Herself to herself?

Diana Mahabir-Wyatt

Last Saturday, short on free time, I read only one newspaper. I am a media addict, and subject to early-morning work obligations, usually read all three dailies.

I confess that I do so with pen in hand, because, with an editing background among my youthful indiscretions, my right eye starts to twitch when I come across poor grammar, punctuation, and crooked spelling. It is a daily occurrence, I am afraid, so it keeps my facial muscles well exercised, while my brain gets to work on the gravamen of what is happening in TT on a deeper political scale.

Last week it happened to be an excellent issue of Newsday, so I was able to read all the way through without being distracted by compulsive copyediting.

What leapt out at me was the galloping tendency of senior members of government to make directive statements. As they were all newly back from a Cabinet retreat at which I imagine – as happens at the many executive business retreats where I have been present in one capacity or another, over the years – policy was discussed, and recommended, to be made the foundation of the organisation’s strategy plan for the coming year (or two or five).

And speak out they did, announcing the totalitarian directions they intend to pursue.

Does anyone read these announcements before they go out? Do they know how they sound?

The implementation of a remote-work policy for the public service was one announcement. There was no indication of why, or any intention of thereby improving service to the public, however: it is to make it easier for the government employees. Perhaps service to the public is no longer a priority?

Will this new policy improve the communication service? When was the last time you tried to get service by telephone from any government ministry or agency? I acknowledged the familiar experience of Richard Lobo in his letter to the press that day, pointing out his four-hour attempt, via chat, Facebook, and Messenger, to get a response from one such organisation.

We don’t even try the phone any more, as we know there will be no response.

With the budget looming and still no resolution of wage and salary negotiations, the government was moving to rule by directive, not by discuss-and-agree.

You will also notice the announcement in the same issue of Newsday that applications for licences for certain agricultural imports and exports will now only be done online.

Isn’t that dictate going to hamper the entire community of farming folk who are not able to afford or able to utilise online apps? Or all they all working online in areas that have free access to the internet?

Columnist Vaniesha Baksh pointed out the “callous and insensitive” statement by the Education Minister about soaring temperatures that would have led to her removal from office anywhere else, but here didn’t even rate an apology. So that’s all right, then? And the Trade Minister said, in handing out Lutterloh pattern-making kits to 50 aspiring entrepreneurial seamstresses, that each kit they were getting was worth $50,000.

I checked that on the internet, and Google reported that each one was only worth US$229 (equivalent to TT$1,142).

Perhaps the Cabinet retreat did not include a warning that some members of the public will go online to check for themselves if there is truth in political promises.

Public experience with the truth of political claims being what they are, when I checked online, it said the “kits” included a measuring tape, an acrylic curve and an instructional video on pattern-making.

Either all the hopeful, unemployed women have internet access, or the minister understands that some women do not, so she will be supplying the necessary equipment as well.

I find that the public is far more discerning in their judgement of political pronouncements than it is given credit for.

Do not misunderstand me when I appear not to be understanding of what the new government policies are leading towards.

The President of TT, whom I have always admired, who, according to what I understand of the Constitution, is the President of all of us – of every creed and race, gender and political opinion – last week announced that it was time for legislation for self-governance for Tobago to be enacted.

The question of self-rule for Tobago is, as we all know, one of the hottest political issues this country has faced over decades. I remember the debates in Parliament on the issue when I was an independent member of the Senate myself, listening with avid interest to the very passionate arguments from one side and the other.

They did not agree, of course. They never do.

What our current President is publicly advocating reflects only the opinion of one political side of that debate, not the agreement of all Tobagonians, by a long shot.

Is the President allowed to do that?

The majority of Tobago residents themselves, in a poll, came out against it, which, of course, does not bind our current President in any way; but I thought that there was a clause in the Constitution that mandated that the President be politically neutral. Guess not.

When I spent an hour or so going over the Constitution, today I came across Section 38, in chapter three, which says, “Subject to section 38, the President shall not be answerable to any court for the performance of the functions of his office or for any act done by him in the performance of those functions.”

He means also she, so I guess that is what it is, then?

That would be consistent with the tendency toward dictatorial policies reflected by the several ministerial statements recorded above from the press over the last week.

Section 80 of the Constitution, however, states that: "In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other law, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet except in cases where other provision is made by this Constitution or such other law, and without prejudice to the generality of this exception, in cases where by this constitution or such other law he is required to act."

Can anyone explain what this means in the present context?

Did Cabinet, during the recent retreat decide something about Tobago's self-rule and the functions of the President that nobody has told us about?