A 20-year-old woman and her two-year-old son who were used as human shields during a shooting attack at a basketball court on Friday night, suffered gunshot injuries but miraculously survived. Mark Granger, the man who used them as human shields was shot dead, his twin brother Matthew was seriously wounded, and two teenagers were also injured in the bloody attack. The shootings took place around 9 pm on Friday at the basketball  court located a stone’s throw away from the St Barb’s Police Station. An eyewitness to the incident told Sunday Newsday that when the gunmen started shooting in the direction of the Granger brothers, Crystal Best who had her two-year-old son in her arms was used as a human shield by Mark. The eyewitness added that when Crystal slumped to the ground and fell, Mark was shot several times about the body and died within minutes. Yesterday, residents of St Barb’s described the killing as a planned hit and expressed outrage over the shooting of innocent persons. Rondell Harbin, the two-year-old toddler shot twice, underwent emergency surgery at the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex yesterday, to remove bullets from his upper right shoulder and right hand.

His mother Crystal,  20, was listed in stable condition at ward 14 of the Port-of-Spain General Hospital. Andy Best, a relative of Crystal said that Crystal took Rondell with her on Friday to witness a basketball match. He added that around 9 pm, the two were sitting close to twin brothers Matthew and Mark Granger when two gunmen entered through the back gate, surveyed the group witnessing the basketball match and then opened fire with automatic guns. The shooting attack sent everyone scampering. When the smoke cleared, Mark Granger was discovered to be dead, his brother Matthew suffered several gunshots about the body, Best and the toddler were also discovered to have suffered gunshot injuries, while Imerobe Hutchinson, 15, was shot in the right foot and lower back, and Jameela Sealey, 16, was shot in the right leg. Jameela was discharged from hospital yesterday and was shielded by relatives at her Boxhill Trace home. Worried relatives claimed that Jameela was too shaken up from the incident to speak. At the home of the Grangers, Ian Granger, a brother of the deceased said that his two brothers left home Friday night to witness the basketball match. He added that his brothers were not part of any gang, but smoked. The grieving man claimed that his brothers never troubled anyone and he is unsure why they were targeted by the gunmen. On May 13 last year, both brothers were shot by gunmen outside their home at Village Council Trace, St Barb’s.

In that incident the two were standing in front of Firehouse Cafe, when they were confronted by a gunman who fired several shots at them, which landed them in hospital. Yesterday, ASP Alfred Sealey returned to the scene of the shootings and carried out inquiries. Several persons standing next to the basketball court were searched. Investigators said yesterday that they have received key information about the shootings and shooting death. They claimed that arrests are imminent. St Barb’s residents said yesterday that the situation in Laventille seems to be out of control and they called on the authorities to do something to prevent innocent persons being killed. Up until yesterday 107 persons were killed for the year so far. Cpl Bridgeman of the Besson Street Police Station is investigating.

The Opposition has branded Barry Sinanan the most bias Speaker in the history of this country. But it is this Speaker who has provided what is formally known as the Office of the Opposition Leader with facilities, infinitely superior to anything enjoyed by previous Opposition Leaders. The rent paid by the Parliament for the new Opposition office at 11 Charles Street is $46,575.00 a month, while the rent which was paid by Chepstow House, the old place was $11,500. The floor space of the new office which takes up two floors — 5th and 6th — is 5,703 square feet while the floor space at the previous building was just 2,552 square feet. The Parliament also pays for eight carpark spaces in the current facility while in the old accommodation the Opposition Leader had to park on Frederick Street (with a tacit agreement from the police that they would not wreck his vehicle). Furthermore, in outfitting the new structure, the Speaker approved the Clerk of the House expending $101,785,000 for new furniture, $63,000 for computer equipment, $151,000 for renovating the building so that, among other things, the Leader of the Opposition could be afforded a private bathroom, with shower. This is in stark contrast to what obtained at Chepstow House where the Opposition Leader had to take a key, walk down a hall to use a bathroom that was shared by all the tenants of the building, which included a boutique and hair dressing salon. A state of the art telephone system was also installed at the current facility at a cost of $16,000. At the new accommodation also has offices for the two House leaders — Chief Whip Ganga Singh and Senate Minority leader Wade Mark as well as two extra offices for members of the Opposition who might wish to use its facilities intermittently.

