NEW TRAFFIC FINES JUSTIFIED

[00:00:14] Speaker A: Good morning. Good morning again, Trinidad and Tobago. 19 minutes after the hour of 7 o', clock, top of the morning. A lot of things happening that has been affecting us in such a negative way. As we switch over to our interview this morning with the former, just to give you guys the former. Works and transport in works and transport and infrastructure of the people's partnership. Former Minister Rambachan, Good morning to you, sir. Good morning. [00:00:41] Speaker B: Morning to you, David. Morning. Good morning to all our listeners and welcome back. [00:00:46] Speaker A: You know, how has the season been treating you, sir? [00:00:49] Speaker B: It's a very good season. Life has to be made beautiful. [00:00:52] Speaker A: I love how you take how you talk about it. It has to be made beautiful. And every morning you get up and you breathe in and you breathe out. You know, you feel that you're here to touc still have an opportunity to make a difference and to change things. [00:01:02] Speaker B: So before you begin, I just wanted one minute of your time. [00:01:06] Speaker A: Of course, of course. [00:01:07] Speaker B: I really wanted to. And sincerely, this comes from my heart. It comes from my professional background. I want to congratulate you on the manner in which you have developed this program, on the professionalism and excellence with which you conducted. It is not easy to conduct any talk show in a society that is politically and sometimes racially divided as ours. But to come across someone who has the capacity for achieving the sense of balance you do and giving the callers the kind of respect even when, you know you may disagree with them, it speaks quite a lot about you as a person. First, thank you. And also, I really appreciate very much the research you do going into your programs. In other words, you have not been coming on your program as someone who has not researched a topic. Even when you interview people, you know, I. I find that the detail with which you interview is something that is. Is highly admirable. You know, when I look back at the 15 years I had on Freedom Radio when it was Panchay, you know, I. I see a lot of what I attempted to do being exhibited by you in terms of your professionalism. So I really wanted to take the opportunity because I hear all kinds of comments being made by callers, you know, about the conduct of a program and so on. But being a talk show host is a very big challenge. It is. [00:02:30] Speaker A: And coming from you, I thoroughly and totally appreciate it. I thank you very, very much. One of the things I do, as I said and I mentioned it in the past, is that I take pride in maintaining a sense of neutrality. And me being neutral is simply to deal with the issues of the day, not the political party that you secretly might support. But I often said, and I said it even when the then administration led the government, that it doesn't matter who sits at the helm of the government. If you do something good and I open the papers and it's nice, we will talk about it. If it's bad, we will also speak about it. There is no fear of favor and contradiction when we speak on the morning rumble. But good morning to you and I thank you very much for that. I didn't know you was listening. I remember the last time I spoke with you. You know, we had conversations. But I do thank you for it. I have been accused. [00:03:20] Speaker B: I follow your program every morning. [00:03:21] Speaker A: I. I appreciate. Thank you. As we get into the crux of things this morning, I'm going to ask you a very straightforward question, sir. Are you still an active member of the unc? [00:03:32] Speaker B: I am a member of the unc. I wouldn't say I'm a very active member of the unc, but I would like to think myself, of myself as someone who has adopted the position of an elder and in a sense, you know, a mentor to people in the UNC who seek my advice from time to time. [00:03:50] Speaker A: I'm glad you mentioned that because I was about to ask you if you were called upon at any point in time within recent months to lend any sort of advice, especially that you are with the helm of Works and Infrastructure now. We have Jillian John there. Were you reached out at all for any sort of advice as to how we can approach the situation going forward? [00:04:09] Speaker B: No, I've not been approached for any advice at any official level. But from time to time, you know, in conversation with a couple of the ministers, we will discuss matters that are of national importance. [00:04:21] Speaker A: Beautiful. When we look at what the prime minister would have stated in her position as opposition leader. [00:04:26] Speaker B: Just. Just let me make it clear though. I'm not seeking any position in government. [00:04:30] Speaker A: No, no, no. I know that. [00:04:31] Speaker B: I'm not seeking public office. I made a decision at 8:70 to gradually get out of the limelight of the politics, which I did because I have a life plan for myself and that is what I've been following. [00:04:43] Speaker A: And I congratulate you and I thank you very much. As the Americas just say we thank you for your service. I thank you for what you would have done for this country. Again, whether we agree on some of the things or not, we still thank you for lending your service to the country. Now, I didn't think in my wildest dreams that you were seeking political office last time. I spoke with you. You did, you know, reiterate to me your need and your want for, you