All would be well if you do as I say and NOT as I do!

I begin by quoting from the media report of March 31, 2008, which says:

"President George Maxwell Richards has issued a call for the Auditor General's Department to be vigilant in guarding the nation's Treasury and demand accountability with respect to protecting the public purse.

"When we observe the developing of newly emerging countries...it is evident that without the necessary checks and balances, room is created for chaos in many spheres, sometimes leading to anarchy," said Richards." (Trinidad Express, March 31, 2008.)

In the said article, it is also reported that President Richards made these strong statements at dinner to celebrate the 85th anniversary of local funding for the Auditor General Department (AGD), at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Port of Spain on Saturday. At the dinner, he further admonished the AGD by pointing out that:

"You cannot remit your effort in this regard and cannot be excused if you do,"

and that:

"...oil and gas and an endless supply of financial resources are not guaranteed to...Trinidad and Tobago and the nation's purse must be scrutinised with a close and watchful eye."

and that:

"...the framers of the Constitution ensured that the Office of the Auditor General was an independent body to ensure transparency and accountability in public spending."

and that:

"...in the matter of public finances, "One might say especially in this area, vigilance must be maintained at all times,"

but, that:

"The human condition is such that in spite of the best intention...spontaneous observance to do what is right cannot be relied on,"

From the above, the President surmised that:

"...in defence of the common good, the office of the Auditor General has the right to demand accountability with respect to protecting the public's purse."

All well and good, so far. Then, donning an economist's hat, President Richards pointed out that:

"...the value of money was subject to change and a country's economy can be affected by the international financial market."

Quickly doffing that headgear, he let them know that:

"...such was "all the more reason why (theAGD) must continue to be good stewards (sic) and guardians of the treasury,"

He did add that that was something impossible for it to do, unless:

"...the staff of the Auditor General's department are properly and adequately trained to have a "keen eye" and fulfil their task with impartiality."

since, in his view:

"...the department would be left behind in terms of education if its members did not keep abreast of (sic) regional and international developments in the auditing functions."

The article concluded with this reminder from President Richards to the Auditor General Department:

"Yours is an awesome responsibility, one that can be fulfilled with scrupulous exactitude,"

I took the pains to go almost verbatim with the entire newspaper report, because I needed, here, to make a clear case in support of my choice of caption for this missive.

Why did I choose that caption? Well! Apart from the many other glaring reasons (for instance: nobody knows how is being spent by many State Enterprises, such as UDECOTT, UTT because the Auditor-General is yet to report...maybe no financials were ever done by these companies?), I shall, here, single out just two, seeing as they are most relevant for the purpose at hand:

1. Nobody knows (meaning, "I don't know, do you?") what it cost to crown him Prince! (I'm referring to Prime Minister Patrick Manning's "inauguration" at Woodford Square, Port of Spain, on November 7th 2007), nor the name of the person who authorized it, nor the names of the persons who profitted, financialy, from it; and,
   
2. Nobody knows (meaning, "I don't know, do you?") what it cost to crown him King! (I'm referring to President Maxwell Richards's "inauguration" ceremony at the Hasley Crawford Stadium, Port of Spain, on March 17, 2008), nor the name of the person who authorized it, nor the names of the persons who profitted, financialy, from it.

That's why I just love the essence of the title given to the picture of Presidents Max's pan that is used in the Trinidad Express article from which, above, I extensively quoted:

'Be watchful'

I took that advice! Now you know why I began by saying, "All would be well if you do as I say and NOT as I do!"

Hey! Patos! You can't import lawlessness into Parliament unless it exists elsewhere?

That Prime Minister Patrick Manning would declare, according to the media, that:

"Government is not prepared to encourage the importing of lawlessness into the Parliament, through the Leader of the Opposition and, therefore, his Government will not validate Basdeo Panday's behaviour last Friday by initiating, or supporting, a resolution overturning his suspension from the Parliament, the Prime Minister added. Manning said the lawlessness manifested itself in Panday's refusal to accept the authority of the Speaker.",

suggests, a posteriori, at least three things, all of which are very untenable:

1. That the Prime Minister agrees that lawlessness abounds outside of the Parliament Chamber;
2. The Prime Minister is comfortable with the abounding lawlessness outside of the Parliament Chamber and that,
   
3. The Prime Minister is as comfortable with lawlessness being imported into the Parliament by someone else besides the incumbent Leader of the Opposition as he was that day in July, 1990.

If any of the above extrapolations are correct, the Prime Minister needs to do the honourable thing: forthwith resign!

I'm not sure whether Speaker Barry Sinanan had the power to do what he did.

The Honourable Basdeo Panday has been suspended. I've already spoken about some of the implications of such suspension. However, I'm not sure whether Speaker Barry Sinanan had the power to do what he did.

The House of Representatives conducts its business in accordance with the rules laid down by the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. Having perused the bloody document, It contains no reference whatsoever to computers. Which is not surprising, since the Standing Orders "were made in 1961 by the Governor under the provisions of Section 8 of the Trinidad and Tobago (Constitution) Order in Council, 1961, and as a consequence they are grossly outdated". In addition, "some Standing Orders appear to be quite vague and give rise to varying interpretations".

Those Orders, however and, thankfully, make provision for dealing with unforeseen situations which may arise. In Section 91 (1), it states:

91 (1) "In any matter not herein provided for, resort shall be had to the usage and practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which shall be followd as far as the same may be applicable to this House, and not inconsistent with these Standing Orders nor with the practice of this House."

Meaning? That Speaker Barry Sinanan had to be guided by what obtains in good old England when drafting his circular of February 25 last, re: use of electronic devices by MPs in the Parliament Chamber.

And? What obtains in good old England?

