Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts

How Media informs opinion

The media plays an important role in informing us. Today’s media uses various mediums to get their message across, there are the traditional; newspaper, television, radio and then there are the many other mediums that technology affords us; internet, blogs, facebook and twitter to name but a few, the list is long.
I believe in the media, I believe that the role of the media is of great importance to any society. I am one who will never condemn the media, I will never say for instance the media is in the pockets of the drug cartel fro example.

Open letter to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar

Dear Madam Prime Minister,

After one year in government, your administration has been faced with too many issues, the type of issues that the people voted against, the type of issues that plagued the former regime and caused the population to send a clear message via the vote that they are no longer willing to accept. They sent a clear message that they were not willing to accept the arrogance of the last administration in government.

An Immigration Blunder or Vote Bank Creation?

I was listening to a talk formatted program yesterday and the issue regarding the freeing up of requirement for Indians and Russians to come to this country was discussed. I must point out here that I agree fully with the concerns expressed. Those concerns relate to persons who initially would have come into the country to invest, work etc. The host indicated that after they have been here for some time and have become comfortable and have settled in they may not be willing to return to their home country considering that they may have been at the lower end of the social ladder at home.

In relation to these persons wanting to remain in this country, the host raised a very important issue related to elections. His concern (and I support this concern) was that by having persons come here and eventually being able to vote, a government can secure victory at the polls. This is very possible, think otherwise and you are fooling yourself. This was done decades ago with our neighbouring islanders.

The issue of persons coming into our country and eventually being able to vote and as voters would be loyal to a particular party has been a concern by many for a long time. We all have heard of the complaints about persons from up the islands coming in and voting for a particular party thereby giving them an unfair hold on power. Which over time contributed to the mess we are in today, because of this advantage, there was no real democracy in terms of our elections. It is in this context I share the concerns of this host

I cannot understand why any government would have to go out of their way to get persons to invest in a country, It is either we are attractive to investors or not. And if we are attractive to foreign investors, then we should be capitalising on those investments, not create a situation where persons would come in, get all these perks and then export their earnings. How does the country benefit from this arrangement? Unless of course the aim is not investment.

The same goes for tourism, tourist are attracted to what a country can offer in terms of its sites, culture etc. In other words, what that country has that is unique so as to get people to visit. Tourists, IMO would not be attracted to a country as a tourist destination because they don’t have to get a VISA, I don’t get this.

Easily Distracted? YES and we encourage it.

Am always amazed at how people can allow themselves to be led like sheep, this is so easy to do and is all possible because of our politics. Politics that has divided us into we and them. When we engage in such trivial matters, we fuel the politician’s eagerness to keep us fighting against each other whilst they carry one with their agenda. Their agenda of

What are we rewarding

I see persons getting rewards of all sorts. Some businessmen and women getting all sorts of rewards for their contribution to business etc.

It is said that they have and continues to work very hard. That they have built businesses etc. and that they contribute to the development of our country.

Oh really?

Hold on, I am not saying that they don't and that they have not in fact worked hard. But I am saying that many so called business people are bandits. Yes bandits, the worst kind. They cheat on taxes, they exploit employees, they engage in price gouging. These people contribute to the state we are in today, but they get up on a platform and spew all kinds of rubbish that sounds good, but do they live by what they preach? They are frauds.

Yet, society rewards these bandits and worship them.

You could not imagine how this pisses me off.

Give them the credit!!!

MP for Laventille East/Morvant, Donna Cox in her contribution to the budget debate yesterday indicated that the decrease in crime stated by the govn't is as a direct result of initiatives of the then PNM government and that credit must be given to the PNM. I want to agree with her fully. Things don't happen overnight and neither can this happen in 3 months into a new regime's term in office.

I have always maintained that today’s results, positive or negative, is a direct result of past actions. For instance, the decrease in crime has to be a direct result of past initiatives. Something all have been clamoring for, for the past eight years.

Similarly, the state of our development or non-development today has to be a direct result of past actions by past governments. For instance, after the “Oil Boom” of the late 70’s early 80’s and after the waste of our resources via corrupt leaders who plundered those resources, we were left with a situation where a new regime had to implement harsh measures in order to bring back the economy.

Yet again, within the past eight years, the resources of this country were again squandered by a corrupt regime who disguised it as development. The results of this will be seen in the years to come.

Therefore, this is why I must maintain that we must place credit where credit is due and nowhere else.

