IT WAS THE FIRST TOPIC which the women in the market raised… “Dem have big money fe spend pon big car. And what bout we? Dem nuh know we a suffer?” There followed a storm of angry observations and ugly things said about politicians. The anger also owed something to the slow pace of business. The $600 a quart gungo peas was going nowhere. Vegetables were ending the day wilted and forsaken, and nobody was amused, especially with the chat of the day: “Cars for politicians”.

The news that government had spent $60 million on the purchase of vehicles for use by ministers has promoted not only anger but a flare-up of the resentment against politicians which is always just below the surface. The belief that “every politician is a ‘tief’, caring nothing for poor people” is entrenched. It doesn’t take much to bring it to the surface. Whether the accusation is justified or not doesn’t matter. The people insist: “If ah no so, den a nearly so.”

In the present kass-kass, few people seem interested in getting to the root of the matter. All they’re interested in is that while people are suffering, why should politicians be driving new vehicles at the public’s expense? There has to be an explanation, but once again the ineptness of the government’s communication system has brought the people’s wrath down upon them.

Have the facts been presented in a way that the people can understand? (a) Why was it necessary to buy the vehicles in the first place? (b) Was the price of the new stock really a best buy? (c) What happened to the vehicles used by the ministers in the previous administration? (d) Has this always been standard practice – to change out the rolling-stock of the various ministries when there is a change in administration?

It should be noted that it is not only politicians who qualify for use of vehicles. It is part of the package for certain professionals on contract to the government. They, however, are not the concern. It is the politicians who are the target of displeasure. The popular view is: “Dem shouldn’t get nutten!” So what do people really know about this “vehicles for ministers” story?

What is the answer to a question like: “Was the purchase of the vehicles justified, especially now when times are so hard?” This won’t make much difference to a vendor whose goods are spoiling and revenues falling because there are no customers, all of which is blamed on “de govament”. Disaffection comes from different sources. A tertiary graduate walking around with a degree that is not opening any doors doesn’t want to know.

A worker trying to buy “a lickle second-hand vehicle” to take him and his family across the waters to work and school each day, will remind you that he dares not enter a used-car lot with less than $1 million-plus to contemplate even the cheapest models. These are among the people who take a dim view of the car policy. They are not happy to hear that politicians demitting office can get to buy vehicles at a price inaccessible to the average citizen.

It is interesting that even as political mileage is being gained from the public’s displeasure, the beneficiaries of the past have kept clear of the public outrage, giving the impression that they had nothing to do with it. They know as much as anyone about the Motor Vehicle Policy and the benefits they have received but – no surprise – they have managed to stay above the fray.

IN THE LONG RUN, it doesn’t matter now when the policy was initiated and by whom. What is of more immediate concern is whether the second-hand sell-off will continue. There have been various suggestions for the policy to be reviewed for a car pool from which vehicles could be accessed as needed. It is admitted that the arrangement has its pitfalls too. Maintaining a large number of vehicles, running the necessary stores with replacement parts, etc, can be a nightmare open to corruption. Attention is being drawn to the current mess that the police are in over their system which entrusted responsibility for everything to a central management structure, but is now in chaos.

ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT: You know you’re in trouble when the church joins in the condemnation, and even those who benefited in the past are doing more hand-washing than Pontius Pilate. One of the big questions of the day for government is: When will you learn how to communicate? It shouldn’t matter how many times you have to explain things to people. If it makes them feel better, explain and explain and explain. Leave a vacuum and there will be enough people to rush in and create an explanation of their own.

CALLING NOAH: Come in with your ark, Sir. The rains continue to “cowl-up” Portland and St Mary. Spare a thought for the people, but less for the power-seekers who have appointed themselves as the New Noahs. The Weather Office says that the flood waters will recede shortly. The downpour should ease up any minute now. The cold spell which encouraged the rain is almost over. We hope so… and let’s do what we can to assist the needy. The problem is, however, the greedy…

Is it my imagination or am I the only one observing a heightened sense of enlightenment on the part of some people in the disaster areas who seem to be expecting that their every need should be met, or else? When last have we seen a depiction of affected people cleaning up their surroundings and coming together to put things back, where possible? We used to work like that one time. Now we demand that others, preferably “govament”, assume responsibility for us. When did we get that way?

THANK YOU to Monsignor Ramkissoon on his offer for Mustard Seed to help alleviate the challenge of accommodating juveniles who are in need not only of physical but mental health care. An expert has pointed out, however, that the solution to the problem might be a little more complicated than how we’re now seeing it.

It’s not only accommodation that is needed but professional skill to deal with the other emotional needs, the expert said. He urges that the way forward should be carefully and thoughtfully planned to ensure a long-term solution. We’ve had too many half-measures already, leaving problems still unresolved. At the moment, he says, we hop, skip and jump around every crisis, with little thought of the long haul ahead. He urges, “Let’s not fall into the trap again”. FAIR COMMENT.

QUESTION: Should a prime minister travel in economy? Who decides? Put this on the agenda!

gloudonb@yahoo.com