Neither urgent nor important
THE EDITOR: I am neither a bureaucrat, a diplomat, nor a scholar. However, I have been described as a “canal conch.” Even a canal conch knows that any changes to the coat of arms would require changes to all documents, paperwork, currencies, uniform and anything else bearing the emblem.
It follows that only one of two things could have happened before Prime Minister Rowley decided to stick his foot in his mouth – again.
One would be that he went off-script and spoke off the top of his head, as he has been known to do from time to time, being unaware of the changes to be made to all the above mentioned items. Or he would have been aware of the necessary changes and decided to proceed, at all costs. Indeed, the changes will come with a significant cost. Either choice is as reckless as they come.
As a pannist I welcome the symbol of the steelpan on the coat of arms, acknowledging and recognising that it’s long overdue. That having been established, my issue is not with the changes per se. My issue is the timing.
It is quite evident that nowhere in geology school were students ever introduced to the “important and urgent matrix,” also known and the Eisenhower Matrix. Not only does this seem to be absent for geology students, but for UWI graduates in particular. After all, there is a cluster of them seated in the Cabinet, where apparently none of them had the testicular fortitude to challenge Dr Rowley.
It took nine and a half years in office for this rock surgeon to recognise that he has a simple majority in Parliament and, as such, what it takes to redesign the coat of arms. We all know he has a long-standing relationship with the steelpan as is evidenced by his annual donning of his All Stars sailor outfit. Just so it’s understood, I am not here to challenge his love and/or commitment to the promotion of the instrument. Like music, timing is my central concern.
Let us first acknowledge that any and everything a politician does, anywhere, is political; intentionally or otherwise. Let us simultaneously acknowledge that there are numerous changes in our society that are required. So, what is the real urgency and purpose behind the change in the coat of arms at this point in time?
Would the EBC be mandated to change all ID cards in time for the upcoming general election? Would it be able to accommodate all the necessary changes given its history of proficiency and efficiency? Or is the dog whistle timed to exclude a percentage of the population which will be unable to have their new ID cards in time to vote at the election?
I am convinced that the call for his suggested change is nothing more than a strategy to deflect from the runaway crime, the exorbitant food prices, inflated cost of living, crumbling infrastructure, growing homeless population, lack of regular water supply despite living in a tropical climate.
It is quite possible that I missed something. But how do changes to the emblem improve the lives of citizens? Would it assist in reducing the cost of food items in the grocery? Would it assist in crime detection and conviction rates? Would it help when someone falls into a pool on the roadways? Would it help in remembering where pieces of roads are strategically located in potholes? Would it help in providing opportunities for our young people? Would it help to make citizens feel safer in and out of their homes?
Or is it designed to provide contracts for a few as they change uniforms and badges of the TTPS, the Prisons Service, the Regiment, the Coast Guard? Would it help the banks as they exchange currencies? Or would it help to relocate funds which have been described as “missing” from the Central Bank?
Who are the real beneficiaries of this proposed change? And what is the anticipated cost? Billions in new currencies would have to be printed. Would new driver’s licences be required? New ID cards? New birth certificates? Will taxpayers be absorbing this cost or would individual citizens be forced to pay out of pocket?
It is time that someone sits Rowley down and teaches him the difference between urgent and important. And that changes to the coat of arms are neither.
RUDY CHATO PAUL, SR
Dabadie
The post Neither urgent nor important appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.