​
They don’t want we talk…” 
 - (Sedition Law by King Radio
https://youtu.be/sJqZ0G4H0mo)


​The National Trade Union Centre today reported that Watson Duke, President of the PSA and NATUC is under police arrest under threat of being charged for sedition under the Sedition Act, for statements alleged to have been made in November 2018. (https://www.facebook.com/psatrinbago/videos/2324041097836386/?comment_id=2324047067835789&notif_id=1567090111100271&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic)
The statements, we are told, were made by Duke in response to threats of retrenchment of workers at WASA.
A trade union leader arrested (for questioning?) on allegations of sedition. The union offices (the first attempt without warrant blocked by union officers) and his home searched, and his children’s electronic devices allegedly seized by the Police.
This comes only days after the same union leader made statements critical of comments made about Public Officers who are members of the same union and 9 months after allegedly- seditious statements were made.
Only some weeks ago, a radio and tv station was also searched without warrant (not produced even after a Court Order to do so) when the Police alleged that statements made by the owner of the station made seditious statements.
This sounds like something out of the dark annals of the most autocratic or fascist regimes of the world.
History of Sedition Law
Sedition was criminalized by the Courts of England since 1275 as an intention to “bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution”. That was at a time when the ‘divine right’ of the Monarch and feudal society were being challenged with the introduction of ‘democracy’.
The last prosecution for sedition in the UK was in 1972 and in 1977, the Law Commission recommended the abolition of the common law offence. Sedition was finally abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
In the USA, the Sedition Act of 1798 was introduced to criminalise "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" including laws legitimising slavery. Sedition laws were used in 1967 to try and prosecute protestors against the Vietnam war.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the Sedition Ordinance (No.10 of 1920) “empowered the government to suppress Garveyite and socialist literature” and “close any paper ...found to contain seditious material”.(A History of Modern Trinidad 1783-1962 by Bridget Breretron). It was one of a set of laws passed in an attempt to suppress the nationwide strikes of 1919-20 which began with the dockworkers strike, led by the TWA which published a paper called “Argos”.
In 1937, when the workers again challenged the colonial authorities, Butler was charged for sedition against the King.
In 1970, the NJAC and other leaders of the protest for Power to the People were also detained and charged for sedition.
In 2005, the leader of the Jamaat al Muslimeen was also charged for sedition for statements made in an Eid ul Fitr sermon about zakat. That case ended without a conviction after 2 jury trials.
Revival of Sedition Allegations by Police
It is important to examine and understand why now, in 2019, there is a is an upsurge in allegations of sedition against a media owner and a trade unionist (also a political opponent of the ruling party).
From this history it is clear that the Sedition law has been primarily to criminalise dissent against the powers-that-be and prevent the people from speaking out – they don’t want we talk as King Radio put it in his calypso.
One newspaper reports that the Dean of the UWI Law Faculty commenting on Duke’s arrest and allegations of sedition like this: “The chill­ing ef­fect, An­toine said, was to muz­zle dis­sent­ing voic­es… She won­dered if crim­i­nal of­fences were now be­ing used to muz­zle dis­sent­ing voic­es.”. “You have to be able to prove that what they are do­ing is in­deed try­ing to over­throw the Gov­ern­ment,”
The increase in allegations of sedition by the Police must be looked at seriously. The fact that the Police in both instances recently conducted or attempted searches without warrant and contrary to law should cause concern.
There is no mass protest like in 1919-20, 1937 or 1970 now. So why these attempts to use this archaic law against citizens?  
These arrests for investigation of possible seditious statements, smacks of state harassment of citizens perceived as ‘troublemakers’ by the authorities.
The suppression of dissent is contrary to the very principles of democracy and freedom of speech. Excesses of expression which may be racist or divisive or hate speech can be dealt with by legal processes other than criminal.
The very Common Law offence of sedition in section 10 of the Sedition Act, is questionable given its abolition in the UK in 2009.
