UPSURGE IN CRIME

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. [00:00:08] Speaker B: Welcome back to our program at this time. And gentlemen, we haven't spoken to in a while, let's say welcome back to our show to Pastor Clive Daughton. Good morning to you. It's nice to have you with us again. [00:00:21] Speaker C: Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. [00:00:23] Speaker B: It's nice to have you here. We continue to have some of the discussions that we'd like to get your input in this morning. We're supposed to be speaking about crime, but just before we get to that, let me tap your brain a bit. We've been talking about constitutional reform, the consultations that are taking place, whether or not anybody has the faith that these things go actually bring us about some kind of change that some people are saying the committee is lamenting that public engagement is poor at the consultations and they're concerned as a result of that, it suggests that people don't see this thing as important either. They're despondent. They don't think it's going to make a difference. What's your take on this latest round of consultations on the constitution? [00:01:06] Speaker C: Well, you were coming across slight muffled, your program, your station this morning. I was listening, but it's coming across kind of, I don't know if you all can fix that, but I got a gist of what you were saying. If I could summarize what you're saying. You're talking about the reform committee, the constitution reform Committee. You're talking about the low public attendance and perhaps what is the future forward. Am I right? [00:01:41] Speaker B: Yes. [00:01:43] Speaker C: Okay. Let me deal with it. I belong to a group. It's functioning for two years now. It consists of a significant amount of educators and religious leaders and teachers and technical gurus and what have you. And I would tell you, the general feeling of individuals, professionals and even people on the ground is that they waited too late to start this process. So that I believe there are a lot of people not interested in constitutions. They find that it's boring. All right. And especially constitution reform. But what is happening here now is that you have a situation where you're almost out of time. Now, my group has been asking them to give more time for more significant discussion on a formulation of a document. You know, that would be rational one. Secondly, we in the end, come into the end of April. And what I understand is that you basically have until June, and then the group is going to try to create a report, all right, before the general elections next year. Now I will tell you initially people who came out now, I believe in the town hall meeting in port of Spain, you had a grand total of 17 people coming. Now that speaks to the question you're raising. So there were 17 people. Other places you had slightly more. So that people are not showing great interest because they feel, feel it might be an exercise in futility given the shortness of time. So that is, that to my mind is your critical issue. Then some people are asking, how did you come up with certain names? Okay, who helped in the process of selecting the names? That has a question mark attached to it also. And as I said, the time frame, it seems limited. And the general impression is that you will not get a substantial, significant report where a lot of citizens are participating. [00:04:22] Speaker B: That should be concerning on several fronts, because all the discussions that I've had on the air and with people and everybody else suggest that this constitutional reform thing is so, so important, it's so relevant, it's so pressing. If we don't have it, it's because we will not be able to address many of the problems that confront us and all of that kind of thing. But the response to the consultations does not suggest that the narrative has been correct. Engaging public sentiment on this thing called constitutional reform. This morning some people said, yes, go. [00:05:00] Speaker C: Ahead, I want to share this with you. They comments from two. If I could recall, two of the members of this August team, to my mind, have not been very encouraging. For example, if you can recall, as someone I stick close attention to what is being said on the media and mainstream media and social media, I heard Doctor Terrence Farrell make a remark that completely shocked me in that he said in a forum, imagine the prime minister can't even hire or fire a commissioner of police. Now if he could admit to actually saying that. I have to ask a question, where is Doctor Farrell living? Because that is exactly why we have the problem today. All right. And you realize with Ula Christopher Day and the UNC did not support, all right, the amendment, again, you have a problem, all right. The same problem coming up, but extending the term, all right, for Ula Christopher, until you get a suitable candidate that can go to the parliament. So that the point is the major problem. And as one who sat on the police service Commission 2006 to 2009, your major problem is that in a special sense, the prime minister, all right, determines who is the commissioner of police. And that is what you don't want to have. You remember very well the PM didn't want Steve Williams at the time between 2006 to 2009, and it was vetoed and a noted criminologist says, we were trying to frustrate the political directorate. No, we were not trying to frustrate the political directorate. We feel the political directorate shouldn't tell the PSC directly or indirectly whom to choose. And I want to remind the PSC, when you sit down, all right, in your office, you have to