The revelation, last week, by Prime Minister Bruce Golding of Jamaica, that he had sanctioned the hiring of the law firm in the United States to protect the interest of an alleged drug "don," highlights the need locally, for the PNM and the UNC coalition, to clarify their respective relationships with so-called community leaders, aka gang leaders. This and other key issues have not been addressed in the battles on the political platforms. On March 26, Mr Golding had vehemently denied that the Government had retained a US law firm to lobby Washington on extradition treaty issues. Last August, the United States made a request to Jamaica for the extradition of Christopher "Dudus" Coke, a reputed Tivoli Gardens don, who is wanted in the US on drug and gun-running charges. Golding's administration refused to act on the extradition request, contending that the US has presented illegally-obtained wire-tap evidence against Coke.
Whether that is so or not, what business is it, one asks, of the government to engage a US law firm to lobby the US Government to drop its extradition request for an alleged drug-trafficker? All that Golding could say, weakly, was that it was the party who did it and not the government. The firm mistakenly thought they were acting for the government. Political spin of this kind has been employed time and again by both political parties in T&T, to explain their relationships with organised crime figures. Statements without foundation that persons have been "exonerated" by the courts have been made on both sides, as well as denials of close involvement. Recognition that such persons have supported the government of the day has been almost coy. During the UNC time in government, between 1995 and 2001, there is no doubt that these relationships existed, and the prosecution of former minister Dhanraj Singh revealed some evidence of this.
When the PNM took over, however, instead of eschewing the relationships, they clearly embraced such persons, and the infamous "gang leaders" conference hosted by then minister Boynes, at Crowne Plaza, was indicative of this. There was also much parading of various "peace accords" signed by the "community leaders," many of whom would die at the end of a bullet within a year or two. In return for the promised peace, there is no doubt that these persons were given various "small" contracts of a million or so each by the government of the day. Indeed, the policeman brother of one slain gang leader stated in a press interview that his brother died as a result of quarrels resulting from the grant of such contracts. It is, therefore, interesting to note neophyte candidate Patricia McIntosh accusing the UNC of sowing the seed of crime by, she says, their halting of various youth training programmes.
Whether there is something in that is defeated by the fact that the seeds of crime are sowed at a much earlier age, and neither administration over the decades of independent governance has built a single orphanage or half-way house. It is true that they gave subventions to some homes run by churches, etc, but this is way too little. Both St Mary's and St Dominic's Homes are overflowing, and this has been so for over 20 years. Recently, there was much ado when a magistrate sent a 14-year-old to be detained at the Women's Prison, but was it the magistrate's fault that there was nowhere else? So when one is talking about sowing the seeds of crime, first check out the orphanages–or lack thereof–and what becomes of the youth in the juvenile courts. As for Minister and PNM candidate Paula Gopee-Scoon calling on Kamla Persad-Bissessar to admit that the UNC government made mistakes with the Piarco Airport project, where is the PNM acknowledgement of the same, re-Udecott and Calder Hart?
The scandal that PNM MP, Dr Rowley, called ten times worse than Piarco? Minister Scoon could not really expect us to be so simplistic as to expect us to believe that the PNM government was into corruption-busting, because it "set up the Uff Commission of Enquiry." As I remember, the Government did this kicking and screaming, and then proceeded to fund the defence of Calder Hart and Udecott in the enquiry and the courts of T&T with high-powered British lawyers, against whom Dr Rowley had to defend himself. Through all of this, the PM and his Minister of Housing was defending Hart all the way, the former praising him to high heaven and the latter accusing the public at large of "hounding" him out of office. As for the vaunted investigation, what has happened to it? Is it so difficult to ascertain whether Hart's wife was related to the directors of the company that built the Legal Affairs Tower?
Meanwhile, I wait to hear some meaningful statement on the agricultural policy of both sides–not a mere forgettable statement of intent. It is evident that the plan by the PNM government to set up ten mega-farms has failed. How will the UNC deal with promotion of investment in agriculture? On another note, I do not buy the statement by the UNC leader that the decision to go to the CCJ necessitates a referendum. Why? Apart from the fact that there is no such provision in the Constitution, surely, if you state your policy now and people approve of it by voting you in, that is enough of a sanction. There are many other issues which the parties need to clarify, such as a budget deficit of $7 billion and demands of the Clico bailout; where will the government get the money to fund the promised increases in social services spending such as old age pension/senior citizens grants? It had better not be by more taxes on the middle class.