This oppressive antiquated notion of sedition is a remnant of medieval times and has no place in a modern democracy. It is obsolete to a modern democratic society and governance worthy of the 21st century.   
The constitutionality of this law has been challenged by Sat Maharaj and NATUC today announced that it, too, will make a similar challenge.
On the eve of the celebration of 57 years of Independence as we strive to build a modern democracy with a proper respect for the Rights of the Citizens including the Right to Dissent and demand accountability from those elected to govern on their behalf, this undemocratic law must go.
Such a law should be abolished as the former colonial masters who created it and imposed it on our country have done.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society and for the
Rights of the People
29 August 2019

​At a handing over ceremony of 200 motorbikes for the Police Service, the Prime Minister, again made some very unfortunate remarks, this time disparaging “many” Public Officers who he claimed “produce absolutely nothing when the day comes” but “make the most noise when the pay is late”.
The PM has made a habit of making these kinds of scathing remarks about institutions of the country and those who operate them loosing focus of the important issues which he sometimes raises in the same speech.
Yesterday for example, the PM pointed to the benefits of these new motorbikes for improved response time and effectiveness of the Police Service and the need for their proper maintenance and management.
However, he went off into his ‘attack’ mode and lost the plot.
What is the Public Service
The PM referred again yesterday to ‘gazetted’ public officers as he was when he joined the Civil Service many years ago. He has recently referred to his Government not having retrenched a ‘single gazetted officer’.
The gazetted officers he refers to are the Public Officers appointed to Public Office by a Service Commission.
The Public Service is the several services – Police, Fire, Prisons, Civil, Teaching which are established under our Constitution to provide operational support to the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of our nation’s State.
Many people still refer to the Civil Service with which most members of the public interact on a daily basis for a range of services as the Public Service. It is just one of the services.
In response to the PM’s unfortunate charge of ‘lazy public officers’ most of the citizens’ responses have, as expected, focused on the Civil Service.
Public Officers vs Contract Employees
However, what people encounter in most Ministries and Departments in 2019 are not ‘gazetted’ public officers, but contract employees hired by the Ministries and not appointed by the Public Service Commission.
As many as 75% or more of the employees in Ministries are contract employees and not Public Officers. There is a vast difference.
So, while the PM boasts that not a single ‘gazetted’ civil servant has been retrenched, hundreds if not thousands of contract employees have been terminated from the Civil Service
Since the 1980’s, successive governments have drastically and systematically reduced the size of the Constitutional Public Service and increased the number of politically appointed contract employees as politicians have demanded their perceived “right” to hire and fire and undermine the role of the Service Commissions.
Contract employment was initially only to be used in cases of skills not available in the Service or for specific projects or short periods. But, politicians have expanded contract employment all over the civil service.
When I went to work as Advisor to a Minister in 2010, I met telephone operators and drivers who were employed on contract for many years.
In 2006, the vast majority of the Police Service was removed by amendments of the Constitution and the Police Service Act unanimously passed, from under the purview of the Police Service Commission and placed under the direct management of the Commissioner of Police. Only the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners are appointed by the Commission, and only after approval by the politicians in Parliament.
Management is the Problem
While in his remarks, the PM did point to the need for improvements in management and accountability in the Public Service broadly speaking, he misdirected himself by his misguided attack on the officers who are to be managed.
What he did not point to is that despite the appointment of several Ministers of Public Administration since the 1980’s, the management function in the Public Service has deteriorated badly providing neither guidance and training nor performance management to those who are to be managed.
What he did not discuss is that after four years of his administration, he has not provided a single bit of accounting for the role of his recently dismissed Public Administration Minister in terms of the improvement of the efficiency and service quality of the Public Service.
In fact, is we are to be honest, the quality of service rendered to the public has deteriorated under this administration’s watch. The continued inability to improve the ease of doing business is one bit of evidence of this failure.
A prevalent complaint raised by members of the public is the closing of several government services at lunch time when most employed persons can conveniently access public services.