All this could not have been done without the blessing and the deliberate support of the Speaker, who has direct control of the faciliities for all members of Parliament, including the Opposition Leader’s office, and without the Cabinet which gave the final okay, based on the recommendation of the Speaker. And because most of this expenditure was not budgeted for, the Speaker had to divert funds from other sources — such as the Red House Restoration project. Out of an allocation of $175,000 for furniture for the entire Parliament, $101,785,000 was spent on the purchase of the new furniture at the Office of the Opposition Leader. “The Leader of the Opposition deserves proper accommodation. And when you look at Chepstow House, that was a dump, a total disgrace to the office of the Leader of the Opposition,” Speaker Sinanan said. To the comment that he wasn’t being appreciated for his efforts, Sinanan said he didn’t do it for any kudos or praise. “My participation in that exercise was not to be thanked or not to be attacked. Once I know in my heart that I have done what is right, that is all that matters,” he told Sunday Newsday on Friday. In fact, Mr Panday has jokingly acknowledged the quality of his new facilities in a private parley with reporters, offering this quip: “Ah ‘fraid to let Manning see this office, he might want to come and occupy it.” Conceding that much of the expenditure was unbudgeted, Sinanan said that from the very onset he took the position that “if we had to pinch and scrape to do it” the Opposition Leader — “as did all members of Parliament” — had to be given his due.

In dealing with the Opposition inside of the Parliament Sinanan said he has also been sympathetic. “Even since this allegations by the Opposition, I began to question myself,” he said, adding that he had begun to eliminate reasons. He had come to the conclusion that it was not the discharge of his duties that was the bone of contention and the root of the unwarranted attacks. “You must ask yourself this: Never before in the history of the Parliament has there been this relentless attack on both presiding officers (in the Parliament). And I keep asking myself why…It cannot be bias…And I am more or less coming to the conclusion that it is because I am of East Indian descent. And the funny part of the thing is I do not see myself as Indian. I see myself as Trinidadian and I wish the whole country would see themselves in that light.” Sinanan is criticised by many people in the society, for being too soft. Many people think that his diffidence has encouraged rather than diluted the UNC assault and that without any retaliation from him, the Opposition is viewing him as a low fence which Opposition members feel they can scale with impunity. “My approach to this whole session of Parliament was simply this: You are dealing with human beings. I can understand the feelings of members of the Opposition of not being in Government…They were brought down by allegations of corruption from some of their own members, including the Attorney General…It is a difficult time for people, being in Government, having that power, now they are out of it. Some people can adjust to that in an easier way…Take the PNM, the PNM was in goverance for 30 years when it was almost wiped out.”  “In 1995 it happened again. They settled in quicker than this current Opposition…I have given the Opposition an extended honeymoon…I know I have been criticised for not been firmer…But I allowed for this settling period…But those who know me, know that (for me) there comes a time where patience ceases to be a virtue…” he stated. He noted that while Parliament was no tea party (to quote the Leader of the Opposition, Basdeo Panday), at the same time it was certainly not a fish market. “It is high time that members settle in and do the country’s business and their constituents business…No honeymoon lasts forever.”

The Opposition’s latest beef with Sinanan is over the issue of questions to ministers and the Speaker’s amendment to a question filed by Caroni Central MP Hamza Rafeeq. Under the Standing Orders the Speaker is empowered to make changes or to rule a question to be out of order if it is deemed, in his opinion, to be an abuse of the right to ask questions or if it infringes on the standing orders. Rafeeq submitted a question which asked the Minister of Health to (a) state the number of persons employed with the NWRHA whose salaries were over $150,000.00 a year for which ministerial approval was not obtained and (b) to give details. The approved (and amended) question began by asking (a) whether there were persons employed with the NHWHA whose salaries were over $150,000 for which ministerial approval was not obtained and (b) If so, to give details. It was felt that the UNC MP’s original question began with an assumption. Also, in making the change, it was felt that the amendments ensured that Rafeeq would have obtained the very same information he was seeking through his original submission. Furthermore, the change is also done to avoid a charge that questions were being duplicated because Rafeeq on 22/11/02 had received an answer to a question which had asked the Health Minister to state the number of persons employed with the NWRHA, the list of their names, qualifications and salaries and the procedure for recruitment. Sinanan stated that the practice of editing questions was old and consistently done by all Speakers. He said sometimes questions were badly phrased, sometimes there was bad grammar, sometimes questions were  too vague and needed to be more specific and sometimes they just did not comply with the rules.

On the charge by Nariva MP Harry Partap that he (Sinanan) was seeking to cover up information on the employment of the Prime Minister’s sister, Pansetta Gayle, Sinanan stated: “If I see Pansetta Gayle I would not know who she is. I don’t even know that the Prime Minister had a sister called Pansetta Gayle.” He added: “I know the Prime Minister has a sister who is a doctor but even if I see her I would even know that her.” Partap on February 4, 2003 had received a reply to a question asking the Minister of Labour for the list of names of persons who applied for the position of Director, Information Technology in the Ministry of Labour. He also received a reply to a question asking for the names of persons on the interview panel and the details of the salary and other benefits payable to the holder of this contract post. It was then that the information on Gayle was first released. Partap has since submitted a question asking for the names and qualifications of all those applied for the job. The Office of the Speaker felt that the idea of approve information revealing the qualifications and names of anybody who applies for a job in the public service was an abuse of the process. It also felt that the question did not fall under the cognisance of the Minister. Sinanan also pointed out that it was the acceptable practice of MPs, whenever they were uncertain about questions, to call the Office. But now (UNC) MPs were going straight to the platform. “I don’t believe that the issue has to do with these questions…If you were to check the number of questions filed and the number approved, you would be amazed,” Sinanan stated. Sinanan said he was certain in his heart and his conscience that he had discharged his duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and with impartality. “;Ever since these allegations by the Opposition, I began to question myself and without a doubt I have been extremely fair to the Opposition,” he commented. Sinanan said he has never reached a point where he feels like throwing in the towel. He knew the job wouldn’t be easy when he accepted it. And he has sought advice from his Commonwealth counterparts and also from the Clerks of the House in Trinidad and Tobago in many matters. He is high in praise for the staff at the Parliament, describing them as dedicated, knowledgeable and hard-working. “;Politicians ought to take an example from the people who work here,”  he said, adding: “It is time (for MPs) to settle down. The country expects it and I am certainly not going to disappoint this country.”

