Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability the all new talk radio freedom 106.5 with us in studio. Let's welcome to our program this morning, Senior lecturer Department of History UE St. Augustine, Dr. Jerome Tilak Singh. Nice to have you with us in studio here this morning.
[00:00:20] Speaker B: Good morning Satish and good morning to all your listeners.
[00:00:23] Speaker A: Good to be here. It's a morning when initially we had planned this discussion. It was about looking back as we look forward about 2024, what happened in 2024 and some of the things moving into 2025. Those discussions are being dominated now by the events that took place yesterday.
Plan this show today. Today was expected to be a lighter discussion and tell people, ask people what are their resolutions. All those kinds of things have gone out the window with what transpired. We had a shock announcement by the administration of the day that there's going to be a state of emergency.
Now when the announcement was made, the manner in which the announcement was made itself caused some concerns to be to be voiced and then some of what took place subsequently, press conference and on all these other things, people still this morning aren't too sure what was really going on and how it impacts on them and how it's going to be, if it's going to be effective and everything else. But let's get your opinion on and what transpired. What's your take on this?
[00:01:28] Speaker B: I as most of the public was very surprised and taken aback by the state of emergency and certain questions have been going through my mind and some of the questions include would it be effective?
How long would it be implemented? Would the freedom of citizens be infringe upon?
And I want to know, you know, why are we waiting till we have reached this stage? Why shouldn't it have been implemented five years ago, four years ago, last year? Now we are in a crisis stage where we are living in fear and we are not sure, you know, what tomorrow would bring. So I am concerned about that. I also want to suggest that we don't just target communities but we start looking within the schools. Many of our secondary schools have almost like branches of the gangs. So I think that this state of emergency when school reopens, we also need to look at the gang influence in the schools.
[00:02:38] Speaker A: Yeah. When it comes to, well, why now?
There are several suggestions as possible answers for that. This is an administration that vilified the last state of emergency. They went to town on it and I remember, I think it was the former minister of national security or the first minister of National Security, Dylan, in responding to calls back then, when he was minister for a state of emergency, he said that it's only when an administration has failed. And this was said in Parliament. I mean, it might not be verbatim, quote, but this is what the man had to say. It is only when an administration fails do they implement a state of emergency. And when you have that kind of pronouncement and that kind of bastardization of a state of emergency as was called, for you to come now and implement a state of emergency is putting your foot not in your mouth, you're putting it all over the place. And it's difficult for you to have to deal with. I believe, and I could be wrong, I've been wrong before. I believe that was one of the driving factors in not implementing a state of emergency. Before, as frivolous as it might have seemed to some, or maybe it still seems today, politics trumped.
I don't want to say common sense, but politics probably trumped what was in the best interest of the country.
And today, the administration, I mean, Fitzgerald Heinz has the unenviable reputation of being the minister of national security that has presided over some of the worst murder statistics in this country's history.
The government of the day, Dr. Keith Rowley, has under his belt, I think, the first, second and third highest murder counts.
And when you have those things factoring into the actions of any administration, we've seen time and time again where political expediency trumps what is best for the nation.
So you ask the question about whether or not we will see the results.
And I think that's the biggest question in the minds of everyone, because nobody wants this to fail. We all agree that the crime situation is bad.
But if I were to say to you, you're a historian, you've been looking over the years at all the things that have happened, and whenever there is a state of emergency, that goes down on the history books. When it comes to this country's development, we've had a number of them over the years.
Let me take you down that path and tap into your expertise as to how does a state of emergency impact on the psyche of a nation and a nation's development, or lack thereof.
[00:05:33] Speaker B: It's a good question. And the problem is that when there's a state of emergency, even though this one is a bit unique in that we have the freedom to assemble in that we are very careful what we see, so that there is a certain amount of restriction of what we could see on the radio or what we could write.
The government now has an additional power where that boundary. So I might say, I might advise a trade union. A trade union might say something. A trade union might be on the street fighting for negotiations or collective agreement. And that could be interpreted as a threat.
So this state of emergency, it doesn't just focus on the gangs. It's not a state of emergency to rid the country of gangs. It's a broad interpretation. And I think this is the problem in that various interest groups now are on a leash.
