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.

Police's treatment of female citizen needs to be investigated

Last night (Monday) I saw a video clipping on TV6's U Report showing police officers arresting a young lady on Ariapita Avenue and if anything this video did was show the total lack of professionalism of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, their abject ignorance and lack of commonsense. The video clearly showed the young lady claiming she did not refuse to take the breathelzyer test so why was she arrested? She did not use obscene language, was clearly not drunk and certainly did not pose a threat to the public. I therefore have a few questions for Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs.

1) Did these police officers read this young woman her rights?

2) Did they inform the young woman of the reason for detaining her?

3) Did the police have reason to believe that under this State of Emergency this young woman is a gang member or had criminal intent or posed a threat to the state?

4) Why did a male police officer attempt to roughly handle a female citizen despite the presence of a female officer?

5) Why did the male officer insist on attempting to roughly handle a female citizen despite her objections to him putting his hands on her?

6) Why is a female citizen wearing a skirt and high heels treated in such an inhumane and degrading manner by being made to 'cock up' in the back of a police vehicle?

7) Is the police so void of commonsense that they could not logically deduce that they should have put this young lady in the back seat of the police vehicle?

Only in an uncivilized third world country would a young lady be treated in such a disgraceful and degrading manner, even male suspects are placed in the interior of police vehicles in developed countries. Good luck in implementing your 21st century policing plan Commissioner Gibbs but from this video alone, I can tell that retraining these "thugs in blue uniform" is going to be a colossal challenge. I do not envy you.

Questions for Kamla..

Out of curiosity my dear Prime Minister, how do you know that only 7% of the scholarship recipients were of East Indian descent? Did your government conduct a DNA examination of the scholarship recipients? I have many East Indian friends with non-seemingly East Indian names so I would hope that you did not base your accusation exclusively on the recipient's surnames. Is this the modus operandi of your government Mrs. Persad-Bissessar? Governance by eugenics and ethnicity? I noticed in your accusation you said "7% of the recipients were of East Indian descent and the other 93% were of non East Indian descent", perhaps you should clarify to both the population and Anil Roberts what you mean by "Non East Indian", because when you said it Anil Roberts was heard by the entire nation shouting over your voice asking, "not even a Dougla?". I would have thought that non East Indian would mean Afros, Douglas, Syrians, Chinese, Caucasian etc, but it seems Anil Roberts begs to differ.

Why were you only capable of giving a specific percentage of the East Indians that received scholarships but you couldn't tell the population how many Africans, Chinese, Syrians, Douglas and Caucasians were given scholarships? By deliberately withholding information on what ethnic group or groups made up the 93% I fail to understand your claims of racial discrimination. Also what does this mean of the 7% of East Indians who received scholarships? How were they able to secure scholarships from an alleged discriminatory government (according to you)? Did this 7% betray the larger East Indian community to secure these scholarships? Now that former Minister of Culture Ms Marlene Mc Donald has indicated in Parliament that it was a five member committee, two of which are of East Indian descent were the one's responsible for interviewing the scholarship awardees, is our Prime Minister indicating that these two citizens of East Indian descent aided and abetted the PNM in engaging in racial discrimination?

Apart from considering the recipient's ethnicity did you or your government contemplate any other reasons why they were selected? Are the person's selected from a particular economic stratum? Was the government offering scholarships for courses which it deemed priority? And while we are on the topic of the ethnic composition of tertiary education students, does this mean that the People's Partnership Government is going to launch an investigation into why so many of the persons admitted into the medical school at UWI are of East Indian descent? And last but not least, forgive me if I seem to be slow, but could you please explain to me of what relevance is the PNM's awarding of scholarships to the current $50b budget debate? How does the PNM awarding scholarships to only 7% East Indians bear any relevance to the fact that your government is about to once again embark upon deficit budgeting in what is the largest budget in the history of this country, and to date the citizens of this country still have not received a lucid explanation as to how your government intends to utilize this money. You do remember that this is a budget debate don't you?

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.”