Liberating state information

There are at least three recent developments in T&T that have highlighted both our “culture of secrecy” and the impact of our freedom of information legislation.

I have selected just a few scenarios to highlight today, because they focus on actions initiated by three different players - a political activist, the media, and a regular citizen – all acting on their own behalf but with results that have positive implications for the rest of society.

Though mainly well-placed campaigners and a generally tenacious media are among the more frequent users of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the intervention of Nadia Singh, mother of SEA top achiever, Anushka Singh, caught my attention.

This is so since I believe that while advocacy has routinely been left to media operatives and social and political activists, their main benefits are meant to assist regular folks in the conduct of their daily lives.

The other recent development we should not allow to pass unnoticed is GML journalist, Kejan Haynes’, exposé on unpaid fines associated with pandemic mask mandates between September 2020 and July 2022.

In the case of Kejan’s story, the FOI request was directed to the judiciary. Ms Singh’s application was made to the ministry of education. The third instance involved the police service and had to reach the High Court.

Perennial FOIA applicant, Ravi Balgobin Maharaj, had successfully challenged the refusal of the Office of the Commissioner of Police to publish mandatory FOI statements. The court made it clear that its failure to do so was in breach of a statutory requirement.

These examples are with respect to three public institutions that are provably problematic at different levels and for different reasons. But they are all significant custodians of official information.

There are, of course, other spectacular instances of the FOIA being put to use by people with a concern about transparency issues related to matters of public interest. I apologise for some significant omissions.

There is also frequently an international dynamic at play. For instance, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for the purchase of COVID-19 vaccines captured the attention of Transparency International when it studied 182 vaccine procurement contracts back in 2021.

In only 13 cases were such contracts publicly available, but heavily redacted on account of NDAs. There is a lot of room here for international collaboration on examining this phenomenon. Contrary to political messaging on the subject here, T&T was not the only country victimised by this practice.

Two organisations with which I am associated – the Media Institute of the Caribbean (MIC) and the Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM) – have invested considerable time and other resources over the years to get Caribbean legislators to work more seriously on bringing enlightened access to information laws to the parliamentary table.

The MIC recently launched two important resources to assist media, activists, and citizens interested in this field of endeavour. The first is a Freedom of Information Help Desk, which is a cloud-based, secure platform for journalists, civil society organisations, and private individuals seeking assistance with requests under their respective FOI/Access to Information laws.

The second is an advocacy toolkit that provides detailed guidance on both the strengthening of existing law and practices, and the enactment of legislation where it currently does not exist.

A slender majority of Caricom countries now have such legislation, and there is a clear need to have them fortified through application of a principle described under Article 13 of the American Convention as “the principle of maximum disclosure.”

In fact, while Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Pedro Vaca, spoke at an MIC forum with Caribbean journalists on Monday, he specified conditions that needed to apply in order to satisfy such an aspiration.

There is insufficient space to discuss all of them here, but among the things he addressed was the acceptability of limitations inserted into the law or applied as official procedure. In T&T, legislators have gratuitously toyed with the concept in measures of knee-jerk prohibition.

The question of private entities involved in activities in which there are public interest concerns also arises. Our FOIA needs to more firmly address this. It extends beyond the requirements of corporate and commercial law.

There are sufficient examples of how our FOIA can work better on our behalf. There is evidence that people are more prepared now to use it when the need arises. This is a good thing. Anuska Singh’s will be among the names to be called if or when we eventually get this right.

 

Children need to be in school

Among the areas of unfinished national business mentioned in this space last week was our determined unwillingness to meet several commitments boastfully declared over the years as favoured obligations under international convention.

We do not stand alone on this question and need not feel solely targeted by the contention that global standards for the conduct of states are routinely ignored and therefore undermined with impunity almost everywhere. But that’s of little comfort and no excuse for our own recalcitrance.

We can look near and far for tragic examples. The abuse of power. Institutionalised hypocrisy on issues of ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, and other values that embrace diversity.

Almost all of this has, at various times, found expression through the numerous treaties we have endorsed and held high for the media cameras, and before other countries. In our case, there are scores of them.

What is disturbing is that as historically chronic subjects of breaches, countries such as ours refuse to pay closer attention to the things that distinguish orderly human conduct from the acts of savages.

