In 10 years, Angostura Holdings Limited has had two women appointed to their board of directors: Vidia Persad-Doodnath was the first in 2009 and Ingrid Lashley the second in 2016. At the time of her appointment, Ingrid Lashley was the only woman out of eight board members, if you exclude the corporate secretary.
Barely two years later, the company has announced a 300% increase in board membership by women. Four of the five members of the board of directors at Angostura are women under the leadership of the sole male, Terrence Bharath.
Trinidad Guardian’s Joel Julien commented that: “Angostura Holdings Ltd has undergone a facelift in the last year, with four of its five members now being female.” This is unprecedented in the commercial sector, and if he is right that it is a facelift, then what has happened is cosmetic, unsustainable and a slap in the face of all those who are working for social justice and gender equality.
We recognise how difficult it is to move our society away from the entrenched systems of government in which men are seen—and behave—as if they know what is best and will let you know at the appropriate time. Changing this patriarchal approach requires transformational leadership. From their responses, it is clear many of our leaders do not understand how their own behaviours reflect this lack of understanding and reinforce the dominance of men.
Brand Angostura has become associated with brand Sexual Harassment and the simple inclusion of four women on the board of directors will not decouple this association. The decoupling will occur when there is evidence of the company’s commitment to policies and procedures that support a culture of gender equality. The decoupling will occur when there is the implementation of policies and procedures to prevent all forms of violence, including sexual violence, sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
This four-woman board of directors has a responsibility to ensure that Angostura takes the leadership role in ensuring that every woman and man in Angostura enjoys equal access to opportunities, while at the same time being protected from violence and abuse. They have an opportunity to demonstrate how gender equality can be operationalised in the manufacturing sector.
This is no easy task, especially since there is a lack of awareness that the demand for gender equality is not about numbers of women represented. Rather, it is about behaviour change, which only occurs when the systems and procedures support the outcomes.
The work to be done will involve understanding how entrenched behaviours allowed Angostura to have three botched attempts at investigating a claim of sexual harassment. It will be deep, painful and systemic. More importantly, this will not be explicitly included in the terms of reference of members of the board, but it will be the measurement criteria the society will use to judge not just the women on the board, but the entire board of directors.
It is an opportunity for these four women to demonstrate how gender equality can impact the bottom line in the manufacturing sector. If they take up this challenge of transformation while maintaining Angostura’s profitability, they would not have just served the company but they would have led the societal transformation that our country deserves.
On an early morning run or walk through Port of Spain, you are greeted by homelessness, filth and a strong smell of human faeces. That’s not very different from some other developing countries, but after 60 years of dominance by one political party, our capital city is still in this sorry state.
Where is the public transportation system to easily get to any destination? Where are the clearly identified public facilities if you need a restroom? Where is the information kiosk to tell the wandering tourist about his or her options? These things just do not exist. Unfortunately, we can easily replace ‘Port of Spain’ with ‘San Fernando’, ‘Arima’, ‘Sangre Grande’, etc, and the questions will attract exactly the same response.
The issues of city transportation, the availability of public restrooms and information kiosks are local government issues, which are absent from the current discussion in the lead-up to the local government elections 2019 (LGE 2019). Maybe the current tone of LGE 2019 is because the parties understand that the results can be an indication of the likely results of the 2020 general election.
It is evident that our boroughs, towns and cities are slowly decaying, regardless of the dominance of reds/yellows/whatever. What is needed is a transformation of the mind to provide some hope to the millennials and, indeed, to the 60/70 per cent of the eligible voters who choose to stay away from voting in the local government elections.
Imagine if we were able to break the dominance of our regional corporations and provide opportunities for minority voices to be heard. It would start a trend of changing the way we do business and redound to the benefit of our towns and cities. Different voices in the chambers would ensure an improvement in the level of accountability.
It would demonstrate to us citizens that, in collaboration, we better serve the greater good and allow for a greater level of transparency. As a country, we continue to attract a failing grade in accountability, collaboration and transparency (ACT).
