THE EDITOR: In the present clamouring to offer youths lessons in sexuality, I would like those in authority to note the following problems.

1) The material is being offered without the benefit of morality to guide the students in their choices. 2) The material being offered will therefore corrupt those who are innocent and well brought up. 3) The school curriculum already has more than the teaching staff can realistically cope with. 4)The material goes against the teachings of several established religious faiths. 5) Employees will not need contraceptive knowledge, other than in a pharmacy or brothel. 6) The material is capable of being misused by a lecherous educator for abuses of their students. 7) The student that teachers struggle to teach regular subjects is now expected; without any real change in method, to learn a subject, where one misapplication can destroy his life. 8) The students are being treated as beings without the ability to master their instincts.

Our nation’s current lack of standards in decency of what we currently accept as commonplace in our words and deeds, our culture, advertising and entertainment are the very fountain the youth of our nation drinks from. If the well is dirty don’t teach the children to live with it. Clean the water, boil it, and filter it!!! The fact that United Kingdom has the highest teen pregnancy rate despite their school sex education programme should be reason enough to reconsider this irresponsible attempt at problem solving. The failure to examine in detail the outcome of adopting these well-intentioned programmes in the countries that have them can only be seen as reckless. These young people are our future and any government that hastily attempts this type of programme as an answer would be submitting our young people to another botched educational experiment of the developed world.

They would do well to remember that in order to develop the nation you should maintain good morals. If young people are going to save our nation, this sick version of education will not he the way. It is time our political pied pipers played a different tune. The books we read, the shows we watch, the advertising we use, and words we say will either feed young people with what is good or it will ensure that they will face an even more frightening future. They will be just when they can see the real justice of doctors killing babies in abortions, going to jail for murder. They will be pure when they can see real purity take place on the stages during Carnival. They will be peaceful when they can see their parents’ real peace with employers who pay good wages instead of the bare minimum. To be fair there are still entertainers, doctors, politicians, employers, and young people who lead exemplary lives, but since they are not newsworthy enough, we need more of them, just so the journalists will have nothing scandalous, corrupting or unjust to write about. Trinis avoid the dirty well; the rest of the world seems so fond of, for the sake of our young peoples’ futures. We can still save the next generation from the ravages of violence, injustice, vice and corruption. Let us courageously brighten our young peoples’ future with healthy doses of purity and morality.

C MARK DOPWELL
Youth 2000 Team Member
St Peters Parish Carenage

THE EDITOR: Friends describe me as jovial and easy going, so that it is with a significant degree of disquiet that I relate my latest experience of disservice in the public sector. On July 7, 2003 at 12.30 pm I visited the Legal department of the Board of Inland Revenue to settle a matter involving the cancellation of an annuity Insurance Policy that would inform a disbursement of funds in my favour. Cognisant of service “horror stories” in this country and, in particular the Government services, I approached Trinidad House on St Vincent Street with a measure of anxiety.

The Legal department is on the sixth floor and strangely the elevator was designed to only reach the fifth. Trekking up a couple flights of stairs was no problem, but was it an omen for the shortfalls in service to come? On entering the department, I was immediately privy to a disgruntled client shuffling documents and venting his displeasure to the young lady behind the counter – the only BIR official in sight at the time. Infuriated that he wasted a trip due to a negligent officer who omitted information in his last visit, he stuffed his papers away, forecasting that if he left them in care of the department, they would surely be misplaced. Needless to say, time is to a busy man what votes are to a Democracy — critical. There were three clients preceding me, all wearing smirks, revealing they had not only become tolerant of “rotten” service, they delighted in reactions of others so opposed. While waiting, I noticed that 50 percent of the newly arrived clients quickly became agitated – the reason was clear. When serving a client, the BIR official was often required to move away from the counter and out of sight of all in the waiting area. Consequently, new clients were greeted with no attending officer or indication of when or if they will be assisted — seeing only waiting people. As a rule, customers seeking service that cannot be immediately addressed should ideally be officially acknowledged upon entering the establishment in question.