We have to bear that in mind that we have election in less than a year now.
So the timing of this, we are wondering. Some people believe that it might be to protect tourists who are coming down for carnival within the next two months.
But there is also the issue where the rumblings within the trade union movement, there's discontent among other groups.
Civil society is, you know, questioning certain actions of the government. So I'm starting to see that the state of emergency, it is a sign of failure of a government to properly handle the crime situation, the security situation, but it will also affect the rights of citizens. And we have to be mindful of that.
[00:07:26] Speaker A: Yeah. You know, in having off the cuff discussions since this announcement, because we've been discussing on the program the possibility of a state of emergency practically for the whole year. Correct. And there are people who've been calling for it, people who are against it. So we've had various views expressed already.
[00:07:46] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:07:47] Speaker A: The element that is most glaringly absent is the curfew. People automatically associate a state of emergency with a curfew.
[00:07:57] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:07:57] Speaker A: And we don't have that.
And that in itself has, and I say this cautiously, legitimized the importance of the state of emergency and the possible impact on people's lives because they see the state of emergency curfew as the biggest thing. I can't go out at night, I come home with business, I close and all that kind of thing. But they're not. And we had a number of discussions. We spoke to Robin Montano, we spoke to attorney Larry Lala. We're speaking to you now. And you two are highlighting some of the implications that the average individual is not taking into consideration. Now, we're here to talk about a number of things amongst those political affiliations and salary negotiations among.
[00:08:40] Speaker B: Right.
[00:08:41] Speaker A: But you've raised the element of trade unions. Now the trade unions have been raising their voices more and more. And coming down to the end of the year, we saw what was going on at the port and a number of other pilots association and a number of other groups were getting agitated because Things were not necessarily going in the manner in which they wanted it to go. And what you're suggesting now with the freedom of speech not necessarily being outright impeded, but that threat hanging over your head all the time, it's a reminder for persons like myself, a person like yourself who appear on media programs and so on. But is that really something we need to worry about or is that just being alarmist?
[00:09:30] Speaker B: It isn't just being alarmists because if a trade union should protest and should make a threat to the government and say that we're going to shut down the country or that we are going to close down this or close down that, that could be interpreted, you know, as a threat.
[00:09:51] Speaker A: Okay, but who determines that it's a threat?
[00:09:53] Speaker B: The Ministry of National Security will have to decide.
[00:09:55] Speaker A: Did the tribunal. If people are arrested and carried before the tribunal, they are the ones, they.
[00:10:00] Speaker B: Are the ones who will have the final say. Of course, you know, whoever will have that. Whoever is arrested will also have the.
The option to carry that case to court.
[00:10:12] Speaker A: So this is like we're under martial.
[00:10:14] Speaker B: Law, More or less a type of martial law. Correct.
All right.
What is, what is interesting is that because we don't have the curfew, I think people are not taking it as serious as we should.
So that the state of emergency, you know, it's associated with limited hours, you know, and certain restrictions. So that there, there is this state of emergency, but there's a vague boundary. And I think this is what is confusing to many citizens. And I think they should clear that. The government should try and clear that up.
[00:10:53] Speaker A: I know that we're here to discuss a couple other things. We need to take a couple messages. Ladies and gentlemen, if you joined us midway, we are speaking this morning with our special guest, senior lecturer at the Department of History UE St. Augustine. And that of course is Dr. Jerome Tilak Singh. I think we have a. Let's take a couple messages. When we get back, we'll open the phones a bit and then we get into some other discussions. Stay with us, Uncle Mark. It's just about 22 minutes before 9. It's amazing how the time flies with us here this morning, a special guest, Dr. Jerome T. Luxing. And before we go into the break, for those of you, if you'd like to join the conversation, feel free to do so on number 625-2257. Let's take a couple calls and then we'll get back into our discussion. Let's see who's with us here this morning. Hello. Good morning.
[00:11:44] Speaker C: Good morning, Mr. Savish. I just want to talk about crying quickly.