know, your golden years and your retirement. And you seem to be enjoying it. And you look quite healthy and well, you know, you're not looking stressed. You're not looking stressed at all. I'm looking at you this morning and I'm saying, this is how I want to be when I reach that age. I don't want to look stressed. So as we look back in history and we come forward, we look at where the increase of the fines when it comes to traffic offenses. Now remember, it was a traffic offense until the PNM government turned it into a violation. What's the difference? One, you can be arrested, there could be custodial sentences handed out to you. And violation, it's merely an offense where you pay a fine. It's a fineable offense, ticketable offense, as we say in Trinidad and Tobago. We would have known that under the Patrick Manning led administration we'd have seen increases in fines. We had a government, an opposition rather, that said, we are not going to do this. Dr. Ramachan, as we talk this morning, tell me your thoughts as to how the citizens should view politicians in light of saying one thing and then like a thief in the night delivering something that seems underhanded under the guise of public safety. [00:06:15] Speaker B: And that is where, you know, I listened to one of your callers this morning on your question. He said very reluctantly and somewhat hurt that he had to vote against the UNC this morning from Chaguanas. And I don't think it is about this is where we are politically immature in the country. I don't think it is about voting against your party as much as supporting your party in an overall sense as to whether you think they are going to be the best government. And having done that, it should not preclude you as a citizen of the country from standing up for or against that which you think is right or wrong. And I think this is where we are feeling the level of blind loyalty is something that is causing a lot of regression in terms of the ability of this country to move forward and also the ability of people at a mental level to make the kind of leap that we need to make in order to move from what we like to call a developing or undeveloped country to develop status where we begin to behave with the maturity, intellectual maturity, emotional maturity, necessary in order to move forward. So I don't think, you know, that is about voting against your government. You voted for a government because the government presented a set of policies and programs which you believe will be in the interest of the country, which you believe was superior to that which was being offered by the opposition, the PNM then. And you got into office, now that you got into office. It does not mean to say that if you feel that the government is doing something wrong by voting against it, you are against the government. And that is something that I think people are not making a clear distinction as citizens. We have to understand we have a responsibility for this country as much as the government has a responsibility. But the government's responsibility to the country might very well be viewed different to how the citizens are viewing it at particular points in time. And this is what is happening now in terms of defiance. The Prime Minister is a different Prime Minister to what I knew her in 2010, 2015 and even after that up to 2020. The Prime Minister is now a very determined Prime Minister in terms of what she, in her mind, she thinks is clarity of what she wants to achieve for the country. And her latest statement about lawlessness in the country is a statement that has merit. There is a level of lawlessness in the country, not just on the road, but just over totally in the country. Whether it's in terms of corrupt officers in the public service, corrupt policemen, corrupt, this, whatever. There's a sense of lawlessness that needs to be corrected. I think in the case of the opposition, in the case of the traffic fines, the discussion in the public is how it's being framed. The opposition is framing it in political terms and in emotional terms, you know, as digging into the pockets of people and so on. The government is framing it in terms of a better society, a more a lawful society, law behaving society, law respecting society. And also I want to look at it in this way also. This is a country in which no change comes about unless people understand and they feel the consequences of their actions. This has been a country where people have been getting away with a lot of things because there have not been consequences. People bearing the brunt of the consequences of the actions. And I think that this is something that we have suffered from people because we, we are on. We are not a law abiding group because we don't respect, respect the law. People think they can get away a lot from, from, from, from the law. Whether I agree with defines or not, Devi I will put my position, I agree with, with the fines. I think deep down though some of the fines might, might in my view be excessive. I think that, you know, some of what has been put there, I think for example, if, if you're driving on the road and somebody finds that you have a bulb that is defective, they could be given a warning, they could be asked to go and change the bulb and come back to a police station and show that the bulb is changed and so on rather than to put, you know, the fine into effect immediately when they find them on the road. I think, I think that there, there's going to have to be some kind of, some kind of review of how the fines are