOGAN ON THE 1ST AUGUST 2004!

"Manning’s knee-jerk crime plan" - by ANAND RAMLOGAN (Before being appointed Attorney General and suffering from a delusional swelling of the male part!)

PM Manning unveiled his great crime plan last week. It was greeted with a series of brutal murders and demands for “less talk, more action.” The headline grabber was the “no bail for kidnappers” strategy.

This knee-jerk legislative reaction to what is admittedly a frightening problem is one that must be cautiously studied. The erosion of human rights and the enlargement of State power (that can later be misused and abused) normally take place in the height of a crisis, with the full support of the people, because rational thought is overwhelmed by panic and fear. (In 2004 who would have thought that Anand in one of his editorials to the Guardian was simply describing the state in which he would have the country when he is appointed Attorney General. These words adequately describes the People's Partnership Government's state of emergency)

At present, kidnapping is a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. Though it is a bailable offence, magistrates have the power to refuse bail under the Bail Act, because of the seriousness of the offence and its prevalence in society.

Carlos Manickchand and his gang were, for example, refused bail, as have many others who have been charged for kidnapping. Persons charged for car theft and drug offences have routinely been refused bail by magistrates.

A magistrate can set a high bail that is beyond the reach of the accused person, and he would not be out the following morning. We see this happening every day in our courts, so why all the fuss now? (Why all the fuss indeed Anand? Why did your government call a state of emergency to detain criminals when you knew before you even became Attorney General that a magistrate can set a high bail if need be?)

If persons charged with kidnapping offences are being released on bail too frequently, then perhaps our magistrates are setting bail too low, and the Chief Justice needs to issue some guidelines. (I GUESS THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE WHICH OUR MAGISTRATES MAY HAVE BEEN SETTING BAIL TOO LOW FOR)

Surely, the seriousness and prevalence of the offence must weigh heavily in the magistrate's mind and tilt the scales towards imposition of onerous bail conditions in appropriate cases.

A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you. It’s almost as if you're presumed guilty, rather than innocent. In effect, politicians could use it to remove and incarcerate political opponents from society; police officers could use it to get rid of a troublesome boyfriend or husband to access a “slack” wife or girlfriend. (YET STILL HE IS TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT UNDER A StATE OF EMERGENCY THE POLICE AND ARMY WILL NOT ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY, AND TO ADD TO THAT HE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE CLAIMED COULD BE DONE, HE IS PRESUMING THE GUILT OF ALL THOSE THUS DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

There are very few non-bailable offences in our law. These are: murder, treason, piracy or hijacking, and any offence for which the penalty is death. A non-bailable offence means that once arrested and charged, you will remain behind bars until your trial, regardless of the paucity or strength of the evidence against you.

It could easily be misused and abused, because the judiciary would have no power to grant bail, and the ultimate power to deprive a citizen of his liberty is given to the police, who can charge on the flimsiest basis.

It places the liberty of citizens in the hands of the police, because once someone is charged for a non-bailable offence, he/she would be amputated from society and incarcerated like a convicted criminal.

Pressing the right buttons, a drug dealer could easily manipulate the police service to get rid of competitors, so that he could control their turf.

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.(ANAND RAMLOGAN, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND AUNTY KAMLA MADE THE VERY SAME CAR THEFT, ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES AS PER THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE ANTI GANG ACT WHICH YOUR GOVERNMENT IS TAKING CREDIT FOR HAVING LAID IN PARLIAMENT? YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU AND KAMLA TRYING TO FOOL US WITH THIS KNEE-JERK STATE OF ABUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? OH SHUCKS....AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY?)

If every time a particular crime increases we allow our politicians to fool us with the knee-jerk reaction of new legislation to make the offence non-bailable, then car theft, robbery with violence and drug offences should all be non-bailable.

The trauma inflicted on a victim, whose home is robbed while his/her children are tied and beaten to near death, is not any less than that of a parent whose child is kidnapped. It's no use making qualitative distinctions in the effects of serious crimes.

It is a serious thing for the State to deny an accused bail in circumstances where the backlog of criminal cases in the magistrates’ court system means that an innocent man could be jailed for several years before he is even given an opportunity to prove his innocence. (YET STILL YOU AND GIBBS BOASTING OF HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HAVE DETAINED UNDER THIS FARCICAL STATE OF STUPIDITY ....OH SHUCKS AH MEAN STATE OF EMERGENCY. ARE THESE ALLEGED CRIMINALS GOING TO BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE MR. TRANSFORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL?)

