The Editor: The Australian test and one day teams are apparently totally prepared with regard to the following:  nutrition (diet), physiology (fitness), kinaesthesis (limb and body movement) and physical (skills). Furthermore, perhaps their greatest strength is their toughness. The author of mental toughness claims that his experience and research have influenced him to identify toughness as having three elements: physical, mental and emotional. However, Australia have gone beyond preparation and application in the areas mentioned above. They are also ruthless in their application of psychological warfare when “in the middle.” Let me give two examples of this. I want to believe that many keen observers would have seen and interpreted them.

The Australians practise sledging. This type of psychological warfare is not done because they dislike the batsman, want to make him feel bad or just attack his ego and self esteem. They practise sledging because they are aware that distractions can adversely affect concentration/focus. They know from theory and experience that when they sledge a batsman by cursing him, calling him derogatory names or using stereotypes etc, they will place the mentally ill-prepared batsman somewhere on the continuum of upset to anger. When a negative emotion is aroused, the batsman is distracted and loses his ideal performance in at least three realms: (1) concentration (2) stress recovery balance and (3) enjoying his batting. The Australians are aware that when a batsman is experiencing any of these debilitating mental, physiological and emotional states, he is more likely to get out. This is why Mc Garth, one of the best bowlers in the world, sledged Sarwan in the Queen’s Park Oval during the third test. Obviously our cricketers need training in mental and psychological preparation and application from a sport psychologist so that they will not be adversely affected by this resort to distraction.

Another psychological warfare practice of the Australians is used on umpires. They do this to influence the umpire to make a wrong decision. They are very successful at achieving this demeaning objective. If the reader is in doubt, just get the frequency with which West Indies batsmen suffered wrong umpiring decisions compared with the Australians. In the first Test, television replays indicated that four West Indian batsmen were given out wrongfully during our first innings. This set the disgraceful tone for the entire series. Perhaps the most glaring example of psychological warfare waged by the Australians on an umpire was the wrongful dismissal of Ridley Jacobs in the fourth innings of the fourth Test. The television replay indicated that the ball hit Jacobs above his elbow. Mr Shepherd, who arguably is one of the best umpires in the world, gave Jacobs out. The appeal gesticulations and behaviours of Brett Lee, the bowler, and Gilchrist, their wicket keeper, were a form of psychological warfare. They were designed to influence the perception of the umpire that the ball had hit either Jacobs’s glove or bat.

The umpire did not see the ball had hit either, however the psychological warfare was effective. Jacobs had to walk to the pavilion. Furthermore, despite the physical pain in his upper arm and the emotional pain from being wrongfully given out, if Jacobs had used body language to show dissent with the umpire’s decision, he could have been fined a percentage of his match fee and be deemed an unworthy sportsman. The Australians should not be allowed to degrade cricket these ways. The solution to the first type of psychological warfare is the International Cricket Council should make sledging or any other practice to distract batsmen or bowlers illegal. With regard to the second type of psychological warfare, intimidating or attempts to unduly influence the umpire to give a wrong decision, the third umpire should be allowed to use the technologies at his disposal. If necessary, he can tell the umpire to call back the unfairly treated batsman. The technologies should also be used when a bowler does not get a decision in his favour when the batsman should have been given out.

Courtney  H  Boxill
Psychologist
Centre for Sports Psychology

The Editor: Several recent statements have indicated that the state may have to pay an amount of $200 million for the compulsory acquisition of Pigeon Point Estate, Tobago. I believe that the persons making such statements either do not understand the true situation concerning the Pigeon Point Estate or are attempting to deter the legitimate acquisition of this property by the Tobago House of Assembly. In this context, I wish to present to the public the following factors that I believe should be taken into consideration in determining the true market value of the estate. Firstly, more than sixty percent of Pigeon Point Estate can be classified as wetlands that have little or no potential for physical development based on existing policy.