being applied in those circumstances. But in general, I want to say having been a victim myself several times of bad driving on the roads. You know, I had a nine year old nephew who was killed in an accident by a truck on the Mosquito Creek while a whole band of them were going to see Brian Lara cricket at Queen's park over a couple of years ago. He was six years old. And I brought in pundit and cricketer. So you know, davi, you, you, you look back at, you look at these things from the point of view of experience and I want to, I want to say that I agree with the direction of the fines. [00:11:42] Speaker A: When we look at what these fines are doing, I beg to differ because I fail to see. The Prime Minister in opposition did make some very, very startling remarks in terms of what I would want to say. Very prudent. I love what she was saying. She was talking about rehabilitation, educating drivers more, you know, getting those programs. And I love that she talked about removing the merit points. I kind of disagreed a bit. It could have been qualified, yes, a lot. However, we knocked the increase on punitive decisions by the previous administration to increase fines as a revenue earner. We now have a situation where we didn't even know where the 10% was coming from. And automatically as this money was paid, these fines are imposed without. And to be honest, we looking at a hundred percent increase. We're not looking at a 10% gradual increase. This is a slap in the face to say citizens, your thoughts? [00:12:43] Speaker B: Yes, the fines have doubling and that, that was a shock. I think for me also that you know the extent to which the fines are double but some of the fines were very low. For example, there are also increases now in customs rates and debt certificates and what have you. [00:12:59] Speaker A: But why, why would that be that that affect us? Why, why, why should we have raised the price of births and debts registration? [00:13:08] Speaker B: Well, it's the cost of doing business I suppose as the government begins to see it. You know, this is a country that is highly subsidized and I think what we are beginning to discover as a government, and we have to discover it as a people, is that services do cost money. The balancing question is do we get quality for the money that we pay for services? And this is where we need to have an uptick in terms of service quality in the public service as a whole. The public service servants are getting, whether they accept that it's enough or not enough, they are getting a raise. And that has to be borne as it is being borne by the tax taxpayers of the country. Whether those taxes come from energy, it comes from the bir personal income taxes the taxpayer is paying. And therefore the government has to also justify not only from the point of view of earning revenue, but also from the point of view of the service quality that has been delivered. And I, and I think that, you know, we have a gap of about, we have about, I would say about 30% of the people in this country or 25% of the people in this country working in public sector who really work, who really work. In the middle, you have about 50% who are sitting there, they're waiting for instructions and then you have another 30% on the end. They are the loafers in the system. And one of the mistakes we have made in this country is romanticizing those loafers, as it were, because we are afraid that we are going to lose their vote. We are seeing a situation now though, where the Prime Minister is not afraid of people saying you're going to lose votes by doing this or by standing up against this and that and so on. I think she's, she's very, she's going very brave, very courageously. She's also, I think, taking the risk of doing all of this in the early part of her five years. So that if she needs to come back with amendments and goodies to the population, she maybe come back with that in about a third, fourth year going down. So I think that she's also exercising a political strategy and a political risk at the same time. [00:15:18] Speaker A: The thing about it is, I want to, that is what I can agree with you on this morning. It could be out of the playbook where I am being this way in the earlys and I can come back and reduce things and show a change of heart. But I still think in a respected opinion that we were misguided, we were misled by an opposition that promises, that promised change, but did not really show us any avenue for diversification or for revenue earning, how she was going to sustain our economy given the fact that we have a depletion, depleting oil and gas revenue taking place right now. When we look at what's taking place geopolitically on the landscape of the Venezuela US Tensions, one has to wonder whether she made alignments with these United States government officials prior to her entering the April 20 general elections. But let's take a phone call respectively this morning. Hello. [00:16:13] Speaker B: Good morning, President. [00:16:14] Speaker C: Good morning once more. Devi. Dr. Rambachan. Devi, you will recall that I always say Dr. Rambachan is one of my mentors. Sometimes we agree to disagree and so on. [00:16:24] Speaker A: Yes. [00:16:24] Speaker C: And Doc, you will know that every now and again I call you on your advice on certain things. Doc, the reason I called this morning, you're on the program here and we're talking traffic. Traffic wardens. Have they served their purpose and are they still relevant? Thank you. [00:16:39] Speaker A: Good question. [00:16:41] Speaker