LGE 2019 provides an opportunity for Trinidad to remove the stranglehold that the reds and yellows have had on our country for the past 60 years. Most of us have had the experience of living in a space for so long that we no longer see the cracks in the paint. Similarly, the reds and the yellows have occupied the space of leadership for so long that they no longer see their own inefficiencies. LGE 2019 provides an opportunity for disruption.
December 2 reflects our moment of freedom; we must use it wisely to send a message of inclusion.
The Trinidad Guardian ran this story by Yvonne Teelucksingh on Sunday 1st May 2005 under the headline “Vasant vindicated”. At that time Colm Imbert was The Minister of Works and Transport under a PNM administration.
In February 1998, 41-year-old Vasant Bharath was fired as CEO of National Flour Mills. Among the allegations made by the company was that he had taken a unilateral decision to import rice from India at what he claimed were preferential rates, and this had caused the company to suffer losses of some TT$30 million. Even worse was that the rice that had been purchased was “dog rice,” and unfit for human consumption. In what Trevor Roberts, former branch president for NFM of the Seamen and Waterfront Workers’ Trade Union described, at the time, as a dismissal that had been “well put together, well orchestrated,” Bharath was vilified and hounded in the national press, his name besmirched, a promising career aborted, his family embarrassed and humiliated in what to this day is referred to as the “dog rice scandal.” In the end, Bharath was forced to sell his home and his possessions, uproot his family and seek employment in England where, in the ensuing years, he held several high-profile positions, including European general manager and head of foreign exchange operations with Thomas Cook PLC and head of global marketing with Gulf Oil. Throughout it all—and this Roberts considers to be his greatest mistake—Bharath said nothing. But Bharath’s silence had been enforced by not only his line minister but also others in authority at that time. The scandal over NFM’s supposed loss of TT$30 million under Bharath’s watch continues to be the topic of gossip, innuendo and open hatefulness. The issue of “dog rice” from India, which he is purported to have authorised, has been immortalised in calypso, virulent talk shows and on political platforms. Vasant Bharath is now back in Trinidad as the CEO of Nutrimix Flour Mills, a direct competitor of NFM whose shares in the years since his dismissal have fallen from a bullish $4.50 to a bearish $2.85 at a time when the Stock Market has more than quadrupled in value. So, what has changed since 1998 that enabled Bharath to return home? The short answer is that Claim No1999 Folio No 61 made at the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Courts of Justice, London, by National Flour Mills against Huntsville Navigation Co Ltd completely absolves Bharath of any wrongdoing in the matter for which he was terminated by the claimants. According to the claim, served in 1999, NFM had, “by a contract contained in or evidenced by an agreement dated 15 April 1997, purchased from G Gangadas Shah & Sons of India about 12,000 metric tonnes of Indian semi-milled, parboiled rice (non-basmati) in bulk for US$395 per mt C& F Port-of-Spain, free out.” The first shipment was to consist of about 6,000 metric tonnes. One of the allegations made against Bharath was that there was no contract. NFM further claimed that the purchased rice was shipped on the vessel Ruby Islands for carriage to and delivery at Port-of-Spain, West Indies, “in the same good order and condition as had prevailed upon shipment.” This description of the cargo is repeated in six different instances in the particulars of claim, variously as “in good order and condition”; “good order and condition as had prevailed upon shipment,” “apparent good order and condition…” NFM’s claim against Huntsville Navigation Co Ltd was that the rice which was shipped “in good order and condition” had deteriorated, the cause being “the negligence of the defendants, their servants or agents,” and the failure of the vessel “to proceed from Kandla to Port-of-Spain with all reasonable despatch…by a usual and reasonable route and had delayed and deviated.” “Huntsville Navigation Co Ltd are the owners of the vessel, Ruby Islands, which left the port of Kandla, India, “between about 22 and 29 July 1997,” carrying a shipment “in good order and condition 6,350 mt of Indian semi-milled parboiled rice (non-basmati) in bulk…for carriage to and delivery at Port-of-Spain, West Indies.” No mention was made in the claim of the 35-day delay— after Bharath’s removal from handling the matter—in offloading the rice when the vessel arrived at Port-of-Spain. The