“Understanding requires an Act of Conscious Participation of an Individual, an Act of Finding Out” -
Necessity for Change, by Hardial Bains.
When the news of the passing of Satnaryan Maharaj broke yesterday morning, anticipating the tsunami of assessments of the man, in tribute and derision, I sounded a note of caution attempting to stem the flood of what could be not so proud moments weighing this controversial figure in the balance.
This was my own initial post:
“RIP SATNARYAN MAHARAJ.
Our nation bids farewell to a man recognised as a leader.
In our assessment of his role and contribution, it is hoped that we, as a society, do so in a dispassionate and objective manner.
We must not use the lenses of preconceived or inculcated notions or biases or what is now politely and disarmingly labelled 'identity' politics.
Farewell, Sat.
Condolences to his family.”.
Social media, the press and airwaves were awash with comments, pleasantly not filled with so much of the usual vitriol that was part of the commentary on many things that the long-standing Secretary-General of the Maha Sabha evoked over the years.
When the pleasantries flowed from the halls of governance, the highest officers of our land set a calming tone. Others, to be expected, attempted to measure his legacy and some called for a State funeral and others for monuments and tributes.
He had hardly parted from our company and in the midst of the messages from one quarter or the other, it was clear to me that the divisiveness some blamed him for, really lies in absence of a national assessment of his role and contribution.
Eventually, I added the following in response to a lengthy and lively Facebook debate on the merits of a suggestion of a state funeral.
“Wow. This thread is so interesting.
What was Sat Maharaj? What you ask. What was he in social terms. He was a religious leader, a political activist, a journalist. Some say he was a racist, misogynist, even a paedophile because his religion allowed child marriage.
He was divisive, a patriot, a fighter, etc etc.
One thing is sure. Based on these comments here and other public utterances, it is clear that this society has not come to an accepted conclusion on the role of Sat in our society.
There are chauvinists on either side of the race divide who for their own purposes are rushing to hail him as the champion of the Hindus or alternatively of the Indians or East Indians and a national icon or hero. On the other side, others condemn him as the enemy of the Africans and a racist hater. Are both correct?
Those who call him a paedophile, condemn him for supporting child marriage, a retention of Hindu and Indian culture, are themselves being disingenuous. Non-Christian marriage laws in this country accepted marriage ages below 18. And 18 was not always the legal definition of adulthood. As well, if we go back over our family trees, we will find many of our ancestors were married long before 21 or 18. If we condemn Sat on this basis then we will have to condemn a lot of others too.
He was divisive! some charge. Well, examine our political history, colonial and post-colonial and be honest and see if there’s not a very long list to whom such labels cannot be applied.
So What was Sat?
The answer will be this or that, not because of what he actually did or said but more so because of what narratives have been spun about him and his words and deeds. We hail the Baptists for defending their religion; yet condemn him for defending his. We hail African leaders for defending their “ethnic race” (as one comment put it) but condemn him for defending Indians. We hail Anthony Pantin as an activist religious leader but condemn Sat. Why? Because one religion is acceptable and another is not?
Hopefully, we, as a society, will agree how objectively we assess the contributions and roles of all citizens to our society. So, we will be able to assess Sat or anybody else on those socially acceptable criteria and not about our own prejudices and dogmas.
We are divided in our assessment of Sat, not because of Sat, but, because we are not united in our philosophy, values, Politics etc.”.
Some may have been surprised at the quarters from which denunciations of the easy derogatory labels came.
We have grown too accustomed to accepting narrative propagated by others for their own purposes. They now use ‘critical thinking’ as a mere buzzword.
But, they encourage us never to understand others and their roles but rather to accept stereotypical objectifications of them without ever interacting with them, examining their circumstances and histories; without an Act of Finding Out for ourselves.
However history will weigh him in the balance, none can doubt his contribution to the expansion and development of a remarkable portion of our educational system.
Perhaps with the dying embers of his funeral pyre and the final treatment of his ashes, we, this rainbow nation will finally be able to pronounce on the legacy of Sat Maharaj.