By the time he wins his case, his whole life is ruined. The main weapon in the fight against crime is an efficient and expeditious system of criminal justice. (NOTICE IN 2004 ANAND RAMLOGAN WAS NOT ESPOUSING NOR WAS HE PROMOTING ANY STATE OF EMERGENCY!)

Part of what motivates kidnappers on bail to commit more crimes is the long delay in trying and convicting them. We are all falling into a trap cleverly set by a clueless PNM. (SEEMS THE ONLY TRAP WE FELL FOR IS VOTING FOR A DECEITFUL LYING GOVERNMENT)

The problem is not the lack of laws, but rather the lack of penetrating policing and enforcement of the existing laws.

“No bail for kidnappers” will deflect the nation's attention from the incompetence of the Government, the impotence of the police, as the spotlight once again shifts to Panday. If he refuses to support this amendment, the nation would be so busy “ponging” and “cussin'” him, that no one will have time to focus on the real issue of the Government's inability to deal with crime. (I WONDER WHOSE INCOMPETENCE ANAND RAMLOGAN IS CURRENTLY DEFLECTING? OH GOSH THEY CUSS PANDAY, YOU MEAN LIKE HOW YOU CUSSING ROWLEY FOR CRITICIZING YOUR ILLEGAL STATE OF EMERGENCY? EH ANDAND?)

The mad rush to make new laws every time we have a problem is a reflection of the idle and bankrupt intellectual state of the PNM. The unthinking rush to embrace and welcome this “no bail policy” for kidnapping might be a reflection of our desperation and helplessness.

There's no point in making new laws when the present ones aren't properly utilised. (NOR IS THERE ANY POINT IN CALLING A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEN LAWS SUCH AS THE ANTI GANG ACT, FIRE ARMS ACT AND THE FINANCIAL ACT AREN'T BEING PROPERLY UTILISED)

http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2004-08-01/ramlogan.html

Are T&T's Police Really Paid Well?

With a crime rate per capita higher than that of the United States, can it truly be said that Police Officers in Trinidad and Tobago are well paid? The Express has quoted Minister of National Security as saying that per month a married constable will receive $9,516 per month, a married sergeant $11,460 and a married inspector $12,324. In light of the high risks involved regarding the job of a police officer, especially with regard to the high crime rate of our country can one truly say our officers are paid well? Mr. Sandy was on TV6 morning show saying that one cannot put a price to police work or on an officer's life. He said that even if each officer was paid $100,000 it still does not equate to the value of their life. What I want to know is if that is the case does that justify our police officers being severely under paid?

How do our police officers pay look in comparison to the pay of officers in other countries where the crime rate per capita is not as high as ours? Well in the UK police officers salary are as follows : -

Constables

On commencing service - £23,259, TT annual equivalent $251,025, Monthly TT Equivalent $20,918!!!

Constables at Pay Point 5

£31,032, TT annual equivalent $334,916, TT monthly Equivalent $27,909

Constables at Pay Point 10

£36,519, TT annual equivalent $394,135, TT monthly Equivalent $32,844

Sargeant's Pay 1yr in Position

£37,767, TT annual equivalent $407,604, TT monthly equivalent $33,967

Sargeant's at Pay Point 4

£41,040, TT annual equivalent $442,928, TT monthly equivalent $36,910

Inspector Pay Point 1

£48,108 with a raise bracket to £50,163, TT annual equivalent $519,210, TT monthly equivalent $43,267

Inspector Pay Point 3

£50,751 with a raise bracket to £52,818, TT annual equivalent $547,735, TT monthly equivalent $45,644

In the United States the average base pay for a New York State Trooper is USD $5,938 per month, which is TT $38,219 per month. However with over time a 2009 US Bureau Consensus found that with overtime officers took home on average USD $96,890 per annum which works out to be USD $8000 per month and a TT equivalent of $51,492 per month. As of 2010 the aveage salary for all ranks was USD $112,537 per annum, TT $724,276 per annum which works out to be TT $60,356 per month. Front line troopers took home in 2010 on average USD $101,574, TT $653,720 per annum which works out to be TT $54,476 per month. As a group Supreme Court Judges and New York City Judges are the only public servants who made more money than New York Police Officers with an average of USD $14,000 per annum. The interesting thing to note however is New York City Police Officers are the 'second highest paid' officers in the United States as Police Officers in New Jersey are actually paid more than New York Officers. Dennis Hallion an Executive of the National Troopers Council when asked to comment on the USD 112,000 salary for officers said "not enough".