choose the best person possible, all right? After all your examination and assessment, all right, done by a qualified and reputable HR film, you have to choose who is best, not who the prime minister wants. So you see what is happened. We have to depoliticize the process of choosing a police commissioner because let's go to Blissey Passad. You remember what happened, Blissey facade, right? The police service Commission submitted a name. It got stuck, all right, at the presidential house. And what happened there is that apparently a leading political functionary played a role in stopping that recommendation or recommendations from going to the president's house to the parliament. Now that is a very serious thing. That is one comment that was made by Doctor Farrell. The other one is I listened to Barry Sinnenon on what is called the very popular radio station 95.5. And I was very concerned because if I could understood him well and interpreted what he said, he was actually saying if they make a recommendation and there's a kind of checkmate, then the people should arise and make their voices heard. Now I don't know, my friend, but I was concerned about that and I feel he did himself no favors by making certain statements on the radio. Your job is to produce a report, that is your job. Not to tell the people in the population where they could rise up and make your voices heard. All right? If something's required and the recommendation is good, the population has to determine whether the recommendation is good or not. That is what I am saying. And I want to tell you I believe there are few voices who are calling for the referendum strategy to be introduced, all right. Into our laws. And I agree that totally. The copulation, for example, and it's like an executive president, I feel the population should have a say in that, all right? And I believe if you use things like the referendum, all right, in our political landscape, it will increase the possibility of having an authentic participatory democracy. [00:10:08] Speaker B: Yeah, pretty interesting discussion. We'll get back to this after this quick message. [00:10:13] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. [00:10:21] Speaker B: Welcome back. Our guest this morning, Pastor Clive Dorton. And of course you can join the conversation by calling us on 627-3223 and 625-2257 Pastor Dorton, there are, there have been many suggestions that constitutional reform can address some of the things that confront us. One of those is crime. And some persons have suggested that constitutional reform can go a long way and dealing with some of the problems that confront us when we try to address the crime situation. Do you agree or not? And what are some of the suggestions that. And I'm sure that over the years you would have been considering this and the many groups, the many hats that you would have worn probably would have brought some ideas to you. Can constitutional reform help us in the fight against crime? [00:11:10] Speaker C: Well okay. I want to call two names here and one name is Lloyd Best and the other name is Mister Pandy. All right. And they spoke to the issue of having an executive president and what you don't want. All right. And I have to say this that has to be taught out carefully because you don't want just to have a change in title where you transfer the power to the prime minister. Had look at Guyana. All right. The prime minister of Guyana, all right. Doesn't have much power. All right. The real person is the executive president. That's Irfan Ali. So that is system they have gone for the other issue that I think will relate to the issue of crime. Now some people are calling for the hangman, right? But the laws in terms of murder are on the statute books. You don't have to introduce that anymore. All right. Capital punishment, capital punishment is law. You commit murder, you're supposed to be killed. All right. To put it in a very raw sense, but I think the relevance of the solution of the gigantic amount of problems you have. All right. The relevance is if we have more people participating in the process of governance and that is where I come up with the proportional representation, whatever model you may choose. And people like Pandey and best and they, Hugh wooding, way back when saw the need, all right. For proportional representation. Doctor Williams response was to make a slight comment about the recalcitrant majority or minority or whatever you call it. But I believe that in our state of development now, proportional representation is not optional, it is compulsory. The two party system we have first passed the post has not helped us, it has alienated us. I'll give you one example of the ONR who got over 100,000 votes or near 100,000 and didn't win one seat. All right? And that means a significant amount of your voting public, you know, actually believe that your, your vote has been wasted. When people feel that way, you demotivate them and they become difficult to mobilize. So I am saying you want to have a constitutional reform process, all right, that has sufficient time, that involves the maximum number of people and is not seen as a rush to get a particular agenda. Now, let me ask you to say this. The Caribbean Court of Justice versus the privy council. Now that has become a rather contentious issue. And what is going on here is that there are feelings, all right, there are feelings about this. And some people feel that the government is not really interested in genuine constitutional reform, but would like. All right, a major item is the CCJ being approved as the final appellate court, all right, in preference to the privy council. So that is