Bullying is becoming one of the most disturbing types of violence in schools and it has even spread to primary schools, while racial slurs and ethnic hostilities have now found their way into these schools. These were among the horrifying disclosure made in the report of Prof Ramesh Deosaran, on “Benchmarking Violence and Delinquency in the Secondary School: Towards a Culture of Peace and Civility,” which was presented to the Minister of Education, Senator Hazel Manning, on May 28. Among several recommendations, the report calls on the Ministry of Education to review its policy on corporal punishment.  Sunday Newsday was able to get a copy of the report, in which some 21 measures of school violence and delinquency, and six measures of classroom disruption were re-identified. They are: students’ unruly behaviour in class, skipping classes, damaging school property, stealing, cheating, being rude to teachers and parents, using obscene language, getting in trouble with the police, using illegal drugs, smoking, drinking alcohol, threatening and bullying other students, carrying weapons in school, using force for extortion, fighting without a weapon and fighting with a weapon.

When it comes to bullying, students had innumerable tales of horror. The report said: “Too many students are being taken advantage of in school, often beaten, insulted and chased for their lunches, money or other possessions. Extortions are rampant. And the young ones are mainly the victims. “Given the pronounced ethnic diversity in our secondary schools, it is quite horrendous to find that racial slurs and ethnic hostilities have now found their way into these schools. Since ethnic diversity in our schools does provide splendid opportunities for peace and harmony programmes; but to leave the diversity so exposed and vulnerable to ethnic hostilities is to drive many victimised students not only away from a good education but to retaliate with violence in their own defence. Such bullying and ethnic hostilities are apparently not confined to any one type of school.” With regard to demographic factors and deviance, the study found, for example, that substance abuse (drugs, smoking and drinking) between boys and girls is about the same level (about 50 percent for both). For physical violence, however, males account for 70 percent of the acts and girls 30 percent.

Racial background has revealed some significant differences as well. For example, students of African descent account for 40 percent of the acts of violence and students of East Indian descent account for 19 percent, while mixed groups account for 38 percent. Social class background seemed to make little or no difference in student violence or stealing. However, there was some evidence to suggest that the higher the social class background of the student, the more likely he or she is to engage in drug abuse or be verbally aggressive to others.
The report,  compiled by Prof Deosaran of the Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice of the UWI, was commissioned by the Secondary Education Modernisation Programme Coordination Unit (SEMPCU) of the Ministry of Education. The report,  also essentially found that the “higher” a student’s level of civil attitudes, self-esteem, moral and spiritual values, the less amount of violence, delinquency and classroom disruption such a student commits. Those who scored lower on these indicators can be deemed to be at risk, in a zone of vulnerability towards deviance. The report also showed that students with both parents at home are much more likely to be at an assisted school than a Government Secondary school. At one assisted school 90 percent of the students had both parents at home as compared to only 45 percent at an urban Composite school.  However,  a sociological context of the school seems to play a part as well. For example, a rural Junior Secondary school has 64 percent of its students with both parents at home while an urban Junior Secondary has only 46 percent and a secondary government-assisted school in “this study,”  has 83 percent with both parents at home. Additionally, it was also noted that the lower the social class background of the student, the larger the family size at home.

According to the report, this finding suggested that our public schools are soundly stratified with an inter-locking system of academic and socio-economic differences.  The obvious and difficult challenge is how to close this gap since it has implications for student delinquency. Psychological conditions emerge from this stratification. One, students from the Government Secondary schools have lower academic aspiration and expectations than those from assisted schools. There is also a bigger gap between the educational aspirations and the educational expectations. Further, the older the student is, the more likely he or she is to be delinquent. In terms of overall deviance, students at Form 1 will have about 11 Xs while those at Forms three and five, will have X’s of 17 and 21 respectively.  However, an important revelation emerged for age and classroom disruptions. The students of Form three show a higher amount of classroom disruption (X = 30) than those at either Form 1 (X =20) or at Form 5 (X=24).  The relationship is therefore curvilinear rather than linear.