So with these figures in mind, I can't see how Mr. Sandy can boast about a local married constable being paid $9,516 to leave his family every day and put his life at risk for another man's family and expect that police officer to be motivated and enthusiastic about his job but let's be real the majority of police officers are constables, and even when one considers the salaries of our senior officers it can be clearly shown from the figures that constables in the UK and US are working for twice the salary than our local senior officers. I agree asking for a ridiculous increase for officers such as a 50% increase may not be feasible, but certainly a 5% increase by government is totally out of order.

United States Employees Striking despite Economic situation

The Central Bank Governor has said that T&T's economy is fragile and a national strike will harm our economy. Trade Unionist have responded to Mr. William's claims asking 'When is the right time to strike'. The local media has flooded us with images and stories of the USA's debt, the crash of their stock market etc. Yet still on Monday 45,000 Verizon workers walked off the job in protests over labour negotiations with the telecommunications giant.

My question is if United States workers could still strike despite the state of their economy, then why can't citizens of Trinidad and Tobago strike for a just wage? Our economy is better than the USA and we have local companies like Republic Bank churning out profits like $806 million and growing their asset base to $46.2 billion dollars, OneMedia Caribbean made $44.5 million and Ansa McAl made $954 million. Make no mistake, economic troubles or not I assure you that the shareholders of the aforementioned companies will receive their millions in dividends, the managers will receive their thousands in bonuses, so why can't workers who are responsible for the profits seek a just wage? It is indeed a travesty and a criminal act to pay out dividends to shareholders and bonuses to management while denying employees a just wage.

WHAT THE EXPRESS, GUARDIAN, AND NEWSDAY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE >>>>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44048667/ns/business/

Buh doh worry....GOOGLE IS THE BIBLE OF THE 21ST CENTURY!!! KAMLA, WINSTON DOOKERAN, EWART WILLIAMS...YOU NAME IT....WE WILL EXPOSE ALLLLLLLLLLLLL AH DEM!!!

Tone it down Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt

One need not try too hard to guess what class of society Mrs. Diana Mahabir-Wyatt belongs to with her latest letter to the Express Editor entitled “Industrial Relation Act Gives Government Power to Act”. In her letter she outlined briefly how the Industrial Relations Act was established and the fact that the Industrial Court was established under said Act to deal with current issues such as the current impasse between the Government and Trade Unions. She lamented the fact that both Government and Trade Unions are refusing to refer their matters to the Industrial Court and questioned whether they wanted a reasoned and sober solution. I find it very disingenuous on Ms. Mahabir-Wyatt’s part to give mention to the Industrial Court without mentioning the fact that said court is underfunded and short staffed hence any matter that is referred to that court takes years to resolve. Whether her failure to disclose such blatant and well know facts was deliberate or due to ignorance is not certain, and while I cannot speak for employers such factors do weigh heavily on the minds of Trade Unionists who are seeking a speedy resolution in the interests of members that does not constitute blindly accepting 5% or whatever unreasonable offer is made by the employer.

Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt then paid particular attention to Section 69 of the Industrial Relations Act which prohibits members of the Public Service, the Teaching Service, the Prison Service, the Fire Service and the Central Bank from going on strike. The Act further states the holder of an office in a trade union who calls for or causes industrial action to be taken or who induces or persuades any other person to take such action is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 18 months." In Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s estimation “industrial action” is an illegal strike which attempting to “shut down the country” would qualify as, and she lamented the fact that the government is ignoring the law and in her estimation, stated in closing that “we like it so”.

Quite frankly anyone who understands basic human psychology will know that the government of the day, whomever they may be, will do well to not only ignore that draconian law but to delete it from our law books altogether. I was highly amused by Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s letter and found it novice to say the least, but worst yet I found it to be dangerous and void of deep contemplation as to the social consequences that could occur should the government take such a high handed approach. I was totally surprised that Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt thinks that public servants striking despite a law preventing them from doing so is some kind of novelty and something unique to Trinidad and Tobago. On the contrary whether the right is given or not public servants, federal employees or civil servants as they are called in different parts of the world exercise the right to strike without compunction in countries such as Australia, United States, Canada, England, India and France.