The population of New York City, including the people who there illegally and so on, is about 12 million people, minimum. You have gangs across New York City, you have drugs flowing all over the place. And yet their murder count, which includes homicides and everything for the whole year up to December 29, is only 375.375sardesh. It's half of what we have in Trinidad under the pnm.
I don't think any government can be more incompetent than the guys who are presently there. It's an atrocity that people keep voting for them year after year after year, knowing that they're going to be totally inefficient and incapable of running the country, no matter how much money there is. And money is not the issue of people saying, oh, we have less money, and so on. Money is not the issue. These guys are not capable of running the country, and yet people vote them in.
Thank you, Sadesh.
[00:13:02] Speaker A: Thank you so much for your call. Dr. Tillerson, what's your view?
[00:13:06] Speaker B: I, I agree with that caller that, you know, the example of New York City with that low murder count just shows you how startling and alarming the murder it is here in a small island like Trinidad.
Nicola did bring up a very important issue about why people are voting them in. And we have a cult here, here in our country and a few Caribbean countries where political parties have become like cults, a religious cult where you would vote that party, whatever goes. And next year, you know, the perception might be, let's vote for the party that is less corrupt or let's vote for the party that we feel could handle the issue. Sometimes you vote for a party blindly because they promise you something. Sometimes you vote for a party because your grandparents, great grandparents, vote for generational issues. So I think what we need to do is start not just looking at the crime, but look at other issues. What is the, the opinion of parties on issues like the environment, abortion, you know, what is their view on the issue of relationship with United States? What is the issue with Venezuela? So we also need to look at foreign policy. What are the relationship of these political parties on certain issues? But we don't look at issues. We tend to look at race and ethnicity.
[00:14:31] Speaker A: Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning.
Hello. Good morning.
[00:14:36] Speaker D: Good morning, Satish.
[00:14:37] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:14:38] Speaker D: First time caller.
[00:14:39] Speaker A: Nice to have you. Where you're calling us from?
[00:14:41] Speaker D: From McBean cover, right ahead. All right. I just have an issue that last night I called the police about nine times concerning a neighbor here playing music from the day before till after nearly 4:00 this morning. I had a husband huh that we're.
[00:14:59] Speaker A: Hearing you go ahead.
[00:15:00] Speaker D: Yeah I have a husband who is 99, almost blind. I my foot is in chaos. I can't get up and can't sleep. Up to now the police and respond.
[00:15:12] Speaker A: Up to now well what what I can tell you is that you are not alone. There are people across the country who complain about the very same constantly think.
[00:15:23] Speaker D: This these people doing on the understand tired call her and tell her but sometimes they galvanize that a good thing is.
[00:15:31] Speaker A: I know trust me when I say to you I know exactly what you're going through. The unfortunate thing is the entity that's supposed to deal with issues like this is the EMA because that's noise pollution. But somebody said recently they sent a message that they had the very same problem in another part of the country. They called the police and the police sent them to the EMA and when they went to the EMA the EMA sent them back to the police.
[00:15:57] Speaker D: Well that is the same thing because the last time about two months now he has the same problem as my son in law tell them the same neighbor concerning the nurse how the father not sick and the mother not well and whatever you know what it end up that he end up getting it end up coming in front my house had a big scuffle here and against that up to now the police had reached yet to to find out what went on. The neighbor had the footage up to.
[00:16:24] Speaker A: Now I don't know what to tell you to do because you're not frustrated.
[00:16:29] Speaker D: I am not well, my foot is in cares my husband is sick.
[00:16:32] Speaker A: But you see you're in a dangerous situation because you're dealing with people who obviously from the response already are not the easiest to negotiate with.
[00:16:41] Speaker D: I continue calling the police in 999 she said they ain't get I said.
[00:16:45] Speaker A: No let me tell you what you can do. Do you have the copies of the reports that you made or was it just on the phone?
[00:16:51] Speaker D: Well, just on your phone but I have all the phone calls recorded what.
[00:16:54] Speaker A: Time what you need to do as difficult as it might be for you this is to get some firm action. You have to go down to the police station, make an actual report and you see that receipt you get, you take that receipt and if the police don't act on your report call the police complaints authority.
[00:17:12] Speaker D: Thing is about it when you tell her anything she said I'M going to session and report. And I have people in this session.