claim by NFM against Huntsville Navigation was settled out of court for an amount that was much less than the TT$30 million loss which, in 1998, NFM claimed to have suffered as a direct result of Bharath’s alleged wrongdoing. Which begs the question—why was the claim made for less than the amount of the loss? In fact, NFM employees confirmed that “some of the rice was sold on the open market, and the rest was sold to Colombia for $7 million.” The processed rice, which could not be sold to consumers, was down-graded to feed grade. Additionally, it was confirmed by the then Prime Minister that all transactions of this nature “are well-insured.” Moreover, members of the SWWTU who are employed at NFM confirmed that even after the inordinate delay of 35 days before the relevant bill of lading was released by NFM’s new attorney, “there was a big pelau cook-up at NFM using the ‘dog rice’.” There was no report of anyone who ate the dog rice pelau having suffered any discomfort. On balance then, it would appear that NFM did not suffer a TT$30 million loss under Bharath’s watch, and that the rice purchased and shipped from India was “in good order and condition.” In his statement submitted at the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, London, Colin Mahabir, who in 1997, was general manager, marketing at NFM, stated that although it “was not part of my normal function to get involved in contractual negotiations with suppliers,” he was, in early 1997, requested to travel with Bharath to India “to investigate whether we could find cheaper sources of rice than the sources in the United States which we traditionally used” and that he “had been recommended for this role by the chairman of the company at the time, Mr Robert Clarke.” As a member of NFM’s grain purchasing committee, Mahabir was “involved in decisions about when we should buy and at what price.” Also, it was “in 1997, and still is, normal practice at NFM that when a new shipment of rice comes from overseas, I am sent samples of the milled product for evaluation in terms of its appearance and smell… and these are subjective matters in which I am very experienced, knowing as I do the market which we serve.” After stringent checks and balances which included inspection of the mill, water quality reports and verification of proper sampling and quality control procedures at G Gangadas Shah & Sons, Mahabir reported to the tenders committee at NFM along with Bharath, and “the committee decided to place an order with GGS in view of the price and their ability to supply a consistently good quality—a yield of 92 per cent when NFM’s standard yield was 86 per cent.” Mahabir said he returned to India when the rice was shipped and brought back samples of what had been laded. He confirmed that there was no sign of infestation. “I did not see any black kernels. The rice looked to be in very good condition. It was definitely semi-milled parboiled rice,” Mahabir said. He said he took photographs of the product being loaded and also brought back samples to NFM for testing. Mahabir said the main problem with the rice which was eventually offloaded from the Ruby Islands was its appearance. “It had been heat-damaged. Heat causes rice to be discoloured,” he said. In fact, three separate analyses of the rice, including one done by Cariri and another by the Food and Drug Administration confirmed that the discolouration of the rice had not affected its quality. In assessing their claim against the shippers, NFM sought expert and technical advice from expert rice broker M Jean-Paul Schepens, then chairman of the London Rice Brokers’ Association and Mr J A Conway, MSc, CBIOL, MIBIOL, who was then principal technical adviser at the food security department of the Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham, UK, who has had “some 35 years of experience of post-harvest technology in the handling and storage of durable agricultural commodities both in temperate and tropical countries.” Both determined that the protracted duration of the voyage was the primary cause of the deterioration. Bharath’s dismissal was based on 13 allegations. One allegation was that “no formal contract was entered into between parties” and that the order for rice from India had not been sanctioned by the then acting chairman of NFM and chairman of the Tenders Committee. Yet, the letter of credit established by Citibank T&T Ltd on April 16, 1997 bears the acting chairman’s signature, as do subsequent amendments. This letter of credit and its amendments formed the basis of the contract and clearly set out the relevant terms and conditions. Contacted for a comment, union representatives at NFM said they were not surprised that NFM’s court claim against the shippers had exonerated Bharath. They said that as far back as 1998, they