Acknowledgment is essential to any service-oriented business, making its omission in this BIR department the basic root of disservice. Soon came the surprise tantrum from a female security guard stationed behind the counter in response to eager clients seeking help from literally any official that came into view. This person would have fared better by keeping her mouth shut. Opening her sweater and motioning to her uniform, she barked at clients with words to the effect: “”Yuh see this, this is a guard uniform, I am not one of these officers!” She continued admonishing her male colleague this time. By this time, the attendant’s stress level was visible and played out in her tone of voice, body language and the dismissive manner in which she served me. In short, I had to produce the Assessment Notices for income years 2001 and 2002 to proceed with my matter. Interestingly , these are items that BIR’s “Returns” department has not yet generated. In fact, assessment/returns for Year 2001 are only now being processed while my data for 2002 has not yet been entered into the system despite submitting a month ago. Note that I must wait for BIR to generate and mail assessments for the income years mentioned, then having received the documents, return them to BIR — this time to the Legal unit. Was the advent of computer technology a total waste of money here?

Discerning the unintelligible aspect of data going back and forth and in an attempt to expedite an archaic process, I offered a suggestion. I asked the officer to make an internal notation/request to have copies of the required information sent to the Legal department before the originals are mailed to me. Her reply was emphatically in the negative. Grunting that a note would involve two different departments, I read her inference to mean this was beyond the norm and there can be no compromise — bring the assessments when you get them. Dismissed. I left that office a proud man, for I was a victim of detestable circumstances and maintained my cool in lieu of succumbing to a farce I did not deserve. Truthfully, I cannot condone the attending officer’s snotty service. Nonetheless, I understand the daily stress it was born of, working for an administration that fails to address the issue of acknowledgment to clients much less eternal back logs and redundant procedures — an authority that promotes insolent guards by indifference. This is the same management that intimidates taxpayers when they extort money from us for late tax return submissions and have the nerve to mail out tax returns when they see fit – even years after and devoid of an apology of conscience. Alas, for those “big boys,” it’s just another day in paradise.

DEXTER J RIGSBY
Mt Lambert

THE EDITOR: Some of my thoughts in reply to Ms O’Callaghan’s article. It seems that your article on “Why Catholics are leaving the Church” is over (finally). I just have some questions for you to ponder and not necessarily answer, because it is not what I believe, but rather what you believe and practice and what you do not what I do. First, having written and (hopefully) read your verbose and lengthy article (over the last five or six weeks), do you believe that you have answered the question which caused you to write this article? Additionally, do you think that the average reader of the newspaper understood everything? Do you think you have clearly identified the specific reasons? Can you list them in point form in simple language? Secondly, do you believe that, if they have read your article, atheists, agnostics, non-practising Catholics, other Christian denominations, teenagers etc, will be galvanised into joining, re-joining, become practising believers in our Church and our faith? Do you believe that your article will have helped them come to a determining position of becoming Catholic or will they stay as non-believers, dropouts or other Christian faiths who tell us so?

Third, you have delivered many ideas citing many authors and events, including race. I might be totally wrong here, but I do not recall seeing any suggestion to reverse this trend or what we should do to increase the numbers and vibrancy of our Church. Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I also do not recall seeing any references to the Bible in support of your arguments (uh huh, The Bible. You would be surprised what it contains, for instance there is one teaching about the rich young man who could not give up all his wealth to follow Jesus). Finally, over the length of time it has taken for this article to be written and published, have you convinced a non-believer to give our church a try? Have you convinced a non-practiser to begin practising again?  Do you have a RCIA candidate you are sponsoring for entry into our Church? Or do you sit prayerfully in Church, praying for yourself and perhaps immediate family and thinking about how you do the right things while others don’t? I cannot tell people how to be Catholic or to be better Catholics so I am in no way questioning your faith or how you practise it. The above are the more salient questions prompted by your articles. May God bless and keep you Ms O’Callaghan and provide you with infinite mercy and graces.