[00:17:17] Speaker A: So they don't come that that's. They could have all the people in the station. Once you do what I tell you to do, you have what is some sort of evidence that the Police Complaints Authority, which from the time police officers hear Police Complaints Authority, there's backup. So go wrong, find your way somehow or the other, get somebody to take you. If it's difficult, go down my foot in the car. Yeah. Make a formal report. And when you're making your report, include in your report how many times you've called the police station. So that is documented. Yeah.
[00:17:47] Speaker D: Because it's going on to start a night again. Because tonight is old years. So not going to till New Year's Day.
[00:17:52] Speaker A: Yeah. All right, thanks for calling. Thanks for calling and raising this.
Just evidence of the inconsideration of others. You live in a real world, it happens. Not everybody is the neighbor that you want them to be. We were talking before, we hinted about trade unions and this year, tell us the trade union movement. So some of these. He's confronting him this year.
[00:18:17] Speaker B: I think one of the issues that I want to draw to your attention is the issue of the fire services. You know, when we had that unfortunate incident with the Member of Parliament and her children, I mean, in August, a few months ago, August 2024, the President of the Fire Service association said the fire service is on the brink of absolute and total collapse. And he talked about the lack of personal protective equipment. So we see the unions and the associations complaining. Even at Uwe Uwe, we have salary negotiations. The lecturers are on 2014 salaries. And we saw the Minister of Finance saying the government is not the employee of the academic staff at UE and not a party to the wage agreements. So we see that, you know, the government is shying away from some of these dispute resolutions procedures. And that is what I'm concerned about. I'm also concerned about that there's a breakdown in terms of the tripartite meetings. We have the National Tripartite Advisory Committee that has fallen through. Productivity Council has fallen through.
And I'm seeing a violation of free and collective bargaining. I'm seeing the CPO offering 0%, 1%, 4%, and it's a sort of insult, especially when we see the Salaries Review Commission, you know, allowing this increase for public officials. So I think this is the problem we face in 2024. Inequity, inequalities. Where is the justice, the natural justice?
[00:20:04] Speaker A: What would natural justice look like in.
[00:20:06] Speaker B: A situation like this, It's a good question. I don't want to sound like a socialist, I don't want to sound like a communist or Marxist, but I think natural justice, social justice is something where you are given a fair wage for a fair day's work. You are given a wage worthy of what you are putting out every day.
And it's not just those who are earning wages. I'm also concerned about the high numbers of contract workers.
These contract workers are unable to get medical insurance. They're not able to get a loan because they're on contract. We have no unions representing the contract workers. So I think the contract labor has been one of the issues that I'm concerned about. And I'm also concerned about the abuse of migrant laborers, especially incoming Venezuelans. They are working often for less than minimum wages.
So these are issues that I think we need to address.
I'm also concerned, you know, that the unemployment rate in Trinidad and Tobago, we often don't hear about it. Many people don't know what is the level for 2024. So I think these are some of the issues that we need to address.
[00:21:24] Speaker A: This year when it comes to migrant labor. In every society, migrant labor is, I don't want to say taken advantage of, but I don't know how else to describe it.
And it's not only from officials like businesses and conglomerates and so on, but from average individuals. I remember having a conversation with someone and the person was saying to me that they paint over their house. House, it's a flats, two bedroom. And then it's huge, you know.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: Right.
[00:21:49] Speaker A: So I was asking, well, how much that cost you? They said that cost 200.
I said, well, how, you know, explain that to me. How you get somebody to paint your house for 200? And they said, there's a Venezuelan living nearby. Two days, two day work. They pay the person a hundred dollars a day.
[00:22:07] Speaker B: Yeah, that's unfair.
[00:22:08] Speaker A: It is. And it shows you how people will take advantage of others if they have the opportunity to do so.
But I know that we're almost out of time and there's another important discussion that we need to have. Everything that happens in that country, trade unions and the negotiations, the crime situation, it all goes back to politics.
[00:22:28] Speaker B: Correct?