So, here I return to the conscious and active denial of the rights of migrant children to an education in T&T.

There is nothing to convince me that there is a firm commitment to meet such an obligation under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, other global instruments, and perhaps our own constitution and law.

What might have led to this pathetic pass is subject to deeper analysis. But among the reasons is the absence of any persistent body of mass public opinion or mobilisation on the subject. Not one tyre has burned for this.

As mere elections machines, the political parties do not focus on human rights, and our education system does not consider questions of human rights to be central to all areas of development.

This is thus not simply a matter of (party) political will, but of the absence of active civic engagement in such subjects. Be careful, this is not to devalue the work of NGOs and CSOs that conduct ameliorative work to correct transgressions. They have key post facto roles to play. It is also not to ignore other undeniable failures in the treatment of all children.

But, in few instances can we find determined application of rights as prescribed by convention and, in even their absence, instinctual resort to notions of social justice.

The “close de borders” and “send dem back” crowds of 2019 and 2020 cannot now claim moral space on the issue of educating migrant children without official barriers.

If you approved of steel-tipped boots against the advancing bows of small migrant boats in stormy weather with men, women, and children on board, there is nothing you can say or do to convince me that you are now serious about providing the means to meet the needs of such children. Get lost!

Likewise, it was good that special, ad hoc arrangements were made in 2019 to accommodate migrants who were already here and to slow the pace of inflows – however much some of it was not in compliance with accepted global protocols.

The UNHCR’s direction on this was largely ignored and angrily dismissed. But there was clearly very little thought by all concerned about the challenges of a process to eventually settle people – either here or in other destinations. Consequently, the current ad hoc system strips humans of their self-respect and dignity.

As both historical subjects and objects of migration, we should know better. But we clearly don’t.

It is not enough to cite the numbers in the PR without advocating an understanding of the meaning behind the statistics. There are children in T&T, as 2023 approaches, who, unless private arrangements are made, will not receive a formal education.

There are babies becoming toddlers, and toddlers becoming pre-teens, and pre-teens becoming teenagers who are being systematically and actively deprived of the means to transition from one stage of personal development to the next. If there is a single major feature of social dysfunctionality among the youth it is the absence of a wholesome education.

It is also my understanding that the means to achieve the key objectives exist and that space, personnel, and other resources are available. If they are not, we should be made aware of the audits and studies which determined otherwise over the three-plus years we have had to consider all this.

Meanwhile, don’t come to us with “season’s greetings” until that’s a part of the message of goodwill to all men, women, and children in and of T&T. Let’s start 2023 on different terms please.

(Published in T&T Guardian on December 28, 2022)

Pan Beatings

Stick around pan long enough - in all its manifestations as a musical instrument and agent of social mobilisation and change - and you eventually realise that any “beating” experienced will come from its own hands.

For example, one of my most embarrassing panyard moments came when my pan instructor delivered a public boof on me for knocking the skirt of a double second with the wooden end of a pan stick, in order to rein in fellow student chatter.

“If that was a piano, you would bang on it like that?” she asked. That cut deep, as someone who has advocated vociferously against the use of “beat” to describe the “playing” of this instrument.

So, though I had witnessed such a violation over the years, and had felt bad about it, as a pan playing newbie it was important that I internalised the lesson and displayed respect and appreciation for the instrument to which I routinely assign glorious accolades.

Certainly, I have never been a domestic disaster tourist daring to brave otherwise prohibited turf once a year and then to pronounce authoritatively on its egalitarian impacts.

It has long been clear to me that the instrument, together with the social movement that keeps it alive and valuable, has consistently delivered “beatings” of its own on cynics, sceptics, and the ignorant who have attempted to diminish its value as the single greatest thing we do as a country.

Be clear, when Merchant sang Pan in Danger in 1985 it was meant to be a rallying call to recognise its value as a national asset and not something marginal to the development effort.

His message was sadly adopted as a double-edged sword to simultaneously signal some kind of decline … which never came … and to trigger jingoistic protectionism.

But Merchant was in fact administering licks on politicians and others, including the pan leadership, for not recognising the vast potential of something that had much wider meaning for T&T society.