B: Very good question. And I think it's a relevant question. I think that traffic wardens are important. I think traffic wardens can continue to serve a very, very, very big role in the society. But I don't think that the traffic wardens are being managed or distributed around the country in the manner in which they were being distributed during my time. You know, I will give you an example. While I was the member of Parliament for Tabaquit in the Gasparillo area, by petro train, every morning you would have this big pileup of traffic and I placed traffic wardens there and the situation improved immensely. Now, every morning again, because I go south every morning at 7 o', clock, I see the traffic, I see the traffic again there, but I don't see the traffic wardens. But when you reach the Golconda on the highway, you see every hundred feet a traffic or 50ft of traffic warden. About 10 of them line up on the road there. And I wonder what, what are they doing there? When in fact somebody within that traffic warden unit, the management of it, has to identify the areas where you need these traffic wardens and utilize them properly and they can be utilized. Traffic wardens can supplement the work of the police service and put the police service to do the kind of work that they should be doing. But I think that there's a fall off there and some somebody, the minister has to look into that in, in my view. [00:18:06] Speaker A: Hello, Good morning. Respectfully, let's get your question. Good morning. [00:18:09] Speaker D: Good morning, Devi. [00:18:10] Speaker A: Good Morning. [00:18:10] Speaker B: Morning. [00:18:11] Speaker D: To Dr. Rambachan, I understand his point where he's saying that the Prime Minister is probably taking a hard stance. But Dr. Rambachan, it was said to the citizens months before, years before the election, that we are in an economic Recession, tighten your belt. And the prime minister said to us they are fooling us. Present prime minister said they are fooling us. Even the comments concerning the taxes on licenses. She said, you know the government is using that to generate revenue and she's going to provide a free service for drivers that are. Today we see a total reversal stating that first thing I've seen about 50,000 people on the breadline. So it has nothing from my point of view it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister adopting new strength. What it has to do with economic position they find themselves in by making promises to the citizens and getting into office and realize. But wait, define because she said to us that the country was broken. She said to us that they keep borrowing money and there is no money in the economy and you promised public service 10% and now that you get team telling us there is no money and have to pay people per 10% the only alternative to generate revenue in this budget is taxation. So I don't see that as being hard. I see that as fooling the population able to hold wing the population based on the information to try to make the previous administration look bad and you would look good. And now when you get into office the reality hits you that hey and all now everybody's singing the song you singing we should be patriot and understand that the economy Trinidad and Tobago have no money and civil servants as you. [00:20:06] Speaker B: Saying functioning all right. I'm not seeing any patriotic. In fact what I said, I said that citizens must be able to even when they support a party to stand up against what they see to be wrong. That was one of my problems when I was in government. Also as a minister of government I can say publicly today that I stood up within the government if I felt that something was not going right and put my opinion forward. At the end of the day I was a member of cabinet and a team player and I had to go along with certain things. But I used to get amendments in terms of where we go. But you have to stand up now. David, the thing about in terms of what he's saying, yes, the government made a lot of promises. The opposition then the UNC made a lot of promises. And that is another thing about this country. The promises were made at a time when the country was really in a bad state under the PNM and people fell for it and felt that something could be different. And that is where we are not discerning enough as a population. That is where we didn't question enough. You know, how is this going to come about. Yes, towards the end, the media did a very good job in questioning the government as to where you're going to get the money to fund all of this. You are doing that. The members of the then government also questioned it. And now we are seeing that in the changed economic circumstances, the revenue is not there. And what is happening here now, therefore is that the government has run the risk of losing points in terms of trust and credibility in the eyes of the population. That includes their own supporters. How are they going to, how is the Prime Minister going to rebuild this trust? How is the Prime Minister going to rebuild this credibility? Is going to be a task that she faces. Now. The other point I don't want to overlook is this. If you are law abiding citizen on the roadway, then you have nothing to fear. [00:22:18] Speaker A: You know, I said that this morning. I said that this morning. I said that this morning. [00:22:23] Speaker B: If you're a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear. You know, people, for example, there was a call on your program said, you know, that