Well! Surprise! Surprise! It seems that, since the English summer of 2007, English MPs are allowed to use laptops, cellphones, blackberries, ipods, what-have-you, while they are in the Parliament Chamber! Or, if not, the majority of MPs do not object to such practice. This is reported in the UK newspaper, the Daily Mail, on June 20th 2007, where UK Justice Minister is reported as saying,

"...many of the traditions of the Commons are the stuff of 'Alice in Wonderland'."

Mr. Straw, at the time, was also the Chairman of The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. On June 20, 2007, his committee submitted its comprehensive First Report of Session 2006–07, which focused on "Revitalising the Chamber: the role of the back bench Member".

When dealing with allowing MPs to use laptops etc. in the Commons Chamber, his committee's report recorded the views of British MPs where use of laptops is concerned. They had suggested that:

"Members might be more willing to spend time in the Chamber listening to debates or waiting to be called if they were able to do other work at the same time...perhaps even using a hand-held computer or laptop to deal with emails.

Some reckoned that such a facility would allow them to multitask, which, in my view, is something at which every MP, everywhere, must be adept.

That's why, in its conclusions, the Straw Committee firmly endorsed this notion by recommending that:

"the use of handheld devices to keep up to date with emails should be permitted in the Chamber".

Against that background, Speaker Barendra Sinanan was very out-of-touch and sorts, when, in his February 25, 2007 memo, he harked back to prehistoric customs by insisting that, in this day and age, only if a MP begged him, would they be allowed to use electronic devices while in the Chamber.

Sinanan said, "I wish to remind you of the rules of the use of technology...that is members must seek the permission of the Speaker before using these electronic devices during a sitting. Secondly if permission is granted, usage must be confined to refreshing one's mind of speaking notes or to the making of amendments to notes in response to issues which may have been raised during debate, and to which you intend to respond on the date to which permission was sought."

Let me round off by going back to my second paragraph, where I'd mentioned that:

...the Standing Orders "were made in 1961 by the Governor under the provisions of Section 8 of the Trinidad and Tobago (Constitution) Order in Council, 1961, and as a consequence they are grossly outdated". In addition, "some Standing Orders appear to be quite vague and give rise to varying interpretations".

I'd give you a million dollars* if you guess who uttered the apostrophized statements that I highlighted.

Can't? Well, 'twas none other than our own Speaker. Uh huh! The Honourable Barendra Sinanan! He said so in his September 10, 2003 House of Representatives [2002-2003 Session] Report of the Standing Orders Committee, a committee which he chaired. Never mind that the report also said:

"Due to the lengthy and comprehensive nature of its mandate, your Committee wishes to report that it cannot complete its work before the end of the current session and recommends that the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Representatives for the 2003-2004 Session continue the review which commenced in this Session."

A fact not unexpected, given that the 2002-2003 Session Committee met only on two occasions!

A subsequent Committee, which he also chaired, on September 10, 2007, did submit a report, the only one after the thumb-twiddling one of earlier times.

Unlike its predeccesor, this last Committee did produce something tangible, even though it suggested that it relied on work done by its forrunner. It produced a document called "The Report Of The Standing Orders Committee of the House of Representatives (2006-2007 Session)", obvious name choice, given the pioneering nature of those who selected it, as shall be seen.

A most interestingly, the Committee boasted in its report that:

"(It) met (only twice) - familiar? - and engaged in a clause by clause examination of the Standing Orders. At the end of its deliberation, there was general consensus on the revision of many of the existing Standing Orders of the House of Representatives in order to:
a) modernize the Standing Order (sic);
b) provide for the regulations (sic) of certain procedures;..."

Modernize? A one hundred and twenty-six page report, in which the words "computer" and "internet" are each mentioned only once, "email", twice and the words "laptop", "ipod", "blackberry", "website", "LAN", "internet", not at all? So much for what "Revised" means.

As to providing for "certain procedures", the Committee recommends, at Section 46 (8) of the draft Standing Orders, that:

"(8) A Member shall not read his speech except with the leave of the Speaker but he may read extracts from books or papers in support of his argument, and may refresh his memory by reference to written notes. For this purpose he may use a computer or other electronic device, with leave of the Chair."

Back to square one, after all the talk of modernizing. Sigh!

Heck! Trinbago is more archaic and arcane than Jamaica! For MPs in Jamaica have been using laptops since February 21, 2006! Thanks to Patos and Martin J, we are on par with dem Jammies where murders are concerned! But, as to computers in the House? Instead of Trinbago being forward ever, thanks to Barry, we're more backward than they are.

Maybe that is the case because Speaker Sinanan's committee confined itself to observing the Standing Orders of other countries while ignoring those countries' parliamentary practices, as Section 91 (1) of the EXISTING Standing Orders provide? Since, his draft Standing Orders are not approved by the House of Representaives, he must abide by the existing law!

I submit, therefore, that the Honourable Basdeo Panday was right to ignore and refuse to bend to the unilaterally-imposed rule of the Speaker and, as such, none could accuse him of being disrepectful to any authority, or, as Martin Luther King Jr. had said:

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

In this matter, Basdeo Panday, not the PNM, shall prevail!

kid5rivers,
Five Rivers,
Arouca,
Trinidad and Tobago.

* Zimbabwean dollars, that is! :-)

Patrick Manning now a whisker away from the constitutional majority he desperately seeks!

That is my fear. Because, to me, if you are suspended from The House, it means that, for as long as the suspension subsists, you are no longer a member. After all, The Standing orders declare, at Section 43 (13), that:

"(13) Any remuneration or allowance to which a Member is entitled as a Member of the House of Representatives shall cease in respect of the period of his suspension."

That means that Basdeo Panday, as of about 2:10 p.m., March 28th 2008, no longer had an office, salary, travelling allowance etc., upon which to rely. By the same token, he has ben made forfeit of the right to be called "Member of the House of Representatives"!

