So the State of Emergency is extended. Effective today, the curfew as announced by the Prime Minister will be from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. We all knew it would happen; the government has a luxury of a strong majority that made the Opposition no more than a lubricant for all of this. In fact, the Opposition was as effective as oiled brakes - a result of their own time as government and it's democratically judged efficacy.
But I'm apolitical. I'm more interested in issues. And in the issues department, the best equivalent of most of the debate was, "my mummy can beat up your mummy". It was a true embarassment to watch. But the grandstanding was in full force, I suppose, with live cameras on the scene and a captive audience of those who want to know what's going on in Trinidad and Tobago.
Let me get to the issues.
If you can read the headline above without scratching your head, there's not much that can be said to change your mind. The Prime Minister herself said that the crisis had been averted yesterday at the end of the session regarding the extension of the State of Emergency here in Trinidad and Tobago, which begs the question as to why the State of Emergency was extended.
It's not that I'm against the State of Emergency, mind you. I'm just not one to blindly accept things. While Jumbie's Watch claimed some insight into what the averted crisis was, I've had no such luxury. And really, had this crisis been averted, why can it not be spoken of now? And why would the State of Emergency be extended?
In three days of Parliamentary debate, I waited for something about the disaster to come out. Anything. The quantitatively weak PNM opposition did ask some good questions here and there, particularly regarding the 'dealbreaker' as was asked by the Leader of the Opposition - referring to the 'crisis' - and the response was a lot of grand standing political rhetoric that ranged from, in spirit, "yuh chupid o what?" to, "de PNM government caused this in the last 10 years."
While the Honorable Minister of Sport, Mr. Anil Roberts, amused a lot of people - I will take the time here to point out that he wasn't very sportsmanlike. 'We win, allyuh lose, shut yuh mouth' rhetoric. Yes, they lost. Sportsmanship? Is it to be until next election that we hear that sort of rhetoric in Parliament?
In fact, most of the debate almost seemed as a 'nyah nyah nyah' from the People's Partnership government. Yes, we all expect that the inefficacy of the last PNM regime has a lot to do with crime; if there was a single issue that caused the PNM to lose so much ground in Parliament it would probably be crime - though I expect the land tax and 'free laptops for SEA students' held some sway. So the general populace is quite aware of the PNM's track record of dealing with crime. And the responses to the Opposition along the lines of, "how much clearer can we make it?"- really, 'yuh chupid o what?' - lacked one thing. An answer.
It's not that I'm against the State of Emergency. Far from it; it's quiet and peaceful for the most part during curfew hours. It's a bit inconvenient for me, personally. But what I find particularly odd is that an indeterminate crisis was averted while the State of Emergency was extended because... why? I can rationalize it away, of course, which seems to be what the government wants everyone to do.
The State of Emergency does offer an opportunity for police work. Gathering intelligence is probably more important than the smattering of weapons found so far, and the State of Emergency can allow that to happen. But did the government say this? No.
The State of Emergency does allow people to shift their lifestyles toward one based more around law and order. The government - I forget exactly whom - did say that.
The State of Emergency does allow for allowing the police to clear up an apparent backlog of warrants. The government didn't say that.
In all, really, if the government did explain why the State of Emergency was to be extended it wasn't comprehensive and in one place. And, personally, I think that this demonstrates that the Cabinet, when they decided to call the State of Emergency, all went along for different reasons. The net result is the State of Emergency and its extension.
But real questions do remain regarding the Financial Intelligence Unit, regarding how many of the numbers of arrests have resulted in charges (and how many in releases) and regarding what will happen in 3 months time. Without knowing what the goals are - tangible goals - can we expect the same 'level' of discussion in Parliament in 3 months?
I don't know. All I can say is that I really do hope that they know what they're doing because, as a layperson who isn't blinded by political faith, that's the best I have to offer. If facts regarding the why of the State of Emergency was called and to be extended were food, the nation starved. The nation cannot survive on soap operas.