what some people think. That this is not to really reform the entire constitution, but to get, all right. Some decisions made that favor the political agenda. [00:15:05] Speaker B: Let's say we have a couple calls. Hello, good morning. [00:15:09] Speaker D: Good morning, Satish and good morning to your esteemed guest pastor dot in Princess Tong here. Good morning, listeners and mister doting. My opinion on constitutional reform or constitution itself didn't start with Hugh Wooden in the 1970s. And this is the fifth attempt they are making. I am asserting that this process started back in slavery and indentureship. [00:15:38] Speaker E: Law. [00:15:38] Speaker D: We are talking about law. And if we recall historically, the struggle to end slavery and have emancipation and indentureship, it all ended up or became a matter of law. And until it was not done in law, it couldn't happen. And that process continues. And yes, people may have their doubts, their concerns about the time factors, etcetera, including me. But I am saying this is an ongoing process. This is the fifth attempt by successive government to do something with the constitution. And I am saying we must not mix up enforcement of the law and the law itself. We have a lot of laws right now that are not enforced or not properly enforced. But it doesn't take away from the fact that we need a constitution that is relevant, that that meets the need of a changing and globalization or modern society. I mean, we can talk. I could give you ten items off the bat. So we need to fix that constitution. And until we don't fix the constitution, it's just like a game. If the rules of the game are not properly and in place, you could never have a good game and you would never have the outcome that you wish for. And that is one of the problems we have in entrance tobago, the expectations of the citizens. There is a disconnection with that and the constitution itself. So we go in a tailspin. Everybody blaming the MP's, the counselors, the police, the service commission, for example, are almost dysfunctional and irrelevant. And we can go on and on. I am saying we have to fix the constitution. Look at crime. You say, yes. I am saying, yes, the constitution reform can fix crime. Look at the problems with the granting of firearm users license. Now, why this couldn't be done by some other independent committee where the process can, can move at a faster pace. Look, that's just one item and so many items that can be done and things that can be done to bring improvement to the quality of life of citizens. So I am saying, regardless of how we feel about it politically, I am saying we should give it our best shot. Because, look, the UNC, Mister Pandas spent his whole life talking about constitutional reform. And what is the UNC position now on that? They had five years in government and all they gave us was a little pittance at the end, talking about proportionality in the selection of all the men at local government. And to me, that was a failure. So I am saying, whatever it is, citizens should come forward and participate, get our views going, because this process will not end in 25. This will go on forever. Thank you, princess. [00:18:36] Speaker B: Tom, thank you so much for your call. Pastor Dawson, your comments on what the caller had to say. [00:18:46] Speaker C: Well, could I comment? [00:18:49] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. Go right ahead. [00:18:51] Speaker C: Yes. What I want to say is the caller has a point. Now, what the UNC did when they were in governance was also a kind of rush thing. I think legislative reform committee that Prakash Ramada was in charge of did introduce some reform at the issue of some slight level or minor level of proportional representation with its election of Oliman based on the number of votes that the particular parties got. All right? So that nearly, that that was nearly not enough. And you see, what I always find, it's when you're in opposition, you have a lot to say about constitutional reform, all right, and campaign finance reform, which somehow has been put on the back burner. All right, that has been put on the back. But that's a serious issue that has to be addressed. And I believe it has to be addressed constitutionally, too, now. And the present constitution doesn't cater for that. So that is one point we have to raise. But apart from that, all right, things like camp, look how long the procurement legislation took, all right, before it, you know, it got somewhere. And still there are some question marks on it. And I remember I was in the Senate as an acting independent senator, and Stuart Young says he regarded them as twins. Procurement legislation and campaign finance reform. But up to now, not a word about campaign finance reform. So what I'm saying the slow pace of action on behalf of the parliament and parliamentarians has hurt us. And we have to look at the constitution as a catalyst for genuine reform and which puts a kind of break or stimulates action in terms of the parliamentary representation that we have now. There's another issue, and the other issue, I think, is a lot of thorough ventilation. And that issue is, should, should a member of parliament be a government minister so that he has parliamentary function as a member of parliament and also as a minister. And some people feel that should be separated. If you're a member of parliament, you see after your parliamentary remit, you see after your constituency, and if you are a government minister, you deal with the issue of the functions of that particular ministry for the whole island. There are people who feel it is impossible to be an effective member