had taken the evidence that would have cleared Bharath’s name to the Prime Minister and nothing was ever done. “But”, says their spokesman, “I am happy that my friend can come back here and get the respect he deserves. I am happy to see him vindicated.” After a seven-year exile in London, Vasant Bharath is glad to be back home. “Trinidad is my home and it is always nice to be home among your friends and family,” he said last week. Bharath packed up and left T&T after he was fired as CEO by National Flour Mills in 1998 amidst allegations that he had acted unilaterally in deciding to import some $30 million worth of rice from India. He is now back as CEO of Nutrimix Flour Mills, NFM’s competitor on the local market. Asked whether he was aware that NFM knew that its allegations against him were baseless, Bharath said, “I had copies of several documents that clearly showed that there was no wrongdoing on my part at NFM which were never disclosed by the company.” He said he never made the documents public then because he was advised by his line minister that “I was not to respond to any of these frivolous allegations.” “Of course, during this time of silence, the country was left to come to its own conclusions,” Bharath said. “And six months later, when I did disclose the said information in a wide-ranging television interview, the public’s mind had already been made up.” Commenting on information that completely exonerates him from any wrongdoing in the $30 million rice deal, Bharath said he was tremendously relieved, “not just for myself but for my family and friends who’ve suppported me throughout this matter and who on many occasions, have been the subject of ridicule as a result of their support.” He said he was initially bitter and angry at what he saw was a well-orchestrated plot to remove him. “Time is a great healer, and with maturity, I’ve come to realise there have been far greater wrongs perpetrated in the world,” Bharath said. “As a good friend of mine always says, ‘God wears pyjamas but He never goes to sleep.’” http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2005-05-01/news8.html
When a mayor resorts to angrily scolding a roomful of more than 80 adults (all of whom can vote), it tells me that he has forgotten the road travelled to the office he holds. It tells me that he should not be the mayor of anything; he should really return to the ‘block’ from whence he came.
There is a long-standing human relations principle, which is also practised in bringing up children: praise in public, criticize in private. San Fernando Mayor Junia Regrello’s recent outburst indicates the extent to which the party he represents disregards the people they should be serving and feel empowered to not think twice about verbally abusing us.
There was a time when the standard practice was that the organisers and the mayor’s office would have met and worked out the details prior to the function, therefore ensuring seamless execution. If the master of ceremonies made a faux pas, a quiet word would have been sufficient. If there was chatter from the audience while the mayor was speaking, a simple pause could have been enough to quiet the audience. But maybe the mayor was so boring that the crowd was totally disengaged. Maybe he lacks credibility to such an extent that the audience felt no compulsion to even listen to what he had to say.
Such verbal expression of anger is aggressive, violent, abusive and lacks the grace and dignity we expect from the holders of high office. I am not surprised because Mayor Regrello represents a party that perpetuates such hatred toward the population that the leader had no difficulty likening women to golf courses that needed to be groomed; the minister of finance had no difficulty jeering at the population when he boasted that there was no riot despite frequent increases in the price of gasoline; the attorney general suggested that a victim of sexual harassment said: “ah want money.” I can go on ad nauseam with the examples of abuse being perpetrated upon the very people who continue to vote them into office.
The mayor should have heeded his own advice that ‘the children are looking on’ and found the grace and dignity to de-escalate the situation so that what happened would have been publicly unnoticed, but privately dealt with. Instead, he chose to mar the celebration of the accreditation of a laboratory.
I long for the day when officials exercise their duties so that we all feel inspired and hold our heads proudly because they are representing us well. For now, many of us sit and cringe as mediocrity, bacchanal and disquiet prevail at all levels of our society. I keep asking, when did we get to this level of incompetence? But I live in hope that a new normal will be established based on mutual respect, grace and dignity.