As a matter of fact in the England from where our Westminster System came, public servants are not denied the right to strike unless their duties are necessary for the safety and security of the public. Civil servants in France are granted the right to strike under the French Constitution and in Canada at least five provinces grants public workers the right to strike, the others allow strike action even though it is not legal, while all prevent them from striking if they belong to the protective services. Even at a Federal level Canadian federal workers are allowed to strike within statutory limits as per the Federal Public Service Staff Relations Act of 1967. Despite having a long history of anti-strike laws, in the US today there are no less than 38 states which prevent public sector workers from striking and 12 states have actually legalized public sector striking. In his 1998 report “Behavioural Determinants of Public Sector Illegal Strikes”, Robert Hebdon surmised that due to the many laws that attempt to prevent workers from striking, in systems like the US and Canada the “illegal strike” is an inevitable element of these industrial systems.

S.T. Cooke summoned it up more precisely when he stated “Taking away the right to strike is a bit like eliminating the vapour safety valve on a boiler. Employees need to know that they have this means of relieving their frustrations and internal tension even if they never use it. Otherwise an explosion is inevitable”. The consequences of a government’s high handed approach can be seen in the manner in which the Reagan Government dealt with the striking Air Traffic Controllers back in 1981. Federal law required federal employees at that time to take an oath not to strike and made strike action illegal. Needless to say talks between the Professional Air Traffic Controllers and the Federal Aviation Administration broke down and the workers went on strike. The US District Court ruled the strike action illegal and a contempt of court and President Reagan ordered the firing of all air traffic controllers who did not return to work within forty eight hours of his order.

Despite the legal sanctions and threat of job loss only 800 employees returned to work within the President’s 48 hour deadline. Dismissal letters were issued to the non-compliant employees, however it must be noted that despite the Reagan Government’s firm stand, the entire action against the controllers proved to be totally ineffective. The sanctions totally disrupted air traffic services and the government precluded any form of settlement with the majority of the traffic controllers which ultimately aggravated the very situation they sought to remedy and prevent. After all was said and done it was the public and the economy that suffered the most from the firing of the air traffic controllers. Hence the reason I stated earlier that Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s stance that the government implements the law seems novice to say the least and not well thought out.

I would also like to inform Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt that the Industrial Act notwithstanding the fact that it is our national law, does in fact run counter to International Labour Conventions. The International Labour Organisation has repeatedly admonished and advised successive T&T Government’s that their term ‘essential services’ in the Industrial Act is excessively broad in comparison to International Labour Standards and it is successive T&T Governments, who are the agents of citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and who are supposed to be acting in our best interest, they are the ones who have repeatedly refused to amend the Industrial Act as advised by the ILO. The ILO has also repeatedly made calls for the Government of T&T to change the Collective Bargaining Laws of the Act which state that collective agreements must be for a maximum of five years and a minimum of three years making it almost impossible for workers on short term contracts to be covered by such agreements.

Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt, now you understand why our government obstinately refuses to comply with International Labour Standards, it also explains their fondness for hiring people on contract! Our government the body which is supposed to be seeking our interest has been deliberately denying entire sectors of our economy, their legitimate rights by refusing to comply with International Labour Standards. As it stands the Industrial Relations Act of T&T is a flawed piece of legislation that runs counter to International Laws and Standards. As a matter of fact just as recent as April of this year the ILO Committee of Experts condemned the UK Government for preventing and denying prison officers the right to strike. The ILO has indicated that the UK Government either gives prison officers the right to strike or have adequate compensatory mechanisms in place to compensate prison officers for denying them the right to strike. Is Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt aware of any such compensatory mechanisms in place for our security services here in T&T?

And last but not least, though she tried to make a joke of it, Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt’s suggestion that the government acts with regard imprisoning for 18 months any one holding a trade union office and who instructs public servants to strike, had to be the least thought out aspect of her letter. Why would anyone advocate the jailing of any trade unionist at a volatile and heated industrial time like this is beyond me. I guess if nothing else we can all breathe a sigh of relief that Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt is not the first female Prime Minister of this country because I dare say, the very state of emergency which the government claims to be dodging would have certainly been upon us by now. I’m keeping my fingers cross that Mrs. Persad-Biessessar would demonstrate a more levelled and reasoned head and contemplate deeply on her actions with regard this current labour impasse than her counterpart Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt. As a former executive director for the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights I must say I'm surprised by the sentiments expressed by Mrs. Mahabir-Wyatt.