of parliament. All right. And also to be a government minister. So I thought I should mention that. [00:21:41] Speaker B: Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning. [00:21:44] Speaker F: Morning, switish. Morning, doctor. Morning, Pastor Dutting. [00:21:49] Speaker C: Hello. You have a. [00:21:52] Speaker F: You appoint a commission and you appoint a party hacker as a chairman. What you want me to do, I should be thinking, do die. You put a party hack as a commission. Some members of the commission have always said they have committed themselves in the commission. They want to get rid of the privy Council. One said that they go loitering by the privy council. Will I support that? Loitering? So people here, we don't know how to deal with them. The chairman is a party hack. And I swear to God that they want a PNM constitution. And that's the problem. They want to. I want a constitution, pastor, dotting where the people is supreme. We the people must be supreme. And we must be able to scrutinize to any office of the government, both individually and collectively. That's a general principle. A government must be subjugated to the people. [00:22:57] Speaker D: Subjugated to the people. [00:22:59] Speaker F: The government must be like a bogori to be kicked and coughed around. Today they have a field day that has to stop. But our constitution, Pastor Dutton, government authority must be subjugated to the scrutiny individually and collectively. Thank you. Would you like to comment on that, sir? [00:23:24] Speaker C: God bless. [00:23:25] Speaker B: Let's get your comments, Pastor Dutton. [00:23:30] Speaker C: Well, he raised a vital issue there. Now how we get to that goal or that vision is vitally important. Let me deal with this first comment. I believe that he's correct that a party person, all right. Who serve a particular party is not the best person to be chairman of a con. And this is no disrespect being meted out to Mister Sinnenon. But clearly, all right, given all the divisive nature of the politics, I believe he's right in that it is better to appoint someone who was not identified with a political party and so deep in with a political party. All right, so I agree with that. If you want to have transparency, if you want to have effective accountability, then you have to put someone who, you know, appears to be neutral and is not a party card and up to recently dynamic participant in the politics of that specific party. So I believe he's right on that. [00:24:45] Speaker B: Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning. [00:24:49] Speaker E: Good morning. Pastor Dutton, to start where you jumped off a while ago, I just want to say to you that Barringer Finanan does not preside over the constitution review commission. He simply chairs it. He has been a speaker and I do not think that there has been anything brought against him then to say that he was not an impartial jurist where speakership is concerned. Now, secondly, Pastor Latino, I want to. [00:25:16] Speaker C: Say this to you. [00:25:17] Speaker E: I hear your pangs in relation to the constitution review permission. I have my own. I do not know if they advertise these meetings by megaphone in the area before they start them because I consider myself to be fully politically aware and keeping abreast of things and I don't even know when they hold meetings. I was surprised to hear I had a meeting in Princess Town some time ago. I am hoping I don't miss the one in Shibonas and I'm going to contact them today to make sure that I do not because I want to be there. But that aside, Pastor Dutton, all of the views which you exposed this morning, I think you have a responsibility to gather persons of like minds and attend these meeting, make your submission, impress upon them and let it be known. Because at the end of the day, like Princess Chung observed, this is the vehicle at present that is saying to us, tell us what you want for constitutional reform. I have been begging for it for three decades. I have my own ideas and I want those ideas to be heard. So I believe to myself, pastor, that is you ought to ensure that persons who of like minds, like you does ensure that their foot is in the door, that they have a place at the table, that their views are properly well prosecuted. So at the end of the day, the outcome could come out of what you have to offer. Thank you. [00:26:36] Speaker C: Okay, let me hustle to tell you I have made. I am part of a major coup that is finalizing our report to the constitute commission but I have already submitted, you know, my recommendations to the committee and I have been in contact with the secretariat of the committee. So I am, I am playing my role right now. [00:26:58] Speaker B: Speaking of a call. Hello. Good morning. [00:27:01] Speaker A: Good morning. Satish, original. And your guest there, pastor. [00:27:07] Speaker C: Yes, Ali. [00:27:08] Speaker A: Yes. This team wind band is about for quite a while, reform that is wide ranging. And apparently listening to the program is just picnicking this morning. You know, it has been scholars and whatever, but this is more wide ranging what affecting our country and is due to the Westminster system that we adopted from the English. And a lot of that need changing. You see the runnings of parliament, election of speaker, the election of independence, independent bodies. And once the body politic has been so closely related in having these offices filled, I think we will, if that remains, we would be in a lot of problems for a long time. And I not talking about PNM, I talk about politically, any party, right. Because of course they use these things to, you know, to