Not so, Mr Hinds

AS AN attorney at law and an experienced parliamentarian, Mr Fitzgertald Hinds, the member for Laventille East/Morvant, should know better than seeking to aggravate the racial tensions and undercurrents that exist in the country's political life. In his years of debating in the House, Mr Hinds has developed a gift for biting, even acerbic, repartee, but on Thursday, to the surprise and dismay of even his colleagues on the Government benches, Mr Hinds went overboard by recalling the late Dr Eric Williams' attacks on the Indian community in the early days of the PNM. Those references should have been best left forgotten, as part of a particular episode in our political history. Worse yet, Mr Hinds' use of them in the House was quite unnecessary to a rebuttal of the Opposition's criticism of the Immigration (Caricom Skilled Nationals) Amendment Bill 2003 which raised fears that the legislation would lead to an influx of Caricom nationals into TT seeking jobs and which accused the Government of attempting to obtain "votes by boat."

Instead of pointing to the limitations and constraints contained in the Bill, the PNM backbencher chose to delve into Williams' autobiography, Inward Hunger, quoting lengthy passages in which the late PM lambasted the Indian community for being what he described as "a hostile and recalcitrant minority" and accusing them of having a false allegiance to TT and bringing out the Indian vote "by hook or by crook." Hinds declared: "This is the danger facing the people of Trinidad and Tobago — exploiting race as the basis of political power. Dr Williams saw it as a danger then, and it is a danger now."

If on a political platform Mr Hinds wants to deal with the racially-charged fulminations of Mr Basdeo Panday, then we would have no quarrel with that. We ourselves have condemned the UNC leader for appealing to the ethnic instincts of his supporters. However, Thursday's debate on this Bill, regardless of what Mr Hinds may have thought about the Opposition's contribution, was certainly not the time and place for digging up Dr Williams' attacks on the Indian community who, by the way, no longer comprise a "minority" of our population. In the context of the debate, we can see no pertinent reason for Mr Hinds' gambit. How does it serve to refute the arguments presented by members of the Opposition? If the UNC charges are unfounded, that the Government plans to use the extended immigration categories to bring in Caricom workers into TT and so increase its political support, then Mr Hinds' task should be to use the provisions of the Bill to prove otherwise.

As far as we are concerned, we are not satisfied that the Bill provides this kind of assurance, since the categories now included, "artistes, musicians, sports persons and media workers" are general ones and, without any kind of specificity, are open to varying interpretations. For example, is TT obligated to grant residential status to a Caricom citizen once he or she is certified by any Caricom state "as holding qualifications which satisfy the conditions for recognition of Caribbean Community Skills qualification"? But getting back to Mr Hinds; is he seeking to justify the Opposition charges by reminding them of what Dr Williams had to say about the Indian community, that they brought out the vote "by hook or by crook"? Is he telling the Opposition, so what if we voter pad by this Bill, remember what Dr Williams said about you, and it still applies. Mr Hinds has opened himself to Opposition charges of propagating  racial hatred. Perhaps on sober reflection and on the advice of his colleagues he will realise his error.