THE EDITOR:
DO commercial business dealings within financial institutions in Trinidad and Tobago have any integrity or morality in them, or are they motivated solely by the pursuit of making the quick dollar to satisfy the rapacity and greed of businessmen, regardless of what happens to the innocent and defenceless victims of such rapacious conduct?

Is it morally right or in keeping with good, widely recognised business practice and ethics for a company involved in the insurance and mortgage business to transfer (sell) a mortgage portfolio, whose unorthodox business practices had led to an alleged indebted sum claimed by the transferee company which is headed by an official who is also a financial official of the transferring company?

Is the company to which the portfolio has been transferred expected to entertain a written request with respect to verifying the quantum of the alleged debt claimed to enable a new mortgage arrangement to be worked out?

Is the said mortgage company acting in good faith by bluntly refusing to meet with and discuss the debt allegedly claimed on the ground that no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting?

Is the said company entitled in the face of its arrogant refusal to meet and discuss the alleged quantum of the said debt, to forcibly seize the property being the subject of the mortgage and unceremoniously evict the owner and his staff therefrom and thus forthwith cutting off the income accruing therefrom, which is the main source of the owner’s livelihood and casting him out on the street?

Is a reputable financial institution entitled to behave in such a manner?

Should such a company account in a proper way as to the financial benefits it has received from its action and disposal of the said property, and also account for all moneys collected thereafter?

How could the government and/or the courts condone such unconscionable, arrogant, rapacious behaviour on the part of any commercial entity in a society which claims to uphold well-established principles of equity and social justice?

Yet, citizens wonder how come so many people in our society are poor and bereft of the bare necessities of life such as housing, etc.

Is acting in this manner the only option open to such an entity in place of discussion and mediation?

Is it true that a select group of people has decided to acquire valuable real estate in the city and elsewhere for themselves and their cohorts at giveaway prices by means fair or foul, to the exclusion of others?

Is such arrogant, insensitive and blatant abuse of power by a commercial entity in our law-abiding and civilised society justified, and what is more, should such behaviour be tolerated?

THE EDITOR:
THE latest political trick by the Opposition United National Congress (UNC) has convinced me that we are living in dangerous times in Trinidad and Tobago.

What is even more dangerous is the fact that the media are unwittingly being used by political journalists to help the UNC in carrying out its nasty political tricks.

The Front Page story in last week’s Sunday Guardian was very convincing but as the facts unfolded it turned out to be another hoax like the tea room affair.

The other media houses did not investigate the verasity of the story but pursued it vigorously with the aim of getting at the People’s National Movement (PNM) Government.

They all forget that it was the same Ganga Singh who called names in the House of Representatives pertaining to this episode performed a similar act when he was a UNC Government Minister.

He said then that the US Government was investigating a former PNM Minister for taking bribes.

When the facts were revealed it was a fabricated story by the UNC.

The US Embassy issued a statement that they were unaware of any such investigation.

Now that the US Embassy denies any knowledge on this current issue about the man who made the allegations against the PNM officials and the fact that he is not a DEA associate; I wait to see what the media would do.

We must also take note that the US Embassy said they only know about his criminal record.

I wish to remind the population that the UNC used Skippy Thomas, who has a criminal record, as their main witness in the Landate affair, and Sean Francis as a candidate in a Local Government election to bolster their image on the respective issues.

I suspect that there is something big that is about to take place and the UNC is using diversonary tactics to gain sympathy from the public.

Is it time journalists are charged for causing mischief and chaos in the country?

THE EDITOR:
I THANK you for allowing me the opportunity to share my feelings with my fellow consumers concerning the issue of hire-purchase agreements.

Previous to recent eye-opening experiences I thought I could not do better, but now I am convinced that there are several options open to us as consumers.

We as consumers must be aware of the dishonesty and unfairness meted out to us by the unscrupulous business people in their quest to amass great fortune.

Consumers must be aware of misleading gimmicks such as: Nothing down, no installment for 60 days.

Money back guarantee, rebate and low interest.

On careful examination one will realise that these offers are flawed and very often not effective.

Sometimes the furniture and appliances are sub-standard, faulty and of very poor quality and workmanship.

We ought to ask questions, read labels and fine print before signing agreements and documents.

Remember to shop around, be informed and make wise choices.

We as consumers have the power.

We must also bear in mind that the employees, some of whom are incompetent, would be loyal to their employers.

THE EDITOR:
IN November of last year, a price increase of 50 cents was sneaked on customers using Linx.

Sir, I find this increase is unjustified!

How has the system improved?

Pray tell?

This increase represents the contemptous and greedy way the banks are behaving, as they post yearly profits in excess of $300m.

Most of this come from the now infamous “bank charges”, another form of white collar thievery.

However, since banks are greedy for money, I wish to recommend the following charges.

They may wish to consider:

* Looking into a teller’s eyes - $25

* Approaching the tellers’ station - $5

* Saying “hi” to a teller - $20

* Watching a teller’s behind - $10

* Waiting patiently in line - $2

* Cussing and expressing customer disatisfaction - $15.

Of course, there are more ways banks can improve their balance sheets.

THE EDITOR:
I READ with great bewilderment the fiasco relating to local rice producers.

It is my information that: In a Budget Speech, the government encouraged local rice farmers to increase rice production.

The local rice milling company closed operations at the time when the farmers were ready to harvest their rice crop.

Government approached CARICOM to reduce the customs duty on rice.

This will result in imported rice being cheaper than local rice.

After public pressure, the rice milling company has decided to resume operations.

From the above, it can be seen that there is no planning.

Why must rice farmers be treated with such contempt and disdain?