BRUCE  HAMEL
Tunapuna

THE EDITOR: For the longest time now, the management of the Queen’s Park Cricket Club (QPCC) has had to deal with the ongoing debate of accepting female members. So far management has been able to keep it an all male members club, but there has been much criticism for this.  I for one cannot imagine why people would have a problem with the idea of an all male club. There is the argument that an all male club is an example of gender discrimination, and if this is permitted then why not have clubs that discriminate on race, religion or for anything the club may choose. The fact of the matter is that it does display some signs of gender discrimination, but what is wrong with that? Do our high schools not display gender discrimination? Can a boy put St Joseph Convent as his number one choice in the SEA examination, or a girl put Fatima College? Of course not, because we accept this form of discrimination. Do we not have male bathrooms and female bathrooms?

Again, would women want to make this unisex now? I can’t imagine they would, so again, gender discrimination is okay in that instance. However if we had an all white school or an all blacks only bathroom then yes, these are certainly not acceptable, so gender discrimination can in no way be compared to racial discrimination. I do not hear women making a fuss of a girls only section in a Carnival band, nor when females go to a nightclub and get in at a cheaper cost than males? Is this gender discrimination, of course it is, but again, no one complains about this. So why the big fuss about the Oval? Don’t women have their own clubs? Of course they do, but the truth of the matter is, is it that these women want to be members of the Oval because they are not wanted there, and they cannot accept that. No self-respecting woman would really want to be a member at an all male club. Why would they? The way that men behave among themselves, the language they use, would women really want to be subjected to that? The most astonishing part to me is that women, namely members’ spouses and daughters, have use of the club. They have access to the gym, the tennis courts, the field, the squash courts, and the hockey courts.

At cricket matches, football matches and concerts women are allowed in, a member can even bring a female member into the pavilion for concerts, so what is the big fuss about? The male members are just asking to have one place, the Pavilion, which is an all male section. Is that too much to ask? One of the things that the members treasure most is that it is a place where they can go and just be with the “boys” and I am sure a lot of wives are more than happy to know that their husbands are at a place with all men, than out ogling women somewhere else. Instead of being grateful for the services extended by the QPCC to these females, there are those who don’t want some, they want all. I just can’t understand why somebody would want to be a member of a place in which they are not wanted. What is the pleasure in that? In no way is this letter intended to put women down or make them sound inferior, we all know they aren’t, it is directed at those few who make this topic an ongoing argument. Maybe one day women will be members of the QPCC, but in wanting change to come about, there must be a good reason put forth, and unfortunately there hasn’t been one to evoke change.

KELLY ROBINSON
Port-of-Spain

THE EDITOR: I am appealing to the Minister of Health Mr Imbert to look into the plight of sufferers of epilepsy. I know that he and other members of the government are concerned about the plight of the poor and other disadvantaged members of the community. The time is now ripe for the Ministry of Health to provide relief to sufferers of epilepsy who rely on the drug Dialantin for their sanity and well-being. Sufferers of epilepsy need to take this drug at least three times a day sometimes and for the rest of their lives. Otherwise patients would experience seizures that would include fainting, convulsions, swallowing of the tongue and choking on their vomit. Whenever a person is experiencing an epileptic fit, it is necessary for that person to lie down and to place some soft object below their arms and sometimes their legs in order to protect them from damaging themselves. Further, a toothbrush or any similar object could be placed in the mouth to protect them from biting their tongue. Wait a while for them to regain consciousness before helping them to stand up and walk.