A Citizen longing for the
Renewal of the National Purpose
17 November 2019

Local Government Elections 2016 (LGE 2016) the message from the PNM platforms was clear: A Vote for the PNM is a Vote for Local Government Reform!! This election is about Local Government Reform!!!
“The PNM's cam­paign for the No­vem­ber 28 lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­tions will fo­cus on lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form. As sure as night fol­lows day, the PNM gov­ern­ment is go­ing to re­form lo­cal gov­ern­ment to bring pow­er to the peo­ple. The par­ty is ready to de­liv­er.
It is re­al and it will hap­pen. Just as night fol­lows day, lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form is go­ing to hap­pen this time," PNM Chair­man and Min­is­ter of Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment and Rur­al De­vel­op­ment, Franklin Khan, de­clared at the of­fi­cial launch of the PNM's lo­cal gov­ern­ment cam­paign on 30 October.
Every night we were reminded – Vote for Local Government Reform, Vote PNM!!! We Red and Ready.
WHO COULD REFORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The impression was deliberately cultivated. By voting for PNM Councillors, the burgesses would be ensuring that the LG Reform proposed by that party would become a reality within the 2016-19 Term of the Corporations.
But, even if PNM won every one of the 137 seats in the 14 Corporations, Local Government Reform was not to be implemented by anybody in the Corporations.
Why? Because Reform of the Local Government system (using the THA model as suggested) had to be done by amending the Municipal Corporations Act and at least 6 other pieces of legislation. And, no Mayor, Chairman, Alderman or Councillor of a Regional Corporation, even a reformed Corporation had any power to change an Act of Parliament.
That is for the MPs and Senators to do. That is for the Government to do.
Corporations are under the control of the Local Government and Finance Ministries at present. 
As such, the Corporations are controlled by the Central Government NOT the burgesses of the Corporations.
So, a vote in LGE 2016 was not really a vote for LG Reform, but, may have signalled a desire for reform of the Local Government system which burgesses want in a manner which empowers them in decision-making that affects their lives at a very basic level.
REFORM - LOW GOVERNMENT PRIORITY
An Express Editorial, in mid-July 2018, reminded us - “More than 18 months after the 2016 local government elections, reform seems to have dropped off the Government’s priority list…. Ahead of the 2019 local government elections, the population must insist that reform is returned to the national agenda and that they will cast votes based on meaningful improvements in their communities rather than stake a claim for their respective parties in the 2020 general election.”.
In fact, the Local Government Reform Bill (The Miscellaneous Provisions (Local Government Reform) Bill, 2019) was only laid in Parliament on 24 May 2019, 6 months before the end of the current Term of Corporation representatives. The Bill was then referred to a Joint Select Committee a month later on 26 June 2019.
On 3 November 2019, 1 month before the December 2 LGE 2019 polling date, Franklin Khan, now PNM’s as­sis­tant cam­paign man­ag­er reminded us that the Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Re­form Bill, which seeks to amend the Mu­nic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tion’s Act, the Prop­er­ty Tax Act and six oth­ers, is cur­rent­ly be­fore a Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee of Par­lia­ment.
He said, “The chances are the leg­is­la­tion will not be passed be­fore the lo­cal gov­ern­ment elec­tions. Hav­ing said that, for over four decades, suc­ces­sive ad­min­is­tra­tions have been promis­ing lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form.”
NO REFORM IN THE CURRENT TERM
Khan admitted, “De­spite lo­cal gov­ern­ment re­form be­ing a 2015 elec­tion promise of the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment, the leg­is­la­tion that would give more au­ton­o­my to mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tions will not be ready ahead of the De­cem­ber 2 Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Elec­tions.”.
So, despite promises in General Elections 2015 (GE 2015) and again in LGE 2016, another LGE campaign is upon us and the PNM has failed to deliver its promised Local Government Reform. This seems a bit like déjà vu. Between 2006 and 2010, the PNM promised LG Reform, postponed LG Elections 2 or 3 times, but failed to deliver.  The PP also failed to deliver in 2010-2015.
Why no delivery in 2016-19?
As Khan explained, the necessary legislative changes, the Reform Bill, has not even been debated, far less passed by the Parliament. The Draft Policy was issued in October 2016. But, the Bill did not reach Parliament until May 2019.
Mounting the PNM LGE 2019 platform in Tunapuna, the Leader of the PNM, presented a different picture, seeking to blame the Opposition UNC for the failure of the PNM to deliver LG Reform within the current LG Term. (See video - https://youtu.be/mUN-QEE5UAs)
BOGEY TIME
According to PM Rowley, “UNC's legal challenge on property tax put the local government reform initiative on standby because the revenue that it would generate was going to be the lifeblood of reform…the revenue from the tax is to be used to pay for goods and services in regional corporations…”.
He even raised the bogey that in GE2020, “the UNC will again use its 'axe the tax' slogan”. This led to headlines like – UNC’s property Tax challenge affecting local govt reform. UNC Sabotaging Local Government Reform.
Even if the UNC has a Court matter regarding the Property Tax Act, that has nothing to do with why the Local Government Reform Bill was only brought to Parliament 6 months before the end of the 2016 LG Term or why it has not yet been passed.
The Property Tax Act was amended by Government as recently as June 2018, but it makes no provision for the collection of Property Tax by LG Corporations. That Act says that ALL property Tax is to be collected by the Board of Inland Revenue and go into the Consolidated Fund.
The Local Government Reform Bill 2019 is what proposes to introduce a new Part V – Property Tax into the Municipal Corporations Act to allow Corporations to collect property tax from Residential Properties within each Corporation only. 
The Reform Bill also proposes to amend the Property Tax Act by its clause 10 to also require payment of Residential Property Tax to the Corporations and empower the Finance Minister to allow a portion of other property taxes to be collected and retained by Corporations.
So, contrary to the PM’s Platform Talk, the PNM’s assistant campaign manager was correct. The failure of the PNM to bring the LG Reform Bill to the Parliament before May 2019 an get it passed is the real reason for the non-implementation of LG Reform.
Aspects such as the Planning function and expansion of the Municipal Police have been going on.
But, because the Reform Bill has not been passed the LGE2019 will see Councillors elected into the same old un-reformed Regional Corporations.
Blaming the UNC for the PNM’s failure to act on its own promised Reform sounds pretty much like a page from the Cambridge Analytica playbook, as the PM now so often likes to refer us to.
In LGE2019, perhaps the burgesses should register their displeasure at yet another failure to deliver Local Government Reform by a third Government administration in the last decade and more and let this be a Referendum on such failure.
Perhaps, a New Slogan GE2019 - NO REFORM, NO VOTE!!!

​Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society and Empowerment of
the People.
November 10, 2019
 

“Peo­ple have told us they're not vot­ing red or yel­low and tonight we have giv­en them, all who don't want to go left or right, come to the cen­tre.”. Those were the words of the Chairman of a new political party launched in the capital city recently.
The Port of Spain People’s Party (PPM) is a regional party which has made it clear that it is only contesting the capital city’s corporation in the December 2 Local Government Elections. This is not the first regional party in such elections. In 2016 there were at least 2.
The Chairman had previously told the media that “Peo­ple are very, very dis­sat­is­fied with what’s pass­ing for gov­er­nance in TT”. He is the author of a book titled “Conspiracy Against the People” which examines the Local Government arrangements in Trinidad.
It would be logical to expect that this party would be bringing a new approach to local governance. After all, Local Government structure and function are defined in a piece of legislation, an Act of Parliament – the Municipal Corporations Act, Chapter 25:04 of the Laws of this country.
So, if this new party were to succeed in defeating the PNM-UNC political monopoly (the red and yellow), the PPM will not be in a position to change the law governing local government since it will not be in Parliament.
That would be the case even if it were not a regional party, but national, and won a majority in every one of the 14 Corporations.
In fact, not even the ruling PNM sitting in the Parliament and Government has been able to bring about any reform of the Local Government system which it promised in the 2016 Local Government Elections.
The fact that the PNM won 83 of the 137 seats in 2016 gave them no ability to make any changes to the system or even push their own Government to make the changes which they told burgesses they needed during their campaign.
They even went so far as telling electors that by voting in 2016 they were voting in a referendum for the PNM’s Local Government Reform policy even though its contents were not even fully known to the public.
Before them, the UNC holding the majority position in the People’s Partnership and the other parties in that Government failed to bring about Local Government Reform which formed a major plank of both General and Local Government Election manifestos.
There were consultations, but no change.
And, before that the PNM in Government for almost a decade, promised Local Government Reform and postponed elections 3 times but never changed anything.
The city of Port of Spain is in dire need of revitalisation, of re-planning and re-design and modernisation. This need has existed for well over 60 years. It is much more than getting rid of 3,000 latrine pits that the PPM has promised.
In the 1960’s, Pegasus, the organisation founded by Geddes Granger, with the input and participation of scores of professionals and ordinary citizens, developed a plan for the revitalisation of Port of Spain, Project Port of Spain.
Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Civil Servants volunteered hours per week to develop this project in 1966-67 which would have to be implemented by Government. The Government supported it in words but took no action.
Since then, almost every Government has promised redevelopment of East Port of Spain and the present administration recently presented its own ideas about revitalising the capital, plans largely developed without the input of the burgesses and without a philosophy needed.
In 2019, for a new regional party lamenting the state of decay of the city, points to the failure of successive Governments and to the real desire of the People for a voice in decision-making that affects their lives at a fundamental level.
For our governance to advance, to open the road to Democratic Renewal of our Electoral and Political processes and for the advance of the nation-building project, the PNM-UNC Political Monopoly must be defeated.
The PPM has offered itself for that purpose.
So, while an elected PPM, may not be able to change the Local Government law and may carry out only so much of a work programme that the central Government funds, they will have the opportunity to engage the burgesses in Residents’ Associations and otherwise in the new governance of participation in decision-making. This will be most valuable experience for the future.
Despite the limitations of the present Local Government structure, the burgesses of the Port of Spain Corporation have an opportunity to contribute to that advance by defeating the PNM-UNC monopoly on December 2.
Hopefully, they will grab that opportunity!

Clyde Weatherhead
A Citizen Fighting for
Democratic Renewal of
Our Society and Empowerment of
the People.
November 2, 2019