THE EDITOR: I listened with interest to a news release carried by the media on July 1, which indicated that the bail bill was passed in Parliament with the support of the Opposition.
Many people had expressed the view that, notwithstanding the efforts of the Government in bringing much needed legislation to Parliament and the conviction that such legislation would be helpful in the fight against crime, where opposition support is required it would not be provided.
Other people said the Government had a responsibility to table requisite legislation and 'let the chips fall where they may.'
As it turned out, the Opposition supported the bill as proposed by the Government. Many believe that Opposition's support was significantly influenced by the action of Dr Rai Ragbir, who had previously broken ranks with his party by voting with the Government on a recent bill, claiming 'country above party.'
The Opposition Leader offers a different reason for her party's support. Whatever the true reason, the parliamentarians have done their part and it's now over to the judiciary to give effect to this measure by ensuring speedy trials, once this bill becomes law.
In this regard, citizens must be vigilant and keep up pressure on the judiciary to ensure that legislative amendments have the effect intended. Otherwise, as the Prime Minister indicated, things will remain the same with no improvement to the crime system.
Dating back to the last century, a past commissioner of police had complained that the police service was unable to make a serious dent in the crime situation due to repeat criminals, enabling attorneys and outdated legislation, which allowed such criminals to operate a revolving door bail policy with respect to their nefarious activities.
Even supporters of other political parties have come to accept as par for the course that opposing parties would oppose legislation that is in the best interest of the nation for selfish reasons. They often quote the line of a former revered political leader that 'parties in opposition were not there to make the government look good.'
Some people insist that, in order to carry out needed policies requiring opposition support, where such support is not deemed to be expected a government must be prepared to adopt either of two approaches after rejection of its attempt at passing such legislation:
1. Unilaterally implement the needed legislation and subject itself to the anticipated lawsuits.
2. Court a member/s of the Opposition to vote with the Government. Neither option appears desirable. The first will be deemed undemocratic and can have far-reaching effects with regard to the rule of law and the use of taxpayers' money in attempting to defend the indefensible. The second option can backfire in respect of future endeavours.
It is in this context that congratulations are in order for Ragbir, Kamla Persad-Bissessar and Dr Rowley. A new day has dawned in TT.
D THOMAS
Port of Spain
The post A new day has dawned in Trinidad and Tobago appeared firs