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. ©

Dealing with a parasitic criminal element

I just watched a video clip on Rachel Price’s facebook page from Ian Alleyne’s crime show, showing the CTV clippings of a man who was shot and killed while waiting to buy bread at a bakery when some men stole his vehicle. This man had a wife and a four month old baby at home waiting for him and that is the first point I want to make, criminals do not care that their victims whom they slaughter like pigs, have loved ones waiting for them to come home. These criminals also do not value the lives of their victims, the lives of us law abiding citizens means nothing to them hence they have no qualms about pulling out a gun and shooting us for a vehicle that we’re most probably still paying the bank for.

For someone to kill another human being with such ease, that person has to have the mentality of a cold blooded parasite, what I call a locust mentality. A locust does not work in the field but it will fly into a garden and clean up everything without once thinking about all the hard work the farmer put into that garden. These criminals are human locusts, they are parasites but unlike locusts which just takes what they did not work had to grow without murdering the farmer, these human locusts are not only taking what they did not work hard for, they are also heartlessly murdering the hard working law abiding citizens of this country and by extension murdering the soul of this nation, because when a father, mother or child is murdered a family is also damaged or in some cases completely broken and the psychological scars remain long after the decomposition of the deceased loved one.

While we the law abiding citizens go to school to get an education, to get a good job, get up 5 am every morning to go to a job that some of us hate but we do it anyway to make ends meet, these criminals waste their schooling years, they then spend the majority of their late teens on the block smoking illicit drugs and then when they mature into young adults they come out with guns in hand to rob and steal from and kill hard working law abiding citizens for what they worked hard for, all so that they and their ‘baby mamas’ could wear the latest brands and go to the latest fete driving a car that they killed a father of a four month old baby the previous night for. That is the mentality of a parasite, feeding off of a productive host to the point of killing it. We the law abiding citizens are nothing but a fat succulent host to the criminal element in this country.

When a farmer encounters locust in his garden he does not capture them and put them somewhere and try to reform their parasitic mentalities /instinct because he knows all too well that is their nature. Nothing he does will be able to convince the locusts that it has no right to just fly onto his farm and kill his crops. The farmer gasses them, he sprays them he eradicates the locusts. So too we as a country need to eradicate these societal locusts from amongst us. I cannot for the life of me understand why successive government after successive government refuses to implement our laws on the death penalty, as far as I’m concerned the government is being negligent, is in contempt of our courts and the death sentencing judgements they have delivered thus far and is violating the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago by not upholding the death penalty. On the 19 of June the United States executed a convicted killer by firing squad, I’m pretty certain if we start putting criminals in front of a firing squad many of these gun toting cowards would think twice about their actions. Criminals are cowards and while they are more than prepared to take a life they are not prepared to lose their own.

We also need to change the outdated colonial laws concerning the ability of law abiding citizens having the right to bear arms. As it stands there is no law granting law abiding citizens the right to carry a fire arm, yet still the criminal elements has an abundance of weapons and ammunition while law abiding citizens are virtually unarmed defenceless sitting ducks keeping their fingers crossed that today is not the day their ‘number’ is going to be called. Many uninformed people like to proffer the thesis that giving citizens the right to bear arms will give the criminals more guns. This is an absurd argument as the criminals already have guns in the absence of any such law. Citizens having the right to bear arms will level the playing field, it will give citizens the opportunity to protect themselves and their families when the law is not around and it will make criminals think twice about brazenly walking up to someone and try taking their vehicle or breaking into their homes.

These laws preventing citizens from having arms is an old outdated colonial law that was used to ensure that our enslaved forefathers never had the capability to rise up against their colonial oppressor and they have to be changed now! As long as the death penalty is not enforced criminals will continue to kill without compunction and as long as law abiding citizens are not given the right to bear arms we will continue to be sitting ducks in the hunting fields of the criminal elements. The new government needs to take urgent action concerning these issues, for far too long we have been silent and ignoring them as a nation like a the proverbial ostrich burying it's head in the sand which has only lead to the death of more unarmed law abiding citizens, as the maxim goes “Fight Crime, Shoot Back!” ©

CARICOM BLOCKED FROM LANDING IN HAITI....AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!!