he got a fine of a thousand dollars because he was driving on, on the right hand lane and when he should be driving. You remember that? Yes, well, again he admitted that he should have been on the right hand and we do have that. We have a lot of people driving at 30 miles an hour on the lane. They shouldn't be driving and holding back the traffic and so on. So I mean, that might be an absurd example to give. But the point is if you are law abiding and you follow the offenses, then follow the traffic laws, then you are not going to be a subject of these fines. But I still maintain that. I think that the police, in applying the law, they have to have some use, some discretion. You cannot be black and white in it, you know, because you could be driving down the road and your windshield wiper stops working or ball blows or something happens, you know, it is like that. But I saw, for example, they have leaking oil as one of the. How about all those vehicles that the EMA is supposed to be tracking where all the smoke comes in your face while you are driving from trucks and so on? How would that happen? Davi? I drive on the road, I'm telling you, every morning from Chaguanas to Faizabad and I am driving at the speed limit that I'm supposed to drive, but passing me at the biggest trucks and the speed at which they pass me is about 20, sometimes up to Ibeda, 30 kilometers above. What? [00:23:56] Speaker A: What, your car shake on the road? [00:23:58] Speaker B: Yeah, it shakes. That's Correct. I mean people are not believers that that's true. It shakes. So how do, how do you, you have to deal with those people? And you know I, I asked a truck driver one day because I followed him, believe this or not, I follow him to the yard where he went to to deliver his material and I, I, I talked to him, I talked to the owner and you know what the respons these guys have to go to the national quarries to pick up a load in the morning and if they don't make three loads for the day I can't make profit with my trucks and they are paid by the load. So they are running these trucks at a rate a speed to make these three loads and then they leave home at 2 o' clock in the morning to get up there for 4 o' clock in the morning to get the first load and so on. So there's a kind of irresponsibility also on the part of some of these owners of these trucking companies and so on that we have to look at. So this is all part of the context that we have to talk about. But at the end of the day our lives are threatened by this kind of behavior and the search for profit, if you want to put it as well as that. [00:25:07] Speaker A: And just to add to what you're saying, bear in mind that these trucks are supposed to go at 65 kilometers per hour. 65. Hello. Good morning. Quickly please. [00:25:18] Speaker E: Good morning to Murray and Good morning to Dr. Rambhian. [00:25:24] Speaker B: I want to congratulate you man. You add a lot of value to the program by your incisive thinking. [00:25:31] Speaker E: Yes. I wanted to share some data and show the correlation of when you're making decisions how it's supposed to be in tandem. [00:25:38] Speaker D: Right. [00:25:39] Speaker E: This year Davy, the road debt is 108 so far. Last year around the same time the road that would have been 1:22. [00:25:51] Speaker D: Right. [00:25:52] Speaker E: So 122 persons would have died last year. So there's a reduction. So if you are saying that there's lawlessness in the country and I agree to an extent there is, you must be able to put things in place to curtail that. So for example, Dr. Rambuchon said vehicles are speeding. Of course there should be a police officer or persons, maybe a traffic warden who have the power to be visible, to be able to find these persons who are engaging in such. It makes no sense to increase fines when you're not going to put things in place to HDSU now there was a bill I think of 2000, 2017 and this bill sort of make operable camera system in which you can charge individuals. [00:26:42] Speaker A: Yes. [00:26:42] Speaker D: All right. [00:26:42] Speaker E: Maybe that is an avenue the government have to look at in terms of finding these persons who are engaging in lawlessness. Because you cannot just use it as a broad brush when the data shows something different. There are persons who will be engaging in lawlessness, Navy, but you have to get them off the road. There must be persons or systems in place to get them off the road. And that is what I want to share. Before I go. I want to share something with you again, David and Dr. Ramberton. The political system in this country is one in which if you were to go against the system, you can see yourself being thrown in the political cemetery. While you can object to certain things more or less, you will have to tow the party line. So for example, as I share that data with you, that data that I shared with you, that a reduction in murder. And of course the TTPS will put out your information which in terms of RTEs Road traffic accidents and I suspect there will be a reduction there as well. It goes in tandem. And I also have a next chapter. I can't read all that one for you. It's supposed to say that here. What because of that data I'm seeing there, I can raise the penalties maybe 25 or 30%. You can't just implement a policy raps of a hundred percent on the populace without taking into consideration what I just shared with you. It's a contradiction. [00:28:11] Speaker A: Okay, hold on, Kadeem. Dr. Ramachan wanted to mention something to you. [00:28:16] Speaker B: Yeah, he