It was also not an appeal to “patriotic” passions to achieve pan exclusivity. For, even then, as the song concedes, pan playing and innovation had already leapt an invitingly low fence and gone their merry way to the UK and elsewhere. Such sharing suggests no loss by the sharer.

Pan beatings on fascist emotions over pan have since come fast and furious. Everybody, everywhere now knows and uses the appropriate size of the rubber on a pan stick.

Though we remain the place where you find the best players playing the best songs guided by the best arrangers on the best pans, tuned by the best tuners in the world, the steelpan is now a global musical, social, and economic asset benefiting players, audiences, and musical landscapes far and wide.

This is not to say that we should continue missing valuable intellectual property opportunities when it comes to some aspects of pan innovation, music, musical arrangements, design, and other attributes.

Because of pan, one can argue that we are the country with the most people per capita who can play a musical instrument beyond the rudiments of classroom introduction. There is no cause to be insecure about it.

All the while, though, and because music (as with all art) is about taste and aesthetic preference, there will always be those who just do not like it. That’s fair enough. But pan is clearly more than the music it delivers.

There is also the set who, even as they linger restlessly on the periphery of the instrument and all it means, gratuitously and routinely attempt to drag pan into their dark, grimy, tribal spaces.

Last weekend’s Small Bands Panorama Finals put a sound beating on all of them. Small bands from small communities with big sounds lashed hard. Young people were also there to belie a lack of generational enthusiasm.

Even when the players and followers grow to become paying patrons and supporters, there is this nonsense about young people not being interested in pan.

Reducing “support for pan” to occupied seats at a competitive venue betrays a complete lack of understanding of what pan means to us.

The steelpan “saved” many of us at the height of pandemic lockdowns, beating both pessimism and the ridiculous notion of mere seasonal relevance.

This year’s Panorama contests are also witnessing a generational transition in the area of musical arrangement. This is not solely because of organised events; it is happening because pan is not in danger.

The success of pan is not contingent on the quantum of state largesse – however desirable it might be as a supportive mechanism resulting from official edict or proclamation.

There is a lot of work to be done by all concerned – Pan Trinbago being but one of many stakeholders. But pan will not be beaten. It delivers licks of its own. Bun dem!

 

 

The changing world of work

Since its release last week, nobody here has raced to the press to declare enthusiastic interest in the ILO’s latest study on “work-life balance around the world.”

This confirms the view that our leaders in the fields of politics, labour, and business are yet to come to terms with some of the lessons learned through the ongoing pandemic.

Labour unions, whose raison d’etre is rooted in the interests of workers, are among the most negligent of the social actors. Their withdrawal from organised tripartite dialogue in T&T and tragic inability to come to terms with emerging realities sadden many of us.

The ILO report promotes the idea that some of the measures to cope with the disruptions of the pandemic - including but not limited to “telework” - have long-term positive implications for the well-being of most workers.

“Reduced working hours and more flexible working time arrangements, such as those used during the COVID-19 crisis, can benefit economies, enterprises and workers, and lay the ground for a better and more healthy work-life balance,” the ILO says.

The report also speaks to the appropriate and valuable employment of “digitally-enabled” workplaces – once properly applied to regulate time spent on the job.

Those of us who work in the virtual space can attest to the fact that online assignments are not inhibited by workplace commutes and other barriers that are inconvenient even as they help regulate actual time on the job.

The fact is work-from-home regimes can promote increased productivity while creating time for leisure, family, and other interests that lead to a better quality of life. But it can also, if improperly managed, greatly increase time spent “on the job” at the expense of the quality time needed to achieve emotional and physical balance.

Nuanced discussions on such matters ought to be led by our unions and others with an interest in the well-being of workers. But I have heard nothing to suggest any organised interest in such matters, even prior to this interesting ILO report.

This space has repeatedly been used to harp on the excellent opportunities presented by digital technologies and platforms for their deployment. The benefits extend to all stakeholders – from clients to an enabling workforce. The creation of an entire ministry to promote and to pursue the possibilities in the public sector is however yet to make an impression.

To be fair, the benefits of mechanisation have, indeed, profitably pushed industry and manufacturing in the direction of digital possibility and action. But I am yet to see its more wholesome embrace by other business, financial, and commercial sectors – some of which continue to erect digital facades to mask fully manual back-end processes. So many still want a “piece of paper” in their hands – banks, insurance companies, retailers … almost everybody.