This problem should have been eliminated since the issuing of a Circular requiring all Revenue-collecting offices to remain open which was issued in the 1990’s by another PNM Public Administration Minister, Draper, with the concurrence of the PSA.
It seems that organisational managerial memory has lost sight of this requirement, as perhaps many others.
The Prime Minister would be well advised to pay more attention to improving the management systems and cutting back the insecure contract employment and restore the quality of the gazetted and Constitutionally- legitimate Public Service employment.
The Constitution at section 85 says that Ministers are responsible for the general direction of their Ministries and sadly Permanent Secretaries are described responsible for “supervision”, rather than management.
Politicians need to  worry less about controlling and hiring and firing employees and more about providing important policy direction and allow Public Officers to play their role of advising on Government Policy and implementing decided policy.
The Prime Minister must be careful about pointing fingers in the wrong direction and focus on the real issues plaguing us.
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen who advocates for an
Efficient, Effective and Independent
Public Service.
22 August 2019

​Over the years, many politicians have declared their intentions to change our political culture, to create a new politics or political culture and now even claim to be building a new society.
The rhetoric has always claimed to be for change and for the new. But our experience has been that that change has turned out to be exchange and the new to be much of the same old.
Recently, a supporter of one of the 2 “major parties” obviously concerned that his party’s rhetoric was putting that party in jeopardy of ‘not winning’ the 2020 General Elections posed the question: Who is capable of changing our political culture?
In responding to that query which must be on the minds of more electors than just this one, I offer the following for your consideration.
Unfortunately, the electoral and political processes are built on the architecture rooted in the premise of a maximum authoritarian leader in the office of the Prime Minister (Tuti capo en tuti capi, as PM Manning put it).
The holder of that office is the Leader of the political party which holds the majority of seats out of a First-Past-the-Post Electoral process which like the US system appoints a Head of Government who does not necessarily enjoy a Majority of the popular vote. 
The PM is endowed with the remnants of the privileges and prerogatives of the old English monarch. Ministers of the Executive are appointed at the pleasure of the monarchical PM.
EVERY Political Leader aspires to be the next HRH PM and political party constitutions mimic the maximum power of the PM in the powers of the PL in the party structure. The party leader is seen as a PM in waiting.
Without changing both the national governance structure and that of political parties which are in waiting or as a result of  the democratic renewal of the electoral and political processes, Nothing will change in the political culture. 
Unless the role of political parties changes from merely being defenders of the rule of the minority (the parasitic oligarchy) to ensuring the rule of the majority, there will be NO change in the political culture. 
Without the empowerment of the citizens, the electors in relation to the elected, there will be NO change in the political culture. 
The political culture is a function of the political system and who exercises political power in the society. 
Without understanding that changing the political culture is impossible without changing the electoral and political processes, all we will have is more rhetoric devoid of REAL content about New Politics, New Political Culture, New Society with all the fundamentals of the Old intact and whatever else their spin-doctors invent.
Neither of the PNM-UNC POLITICAL MONOPOLY nor many other political parties are really interested in fundamental change in the electoral and political processes from which they hope to benefit.
The so-called major parties are the gatekeepers of the status quo and are prepared to move in the direction of even more authoritarian forms of the existing electoral and political processes to protect their privileges and rule of the minority.
On many occasions in our history, members of the body politic have sought to bring about changes in favour of the majority in the colonial and Independence periods.
The demands for universal adult suffrage achieved in 1946, for more elected representation in the LegCo and the initiatives taken by citizens organised in Pegasus in 1962 – 67 to define the path of nation-building and by the People led by NJAC in 1970 to demand the fulfilment of the promise of Independence are all occasions on which the People have occupied the political centre stage. The political officeholders and parties were displaced.
Unless, We, the People, once again take the centre stage of history and politics, there will be no change in the political culture, in the electoral and political processes in the direction of Democratic Renewal and Empowerment of the Majority.
Without this, the gatekeepers will hold on to the status quo and continue to exercise their deprive the majority of decision-making power and preserve the political culture which serves them.
 
Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for the
Democratic Renewal of our
Society
21 August 2019