Over the years, epileptic sufferers have experienced a gradual and continuous increase in the price of Dialantin at the drug stores. This is not a prescription drug but it can mean the difference between sanity and madness. Today, the price of one tablet varies from $1.50 to $3.50 depending on the drug store. Each month, persons have to buy between 60 and 90 tablets that will cost them between $200 and $300 monthly. This leaves some pensioners with $700 to buy food, pay rent and live on for the rest of the month. Mr Imbert, please make this drug free to old people and those on social assistance. Let us tell those unscrupulous businessmen that enough is enough.

CHOY  MANZANO
Arouca

THE EDITOR: It would be a case of one foot forward and two feet backward if the Ministry of Education was to officially reinstate corporal punishment in our nation’s schools. The failure of the current system to effectively deal with its various disciplinary issues lies deep within the structure and traditions of the system and not in its dispensation of licks or not. This is too shallow for serious consideration.

Parents, guardians, teachers, administrators et al must work together with our students to develop them to the best of their abilities in an environment that is peaceful, positive and encouraging. We all need each other’s support and encouragement to get the job done and to be quite frank, in my 14 years working with violent young offenders and young people at risk both in Canada and TT, I have seen the tremendous progress to be made in non-aggressive and non-violent approaches to behaviour modification. The process is long and tedious with some individuals, but success can be accomplished with proper training of teachers and the necessary support systems for all concerned. It took the Swedes over 30 years to buy into the ‘no licks’ philosophy but eventually they learnt that to build a peaceful and progressive society one’s children must be treated with respect and dignity and be encouraged and supported in this process we call life … If our leaders grew up without ‘licks’ I wonder what differences in TT there may have been today? More discipline perhaps?

GREGORY SLOANE-SEALE
Port-of-Spain

THE EDITOR: It is no surprise that the UNC lost the Local Government Elections, because, being in Opposition hardly gave them the opportunity to impress upon anyone other than the few grassroot supporters that remain. In addition, there were a lot of stupid statements made to the media and on the political platform by Panday, Wade Mark, Kamla and Robin Montano that weren’t dealing with the issues. These recycled emotional statements on race and discrimination have become very stale and without any significant effect. It is ironic that the CEPEP programme that is so demonised is being blamed for their defeat since it has obviously created employment for people who were probably not earning an income. What matters most to these people employed at CEPEP is that they feed, clothe and school their children and support themselves. Therefore the UNC’s fear of CEPEP is now a reality which they will probably never overcome and they will further feel insecure when the Caroni workers are presented with a gift of a VSEP package second to no other.

Basdeo Panday and his minions should read and listen back to some of the dotish statements they have made to their own detriment. It is rather unfortunate that coded racism has to be used to poison the minds of his supporters against the building of homes for the people of San Fernando by declaring that it will become a ghetto like Laventille, John John and Belmont. Is it because of the ethic makeup of these communities Mr Panday? Wade Mark has been frequently making foolish remarks in and out of the Senate. It makes you wonder if he was either programmed or wound up and sent out to act as the sacrificial lamb of the UNC. How much longer can people like Mark (who of all people is accusing Bob Lindquist singing for his supper) Moonilal, Kamla, Manohar, Ganga and the like continue to hold on to the hem of Basdeo Panday’s garments pretending that he is God’s gift to the UNC? Is it because they know that there is no other like Panday to lead the party and appeal to a wide cross-section of the citizenry all the while commanding adoration and worship.

Isn’t there anyone with the testicular fortitude to challenge the leadership for the remnants of the party? It is rather funny that the fearless Robin Montano is not putting up a challenge. After all it was the leadership issue of the PNM which has made him become such an anti-Manning and anti-PNM advocate to a pretending, pro-UNC lover. Go on Robin, this is the perfect opportunity for you to sit in the throne (or stool) of the wounded or defeated “king”. It is also the perfect opportunity for the PNM to continue to make inroads into the UNC strongholds and to improve on newly won support without ever getting complacent. Let the UNC on the other hand continue to quiver in fear as they contemplate their demise.

GARVIN
 WALTERS
Tobago