It is even worse when it comes to government transactions. We all have our own horror stories. I refuse to hold my breath in anticipation of meaningful change. The digital embrace and its accompanying implications for the world of work in the public sector are not anywhere on the immediate horizon.

The ability to download and manually complete a form does not comprise a “transformation” of any reasonable substance. Change, you see, has the potential to undermine power structures and avenues for wrongdoing.

Where sensible adjustments have been made, they confront the countervailing passion for long lines and delays at public offices.

What, for instance, got in the heads of those who thought online appointments at the Licensing Office could have been withdrawn? The very fact that this had been contemplated tells the story. True, the decision was withdrawn, but think about the mindset that led us in that direction in the first place!

The ILO is meanwhile particularly instructive on the question of “working-time arrangements” including shift work, on-call work, compressed hours and hours-averaging schemes – much of which are anathema to bosses craving shoulders over which to peer.

The report however cautions that “the benefits of some of these flexible arrangements, such as better family life, may be accompanied by costs including greater gender imbalances and health risks.”

So, all of this requires a national conversation and negotiation involving all the social actors including, in my view, people who work but are not aligned to organised labour. It cannot be left to unthinking dismissal by politicians, solely profit-led businesspeople, or unenlightened trade unionists living in the distant past.

A new world of work is unfolding before our very eyes in many places. It’s within our reach. The pandemic, at its deadly peak, provided pathways to the possible. We haven’t embraced them.

 

A duty of social care

Listen here:

It took quite some time researching today’s subject (from my deep archive of enthusiastic appeals spanning decades) to arrive at the conclusion that adaptation to the noise phenomenon is a much more viable option than periodic mitigation efforts – whatever the law, accompanying regulations, or civilised behaviour dictate.

Sadly, I have concluded that the latter strategy to contain and reduce is a lost cause. I am also deliberately using climate change jargon to signal potentially catastrophic impacts – some of which are already quite evident.

A neighbour of mine (a respected professional not typically given to reckless hyperbole) was forced to conclude last Saturday: “I used to think that there was a minority of people in the country holding us back. I have since come to the unfortunate conclusion that it’s the majority.”

As some of us stood, watched, and listened under what appeared to be the shadows of distant Kyiv on Saturday/early Sunday, this particular neighbour messaged his understanding of our homespun tyranny of the majority – a profound take on western democracy’s double-edged sword of representative democracy.

I thank him for it because it explains many things. We need not wonder any more why, despite the Cabinet discussions, parliamentary references, press releases, consultations, and media conferences, no government of the past or present has ever been serious about breaches of laws addressing this issue that they themselves have passed or endorsed - even their application, in spirit, as a form of civic responsibility.

There are few grey areas between what the Summary Offences Act describes as “public nuisance”, the intent of the Explosives (Prohibition of Scratch Bombs) Order of 2018, or the processes associated with the Noise Pollution Control Rules administered by the Environmental Management Authority, among other wastepaper references in our libraries and hard drives.

There has never been any serious effort to address this breach of acceptable human behaviour. None. Standby for more later this year.

I have also not heard anyone argue seriously in favour of the complete abolition of celebratory pyrotechnics. They probably have some value as organised events under set guidelines to assure public safety and wellbeing. I really do not care for them. Close proximity to murderous gunfire permanently impaired my tolerance for it many years ago.

But some believe fireworks and noise-making devices have a role to play in making people happy. Fair enough. And what I have witnessed are simply attempts to encourage public authorities to administer the law, and leaders at all levels to apply codes of public conduct expressive of a duty of social care.

It should really not be that for purposes of adapting to breaches of both principles, we are called to sedate, “lock up”, tie, or otherwise secure our pets to reduce the undoubted harm caused. This, of course, is also not an option for the wildlife whose cruel fate is a routinely under-valued slur on our conduct. One important guide to the level of civilisation reached throughout history, has always been the level of regard paid to the humane treatment of animals and care for other features of the natural environment.

Babies, the aged, disabled, and ill … human beings … are also all expected by some, as is the case with our pets, to be safely quarantined from the noise, if not from fire hazards.