[00:22:28] Speaker A: It goes back to leadership. It goes back to the fundamentals of good governance and all those kinds of things. We've been having a number of discussions about politics and where our politics is headed in this country. And, and I don't want to say it's the most recent, but it's popped up again and that's the issue of who joining who and who should join who, who need to join who, who couldn't care to join who and all that kind of thing. And it makes for some pretty interesting, some vibrant discussions amongst people because people are concerned. What's your take on this entire thing about amalgamation of political parties and the issue of people joining forces, moving together and so on on our political landscape?
[00:23:11] Speaker B: Well, we have seen recently some coalitions. We saw the UNC having a coalition with three political parties and five trade unions.
And the public would know that often we have, during election time opportunists, we have people who are optimistic, we have opportunists. And sometimes, you know, these coalitions don't last because of the personality clashes. Sometimes we need to ask ourselves why, you know, these, sometimes trade unions, sometimes these so called smaller political parties, they align themselves to a certain political party and we need to ask them what is their ideological view?
What do they stand for? Are they just interested in getting rid of one government and replacing them with another government? Or do they know what this political party stands for, this trade union? So I think when it comes to ideology, when it comes to what they stand for, we often, you know, have a very murky, shaky ground. And I think this is what we need to have. We need to have a union that is militant, a union that could say, you know what, I'm supporting this party no matter what. Oh, I'm not supporting the party. I'm going to be independent. And you see, once a union is independent, the public will take that union on more seriously when it speaks, when.
[00:24:38] Speaker A: You speak about that kind of discussion. But what does a party believe in and so on. Not many people want to have that discussion because it shines a light on some things that they would rather not shine a light on. And that's their objective. Yeah, and, and the purpose for their objective. And I mean, we've had the discussion, people are saying that some of these, some of these coalitions, quote, unquote, coalitions are, are just simply intended, as you suggested, to get the PNM out of power. But after that is where the problems come in. Yeah, we, we had a discussion with Philip Edward Alexander on the UNC and the announcement and everything else.
[00:25:23] Speaker B: Right.
[00:25:23] Speaker A: And throughout the interview he kept insisting that the PNM needed to be removed and that everything and anything that needed to be done needed to be done to remove the pnm. And I asked him the question, I said, well, what happens after that?
And he admitted that those Discussions have not yet taken place. They go happen, they need to happen, but we're not too sure when. And I don't know how much of the population buys into that. 2010 was, I don't want to say a political anomaly, but it brought with it at a point in time, a difference.
You had players back then who carried with it a certain level of respect, Winston Ducron and Jacques and the others that brought with them a statesmanlike approach, which is what I think. People bought in. And Patrick Manning made it pretty easy for people with some of the things he was doing before and the tax and all that kind of nonsense and the two summits prior and whatever else. Do you think there's a future for coalition politics in this country?
[00:26:33] Speaker B: It has worked. There's satish, it has worked in large countries like India, countries like France, other parts of Europe, even in England. And I think what, what we need to do if we're going to have a coalition government, we need, we need to ensure that there's a manifesto that all the parties agree on, contribute. And there is this, there is this feeling that there is a fair and equitable political system. We cannot believe that because this party won 15 seats or this party has been in government before and this smaller party never been in government, the smaller party should be treated with contempt. So that we need not just ideological viewpoints, but we need a common manifesto in which parties need to have like a MoU sign on board. As we had the FAISA bad accord in 2010 and they need to stick with it. We don't want to know we have a coalition, we get into power and then the coalition falls apart after one year, after two years, you know, we're wondering if we would last you five years. So I think coalitions need to come to the bargaining table and they cannot do it. It's not a quick fix. It is not a short term solution. It has to be something for the long haul. And I think this is what we lack in Trinidad. And we saw it during the nar time, how quickly the n collapsed, you know, so that this experiment in coalition, it is not new. We have tried it before, even before the 1980s. Attempts were made and it did not last. And the simple reason is because every leader of a political party believe that he or she could be a good prime minister. And every leader of a good union believe he or she, if they're in government, should be maybe the minister of labor, right? So we have this feeling that, you know, I am the best and I don't want to share. Sharing of power. Power sharing is the problem right now.
[00:28:34] Speaker A: The best insight Instant feedback Accountability the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