Furthermore, there being no immediate end in sight for Mr. Panday's untenable situation, for, having been removed from the Parliament Chamber by police force, he remains

"...suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the Session" [Standing Order 43 (10)].

So! My fear, then, is that, during such period, Basdeo Panday's suspension now places Patrick Manning a whisker away from the constitutional majority he desperately seeks!

How so?

Because the same Standing Orders, at Section 44 (1), provide:

44 (1) Save as otherwise provided in Article 29 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago or in these Standing orders all questions proposed for decision in the House or in any Committee shall be determined by a majority of the votes of those present and voting.

(The highlights are mine. Article 29, by the way, refers to the Electoral College which chooses the President of Trinidad and Tobago.)

There, now, being but forty (40) members of the House of Representatives, of which number, twenty-six (26) are of "the Clan Baleezay", it means that the Prime Minister now controls sixty-five percent (65%) of the Parliament, or, just one point six seven percent (1.67%) shy of the number of votes he must have in order to make himself emperor. (See below chart!)

Status:	No. of MPs	PNM	UNC	% PNM	%UNC	Magic %	Shortfall
With Panday	41	26	15	63.41%	36.59%	66.67%	3.26%
Without Panday	40	26	14	65.00%	35.00%	66.67%	1.67%

I shall defer to enlightened learning on the topic.

Never mind Beresford's words, absorb his picture!

Saturday's Guardian (2008 March 29) contains an article, written by Peter Balroop, headlined, "Parliament 'regular' appalled at House row".

Because of that newspaper's antedeluvian attitude towards urls, which renders obsolete the link to an article from the day after it is posted, I shall reproduce the article for your information:

LONG-standing Parliament public gallery regular, George Beresford Griffith, was left in shock yesterday at the manner in which the sitting of the Lower House was aborted after just half an hour of deliberations.

The sitting came to an abrupt end after Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday refused to comply with what he evidently thought was an unreasonable order from Speaker Barendra Sinanan, to put away his laptop computer if he had no intention of participating in any debate that would arise later in the proceedings.

Sinanan said since February he had warned MPs that they were not to participate in debates with mechanical props like laptops, unless they had his prior permission.

Sinanan got the Leader of Government Business Colm Imbert to order Panday’s suspension from the House and its precincts, for refusing to obey his Order, which was confirmed by a vote of:

23 PNM MPs to 11 UNC-A MPs

The other five of the 41 sitting parliamentarians were absent.

The eventual summoning of police officers by the Speaker to physically remove Panday also seemed to have ended in a stalemate, because they would have had to “rough up” other MPs, such as acting Chief Whip Hamza Rafeeq, to get to Panday, who was not cooperating.

So the adjournment was the safest, diplomatic solution, just as it had been in the instance of Chandresh Sharma’s teacup-pelting episode.

Yesterday’s imbroglio was almost a repeat.

Griffith, 83, had come prepared to hear the country’s political leaders in Government and Opposition in this post-Easter sitting continue their Private Members Day debate. He attended expecting further discussion on Harry Partap’s (UNC-A) motion condemning the Government for failing to insulate the poor in T&T from surging food prices.

The topic was that much more relevant, following the recent artificial shortage of flour that was prompted by news that National Flour Mills would be raising flour prices from April 1.

Instead, Griffith was left bitterly disappointed that the sitting was aborted without the debate ever getting off the ground—and fuming at the Opposition.

The bespectacled, grizzled Griffith was left sitting in the public gallery like the emperor of all he surveyed, as the sitting morphed into a talkfest at the adjournment to a date to be fixed.

But he vented his complaints when asked for a response to the issue.

“The Opposition playing the fool. This is ridiculous. The Speaker must be obeyed.

“This is nonsense. This is outrageous,” Griffith growled.

“They can’t treat the Speaker like a little boy or like he was a dog.

“The Speaker represents the supreme law-making authority in the House, once he is in that chair,” Griffith said.

It was pointed out to him that the Opposition disagreed with the Speaker in the instant case.

“It is a matter of principle. He must be obeyed in the House. That is why we do not have law and order here in this country,” Griffith said.

Huh?

" “The Opposition playing the fool. This is ridiculous. The Speaker must be obeyed."
“They can’t treat the Speaker like a little boy or like he was a dog."
“The Speaker represents the supreme law-making authority in the House, once he is in that chair...” " ????

Okay, Beresford! I guess, then, that what you've got emblazoned on your tee-shirt is a ruse intended to deceive us?

George Beresford Griffith, a “regular” at Parliament’s public gallery.
Photo: Keith Matthews Trinidad Guardian March 29, 2008.

Because, if you really wanted to be as forthright with your comments about the flap over the thunderclap response by the Speaker who flopped in his bid to clip the Silver Fox's flipped-open laptop's wings, you would have given some lip to the Speaker by admonishing him, as The Christ (upon whom be peace!) did.! You know! "The one without sin, cast the first stone!" story.

By the way, Beresford! How did you manage to get into the Parliament Chamber dressed like that? Just wondering, that's all!

The solution to rising food, housing and transporation costs in Trinbago.

Since typing a thousand words is, right now, too time-and-space-consuming, let this speak for me:

The whole derived, when summing is done, is less than any of the parts!

That The West Indies cricket team has, yet again, been soundly beaten, suggests, yet again, that, despite whatever was found on the many drawing boards back to which the WICB has, ad nauseam, post cutarse reverted, la plus ça change, la plus c'est la même chose!

I daresay that, for many years now and, more than likely, for many more to come, the West Indies cricket team's performance has been worse than that of the national team of most of the the countries which the regional squad encompasses.

In other words, the whole derived, when summing is done, is less than any of the parts!

