THE EDITOR:
I READ, with interest a letter by Monica Gopaul, captioned, “Dismiss all this racial talk”, in the Newsday of 17/1/06.

This piece demonstrates clearly what a lack of indepth study can do to a nation, struggling without a clear concept of race.

There are many and varied dimensions, each very subtle in its connection to the whole concept of race.
I will attempt to outline a few that readily come to mind.

Race is defined as a group of human beings with similar physical features and traits.

In TnT, as overlapping progresses, a simple taxonomy is not possible.

A racist is a rare personality, who basically believes that his race is divinely endowed with the gift of superiority over all other races.

Racial prejudice is simply to pre-judge as applied to race.

We prejudge readily when our emotions force us to a conclusion without much thought.

Racial discrimination is where one distinguishes something in a race, unfavourably.

Tribalism is a subsector within a race, e.g. the Tutsis and the Hutus.

Racial injustice is different strokes for different folks.
A power struggle.

Dogmatism is a closed mind, which denotes the disposition to evaluate information in the light of its source.

Group selfishness is selfish group behaviour.

In TnT this is paraded as “We” and “They”.

Ethnicity revolves around pride of original races.

Political race in TnT involves the UNC and the PNM and their core support.

So, Monica, when GOPIO expresses its innermost feelings about Indian involvement and representation, it cannot be construed as a racial statement.

It involves all of the above.

A quantum leap into the thought processes of the society as a whole, be it political, social, commercial, educational, religious etc.

There are really very few racists in the world, the most notable was Adolf Hitler, who was recorded as saying that he hates Jews and fulfilled his dream of racial supremacy by physically destroying millions of Jews.

Even when Dr. Eric Williams made his infamous statement that the Indians were a hostile and recalcitrant minority, it still cannot be considered as a racist statement but one of political correctness, as he went on to rule for 25 years peacefully.

His ego was shattered when he lost the Federal Elections.

The danger of such statements is the imbalance it creates on an unsuspecting population.

On this score, the media is crucial in negating this influence.

So, we must allow GOPIO the freedom to vent its feelings on the concordat, Benny Hinn, the Trinity Cross, Hindu marriages, Chutney/Soca Warriors (read Iwer George’s social and commercial concept of this name; great thinking, Iwer).

So, let the radio talk show flourish, as they are implicity creating a quiet and silent fusion which is coming like a thief in the night.

Out of bad cometh good, as people are seeing, listening, hearing and talking.

Very few people have observed that in this nation there is real social transformation taking place.

Note carefully the joint efforts of Shah and La Salle, Robinson and Panday, Patesar and Rudder, Tiger Woods and Vijay Singh, Chutney and Soca, Lara and Chanderpaul, Shiv Shakti and Malick Folk Performers, Stalin and Sundar Popo, General Grant and Sonny Man.

There is the saying that, small minds think only of things, medium minds think of people, and great minds think about ideas.

THE EDITOR:
SOME of the people who are requesting our view on the conviction of former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday should be made aware that Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobago (CBTT) has been persistently calling for transparency and accountability from politicians and other public officials for years.

We have also been pleading with the authorities to demand more transparency and accountability from officials in our schools, Civil Service and State enterprises.

I am sure that the former Prime Minister will agree with us that people who break the law must pay the consequences.

It is possible that the conviction against him may have been a blessing in disguise since it has exposed others who did not comply with the rulings of the Integrity Commission.

That is why we are calling on the authorities to charge all those who committed the same offence as Panday or who failed to declare their assets as required by law.

This will help the country’s image here and abroad and demonstrate in no uncertain manner that the law applies to all.

The incarceration of Panday will ensure that more people abide by the law and not take it for granted.

However, this imprisonment may give people the impression that he was singled out for punishment since more than 200 people who broke the law by failing to comply with the Public Life Act 2000 have not been arrested and charged so far.

CBTT agrees with Professor Ramesh Deosaran that judges and magistrates should also declare their assets and income in compliance with the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000.

We wonder why the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLCS) is excluded from the scrutiny of the Joint Select Committee (JSC) of Parliament.

We, therefore, support Deosaran’s call for section 66c of the Constitution to be dropped in order to bring the JLCS under the scrutiny of the JSC.

Those who don’t want to declare income and assets according to the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 have something to hide and should not be encouraged to get into public life.

CBTT wishes to emphasise that honesty is still the best policy and should be the most important criteria in electing people to political office.

The same should apply to all those whom we appoint to administrative positions in our State Enterprises and Public Service.

I wonder how many politicians and others under the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000 had foreign bank accounts but failed to declare them in the past.

I don’t wish to scare anyone but I must remind people that whatever is done in darkness will eventually come to light.

THE EDITOR:
MY heart goes out to Austin “Jack” Warner.

After looking at a television clip a few nights ago, I am convinced that some foreigners believe that this is a country inhabited by natives.

From the television, one could have clearly seen that Jennings from the BBC was badgering and taunting Warner.

All Warner requested was “leave me alone”.

Even after the senior police officer intervened, Jennings continued his frontal assault on Warner.

This intimidatory behaviour in the form of buffoonery and bullying cannot be called journalism.

The population must be reminded that England is one of our opponents in the World Cup 2006 in Germany.

The arrival of this Englishman, at this time can be another attempt to wage a psychological war on the Soca Warriors and demoralise the players.

Despite the political affiliation of Warner, he is a citizen of this country and we must all stand up and tell Jennings where to get off.

Can a local journalist go to England at this time and harass the head of the English FA?

Our journalist would be sent packing immediately.

THE EDITOR:
I HAVE been thinking about the way Benny Hinn dresses for his onstage theatrics: incomparably dapper like he’s on Broadway.

More often than not, he dons one of those impeccably tailored white suites, topped off with a pair of white shoes, tie and all ...

I would like to humbly suggest to the televangelist: Jesus did not dress like that and even if he could, he certainly wouldn’t.

Nor did he indulge in flamboyant melodramatic acting on stage.

Jesus was a simple man who dressed simply in a long white robe: much like an Indian Guru.

He was simple and very humble.

Indeed, I find it difficult to believe that these pastors and churchgoers believe that it is incumbent upon them to dress in the most expensive of clothing.

God does not want you to be ostentatious.

There is no Biblical injunction or verse or tenet which compels the Christian believer to dress in very expensive clothing.

If this was the case, it would have simply meant that the poor man would have been debarred from finding God and praying to God.

Jesus was a simple man, Mr. Hinn.

And, he used neither live broadcasts (even if it were unavailable at the time ... the character of the man suggested that he certainly was not into subliminal advertising of his knowledge and message), nor walked around with bodyguards.

A man of God should have nothing to fear and should be free.