benefit them, these offices, right. And it has been bandied about that. Right. So I think, and with the low turnout, I think I try to attend, but the way of you just come walking and going to that, I believe you have to go online and state whatever and what. And I think it's a bit of hassle. I, as a senior citizen and not really accurate with computer whatsoever. It is. I think that is one of the reason for a low turnout. Right. I will listen over there. Thank you. [00:28:38] Speaker B: Thank you so much. [00:28:39] Speaker C: If I could respond, I know what time is running out, but if I should respond quickly, if people do not see value in what you're doing, all right. And that's a function of leadership. People have to see value in what you're doing because I'll be honest with you, how we operate. And you mentioned our present brand of the Westminster system that we are following. People generally would feel that if x parties in power, they'll want constitutional changes that will benefit them and they will not want. All right. Constitutional changes that will benefit the other side. That is just the truth. And that's because we have managed our diversity well. A lot of people see diversity as a threat to their position and to their power and greed and corruption, you know, happen to be killing us. And I just want to mention that, okay, that we have to have respect for the other side. And until we come to the level of maturity that we could cater for all, and not only those who support us and the sycophants, etcetera, then we're in trouble. And quickly, I want to mention something. Look at internal elections of political parties. I would suggest that if you have internal elections, there's free and fair. You cannot talk about having democracy and honesty at the national level if in your own party people have serious question marks of how internal elections are fought. And apart from that, okay, to my mind, in our two major parties, as somebody goes up to challenge the leader, they are instantly demonized. So that when we look at the constitution for the whole country, we also have to see what is taking place in the life and in the functioning and the operations of people within their parties. Because to my mind, if you don't have democracy in your group, in your political organization, you cannot be a role model for democracy at the national level. [00:30:47] Speaker B: Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning. [00:30:50] Speaker G: Yeah, good morning. Satish pastor doting. Good morning to you, sir. [00:30:54] Speaker C: Morning. Morning. Yeah. [00:30:56] Speaker G: Gentlemen, there's a feeling of hopelessness that pervades the society. Currently. Part of it has to do with the fact that anything that has to happen, anything that is worth doing, you have to get permission from the leader. And when the leader feels to do something, if he feels to do something, when he feels to do something, that is the only time something's going to happen. Constitutional reform is a very good example. And we can come and we could participate, we could make suggestions. And ultimately, you know, those suggestions are going to be collated and handed over to the political directorate. And the final decision is, yes, that's the dichotomy of this entire process, that regardless of what we want, they will pick and choose what to actually reform, and it defeats the purpose of the process. Pastor Dutton, how can we go about more forcing? Because these are the people, the leaders are the people who are finally saying, yes, we're going ahead with this or no, we're not going ahead with that. How can we get more into the nuts and bolts of this thing and have more impact as a people and get what we want done, actually done. Alison of the air. Thank you. [00:32:10] Speaker C: Okay. In answer to that question, I think the individuals in the society must recognize how important they are. The politicians, you know, don't want people to really recognize how important and how powerful they could be. And I believe, all right, at the community level, at the village council level, people must state their views and demand accountability from those in office. All right, while I agree that we have to consider deeply whether members of parliament. All right. Should have ministerial portfolios or stick to seeing about the needs of the constituency, while I understand that when people talk about leadership, a lot depends on our leadership, apply the rules of democracy. And to my mind, leaders must be role models of a democratic spirit. That is what I want to see in closing today. And we must demand of our leaders and not let the leaders pull wool over our eyes, because generally what I have seen in this country, leaders of the political organization in this country do not think of the other side. They think of their side, their party, their group, their power, their benefits. That is what they think about. And therefore, we as people must arise in a very respectful manner but demand accountability of our leader. [00:33:38] Speaker B: Yeah. And Pastor darling, that's, we're going to have to leave it here this morning. It's been a very interesting discussion, as always, and I'm sure that we barely scratched the surface and some of the things we were supposed to discuss here this morning. But I'm sure that we'll have you back again because these discussions aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And they're very, very relevant to us as a people as we move forward. I want to thank you for being with us here this morning, as always. [00:34:00] Speaker C: God bless. God bless. [00:34:02] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.