Therefore, again, I urge the permanent disbanding of the West indies cricket team, thus, allowing each Caribbean nation to strike out on their own, as is done in all other sporting disciplines.

kid5rivers,
Five Rivers,
Arouca,
Trinidad and Tobago.

PS: With the impending reinstatement of cricket in the Olympic arena, how, so, shall there be there fielded, a West Indies cricket team?

Re-anchoring America to its true moorings.

From even as far away as way down here , Trinidad and Tobago, we have observed with awestruck wonder at how Barack Hussein Obama has galvanized the ordinary people, then, many others, of the USA, to get involved in, or refresh their thinking about and attitude towards, politics and the role of politics in their daily lives.

It's my view that what BHO has done is to carve out a new niche in the American political landscape, one to which I've already alluded, CONVERSATIVE politics, which, also in my view, is what the Pilgrims who came on the Mayflower had in mind when they struck out in 1620 from the oppression of English life.

Those who landed at Plymouth Rock were ordinary folk: not a single aristocrat was among them, neither any men of the cloth. Not surprising, therefore, that, under the rules by which they decided to conduct themselves, Plymouth's Mayflower Compact, their elected leaders were required to abide by the same rules as those who were not so elected.

Thus, in keeping with the terms and conditions of the Compact, Plymouth's leaders never saw themselves, or were seen, or permitted, by those whom they led, to weild whatever power they weilded, except by the consent of those whom they led.

In other words, the original Plymouth community is the closest thing to a democracy that America had even seen, since 1620.

Until now! Until Barack Hussein Obama appeared, that is!

Not surprising, then, that we, in Trinidad and Tobago, await, with bated breath, the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America.

I've found the appropriate name for this new political movement that Barack Hussein Obama has formed.

We are the phalanx of the CONVERSATIVE branch of politics.

Yes! That's the correct spelling:

"CONVERSATIVE"!

Barack Hussein Obama is the first, I repeat, first, American politician who has steadfastly set about getting the average Jane and Joe involved in the conversation of how they are to be governed. And, my, how resplendently the people have responded!

So! Say, "Welcome!", to us, the CONVERSATIVES!

Then, shed your liberal, centrist, or, conservative apparel and climb aboard, for this is the train to glory that we've been long awaiting and, on it, there's room for all!

>> Link <<

Basdeo Panday, champion of the oppressed and downtrodden!

Dear Editor/Head of News,

"...the homeless said they had more faith in the UNC government because (Basdeo) Panday started doing things,"

That statement is not my contriving. It is what Dr. L. Trevor Grant, was "surprised" to discover, as reported in the Sunday Newsday of today, Easter Sunday 2008, the day Christians worldwide, celebrate the resurrection of The Christ (peace be upon him!)

Dr. Grant, who earned his doctoral degree in the field of Social Welfare, collected the data for his research between 1996 and 2007, by sitting down with the homeless and learning about their lifestyles, particularly in Tamarind Square ("the capital of homelessness in Trinidad") He, subsequently, authored the book "The Nowayrians: Homelessness in Trinidad and Tobago", in which he recorded his findings.

As far as I know, Dr. Grant holds no brief for the Honourable Basdeo Panday, a man who has given his life to championing the cause of the opressed and downtrodden in our midst.

Maybe if a local was in charge....

The lead story of the Sunday Guardian of Easter Sunday, 2008, suggests and confirms that the ploy, devised after the demise of its first local Archbishop, Anthony Pantin C. S. .S. P., who was hugely popular, to replace him with a foreigner, has backfired upon those who hatched it.

See the difference? UPDATE.

In the First World countries, the authorities don't mince matters or words when it comes to the safety of citizens. And, the media, the Fourth Estate, takes a lag in their tail, if ever they do.

For those reasons, today we can read of this:

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A New York City buildings inspector is accused of falsely claiming he inspected that crane that collapsed on the East Side, killing seven people. Now he is facing charges.

His arrest was announced at a news conference Thursday afternoon by Building Department Commissioner Patricia Lancaster.

At the news conference, city officials said that inspector Edward Marquette admitted to the Department of Investigation that he did not inspect the crane, although he claimed to have done so on March 4th, days before the deadly collapse.

He was charged with falsifying a business record and offering a false record. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6032573&iref=topnews

But, here in Trinidad and Tobago, on the other hand, when a scenario similar to the above plays out, such as, with respect to this:

Scaffolding tumbles down

Thursday, July 13 2006

At least 20 escape death

MORE THAN 20 men miraculously escaped instant death yesterday morning when steel scaffolding, over 100 feet above ground on which they were working, came crashing down scattering them over a wide area of a construction site. The time was 10.15 am.

The men were working on the site of the new Customs and Excise Building on Wrightson Road close to Richmond Street, installing glass.

According to one eyewitness, the scaffolding just seemed to tear apart from the tenth storey of the building under construction and came crashing down in an incident that is yet to be fully explained.

Newsday was told by one source that the scaffolding started to wobble and that a foreman was able to jump and hold on to the top of a floor and pull himself up. Workers on the bottom levels reportedly fell.

The source said that workers were concerned about the sturdiness of the scaffolding and believed it was not "pinned down" properly...

...Quickly on the scene was Minister of Labour Danny Montano who said the contractors would be held responsible.

"If there has been any breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) they will definitely be held accountable," he said.

"The OSHA is in force and Government is very concerned. The scaffolding was constructed in January."

Robert Guiseppi, president of the National Trade Union Centre (NATUC) condemned what he termed the lack of safety considerations on construction sites and questioned whether safety requirements were put in place at all of the sites and whether the steel scaffolding was bolted to the building under construction.

Port-of-Spain Mayor Murchison Brown visited the site and said regional corporation engineers would be involved in the investigation of the accident.

"We are sure that the city engineers will find out what caused the scaffolding to collapse."

Engineers dismissed the suggestion that the heavy rains and flooding of the last couple days would have caused the problem because they said it was steel and it was mounted on concrete.

