Francomenz

This morning, the Minister of Trade was on the news, talking about how the government needs to make a decision sooner or later on the smelter issue and that they must do so “without emotion, in the best interest of the people of Chatham”.

The “without emotion” comment flies in the face of what modern-day business leaders know about the value of emotional intelligence in decision-making. To quote the publishers of the most lauded book about the subject, Working with Emotional Intelligence, “organizations that learn to operate in emotionally intelligent ways are the companies that will remain vital and dynamic in the competitive marketplace of today—and the future. ”

More importantly, are we to believe that the people of Chatham do not know what’s in their own best interest? Does the government think they are protesting the construction of the Alcoa smelter plant because they have nothing better to do with their time? How arrogant is it to infer that the government knows what’s in the best interest of the people of a village that most government representatives have not even visited?

But perhaps this point is better made here.

Math was not my most beloved subject in school. I’ve pretty much forgotten the finer points of tangents, sines and cosines – but the logic of mathematics is something I can get on board with. Which is why I can’t quite figure out what’s going on in this country of ours. It just doh add up!

Wikipedia defines democracy as:

literally “rule by the people”, from the Greek δῆμος demos, “people,” and κράτος kratos, “rule” – a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy. Today, democracy is often assumed to be liberal democracy,[7][8] but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ.

Let’s take it a step further and see how Wiki defines liberal democracy:

A representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.

This is where I begin to have trouble. Because, according to today’s Newsday, the head of our representative democracy has reportedly announced that the government has in hand proposals for a third aluminium smelter plant to be constructed in our tiny isle. This, in spite of the documented ecological dangers and health risks of smelter plants, the outrage of people like Professor Julian Kenny who have severely criticized the effectiveness of the EMA, and continued protests by residents of Chatham, cultural icons and ordinary citizens.

Newsday quotes the PM as saying:

“We have proposals for a third aluminium smelter plant to be constructed in Trinidad and Tobago, once we examine the documents and they are accepted by Government and meet the requirements of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) it would be smelter plant number three.”

The math is clearly way off – because nowhere in that statement is there mention of acceptance by the people of the country whom the government is put there to serve – and according to today’s Psychological Research Centre poll by the University of the West Indies and ANSA McAl, 71% of Trinbagonians do not support government’s decision to proceed with establishing the smelter plants. Can I reiterate? It just doh make sense.

The Newsday article continues:

Manning said that his Government was not going to be influenced by foolishness. “Anything that you want to do in this country there are always those who are against it, if you listen to them you will gain nothing. I would never be found guilty of inactivity,” Manning declared.

This does not compute. Quite apart from the patriarchal insinuation that anyone with a different point of view is talking “foolishness”, is he saying that it is better to do something, anything, regardless of the consequences, than to be seen to be “inactive”? Are we becoming the victims of development at any cost? What are we to think when, contrary to warnings by the IMF and the Governor of the Central Bank money is being spent left, right and centre, while inflation (and thus the cost of living) is on the rise?

Somebody is raking in the dollars, but where is the sense?

The Quote of the Day in the Trinidad Guardian says:

“Anyone found guilty of breaching the environmental laws will face the full brunt of the law. We will deal with this matter very seriously.”

The words were uttered by Alicia Charles, Communications Specialist of the Environmental Management Authority following an oil spill earlier this week that was caused by a sinking derelict boat in Chaguaramas. (Incidentally, people had been telling the relevant authorities for some time about the environmental hazard the vesssel posed, but no preventive action was taken.)

But more importantly, since the EMA is prepared to “deal very seriously” with environmental offenders, can we expect to see Prime Minister Manning finally become accountable to the citizens he was elected to serve?