Nothing wrong in Red House move

THE EDITOR: I am absolutely amazed at arguments advanced by the promoters of the move to oppose the shifting of parliamentary functions to a new building, specifically structured to accommodate the sectional divisions required for the operations of an efficient modern parliament.

The Red House, as it is called, perhaps for its red paint, but with no special significance politically, was built in colonial times, for the effective domination of a colonial power over a subject people. Originally it was built to carry out the functions of an autocratic governor from overseas and whose allegiance was to an overseas regime. The locals had no say, whatsoever, in foreign relationships, and very little in domestic matters. The Red House at that time represented total domination, but some are prone to say  damnation. The Red House is not a landmark which we can sincerely speak of with deep national pride. It is a symbol of the power of a colonising master over hapless colonists. Much more can be said about this.

I believe that the people who oppose the shift to new quarters for our Parliament, are not true patriots. They do not deserve that name. They are citizens with no patriotic fervour, perhaps one can say ‘flavour.’ I think sincerity is not part of their ‘Big Truck’ carnival character. Moreover, I believe, without any doubt, that they are not aware of the historical background of our country, a background replete with changes. Firstly, the earliest known natives were primitive people from the Orinoco hinterland. They called the island ‘Cairi’ which when translated means: ‘The Land of the Humming Bird.’ The Humming Bird is still with us, but ownership of the land changed. The Spaniards became the colonising power. They established their capital inland and called it ‘San Jose de Oruna. Now its name is St Joseph.

The next major change was the removal of the capital to the seaside by the Spaniards who named it ‘Puerto de los Espanoles.’ After the British captured La Trinidad they changed the name of the capital from the Spanish language to English, calling it Port-of-Spain, which in my mind need to be changed again, to one befitting the capital city of an independent Republic. Another major change was the shifting of the course of the Dry River, a Port-of-Spain landmark. What I am pointing out here is that there were outstanding changes in the past, and we should not obstruct important developmental changes merely through feelings. We continue to develop to nationhood, and national changes must inevitably occur even after we have attained social adulthood.

At this point in time we can no longer think of an island Republic in isolation from the rest of the world. There are interrelationships, strong ones, which we are forced to heed when considering our many policies, especially the international ones. In effect we are affected by worldwide changes and we certainly have to adapt ourselves to the full forces of international winds. A common saying is that the voice of the people is the voice of God. This must be written down as a profound fallacy, for it is written: ‘Broad is the road that leads to damnation and narrow is the path to Heaven.’ This speaks forcefully for itself. Many people can be wrong, and yet a few can be right. This has proven to be realism through the ages. It was the case with Christopher Columbus. His idea was that the world was round in shape like an orange, and not like a ‘johnny’ bake. When he said that he would sail west and return from the east, many thought that he was mad. Now the whole world can see that he could not have been more correct about the description he made of the shape of the world.

The idea of removing the seat of our government to a new location was inevitable. Apart from the fact that the present building is symbolic of the domination of a colonising power over a powerless people, it also represents the shame and disgrace of the social relationships then instituted among mankind with little exhibition of any kindness of the human heart, but with the distinct connotations of radical bias. To enhance our development socially, we need buildings built by a free people, and constructed with all relevant amenities for their proper functioning. Buildings that would be veritable indicators of our efforts to attain national adulthood. Buildings not left to us by our overlords, but buildings that adequately fulfil our earnest desire for suitable modern accommodations utilising the benefits of technological developments worldwide. In conclusion I must state that one can easily discern that there are among us people who are neglecting to use reason to promote social endeavours. This is appalling and has to be altered if we are to make social progress toward the 20/20 deadline for our adulthood as a nation in reasonable time.

OTHELLO  DEMOOR
Toco Main Road