One column I excavated referenced the loss of “moral reliability” when leaders, in all their social manifestations – politics, religion, communal, public authority – consciously turn blind eyes to manifest wrong-doing. In the face of “zero tolerance” pronouncements, what we have witnessed, on this point alone, is the undermining of authority, by the authorities.

I also recall invoking “broken windows theory” – sometimes referenced by criminologists who argue that when a society decides to leave “minor” infractions alone, the foundations for serious crime are reinforced and even tacitly supported by officialdom.

But, as my neighbour suggested, this also extends to an apparently tyrannical majority whose value systems do not extend to a duty of care, and who live with an expectation of impunity.

But it is possible, I once argued, that something can be entirely lawful … yet absolutely wrong.

So, in 2023, as we adapt and prepare to be sedated and self-quarantined against noise and fire attacks, let’s be real. Not that we should allow hope to slip from our imagination, but that we learn more about defending ourselves, especially against ourselves.

The Seerman got it right!

(Published in the T&T Guardian on January 5, 2022)

The Seerman of 2022

I have noticed that, so far in the mainstream media, we have been mercifully spared the views of clairvoyants and mystics on the prospects for T&T in 2022. I might have (thankfully) missed them.

It could be that the usual suspects have chosen other private and public platforms to predict everything from the painfully inevitable to the outlandish designs of omens and dreams.

I have even noticed studious avoidance of satirical projections. This is perhaps out of fear that, at this time, nothing remains out of the realm of the eminently possible.

In the absence of the usual local contributions, and with due respect to our weatherman, Kalain Hosein (who is mostly accurate), I therefore wish to make one simple prediction of my own, having stared long and hard into a Grenadian conch shell:

On December 31, 2022, there will be firecrackers, “squibs”, bamboo bursting, and unauthorised use of fireworks almost everywhere in T&T. Animals will cower and some will die. A house or two will burn. A teenager will suffer injury to his/her hearing/vision. The police will not respond to complaints. A government official will promise yet another inquiry or legislative review. 

This will end 12 months of pyrotechnics at sundry occasions when people decide that the plight of the ill, the aged, the disabled, animals (both wild and domesticated) and other vulnerable groups is not worthy of consideration.

I am almost certain I can take this to the bank because I have been keeping tabs on this issue for decades now. Not one prime minister, minister of national security, attorney general, police commissioner, business chamber or religious community has ever been serious about this.

This is the only available conclusion, following years and years of so-called “zero tolerance” and other forms of public mamaguy.

The parliament even went as far, in 2017/2018 as convening an “Inquiry into the adverse health effects of fireworks” by a Joint Select Committee.

This exercise focused almost entirely on human health, but at various stages in the proceedings captured expressions of concern about private and public property and the plight of animals.

Last week, one social media wag addressed the point about pets as something of an idle bourgeois concern – à la Chinese Cultural Revolution (when keeping pets was banned).

What could possibly be wrong with making noise in your neighbourhood? We did it back in the day. We turned out fine. Hard luck lady who is now unable to walk, boy who lost full vision, homeowner whose property was destroyed, pet owner in search of her lost dog, asthmatic who endured poor air quality for days and days.

This is the “tradition” argument against serious action and the need for an official blind eye turned to collective pathological pyromania in order to preserve “de culture.”

I have heard equally passionate defences of “tradition” from proponents of annual “baby throwing” in India, female genital mutilation in Egypt, and child marriage everywhere. Over here, we more routinely have the burning of houses, the wounding of children, and the harming of defenceless animals as part of our glorious traditions.

The 2017/2018 inquiry made 16 “short-term” recommendations including the identification of “public spaces (recreation grounds and parks) where residents may gather to discharge fireworks under proper supervision.”

There were also 20 “medium-term” proposals that spoke of promotion of “the proper care of animals especially those that are domesticated.” And two “long-term” recommendations addressing the subject of an Injury Surveillance System and an expanded mandate for the EMA’s Policing Unit.

There had been “public hearings” of the JSC on March 15, April 19, and December 15, 2017, before the 201-page Report was laid in both houses of parliament in March the following year.

Five years to the day, and prior to all of this, I used this identical space to script, as fiction, the deliberations of Cabinet on this very subject as key ministers emotionally called for decisive action.