Guiseppi stated that with all the construction going on in the city the Government would have to have individuals with knowledge of the Safety Act as a matter of urgency.

and, despite the fact that, from all appearances, gross negligence on the part of the contractor was evident, as is to be gleaned from this:

...A preliminary report into the accident had revealed that the scaffolding used by contractor, NH International, was erected by inexperienced and incompetent people. The report also stated that the structure did not comply with basic structural standards and therefore its breakdown was inevitable.

Montano said a decision was taken not to publish information from the report because it was premature. "In addition, my legal advisor sought the advice of the DPP and he said not to say anything at all".

Montano explained that several investigations were conducted into the scaffolding accident and that the final report was being compiled "as we speak"... http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_archive?id=161042049

UPDATE:

and, most damningly, from this:

Scaffold Collapse

Article from the Trinidad Express

Scaffolding poorly built

Sasha Mohammed

Saturday, October 21st 2006

A preliminary report into the July 12 scaffolding collapse at Customs and Excise building construction site on Richmond Street, Port of Spain, which injured 20 people, and caused one man to lose his leg, has revealed that the scaffold used by contractor NH International was erected by inexperienced and incompetent people, did not comply with basic structural standards, and therefore, its breakdown was inevitable.

The report has also noted that the structural construction of the scaffold was so amateurly done that it posed threats to the safety of workers even if it did not collapse, and that other similar scaffolds and other dangerous pieces of equipment remained on the construction site when the investigation was being conducted three months ago.

Commissioned by Udecott mere days after the collapse and done by Gille Dechenes, a senior structural engineer with Canadian firm Genivar, the report also suggests that the standards set out by the Occupational Health and Safety Authority are way below international standards.

The firm turned in its report to Udecott three months ago amid public calls for an investigation into the work site accident, one of many in construction and industrial accidents for the year.

Back then, NH Executive chairman, Emile Elias, had insisted that his scaffold had complied with required OSHA standards, and was built with tried and tested material from the UK-based company, Kwikistage.

But the Genivar report, which carried out an in-depth investigation in mid July that entailed at least two site visits and independent testing of materials in international materials labs, and which had a mandate to establish exactly what caused the scaffold collapse, noted that the possible cause of this accident was hardly confusing.

Rather, Dechenes noted that NH had confirmed there "was a lack of proper documentation pertaining to the scaffolding and its erection".

Still, he found there was evidence to suggest that "insufficient scaffold bracing were installed, resulting in a shaky scaffold with little internal rigidity. The lack of internal diagonal bracing is presumed to be one of the major factors that contributed to this catastrophic collapse."

Dechenes also noted that there was a marked absence of a sufficient quantity of tie ins, a crucial part of the structure which ensures the overall stability, as well as connecting pins in the NH structure, which caused the scaffold's top portion to be unsupported for a height of more than the OSHA specified maximum of 4.8 metres. He stated that this was "most probably the primary factor in the collapse of the scaffolding".

The Genivar expert noted too, that while certain aspects of the structure complied with OSHA, as Elias had insisted, it "does not meet Canadian standards". The Genivar report was turned in to Udecott since July 21,(2006) and since then, the NH site has been reopened.

http://www.osheconsultants.com/blog/?p=5

all we know is that, to date, almost two years after the horrific crash, the only action taken to nail the culprit(s) was this :

Elias: Scaffolding collapse unexpected

By Clint Chan Tack Friday, February 2 2007

...Eleven charges have been laid by the Labour Ministry against NH International and two other companies involved in the July 12, 2006 scaffolding collapse at the Customs and Excise building site. The charges were filed under the amended Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Twenty workers were injured in that accident..

...The Act allows for a two-year period in which prosecution can take place.

http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,51700.html

Yet there's one who beats his chest and constantly boasts that, for us, he has First World status firmly locked in his Cuban-installed 2020 vision.

Seems like, first, we'll be taken to hell.

The final nail in the Pastor JWright coffin.

At Philadelphia, PA, on Tuesday March 18, 2008, Senator Barack Obama gave a major speech on race in America and building a more perfect union.

You should see it and read it for yourself.

Here's the video and full text:

"A more perfect union", by Barack Obama

Please share this message with everyone you know.

Thank you.

Burying the JWright "bogey" once and for all.

Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell,in a very succinct and erudite manner, today, at The Root, puts paid, once and for all, to the arrant, hypocritical tirades against Senator Barack Hussein Obama over some comments made by the just retired pastor of his church, Jeremiah Wright.

May I provide you with a teaser? Ok! Here goes:

"Put down your remote control and step away from CNN, MSNBC and especially FoxNews. This is not a certified political crisis! Let's review the issue: six years ago the now retired pastor of a church in Chicago gave a sermon which reflected the views of many people sitting in the pews. Let's call this what it is, a manufactured "scandal" meant to embarrass Barack and chip away at his solid black electoral support and his growing national electoral coalition.

It is disgusting, politically motivated and racially ignorant, but it is not a political crisis. A political crisis is when a government lies to its people and to foreign nations in order to drag them into war. A political crisis is when a government watches thousands of it citizens suffer and starve on national television and doesn't even bother to send water. A political crisis is when a Congress deregulates an industry that then financially rapes consumers and provokes a widespread recession and housing crisis. A political crisis is when a President knowingly lies to a grand jury and touches off an impeachment proceeding over a personal issue..."

Go to Melissa Harris-Lacewell: Obama's Response to Wright [Response] for the full commentary by her, will you?

Aided and abbetted by their police escort.

On 18/03/2008, Raul Bermudez wrote:
Motorcycle cop run over by truck, killed

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161295304

--

Correction: The slip drain is NOT in the middle of the Churchill Roosevelt
Highway. Look at the picture.