Twenty-six years ago, Radhica Saith published a book titled Why Not a Woman? It paid tribute to more than 100 women in Trinidad who had been making a difference in various spheres of life.
One of the women featured at the time was former government minister and mother of our current AG, Faris Al Rawi. For most of her public life, former Minister Diane Seukeran has been at the forefront of the women’s movement. She has stood solidly in defence of women’s rights, and it is unfortunate that her son is now a leader in an administration that is being accused of covering up sexual harassment.
Almost three decades later, the government has relegated sexual harassment to the status of a policy initiative and not a ‘peep’ from the women’s movement. Why are we complicit in this injustice? Our daughters and granddaughters will not forgive us. Were it not for the man Kirk Waithe, Rolph Balgobin may still be at Angostura and the current investigation into the Darryl Smith affair may have had a more muted response, with the minister of labour happily shunting off complainants to the Equal Opportunities Commission. Well, this is not good enough.
Nothing less than sexual harassment legislation will provide the women of this country with the systems and structures that are required for their safety in the workplace. I hasten to add that sexual harassment is not a gender issue but, for the moment, the women are falling short in their advocacy for this issue. Where are we? Why are we quiet on this issue? My late mother would have asked: “Cat got yuh tongue?”
Where are the more than 100 organizations who march every year for women’s rights? What is their view about sexual harassment legislation? The landscape is overflowing with commentary about Daryl Smith and who attempted to cover up what, while the substantive issue is being ignored. This sordid issue will play out as it will in the public domain, but what will happen to the persons who continue to be victims? Without legislation, this issue will recur again and again.
The only solution is the implementation of sexual harassment legislation. Governments past and present have demonstrated that whenever they wish to fast track any legislation, they can. Sexual harassment legislation in this country requires urgent and immediate attention, and women must step forward and make our voices heard. If the current prime minister wishes to recover from his analogy of women being like golf courses and, therefore, needed daily grooming, here’s an opportunity for him to get into emergency mode and pilot sexual harassment legislation in parliament. Only a foolish opposition would not support such legislation.
My optimistic interpretation of the resounding silence by women is that this is the calm before the storm. My optimistic view is that the women’s movement is at a breaking point and that this injustice will not continue. Women will rise and demand that the prime minister atones for his intemperance by making sexual harassment legislation part of the successes of the 11th Parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
On 9 April 2018, I blogged: “How would things have been different for the minister of sports had the GOTT implemented a sexual harassment policy throughout all state enterprises and ministries and piloted relevant legislation? Women’s rights are human rights and once again this government is failing us.”
Eighteen months later and there isn’t even draft legislation. So, it means that in the next session of parliament, a strong lobby will have to be mounted to make good for this failure of the 11th Republican Parliament.
Here’s an opportunity to insist that any political party that intends to sit in the 12th Republican Parliament must first be clear about piloting sexual harassment legislation. This is not wishful thinking; it’s a key requirement if we are to achieve gender equity in this country. In 2017, the government of Barbados enacted an Employment Sexual Harassment (Prevention) Act, so it isn’t that complicated, and quite doable if we set it as a priority.
If there was legislation in place, the Darryl Smith issue would have been dealt with in a court of law, and there would be no question as to what the real agenda is at play. In refusing the freedom of information request by Kirk Waithe, the permanent secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister wrote: “Senior Counsel has advised that these requests as formulated, do not comply with the Freedom of Information Act” and provided verse and chapter about how the request does not comply.
When this government does not wish to satisfy a citizen’s request, it usually resorts to the legal position. What is so interesting in this report that it cannot be released? Who or what is being protected? Is there a principle here that escapes me?
I am not surprised because early in this sordid episode, the reference was made to a non-disclosure agreement, which signalled to me that hedging had begun. It turned out to be just another attempt to suppress the report.