lost me. Because I'm trying to follow so many. [00:28:18] Speaker A: Different points that he is bringing up. [00:28:20] Speaker B: All right. [00:28:21] Speaker A: So with that being said, Kareem, you know, Dr. Rambachan as well, I do not understand how a 100% increase of road fines for these violations because they are not offenses. It's still a violation where you pay your ticket and failing to do so, it could be flagged when you go to. At the end of the day, if you take out a license for 10 years, the government doesn't get that revenue for eight years because you don't need to go license officer to renew. No permit, no license. So how is these harsh fines going to change driver behavior? How is this going to educate drivers in driving better on the roads? Where is the defensive training in increasing of the fines? That's the point I want to make. Thanks, Kadeem. Dr. Rambachan. [00:29:04] Speaker B: And that's an excellent point you're making. Whether you should send people back to defense driving schools as part of the penalty and what have you. But David, you see, there's another aspect to all of this, and it has to do with the licensing offices. For example, in point, 14 people go there. I mean, I'm going to say this publicly. I know of one guy who couldn't read properly, and he went, and for $3,000 he was able to get his license. He was able to get his license. In San Fernando, the same thing is happening. People talk openly about it. Yes, I went in. I went into San Fernando a couple of years ago to have my pickup inspected. And I'm in the line. I'm a former minister of government, I'm still an mp, and I'm in the line. And a guy comes up to me with a piece of cloth and he says to me, you know, why you have to wait only line for 700? We can do. Do all this for you, you know. So do you tell me that the people in the pit, the license officers, don't know what is going on with those touts who are in the line? [00:30:05] Speaker A: Of course they do. [00:30:06] Speaker B: Right. So that's. I'm sure. So if people are getting away with things like this, that is part of the lawlessness also. That has to be dealt with. Now, Divi, you know, you raised Karim, raised the question of cameras and taking pictures and able to chat people, are they higher? While we were in government, I was minister, that system was in place there. It has been tested and everything. Yes, it had been tested, and I don't know why it has not been implemented, but it was done and everything, everything was ready. There's a point I wanted to make to you, Divi. Kadim talked about figures, you know, 122 to 108 and so on, the difference of 14. Now the police service is saying, for example, that crime is down, all right, but they are using the statistic mainly of reduction in murders to show that the crime is down. I don't agree with that. You have to categorize murders in the country, those gangs, those domestic violence and what have you, to really understand the whole picture. But when you read the newspaper and you gather the evidence and people talking on the street, which is different from what the official statistics might portray, I do not think that crime in the eyes of the population has gone down in the way that is being presented. You can't have the snatching that is taking place on the roads, the way that people are targeting people after they go into banks and come out and suddenly the money is gone. I mean, I think it was very stupid to take $380,000. Bank in 50,000. But there seems to be some link between personnel in the banks and what is happening. Our personal companies and the bandits outside knowing what is happening. But I do not think that crime has gone down in the way that people are saying. The home invasions continue, everything. The cars are being taken away and so on. So, you know, we got to be very careful when we kind of placate and pat ourselves on the back as a police service and say the crime is on now. I want to congratulate the new commissioner of police. I really want to congratulate him. Something he is doing with respect to the drug interdictions and the large drug finds that are taking place that is different to what has happened before. I think that the guy is doing a good job. I think he came from the intelligence section of the police service. I think he's applying that very, very, very well. And if he continues to develop the management team that he has there, I think that he's on the pathway to some degree of success. [00:32:52] Speaker A: I can go there with you as well. I don't like the fact that we credited the radar for that drug hall out in Karanee. I think that was misleading. [00:33:05] Speaker B: I have my doubts about it. [00:33:07] Speaker F: Pleasant morning, Davey. [00:33:08] Speaker A: Good morning, Morales. Quickly. [00:33:10] Speaker C: Pleasant morning. [00:33:10] Speaker F: Dear Mr. Ramba Chenman. [00:33:12] Speaker E: You know, doctor, I would have looked. [00:33:15] Speaker F: At, you know, earlier this today, somebody suggested that we have. We, we. We. We have 1.4 fence. And I think that is a good suggestion. 