It wasn’t me…

…a follow-up to a previous post.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar stated that she never promised an old age pension at age 60. At a recent press conference, she sort to clear up the issue of old age pension in relation to widespread speculation as to what age it will be granted, many have interpreted platform rhetoric to mean that pensions was guaranteed at age 60. The Prime Minister stated that the People’s Partnership never promised that pension will begin at age 60 but was looking at increasing the retirement age to 65.

In seeking to explain (backtrack) this blunder, the PM indicated:

"If I were to be honest with you, first I would say, it wasn't me. In my conversations on the platform I was very clear in my mind as we were very clear in our manifesto…I was very clear on two things, one, it will not be a grant we will restore the pension so it will be an entitlement, not a discretionary grant you can take or give, which we did, we kept that promise. And, I was also clear that there would be no one in that category, the pensioners, the existing ones getting the grant who will get less than $3,000 and we've kept that promise,"

"The finances of the nation will not be able to do that at this time, but certainly if and when the finances of our nation will allow it, we will do it. But we also have in train as a matter of public policy; we are looking to increasing the retirement age to age 65 instead of age 60," she said.

The manifesto of the People’s Partnership is very clear and in a previous post I sort to demonstrate how clear they were and point out that we should not just accept what is said on the platform, rather we must look at the documented policies.

The manifesto, in part, stated the following:

…they will reinstate the Old Age Pension Act and that Pensions must be an entitlement not a grant they will remove

…the restrictions and qualifications for receiving Old Age Pension and “thus” every citizen will automatically receive this Pension

…increase the entitlement to $3,000

The sub head of the relevant section read: Ageing Population: Life begins at age 60.

For the PM to indicate today that her government never promised old age pension at age 60 is less than honest. The headline suggest this and nothing else even if it was explicitly stated, maybe this is the cleverness of those who wrote the document. I was and is still willing to wait some time before everything that was promised to be delivered, but I am not willing to accept this sort of rubbish from the politicians. But they are not the only ones to blame, we are equally if not solely to blame because we accept this kind of politics where the politicians jump up onto a platform, tell the DJ to spin some soca and chutney and then turn to us and spew rubbish onto our ever accommodating faces.

I have no real issue with what was indicated in the manifesto and I am not concerned in the least bit about what was said on the platform, I pay no attention to that, and I have never attended a single meeting as I am not one who will base my decision on what is said at those meetings as so many foolish people seem to prefer to do. As I have said, the manifesto is very clear (in my view). However listening to the PM today, something has gone wrong and to say that the finances of the country does not allow for pensions to be paid at age 60 is not being genuine with the population, a population which should not base their decisions on platform rubbish in the first place. Again, not that I am agreeing with those who claim that the government said they will pay at age 60 because they indicated that pensions will be paid at the pensionable age. The only misleading piece is the headline which state life begins at 60.

The Prime Minister should have done better in explaining this issue. Her offered explanation has just placed a level of doubt as to the other promises of her government. This blunder has placed the entire agenda of the present government into question. What else will they say they did NOT say? What else will they NOT do that they said they will do?

My forehead is clean. What is written on yours?

How much more demoralised can the Police Service become?

On the hells of the news that the new CoP is to receive a monthly salary of 133,000, the Police Service Association is claiming that this will render the Police Service demoralised.

Ok, I can see how this is possible and if this is in fact a real consequence of having a CoP which such a salary attached to him. However, I cannot understand a possibility of becoming demoralised if as citizens on a daily basis complain about poor response by the Police. If you were to call a Police Station for help one of these are sure to be a response, “we doh have a car”, “we have a car but no driver”, “everybody out on patrol”, “you have to call XYZ station”, “we sent an office out to you already” (this was about 4hrs ago). And the list of excuses is unending.

How much more demoralised can the Police Service become when instead of doing what they are paid for, they are seen picking of their children from school, dropping of their wife to the hair dresser, transporting a stove for the “horner” woman, liming by the bar and river. And this list also is unending.

The question remains, how much more can the Police Service become and in answering this we need to also consider the detection rate of the police service, this is so poor that I cannot understand how the Police Service Association can today claim that because of an inflated salary of a new CoP would demoralised the Police Service. Has this man considered how demoralise the citizens of this country are, how confident the citizens are in the Police Service. As I have said in opening, I can understand the Police Service Associations concerns, but does he understand our concerns?

TTHaveYourSay®