Secondly, a significant portion of the rest of the estate falls within the parameters set out in the Three Chains (Tobago) Act and can be utilised by the State for establishing pubic roadways or erecting public buildings without compensation to the present owners. Thirdly, the more recent physical undertaken by the present owners or occupiers has allegedly been done without the necessary planning permission. If this proves to be correct, then the State should not attach any monetary value to such development for acquisition purposes. Fourthly, the future owners or occupiers may have to bear the cost of restoring the coastal vegetation that has recently been destroyed, along with the remediation of the coastal erosion that is expected will occur as a result of the loss of the coastal vegetation. When one takes the above stated factors into consideration, one should understand that attaching a $200 million price tag for the acquisition of Pigeon Point Estate is non-sensical and may be a desperate attempt at frustrating the legitimate wishes of the majority of Tobagonians.

Kamau Akili,
Scarborough,
Tobago

THE EDITOR: There is a restaurant in Port-of-Spain, a part of which bears the name of one of our indigenous trees. The dried leaves of this tree are sometimes boiled by country folk to make a nostrum for coughs and colds. In newspaper ads, this tea shop is referred to as “Bois Kano.” Writing in a newspaper recently, a columnist listed this same tree as “Bois Cannot.” Apparent uncertainty about the correct spelling has prompted me, for the benefit of your readers and of posterity, to explain its etymology.
If one were to cut a cross-section of the trunk of this tree, one would discover that it is hollow much in the same way as the muzzle of a cannon. Because of this characteristic, the French, when they settled here, called it cannon wood which in their language is “Bois Canon.” It is to be noted that the “on” in “canon” is given in French a deep nasal sound which makes the misspelt “kano” a close approximation, pronunciation wise that is.

RAOUL  DUCHAUSSEE
11  Seventh  Street
Mt  Lambert

THE EDITOR: Please print the following for us, Thank You. His Grace, Archbishop E Gilbert, Maraval Road, Port-of-Spain. This is an open letter to you from concerned Parishioners of Manzanilla. We would like you to ask those in charge, why has our youngest and most vibrant and charismatic lay minister is not with us? This young man is a true live-wire in all communities for our parish, a hard worker doing services, visiting the sick, going all out for our annual harvest, he has a good relation with the old, not so old and young. But because he is outspoken on issues and straightforward, he has been like “Jesus Christ” (crucified).

Now that they have crucified him, called him all the kind of names and persecuted him, he is with us no more. What a shame on our parish. Please we beg you as Bishop to come to us, speak to us in person and let the people openly tell you of this young man. We want him, we need him. Thank you and God bless. Respectfully yours.

T JOHN
For and on behalf of Parishioners
of Manzanilla Parish

THE EDITOR: The solution to solving the Wrightson Road bottleneck is a very simple one. On each side of this road we have ten feet wide pavements, the traffic island is at least twelve feet wide. We can use two feet wide culverts to replace the traffic island. Six feet wide pavements can replace those monsters that not too many people use. Landfill can widen the area around the lighthouse. Traffic Branch must be relocated. (Doesn’t anyone see the daily chaos?) I am sure we can find some free land (ask a squatter, or better yet Pan Trinbago) somewhere to modernise (there is something now called computers) and house this important department. (I am asking the PM to give  priority to this project over the relocation of parliament.) Install modern traffic lights and well-marked pedestrian lines for our most important asset. For our environmentalists, the trees will be replaced by hanging flowerpots. (Visit Canadian cities for know how). About twenty feet of extra width can turn this into a six-lane roadway.

With accommodations for exits and merges, we can have at least two free-flowing lanes at all times. How about turning the Bus Route and the Eastern Main Road each into one-way flows opened to all traffic from Port-of-Spain to Tunapuna. With modern traffic lights and well-marked pedestrian lines, we can have four free-flowing lanes each way. Build one-way access road ways to these routes for both pedestrians and vehicles. Install lighted (people friendly), covered taxi shelters. This is doable, and will surely eliminate the congestion on the Eastern Main Road making it people friendly to those of us who don’t prefer maxis. For the VIPs, they will still have their free traffic flow, but will get an added bonus “to see how the other side lives.” The government will save by not having to issue passes.

