BULL IN A CHINA SHOP

I’d, a moment before, steupsed unreservedly at my friend of many years, but she’d pressed my sorest nerve early Friday morning by calling from Barbados and right off the bat, asking, “But, what we Trinis have with Fridays?” Her question, a purely rhetorical one, had evoked the loud steups because I knew instantly that her “Fridays” statement could only mean that the latest chapter of what I had dubbed “The Chandresh Shammer” soap opera — his robber talk about defying the Speaker by going to Parliament Friday afternoon — had reached Barbados and Jah alone knows where else. Mr Shammer had attained regional, if not global notoriety. He was the talk of many a town, and I was truly fed up because in my opinion, Shammer was no champion, but a clown who was trying to turn our Parliament into the best three-ring circus around.

I definitely didn’t give a hoot what happened to him Friday afternoon. He could become a martyr for a teacup for all I cared, though I didn’t think he had the nerve to follow through on his threat. I was so entirely tired of Shammer that I had even thought of tossing out the small tea set given to me as a house warming present. The sole thing that saved the colourful little collection was the suspicion that such an enormous display of ingratitude could and would bring a stinging backlash from the god of all gifts. My friend’s second declaration that morning did nothing to temper my annoyance because it confirmed my conclusion that TT’s Shammer stupidity had spread offshore.

“The Barbados news media is saying that ‘Trinis are poised’ in anticipation of this afternoon’s drama,” she reported. I steupsed anew.  “Poised?” I retorted. “The only thing this Trini is poised to do is have breakfast.” Realising that the mere mention of “Shammer” was my proverbial red flag, my friend suggested that we switch to a subject less upsetting and inane, a proposal I agreed was both safe and sound. For my part, I recognised that an apology was in order. “Look, I’m sorry,” I said. “It’s not you. It’s just that I’m really fed up of this teacup nonsense. It’s been months, almost a year.” After ringing off, I realised that I’d better avoid any conversation about Chandresh Shammer on Friday, though I knew this would be difficult. Trinis loved a bacchanal and Shammer had created a hell of a melee in a teacup, a fracas large enough to distract the attention of many from the hundred and thirty something murders.

I had my own questions on Friday morning though, as I’d had many mornings before then. My questions were not for my friend, but for the UNC and they were none of them rhetorical. Why had the Opposition allowed or encouraged Shammer to derail and split the party, to indulge in petty, bound to lose politics? Didn’t the UNC understand that as long as it continued to make a song and dance about Shammer, questions of national import such as the beyond belief murder toll would always play second fiddle to Shammer? Didn’t the UNC see that while it carved a place for Shammer in the political sun and cried “teacup”, the Government was like a thief in the night, taking away our rights and liberties? This regime had already got the judiciary to declare the Equal Opportunity Act unconstitutional and had not fulfilled its promise to take the Act back to Parliament.

The Freedom of Information Secretariat had been all but dismantled even as Government took giant legislative steps to withhold as much information as possible from the public. What about the Draft Broadcast Code, an insulting, egregious policy document whose intent could only be to stifle freedom of expression and turn us all into children of a “moral,” paternalistic State? How had the UNC treated this rickety treatise, a document drafted not after extensive research on the impact of “hate” radio, but because the Government’s Telecom Authority felt that a code was needed? The UNC didn’t treat it at all, didn’t ask for supporting statistics. It didn’t challenge the telecom body’s dubious assertion that “Trinidad and Tobago was on the road to Rwanda” by demanding that the telecom authority provide evidence that radio in Rwanda caused the genocide there. 

The UNC didn’t ask obvious rhetorical questions such as whether radio and TV have exercised a greater impact on our daily lives, culture and society than say, the importation of foreign used cars? A noticeable consequence of greater car ownership in TT has been a phenomenal increase in traffic and traffic deaths, yet there has been no move by this (or any) administration to introduce legislation to ease the congestion on our roads. We are still awaiting the arrival of the Breathalyser Bill to stop drunk driving. Time there has been aplenty however, to draft a broadcast code and to frighten us with bloody images of Rwanda into believing that this ill-conceived code is a matter of TT’s life and death. And amidst all of this confiscation of our rights, the UNC is preoccupied with protecting Shammer’s liberties when he has been the architect of his own predicament. 

I also had questions Friday morning about the UNC’s future plan of political action. Like how the Opposition would combat Government’s retrograde plan to amend the Judicial Review Act of 2000, a piece of legislation the PNM described as “good” when “on the other side,” but which it now clearly deemed a nuisance. UNC jefe Basdeo Panday had declared ignorance of the altering legislation when asked by a reporter to comment on the 2005 bill.

The reporter should have asked Panday about teacups. Here was the PNM on the flimsiest of bases, literally seeking to castrate the 2000 legislation by limiting the categories of persons who could apply for judicial review and the UNC was busy talking Shammer and broken teacups. Shammer’s shattered ego and his pique were of more import than the mutilation of the original Act which would see public interest matters tossed out the court window and with them, a crucial vested right. What was the UNC’s strategy with regard to this backward bill which would unfetter this 2020 Government from accountability? Who knew? Did we any longer care? I was certain of the answer to only one question Friday morning. If called upon to defend the people’s right to unbroken china, the Opposition UNC would fight for us with all its might. Of that we could rest assured. We could now all sleep safe. suz@itrini.com

Footnote: A question for the AG. If the Judicial Review Act 2000 is amended to exclude public interest action, can a group of little people, little ones such as I — you know, non MPs — challenge the PM’s decision to take over the Red House?