You might be tempted to say that this is a personal matter, but I beg to disagree. The minister was, and still is, a member of parliament (ie being compensated with public funds) and was allegedly engaging in sexual harassment while he was a minister of sport. The alleged victim was also employed by the government, so public funds were being utilised. Since the public continues to underwrite the MP’s existence, it’s reasonable for the report to be made public. This cannot be seen as a private matter.
So what if there are embarrassing details about the former minister? He should have used his brain to temper his actions. It’s important to send a message that sexual harassment will not be tolerated from whatever quarters it emanates. There are times when leaders must do the right thing, and in this case, the right thing to do is to release the report.
It’s even more important that action is taken to encourage victims to speak out on these and other issues. We must remove the fear of backlash, and that can only be done by building the appropriate systems and structures that will support all victims.
For our society to grow, we must nurture an environment in which people are unafraid. Once fear becomes ingrained, we will be in a very dark place and our freedoms and rights will be trampled upon.
Leave alone … zap … seems to be the preferred management strategy being deployed throughout this country. It is a very unhelpful strategy to leave any situation to fester then swoop down and try to zap it out of existence.
The recent furore over the 69 or so people being housed by the Transformed Life Ministry (TLM) in Arouca is an example of deep systemic failure. Back in June 2016, when the pastor appeared before the joint select committee, it was clear that action needed to be taken to regularise his situation. Instead, it was left to deteriorate and now, zap, the authorities and media come down with a heavy hand and use the misnomers ‘slavery’ and ‘human trafficking’.
For the record, slavery means that you are doing physical labour for no financial recompense. Human trafficking is the action or practice of illegally transporting people from one country or area to another, typically for the purposes of forced labour or sexual exploitation. The recently discovered situation may be kidnapping, torture, and fraud, but is neither slavery nor trafficking.
Some of us have observed the disappearance of noted characters from our streets. Did we think that they went on all-expenses-paid vacations? No! They were taken off the streets in an attempt at rehabilitation. They were removed because their families had suffered enough at the hands of the drug-addicted or the mentally ill. Their families had given up on them. The state had abandoned them. Some of them may have ended up in the Arouca facility, recommended by a social worker, because of the dire insufficiency of official places to accommodate the socially displaced.
Over time, the capacity of institutions to house the socially displaced has not kept pace with growing numbers of people needing help. Once there is shortage, if the official system doesn’t compensate to satisfy demand, there will always be those who seek to fill the gap for a price. In this case, we have seen an increase in the number of informal institutions that operate under the radar and in the absence of rigorous monitoring and evaluation. Administrators of such institutions are left to their own devices to operate at whatever standard they choose.
It is not the first time that the authorities have made a dramatic swoop-down to rescue people who were in unacceptable circumstances. It has happened before with orphanages and elder-care centres. It will continue to happen until we strengthen the systems, processes and procedures to ensure compliance with standards.
In the case of the Transformed Life Ministry (TLM), it would be instructive to find out about the history of the authorities visiting his premises and providing recommendations for improvements. A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) visit would have revealed that people were being housed in circumstances not fit for purpose. But then, how different is this cage strategy from other isolation strategies at the St. Ann’s facility?
This is yet another example of the state failing in its responsibility to provide institutional support or monitor and evaluate the circumstances under which such institutions are operated. It is particularly unfortunate that this is a case of people who are mentally challenged or who suffer from a mental disease or substance abuse. This is an example of spontaneous development to satisfy a need that is not being satisfied under any other circumstances.
The lesson from this should be that we urgently need to provide institutions both in terms of bricks and mortar and properly trained human resources to manage and inspect these institutions. Otherwise, this and similar dramas will continue to unfold, as people design their own solutions in response to any systemic failures.
The commissioner of police and the government will get some popular support for their apparent rescue, but the 60-plus families, who will have to deal with unstable loved ones, are now under pressure from a situation for which they are neither prepared nor have state support.