I cannot understand how anyone can justify that the Bus Route brings added benefit to a selected few users to get to their important destination on time. If there is merit to this way of thinking, the question waiting to be asked is how come we don’t have similar routes for example in the south where traffic is just as severe. Why can’t we for once think of all our people as owning up to the same rights? If you ask me, it is only to make people with the likes of Abu Bakr and police (with their countless shopping for their girlfriends trips) think they are better than us. How much are these projects going to cost, and where is the money for funding to come from you ask? It is quite very simple. We are spending over five hundred million dollars per year on URP and CEPEP, not counting the Ministry of Works with little or nothing to show for it except a few painted pebbles.

You know we can build a new airport every two years with this money. (Every four years under the other guys.) With this wasted money, we can build these projects many times over. And with the explicit contractual understanding that at least twenty five percent of the workers needed are hired as new trainees. The government will have something to show off as money well spent. Improved infrastructure. No traffic jams. The Unions will be happy. The population will see advancement. The VIP’s and police’s girlfriends will be mad as hell. And most importantly, the people, our people, our most important asset will gain in wealth, in education, self-worth and belonging. Better than painting pebbles to make a ten days. A peek at 2020 vision you say? No, just common sense.

NIZAM MOHAMMED
San Juan

The Editor: Some of the firms in TT today are beginning to engage IT companies to develop significant bespoke intelligent systems i.e. systems that are specially developed to meet the specifications of the client. These systems are in general a mix of hardware and software. The specifications document, the contract requirements document, may be developed by the client and the company in concert. This document remains the property of the client and the company is usually paid a fee for its participation in this phase. The next step in the process is for the company, based on the client’s specifications document, to prepare a design of a system that will meet the ‘specs’ for the approval of the client. This stage brings out the creativity and innovation of the company. When this is approved by the client, the company implements the system according to the design.

The client would then accept the system after it passes its acceptance tests. These tests are also designed jointly by the client and the company so when applied they demonstrate whether the system meets the specifications or not. The legal situation is that the company owns the design and other accompanying intellectual property. If it is only software, its copyright is owned by the company and the client will at least be given the sole right to use the system for its own use. If the client decides to sell copies of the system to others, the company may give its permission for such use with accompanying royalty fees per sale. In TT there is a misunderstanding by some clients, that because they have commissioned a company to develop such a system, they also legally own the intellectual property contained in the product.

Yet, no one ever disputes that the architectural design of a building is the intellectual property of the architect though the client may own the building. So much so that the client cannot repeat the same building on another site without the consent of the architect. The client may have exclusive use of the design for that particular instance of the building, but does not own the intellectual property. It is the same with intelligent systems. However, most things are for sale and by contract the client may purchase all of the property rights, including the right to reuse over and over the design etc as though it were its own. The point however, is that the intellectual property imbedded in a bespoke intelligent system inherently belongs to the creator and not the client who commissions the work.

St Clair A King
Port-of-Spain

THE EDITOR: There’s an urgency for the Ministry of Education to investigate the teaching system of a deep south school. I was an unfortunate witness to an incident that took place between the principal and a male Form Five student during school hours. On Tuesday May 6, the principal told the student to get his “… …” off the school’s compound. The student also used obscene in his reply and so did the principal. This continued for some time in front of many other students including female students. Apparently, the Form Five student was wrongfully accused by the principal of demolishing one of the school’s toilets and the principal went into such a rage on seeing the student that he had to express how much he wanted the student off the compound.

It was, however, very embarrassing to actually witness the head of an educational institution display such behaviour in front of his students. Shouldn’t the Ministry intervene? His behaviour has brought to light, reasons why the school is in such a dilapidated condition. Deans no longer handle students’ misbehaviour, discipline is down to zero, and everyone seems to be going about their own business. The situation here is as if there is no principal present at all. Perhaps the Ministry should notify the public: Vacancy — Principal needed for deep south school.

ASHA  SINANAN
Form Four student