Anyone who ever saw these monster trucks speeding down the shoulder of the
highway, aided and abetted by there police escorts, can easily understand
how something like this can happen and may even wonder how it does not
happen more often.

Why is it that trucks carrying piles have to travel at these speeds and are
allowed to go through red lights? Perhaps now the police union will step in
and put an end to the practice.

Raul,

I passed by the scene, heading east, just after the unfortunate accident happened.

Apparently the officer in question had stopped to block traffic from coming out of Pasea Road Extension, south of the CRH, that's the road alongside the Pasea Hindu Primary School and, after the last trailer truck passed, he road off, along the shoulder, to continue his escort duties.Now, the drain, it's a box culvert-type drain, about 60m long, is covered with a welded steel grill. For years residents of the nearby Pasea area, motorists and yours truly, have been complaining about this drain and grille. There's a similar one just west of the Curepe CRH intersection, on the west bund lane of the CRH as well.

Back to Pasea drain. Road users not familiar with the CRH in the vicinity would not know there's a drain there, as, most times, it's hidden from view by water, dark murky water. Why? Because the damn drain is always clogged! The Express picture shows this.

My take then is similar to what the Express wrote: that officer Grey, as he moved off, had the front wheel of his motorbike angled and that the wheel jammed between the bars of the grille-type drain cover, causing his bike to topple over, him hurtling towards his horrible end. (One of his hands was completely severed!)

DEATH SCENE:
Colleagues of police motorcyclist Fitzroy Grey at the scene of yesterday's accidentin which he was killed
at the Pasea Road intersection on the Churchill-Roosevelt Highway, Tunapuna.
Photo: ABRAHAM DIAZ

A police motorcyclist was run over by the truck he was escorting yesterday.
Constable Fitzroy Grey lost control of his motorcycle after skidding over a slip drain in the middle of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway, near Pasea, Tunapuna.
The truck was carrying piles for the highway interchange project at Valsayn junction.
Just after 4 p.m. yesterday, Grey, 34, was riding along the westbound lane of the highway just after the traffic light, when he hit the edge of the drain, which was covered by an iron grating but had backed up, spilling water onto the roadway. Grey lost control, fell off the bike and was run over by the truck. He died while awaiting medical treatment.

Questions have to answered, quickly so, by the line Minister, our good friend, Colm Imbert, in whose portfolio the maintenance and safety of highway road surfaces is to be found.

Mind you, Raul, all that I've said is not intended to detract or distract from the focus of your email, but, merely, to highlight how, once again, innocent persons pay with life, limb and property, when a person to whom a job is given, proves incompetent or, worse yet, don't care a ...., to be!

Maybe now that a police officer has been killed, the problem would be solved, once and for all, the problem of the road hazard at the CRH in the vicinity of Pasea that is, not the Minister!

Fantasy Island 2008.

Details
More Details
Even More Details.

Dear Professor Dr. Mary King, (20080317)

Dear Professor Dr. Mary King,

I like, therefore, I concur with the analogy you drew in your weekly Trinidad Express column (March 17, 2008), the one where you showed Minister in the Ministry of Finance, the Honourable Mariano Browne, that we, the people, are the owners of the State-owned companies and, as such, are entitled to know everything that's

"going on (down, in the parlance of the jugend) with their money and to hold (our) agents accountable for its use."

And that,

"...surely any shareholder of a listed company has the right to information in the company either by asking questions at shareholders' meetings or asking to see, say, the minutes of board meetings."

I also like, therefore, also, I concur with the way you pointed out and took pride in the fact that

"...The media are the mouth piece of the public of this country and all over the free world it is the vehicle that helps maintain governmental accountability. It is because of the media that we are aware of this Government jet fiasco."

Having, previously, dealt with the role and importance of the media in an unpublished (locally) missive captioned, Dear Editors/Heads of News, Trinidad and Tobago is dying! Where are you?, no need, here, again, to broach that topic. However, permit me the room to expand, as follows, on your first abovementioned discussion.

Professor, from where I sit, I view all of Trinidad and Tobago as one State-owned company. Extrapolating thence:

1. every resource- natural and human, intellectual, chattel or real- comprises the asset base of the company called Trinidad and Tobago;
2. every citizen, alive and unborn, is an ordinary shareholder of the company called Trinidad and Tobago;
3. the whichever incumbent Cabinet of Ministers is the Board of Directors of the company called Trinidad and Tobago;
4. the Parliament is the General Meeting of shareholders of the company called Trinidad and Tobago. And, finally, perhaps, most importantly,
5. the quintennially-held General Election is the Annual General Meeting of shareholders of the company called Trinidad and Tobago.

Now! All that needs to be done is to convince the shareholders to be aware of their roles, responsibilities, duties and powers.

True cost of Bush's Iraq madness.

"We like it so!" attitude, real cause of high food prices.

Some say, "The people always get the government they deserve!" The Quran says, "Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change that which is in themselves."

Against that background, it surprises not that the People's National Movement (PNM) has not been consigned to the political cineraries (Sorry! Dustbins just won't do, for stuff that's there deposited may re-enter the system!).

What might have brought on such a salvo, you ask?

Food! Or, rather, the cost of food!

In any civilized country, the first priority of a government administration would be that the citizenry has food to eat. No just any food, but nourishing stuff. For that to happen, there must be a detailed and properly implemented plan of action:

1. What are the foods that we must encourage people to eat?
2. How much of these foods must be provided?
   
3. Who are the people that will provide these foods?
4. What resources do these food providers need to be successful in their task?
5. What are the things that could happen to disrupt the food supply?
6. What is the fallback plan when something unforeseen occurs to disrupt the food supply?

Those are but a few of the matters that must be addressed, in any civilized country, as, before, I said.

