Discrimination and national observances

All aspects of discrimination should be placed on the national agenda for debate particularly the pervasive institutionalised discrimination by the state. The latest illustration of this is the recent promotion of 400 policemen and women of whom six are Indo Trinidadians. This issue, however, will be addressed in a subsequent column.

As I mentioned in my previous column, the public holiday that particularly perturbs the PNM Government and its support base is Indian Arrival Day. As the person who proposed and piloted the motion through its odyssey in the House of Representatives to have May 30 declared a public holiday, I have a special interest in any attempt to dispense with it which, by being targeted, could itself be considered discriminatory.

In support of my motion I made many arguments which continue to be relevant today. The most significant of these was the historical basis for the commemoration. I said in the House in August 1991-: “Had they (the indentured workers from India) not come to this country, then Trinidad and Tobago as it is today- as a plural society, as a society with diverse cultural affinities, as a society with diverse creeds — would not have been what it is. Therefore, one cannot deny that the first coming of the indentured immigrants from India to this society was of immense significance to the history of Trinidad and Tobago.”

If indeed Indian Arrival Day is considered problematic, we should examine all the other holidays which are of historical import. These include Baptists Liberation Day (March 30), Butler Day (June 19), Emancipation Day (August 1), Independence Day (August 31) and Republic Day (September 24). Though all these public holidays have historical significance, they are nevertheless primarily associated with the concerns, sentiments and experiences of particular groups in the society rather than with the history of the country as a whole. The exception here is Independence Day. Liberation Day is primarily observed by Baptists, Butler Day by the organised workers (a minority of workers) and Emancipation Day by the people of African descent. Republic Day has limited meaning since it heralded little progressive change in our basic constitutional arrangements. If it is felt that Indian Arrival Day is applicable only to citizens of Indian descent and should be eliminated as a national holiday, then, in the interest of fairness and equality of treatment, all the above-mentioned holidays except Independence Day should be removed.

With respect to religious public holidays, we have four Christian holidays ie Good Friday, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi and Christmas, and one each for the Hindus and Muslims ie Divali and Eid. If we are committed to pursuing secular ideals then all national religious holidays should be abolished. However, if we decide to retain such holidays, we cannot be oblivious to the preponderance of Christian holidays. Equality would demand that there be one public holiday for each of the major creeds and thus consideration could be given to reducing the number down to three ie Christmas, Divali and Eid. Any other recommendation would savour of some element of discrimination.

The other two national holidays are curious legacies. I am not certain what is the origin of New Year’s Day. It is not celebrated as an official holiday in many countries including the United Kingdom. If its significance is that it is the first day of the year, that fact in itself is not sufficient reason for it to be observed as a public holiday. In fact for those who are concerned about production and productivity, it might set the right tone to start the year as a working day.

The other public holiday to which we adhere is Boxing Day. It is a legacy of the colonial masters and, apart from the West Indies, is only observed in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and Australia. This surely tells a story. My understanding is that it was a holiday on which Christmas boxes were given to postmen and other service workers. If one wants to acknowledge the services of workers with whom there is a special relationship by providing them with gifts, why should a public holiday be observed for that purpose. There might be a case for abolition here.

When the question of public holidays is raised, the employers and business people become very vocal on the issue of loss of production and erosion of productivity. And, indeed, as a society we should be acutely conscious of our endeavours at being efficiently productive if we are to survive. But I have pointed out on previous occasions that there is no direct relationship between productivity and the enjoyment of public holidays. In fact the two days of Carnival are not declared public holidays, yet there is a significant decline in production and productivity before, during and after these two days of frenetic revelry. Curiously the business sector is not only silent but supportive as it is perceived to be the zenith of our culture.

It is trite to repeat that productivity is primarily the application of discipline, conscientiousness, skill, diligence and commitment of persons during their working hours. Also of great import to the level of productivity is the general work ethic of the society. The debate continues about the consequences of having a Carnival mentality.

The relationship of productivity to the number of public holidays is rather tenuous. My information is that Hong Kong and Japan celebrate a total of 14 public holidays for the year and Taiwan 16. In Trinidad and Tobago we observe 13 national holidays. How does our productive effort compare to that in these above mentioned countries? The answer is obvious.

I have no problem with any attempt by the Government to rationalise the number of public holidays and their purposes. But there must be the establishment of acceptable criteria and consistency in their application. I am not sure if the Committee considers rationalisation as part of its mandate. But it would be extremely tendencious to confine a review of our national observances using only the criterion of what is considered discriminatory.

trevorsudama@tstt.net.tt