By Dr Selwyn R. Cudjoe
June 21, 2025
In his Youth Rally address on August 30, 1962, one day before Independence Day, Eric Williams declared: “I have given to the nation as its watchwords, Discipline, Production, Tolerance.”
These words were delivered to the youths but they applied equally to every citizen of the nation. It would have been better if citizens had devised their own watchwords.
In retrospect, we have done a decent job in terms of tolerance although tolerance suggests a grudging, rather than a full acceptance of one another in our social space. We have not done well in production, but we have absolutely fallen down in discipline. In short, we are an indisciplined society.
An egregious example of our social indiscipline reveals itself in the recent beating of a 15-year-old schoolgirl at Holy Faith Convent, Couva. A video shows: “Five girls beating on the 15-year-old girl, at the gates of the school compound. They then dragged her into the road, where they continued their assault.” (Express, June 19.)
This was not an ordinary schoolchildren infraction. It was a criminal act. These five students conspired to attack and harm this 15-year-old student.
In a letter to the editor, Modicia Martin cautioned: “It is more than time to take tackling school violence to the next level…Do not wait for somebody’s child to be killed before something serious is done. It has been happening for too long. I have been saying for a long time: it is time to charge parents for their children’s behaviour. Don’t wait for this to get worse.” (Express, June 12.) I agree.
On Wednesday, the Government revealed the “legal” indiscipline (perhaps greed) of the adults. “The Office of the Attorney General under the previous government spent $1 billion in legal fees, including $13.2 million paid to former AG Reginald Armour.”
Legal Affairs Minister Saddam Hosein disclosed the lavish payouts to “legal” luminaries: Russell Martineau, $38m; Fyard Hosein, $33.9m; Gilbert Peterson, $29.3m; Claude Denbow, $27.6m; Ravi Rajcoomar, $16.8m; Douglas Mendes, $15.7m; Michael Quamina, $15.4m; and Kerwyn Garcia, the President’s husband, $14.6m.
Law is “a system of rules and guidelines, usually enforced through social institutions, that regulates behaviour”. A lawyer’s essential function is to interpret “legal texts” in much the same way a theologian interprets theological texts (exegesis) and a literary or historical scholar interprets literary or historical texts.
Why, then, is a lawyer, an equal member of society, paid such extraordinary fees to interpret a legal text or write a one-page letter? What is it about the presumed wisdom of lawyers that determines the extraordinary fees we pay them, and why is it that they can hold the society to ransom?
It is important to remember that some acts—such as selling slaves, sometimes for $40—were legal but they were immoral and wrong nonetheless.
Similar behaviour exists at the political level. Members of Parliament go into office with a certain sum of money (wealth), but after five or ten years come out with extraordinary riches. Forty years I advocated the implementation of “The Law of Inexplicable Wealth”, now referred to as “The Law of Unexplained Riches”. It demands that a parliamentarian explain where and how she or he accumulated their wealth while in office.
In Trinidad and Tobago we call it the Civil Asset Recovery and Management and Unexplained Wealth Act of 2019. It’s in our law books. Why don’t we implement it?
Williams described an essential aspect of democracy on Independence Day 1962: “Democracy, finally, rests on a higher power than Parliament. It rests on informed and cultivated and alert public opinion. The Members of Parliament are only representatives of the citizens.
“They cannot represent apathy and indifference. They can play the part allotted to them only if they represent intelligence and public spiritedness.”
On February 19, 2024, I remarked at UNC’s Monday Night Forum: “We must hold parents responsible for the crimes their juvenile children commit.”
I referred to a case in Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan, USA, in which Jennifer Crumbley “was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the ‘gun rampage’ of her teenage son [Ethan Crumbley] who carried out the state’s deadliest school shooting. Her son was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing four students. The gun he used to commit these murders was a gift from his parents”.
Jennifer and her husband were sentenced to ten to 15 years in prison for their complicity in the killing.
We praise Singapore’s political system and call it a disciplined society. They implement their laws and are not afraid to use the coercive arm of the state to achieve their objectives.
Shouldn’t we prosecute those who break our laws (our children) and condemn and shame those who ruthlessly extract their pound of flesh from us (the lawyers)?