When, earlier this week, I saw the AG promising “public consultation” on some draft Bill or the other as the houses burned and as the injuries were recorded, my seerman pores raised. Here we go again, I thought.

So, on this day, without the candles or the crystal ball, I sadly declare yet another year of mamaguy. I see property damage. I see injuries. I see the haze of smoke and the invasion of peace and quiet. I see animals, of all classes, lost or wounded. I see “tradition” prevailing over good sense, law, and humanity. Forget about this as some kind of prospective victory in 2022.

Ratchifee and unfinished business

You ever looked at a freshly sculptured WASA pothole or mud-mound and wondered what in the inner workings of the human mind/soul/psyche/consciousness could ever conceive of such an act as being even remotely acceptable?

Now, I am not only speaking about the workers and supervisors at the site immediately responsible for the artwork, or the bosses back at headquarters who think it’s all okay, for a week or month or year. But there is a case to be made about our national penchant for vi-ki-vy (let the linguists settle this one … it’s from the French “vaille que vaille”) and ratchifee (the etymology of which appears to be undetermined).

Likewise, what can possibly lead anyone to believe that the ad hoc, vy-ki-vy arrangements for “regularising” the stay of Venezuela immigrants (though they are not the only victims of immigration policy at variance with international law and convention) are justifiable as a way of assuring their integration into T&T society or prospective safe return?

How does anyone - including the “close de borders” crowd of 2019 (who should never be allowed to fade comfortably into the background, however much their messaging changes) – argue in favour of denying the children of immigrants the right (and it is a right under at least one Convention to which we are boastful signatories) to an education?

There is also my continued amazement at the open rejection of digital solutions by politicians, senior public servants and many business leaders to some of the issues that render us prone to inefficiencies, lethargy, and chronically unfinished business.

Make no mistake about it, there is no real commitment to promoting remote work … wherever possible. Not every time and everywhere. Nobody, for instance, advocates work-from-home modus for WASA pipeline replacement. As far as I know, there has been no audit of the possibilities in either the public service or private sector. So, what accounts for the quick resort to “no”?

The prime minister does not believe this can work, and there is nothing sensible on this subject that has been uttered by any of the other political contestants or their numerous surrogates in the public space.

Listen. It was believed by somebody in a position of influence that the online appointment system at the Licensing Offices for drivers’ licence transactions should have reverted to the customary hours-long torture of the pre-pandemic era.

True, this return to arduous “normalcy” did not last long but note that it entered someone’s thoughts (without apparent opposition from Cabinet come down) that an online appointment system that worked should have been eliminated.

It is quite a charge to accuse an entire nation of not only governance by vaps (as a function of the collective body politic) but of considering vi-ki-vy and ratchifee as acceptable in the face of ‘too much to do with too little’, ‘incompetent leadership’, ‘small size’ or a ‘complacent clientele’ (citizens) who won’t fuss too much after initial emotions are fully vented – typically after 10 days of griping.

There are too many other examples for limited op-ed space. But one of the more crippling characteristics of countries in transition from one stage of development to another, is the degree to which citizens are accepting of unfinished, shoddy public business – even as “leave dat jess so” is accepted creed in personal spaces awaiting divine intervention.

This phenomenon spans a causal spectrum including sloppy lawmaking and enforcement, anachronistic public and private leadership, obsessively pragmatic political principles, sleazy partisan favouritism, and a general view that everything will be okay … eventually. So, “leave it so nah.”

“There might be a mound of mud or a big hole, but at least we fixed the leak”; “they t’ief but they performed”, “we give the immigrants time to stay and work, we never talk about children”; “we agreed to the CCJ but not THIS CCJ.” Unfinished business aplenty. Ratchifee. Improvised value systems. Spinning top in mud.

This might all sound funny, and it would probably have been, If not for numerous potentially injurious impacts. Official sloth and procrastination have cost us much in the public health system, policing, public policy, and numerous other areas of national and community life.

There is something that happens to the souls and minds of people who believe that vy-ki-vy, ad hoc decision-making that moves quickly from one bit of unfinished business to the next is somehow acceptable as a way of advancing the development game.

That suspension-bending pothole or mound of mud is barely the tip of a psychic trash pile of unfinished business. It is among the products of ratchifee, vy-ki-vy, and postponement of opportunity.