Now! In Trinidad and Tobago, the PNM has had a chokehold on the reins of power since 1956, an uninterrupted chokehold, even during the two brief interregna of 1986-1991 and 1996-2001. Therefore, the PNM and the PNM alone, for the past fifty-two years, or so, has been charged with the duty of addressing the above identified questions!

That it stands guilty of dereliction of duty, none, but the babbling, balisier-waving buffoon would deny, for one needs look no further than one's food cupboard to conclude, like Mother Hubbard did, that the straits, current and ahead, are dire, dire indeed! Maybe one needs to find inspration by looking back in history and noting that government administrations, whole systems of government even, defenestrated have been because of widespread Ma Hubbardian dilemma?

Time for Ministers who are not MPs or Senators!

Last Friday, March 14, 2008, during the House of Representatives sitting at the Red House, Port of Spain, while contributing to the debate on a Government motion that seeks to reduce, from three to two, Parliament's committees that monitor Ministries and State Enterprises, Trade and Industry Minister, Dr Keith Rowley, whether he was aware of what he was saying or mot, made out the case for the urgent amending of our Consitution to have the Executive Arm of Government composed of persons who are not parliamentarians, as follows:

"What the government is saying that we really can't have three committees tying up Ministers, when Ministers have full time responsibilities elsewhere! That is all we are saying!"

"...the Government motion intends to ensure that the Government Ministers can perform their functions, while being able to make a better contribution to the work of the Parliamentary Committees."

"...We are saying that really Ministers should not be involved in this process, monitoring ministries. Somebody else should be doing that. It doesn't make any sense,"

"...as the Minister of Housing in the 2002-2007 People's National Movement (PNM) administration, I chose to focus on my ministerial responsibilities as opposed to those I had on a Parliament committee I belonged to. I had a choice of doing my ministerial work to get houses done for the people of the country or monitoring the Ministry of Health and Local Government and I chose not to do that. It doesn't work. It's a nonsensical arrangement,"

Although, as is evident from the line of logic he used, the goodly senior Cabinet Minister argues his case from a selfish perspective: "I won't have the time to sit on no committee!", nonetheless, the ramifications of what he said are significant and, further, are such with which I fully concur. Therefore, I strongly recommend their urgent implementation.

Executive jet purchase: Sudden escape hatch for Manning.

Ae! Bonjhay!

Suddenly, now, news of a snag: that Bombardier is refusing to "sell" "zee jet" (thanks MG!) to Caribeean Airlines unless zee anti-corruption clause is removed from the relevant sale/purchase contract.

Caribbean Airlines CEO Philip Saunders, left, and chairman Arthur Lok Jack,
at March 12, 2008 media conference at Cascade Room, Hilton Trinidad.
Photo: ANISTO ALVES

Oh please, Arthur! Cut the damn spin!

Just admit that 'twas unyieding pressure from the media, public watchdog groups and columnists and from the public. which comibined pressure caused you, your company and Your Boss to think twice (some swear, "once, at last") about this "deal", out of which the airline never expected to turn a profit, rather, as reported in the Tuesday Mar 04, 2008 Trinidad Express article, "Lok Jack: Jet under construction", merely:

'to be in a break-even situation, or financially "neutral" position, as far as losses were concerned with respect to the jet service.' (???, even Professor Dr. Mary King couldn't quite fathom what that means!)

Btw Arthur and Boss, those two pressure groups ain't done with you yet! They'll be done with you when you are done!

Read my lips! "We don't need no damn private jet!"

Junior Finance Minister, Mariano Browne, is reported to have said:

“These are business transactions. You don’t conduct business decisions in public.” (Trinidad Guardian, 2008 March 11)

The transactions to which he was referring were those monetary ones involved in the puchasing of some jet or the other, by taxpayer-owned Caribbean Airlines (CA), from French airline manufacturer, Bombardier.

Apparently Mariano forgot who owns CA. Let's forgive him, this time, this one time only, okay?

Oh! By the way! Our forgiveness does not mean that, in my view, he need not to do these two things:

1. Apologize to us, for his sarcasm; and
2. Forthwith upon, if not before, apologizing, tender his resignation.

For that, Mariano, is the way public officials in civilized democracies conduct business!

In the same article, it is reported that Bombardier Business Aircraft Public Relations Manager, Danielle Boboudreau, pooh-poohed the notion that the Bombardier Global XRS was gonna set us, taxpayers, back by U$63 million. According to Mamselle, the local news media overstated the price tag by some US$13 million, since the true cost was roughly about $US50 million.

Thus, her statement invites us to ignore that, just last week, Works and Transport Minister, Colm Imbert, took pains to point out that US$63 million of our money would be given to CA to purchase a U$50 million Bombardier Global XRS jet.

Mamselle Boboudreau or Minister Imbert must be taking us for boubous, or what? As far as were are concerned, whatever the price, the price is too much, since we don't need no damn private jet for no Prime Minister or anybody else to go traipsing up and down the place! The price of this cake is too high! Let its intended passengers eat bread by flying on regular commercial flights!

Public sector reform: If it's good for the British, it's good for us!

Every spokesperson for the Manning administration, be they The Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister or Communication Specialist (how I hate that term!), when cornered about the sorry state of affairs in our country today, are all fond of invoking the need for us dampen our complaints by taking comfort in the fact that our problems are shared by countries of the First World.

I wonder how would they comment on what the non-partisan UK-based think tank, Reform, has to say in its incisive report, A lost decade: Counting the opportunity cost of public spending, 1999-2008.

For, in the Executive Summary of the report, the Reform group points out, inter alia:

"...that the public spending programme has not achieved its stated aims of reformed public services and stronger economic growth. In fact the fiscal consequences of spending and the absence of reform leaves the UK much worse placed to face the challenges of coming years. The UK has missed the opportunity to improve its long term growth potential in benign global conditions.

