16 February 1998, 910 words
According to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, a kuei is a wide-mouthed container for food. Made of bronze, this Chinese vessel was produced during the Shang (circa 1766-1122 BC) and Chou (c. 1122-221) dynasties and has an ample, bowl-shaped body with slightly rounded sides. But, if Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj has his way, I could be arrested for saying so.
Mr. Maharaj would like to make innuendo a crime. If such legislation is passed, it could be argued that the above quote is an attempt to imply that Finance Minister Brian Kuei Tung is a voracious political opportunist who, far from being an effective Finance Minister, is enriching himself and his friends at the expense of the people of Trinidad and Tobago.
Do I exaggerate? (I mean about the possibility of my being arrested, not about Mr. Kuei Tung.) Maybe I am guilty of hyperbole but, as the philosopher David Hume pointed out, you never know, you know? After all, the present Government is led by a man who sees every criticism of his administration as having racial or political motives. The idea that some people might just be defending certain ethical principles when they attack the UNC's policies is clearly foreign to Mr. Panday, which is hardly surprising. (But there I go with my innuendoes again.)
I write a satirical column, which means that innuendo is its raison d' etre. But I don't think I have ever written anything which was not based on fact or which cannot be analytically defended. However, I would never write a column suggesting that a lawyer who formed a human rights bureau might have done so only to get unfair publicity over fellow lawyers who are not allowed to advertise. And I would never write a column questioning the ethical perspective of a man who would flee the country when his clients stage an attempted coup and then come back and defend these same clients afterwards. Not me, Sanchez.
What I would do is write a column about Janus, the Roman two-faced god; or one about the dangers of whiplash when you make a sudden turnabout; or about those contortionists from India who can twist themselves up like human pretzels. But I may not be able to write such columns once Ramesh passes his Bill to Ban Innuendoes. He might attach a death penalty to the offence.
I could write an analytical column instead, but I really don't want to. There are several reasons for my reluctance, the first one being that it would be uncomfortable for me to write an analytical column for any newspaper which Denis Solomon also writes for: I have this great dislike of being intellectually eclipsed every week. (In case readers have been wondering, the real reason the Independent carries Kumar Mahabir is that he makes everybody else look really bright.)
The second reason I have not wanted to write an analytical column is that such columns require reasoned argument. But my column is mostly about politics, and reasoned argument can appeal only to reasonable people. If there are any such persons in the UNC, they are either very quiet or very dead.
But the main reason I don't want to write a serious newspaper column is that it wouldn't go with my photo. Humour suits my face better. Besides, Steven Pinker, author of How the Mind Works, says humour is "the enemy of pomp and decorum, especially when they prop up the authority of an adversary or a superior." That is me all over. I entirely enjoy pricking pomp and decorum - it gives me a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling. And Marvin Minksy, who wrote The Society of Mind, opines that "Humour has a practical and possibly essential function in how we learn" which suggests that Adesh Nanan is a far better Education Minister than anyone thinks. But this is also one of my intentions in writing this column. (To make people learn, I mean, not to suggest that Adesh Nanan is a good Education Minister - I try to be absurd, not totally ridiculous.)
One reason why humour is a good learning tool comes from Sigmund Freud, who suggested that human beings form censors in their minds as barrier against forbidden thoughts. Jokes, wrote Freud, are stories designed to fool the censors. Of course, this does not explain why Wade Mark was made Information Minister. Wade is more joke than censor. It is Ramesh who wants to ban everything, including life for convicted murderers.
Still, even if he gets his proposed Bill, Ramesh forgets that he himself is still a safe target for people like me. I am no lawyer but, if I remember correctly, the law of libel says that libel is done when a person's reputation is lowered in the estimate of right-thinking citizens. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj is a man who once did his utmost to prevent convicted murderers being hanged and now is doing his best to make sure their necks are popped as quickly as possible; a man who once led an erstwhile human rights bureau and now wants to suppress several basic rights, including freedom of speech; a man who got the Muslimeen off and then promised consideration to these known murderers if they helped him win a political campaign.
So tell me: what could I possibly say about this Honourable Attorney General which would lower him in the estimate of right-thinking people?
Copyright ©1998 Kevin Baldeosingh