Within hours of the 7.0 magnitude eathquake hitting the capital of Haiti, the United States Government had already started to mobilise a national co-ordinated effort to assist the people of Haiti. US forces were dispatched; aid supplies were already being collected for dispatch. US generals had already worked out the logistics as to what machinery, military boats and air craft were to be dispatched as well as how many personnel they would need on the ground, by Monday there will be 10,000 US military personnel in Haiti.

By day two of this tragedy US forces had already landed in Haiti along with rescue units from other countries (none from Caricom). US forces had already landed in Haiti before President Obama made his first speech about the tragedy in Haiti with a Chinese relief team being first to arrive. It was only on Saturday four days after tragedy struck Haiti that the first senior western official arrived in Haiti in the form of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The USA means business in its efforts to assist the Haitian people. With the consent of the Haitian government they have received permission to take over Haitian land and air space as well as permission for US doctors to operate on Haitian citizens before receiving licenses to do so from the Haitian government. The US’ response to Haiti has been aggressive if nothing else and the Obama Administration must be soundly commended for a rescue mission well executed.

Compare that with the weak, feeble and most embarrassing response of Haiti’s brothers and sisters in the form of CARICOM, an organisation that has most certainly demonstrated its irrelevance and gross impotence if nothing else through its embarrassing response to the crisis facing its Haitian brothers and sisters. Instead of quickly organising aid and military relief what does Caricom do? They send a team of technocrats to ‘assess’ what the Haitian people need (read they went to Haiti for photo ops!), as if the fucking pictures circulating on BBC and CNN weren’t enough! Imagine American military planes and boats are busy arriving with resuce teams, military personnel, food and medical aid, and Caricom sends a delegation with their hands swinging and they expect to get clearance to land? Manning promises the Haitian people US $1 million, but with the Haitian banks in literal ruin I wonder if it occurs to Patrick Manning that US $1 million is about as worthless as toilet paper to the average Haitian? Are the Haitian’s going to make fish broth with the money?

The Haitian government has been virtually crippled so they themselves do not have the infrastructure and expertise to properly utilise US $1 million even if they did get it in cash which would mean that the Manning Administration would have to wait months to give that money to the Haitian government for them to get all the administrative expertise in place, and while waiting for this to happen how many Haitians would have died if it wasn’t for the US government? Then Mr. Manning says the T&T government is ‘considering’ using one of the fast ferry boats to deliver supplies to Haiti. Again, considering? People are buried dying or waiting to die. Those that aren’t are starving or running out of basics like water but yet still the Patrick Manning Administration is ‘considering’ whether to use one of the fast ferries to send supplies to Haiti!

I have not heard a single CARICOM country issue military aid to Haiti. Why did Manning not send a battalion of our Defence Force instead? After all these guys do nothing year after year but perform their function as ‘NATIONAL SECURITY GUARDS’. A batch of T&T soldiers despatched with medical aid, doctors, food and building material would have been a better gift to the Haitian people than US $1 million dollars.

CARICOM has passed up on a golden moment to stake their claim in the region and earn their respect from the Western powers. Instead of effecting an aggressive co-ordinated relief effort to assist Haitians Caricom has only succeeded in booking a date to have "consultations" in Dominica. Once again Caricom has demonstrated to the world that they are nothing but an old boys club whose only capability is that of holding talks and summits. Caricom’s weak response to Haiti demonstrates that the region's tax payers are not getting value for money because should there be a tragedy of catastrophic proportions within the region Caricom is not prepared, equipped or capable to deal with it and the situation in Haiti is blatant proof of this fact.

Is it any wonder then that the US authorities refused to allow the Caricom delegation to land? What purpose would the Caricom delegation have served other than to slow down the aid operations, depress Mr. Preval with a bunch of meaningless bureaucratic bullshit talk while offering no immediate assistance to his people while they starve and rot in the streets of Port au Prince? Get real CARICOM! I doubt very much it was a coincidence you were blocked from landing in Haiti and rightfully so, you would have proved to be nothing but an annoying fly buzzing in the face of the US administration.