The spending increase between 1999-00 and 2007-08 is the largest and longest of the last 35 years. The other two periods of spending increase (as a percentage of GDP) lasted for three or four years (and were associated with recessions). The current period has lasted eight years (in a time of steady growth).

There were four main justifications for these increases. Firstly, that hitherto there had been under investment in public services and additional spending could remedy this, in partnership with reform. Secondly, that increases would help drive endogenous growth and therefore make Britain more innovative and productive. Thirdly, that public spending was a good in itself and would strengthen community ties. Finally, the strong fiscal inheritance meant that funds were available.

The scale of spending increases – and the absence of reform – means that they have acted as a “flash flood” rather than a planned irrigation. Much of the spending has resulted in doing the same thing at a higher cost. Unreformed and over-centralised management has not ensured that resources are used productively. Capital has been purchased and then rendered obsolete or underutilised. Staff costs have risen. Entrenched producer interests have not been effectively challenged and consumer preferences are not driving delivery in the way they should."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It goes on to give a very detailed analysis of what transpired over the period under study and, in the end, recommends that:

"In order to take full advantage of this opportunity there needs to be an attitudinal shift by the UK Government and in UK political debate. The UK needs to move beyond the Pavlovian “conditional reflex” of committing more public money when there is a problem. This means maintaining a clear view of a sustainable fiscal footprint whilst reforming public services to deliver more value."

I commend the report to every serious-minded citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, as the analogies therein contained, clearly, apply to us.

The proper authority for that TT$400m transfer to Caribbean Airlines.

André Bagoo, of the Trinidad Newsday, suggests, in his article of Mar 09, 2008, suggests that:

"THE PARLIAMENT of Trinidad and Tobago may have paved the way for Caribbean Airlines (CA) to purchase a $400 million executive jet as early as January 18 by passing legislation accounting for an advance of $430million to CA for the payment of BWIA Voluntary Separation from Employment Packages (VSEP). A similar sum, of $400 million, was also approved for payment to the Central Bank on that date..."

He arrived at that conclusion based upon what Finance Minister ,Karen Nunez-Tesheira, said, by way of explanation as to why the $1.1billion were being sought, that:

"...(part of the money was) for paying debts owed to former BWIA workers under their (VSEP) as well as capitalisation of the new CA (and, that part was) to bring to account expenditure funded by advances from Treasury deposits, firstly, for the payment for the enhanced separation voluntary plan and buyout claims for employees of BWIA in the amount of US $68 million or TT $431,800,000; secondly, capitalisation of Caribbean Airlines Limited at a cost of US $46.16 million or TT $293,120,000, ...(both) areas of (which) expenditure were met initially by advances from Treasury deposits..(and which were in keeping with the) authority...provided in the Exchequer and Audit Act, Chap 69:01, (whereby) the Minister of Finance (may) temporarily utilise balances on Treasury deposits to make payments in the public interest and recover them within the 12-month period after the year in which the payment was made...""

Don't see anything there mentioned about the purchase of a new aircraft, do you? And, given the large sum involved, surely it would have been mentioned, don't you think? How, then, could André have concluded that The Parliament may have paved that way for Caribbean Airlines to purchase an executive jet?

André drew the wrong conclusion because he ignored some key parts of of the relevant law, which, as Hansard records, the Finance Minister, during the debate, accurately and completely, quoted, as follows:

"...Mr. Speaker, authority is provided in the Exchequer and Audit Act, Chap. 69:01, for the Minister of Finance to temporarily utilize balances on Treasury deposits to make payments in the public interest and recover them within the 12-month period after the year in which the payment was made. Specifically, the Act states at section 17 (1):
"Pending repayment or application to the purposes for which they were deposited, the Minister may authorise use of the balances held on deposit in respect of any special funds established by Act or otherwise or of any other deposits (other than trust funds or the balances in the Consolidated Fund) to make advances—
(a) on behalf of, and recoverable from other Governments;
(b) to or on account of trust funds administered by the Government, or to, or on behalf of, public bodies, institutions or individuals, where the advances are in the public interest and are recoverable within a period not exceeding twelve months after the close of the financial year in which the advances are made."

Initially, it would seem that the case could be argued that above-quoted law allows/allowed unbudgeted monies, to the tune of TT$400 million, to be transferred from our Treasury to CA, but the proviso stipulated at subsection (b) (and underlined by me) utterly rule out any such notion.

I might add that, though she did not mention it (it wasn't, then, relevant), Section 17 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, Chap 91:01, does go on, at Subsections (2) and (3), to give the Finance Minister additional power to authorize issues from the Consolidated Fund, but in relatively minute amounts, to wit:

(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in subsection (1), the Minister may from time to time authorise the issue of amounts from the Consolidated Fund not exceeding in the aggregate five million dollars to augment the cash balance held on deposit to meet payments on account of the said deposits or on account of advances authorised as in subsection (1), and the said sum of five million dollars or such portion thereof as the Minister may determine shall from time to time be repaid into the Consoli­dated Fund.
(3) For the purpose only of enabling amounts to be with­drawn from the Consolidated Fund under subsection (2) to meet the said payments, those payments are hereby charged on the Consolidated Fund.

So, again, in the issue at hand, the proviso contained (as I've underlined) prevent the Minister from using these subsections to justify any transfer.

From the above, it is clear that the Finance (Supplementary Appropriation) 2007 Act which was passed in the House of Representatives on January 18 and which was given presidential assent on January 28, does not, never did and, can never be said to have, provided, far less, contemplated providing, any whatsoever access to our Treasury to finance future, fanciful flights for Father-of-The-Nation Patrick Manning and his cronies.

Yet, the question must be asked, "By what/whose authority, then, were such monies given to the airline? Hell! It's an airline company, so,maybe, just maybe, the answer is blowing in the wind!