1.4 fence. And moving forward, as I said, the traffic wardens need to really be distributed in a meaningful way. So they need to really visit the different areas of the country and really deploy them so we'll have more effective service of them. [00:33:38] Speaker D: And I'm. [00:33:38] Speaker F: I am supporting. That was an initiative of your government the first time. And I supported because the city police, when I look at the job of our police, to tie up the police with the traffic. With the traffic direction was a very good initiative. So they need to improve. I will support improving the most traffic walls and deploying them in a more meaningful way. Because up at Prince, down here too, they have some deployed at a matilda junction, sometimes 6, 7. And I do see the need for that among there. We should have flow of traffic going in one direction, which I don't really have much. They don't have any directional duties. They really do as such. [00:34:08] Speaker A: All right. [00:34:12] Speaker F: Support and give us ideas and suggestion man. [00:34:14] Speaker D: Bye. [00:34:14] Speaker A: Okay, bye. [00:34:15] Speaker B: Hello. [00:34:15] Speaker A: Good morning. Quickly as we head to the news. Good morning. [00:34:18] Speaker E: Good morning, Mr. Davey. [00:34:20] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:34:21] Speaker D: Good morning, Dr. Ambachan. Princess Thomas. Dr. Rambachan. [00:34:25] Speaker B: Duplication. [00:34:26] Speaker D: You have police, municipal police, and traffic wardens. Why can't we use instead of saying traffic wardens just to refer to them as wardens with some expanded duties and better management. And also station these wardens at every license office in Trinidad and Tobago, at least to curtail and prevent touting. Thank you, Princess. [00:34:49] Speaker A: That's not a bad idea, you know. [00:34:51] Speaker B: But you know, David, that's the point there. [00:34:53] Speaker E: Yeah. [00:34:54] Speaker B: Our people have great ideas to solve problems. You know, what we need to do and what is missing in this country. And this is why sometimes I miss the politics. Because every. Every month, I will find myself in one area of my constituency, you know, talking to people. And that's how I got many great ideas also as a minister. Particularly in local government. Right, particularly in local government. But we have to. Okay, so the unc, for example, Monday night meetings, and they had consultations, and I think they need to reintroduce that and keep going with that as we move to your news. I think that the UNC faces a very difficult task in terms of how they are communicating with the people. [00:35:35] Speaker A: Indeed. [00:35:35] Speaker B: Right. And if they fail as a government, it will be failing again because of a failure to communicate. Communication. Effective communication equals building trust and credibility or reducing trust and credibility. And I think that photo ops are not going to get you where you want to be. [00:35:52] Speaker A: Dr. Rambachan, I have a question I want to ask you very, very quickly. Would you prefer government that is honest or one that is transparent? [00:36:02] Speaker B: I think both are necessary. Both are necessary. Honesty and transparency go together. [00:36:08] Speaker A: Well, here's what. Okay, go ahead, finish. [00:36:11] Speaker B: Yeah, no, if you're transparent, it means that you. You have a level of honesty that you. [00:36:16] Speaker A: There you go. But I will take the transparency first before honesty, because you can be honest with me. I ask you a question, Dr. Rambachan. Did you put that there? And you said. Yes, but it wasn't transparent with me. But if you come out of you and you give me transparency, you know, well, Davey, I put that there. [00:36:29] Speaker B: But. [00:36:29] Speaker A: But here's the reason why. I mightn't like it, but you tell me. So I take that. [00:36:33] Speaker B: And I think the reason for my action. Yeah. [00:36:35] Speaker A: Yes. So I take what you say, that this government lacks the tenacity and the skill set in terms of effectively communicating with their citizens like they did in the Monday night forum. They're no longer doing it anymore. And that is why Stewart Young, the former prime minister, gets a nudge with me. Because before he left for this country to go and meet Marco Rubio in Jamaica. He spoke to the country. [00:36:56] Speaker B: He spoke. [00:36:57] Speaker A: As soon as he landed in Piaco, he had him. And you find Dr. Rowley. While his information may have been credible in the sense of where we were economically, his delivery was out of touch with the citizenry badly. [00:37:09] Speaker B: And although we lost elections in 2015, Davi, when I was Minister of Foreign affairs and Minister of Communication also, and we traveled with the prime Minister, for example, you will find that before we left, a statement was made to the people. And when we came back in Piaku, we would have presented a report in the airport. And Gideon Hanuman Singh used to be the communications officer with me. I will prepare that report. Believe it or not, sometimes on the eve while we are traveling in that plane to come back so the prime minister can have have it reviewed and presented at the airport. And that is the kind of thing you're talking about. But that takes a different kind of commitment when you're in a position, Dr. Rambachan. [00:37:51] Speaker A: We have to leave it there. I thank you very much for waking up this morning and chatting with us here. [00:37:55] Speaker B: No, man, I am. I'm up at 4:30 every morning. [00:37:57] Speaker A: Well, you and I in the same boat. I just had to dive out at 4:30 to get here to be. [00:38:02] Speaker B: Thank you for the opportunity and I'm grateful. It's really appreciated. [00:38:04] Speaker A: All right. So have yourself a safe day and enjoy your travels on the roads today. Thank you again. [00:38:08] Speaker B: Thank you. Thank you, David. [00:38:10] Speaker A: All right.