Trinidad and Tobago is having a tough time right now. The world is slipping into a recession, COVID refuses to acknowledge our collective efforts to pretend it doesn’t exist, and our government is besieged by a combination of microphone malfunctions and an “irritated” population.

First things first, let me say it’s an encouraging sign that the government has come to the realisation that—having subjected the public to the symptoms of a foot-in-mouth epidemic for two straight weeks—it’s time to do more than double-down and/or accuse the media of misquoting them. That it’s the Prime Minister himself addressing the matter suggests that they’ve realised it’s not enough to dismiss the public response as “negative rhetoric” or a “hue and cry on Twitter, on Facebook“. It suggests that they’re becoming aware (if they weren’t already) that the internet—and social media in particular—is a critical forum for the public to respond to a leadership that has become accustomed to speaking to the people they’re supposed to represent in very unsettling ways. This new, more empathetic pivot began with Minister Al-Rawi on Monday, when he took a decidedly different tone from his colleagues in Parliament. I imagine it would have continued throughout the week, had the Education Minister and her Junior Minister not joined forces to reinforce the idea that too many of our government ministers have lost the plot entirely.

All of which is to say that I appreciate the effort to acknowledge that, as Dr. Rowley admitted, the government has to take responsibility for its communication to the public and needs to be more careful in how it expresses itself. I also appreciate the effort to explain the intent of the statements and provide additional context. Again, it suggests a recognition of the fact that, within a democracy, governance requires dialogue, rather than dictates. Hopefully, it also suggests a growing awareness of the fact that (despite Minister Gonzales’ claims to the contrary) the relationship between a government and its constituents isn’t actually the same as the one between authoritative parents and their wayward children.

However. Given the government’s understandable frustration with having its words misconstrued in the media, it is strange to see the government misconstruing its own words in the media, given that those words are on record (inna de HD) for us all to see. To downplay a series of incredibly tone-deaf and condescending statements from his ministers as a mix of misinterpretations and microphone issues—a series of unfortunate events, as it were—is disingenuous. It’s also not great to hear the Prime Minister describe the public response to being openly disrespected as “irritation” while also claiming that the government hasn’t responded to the public outcry with irritation. To ask the public to view the ministers’ out-of-touch scolding “dispassionately, in an unbiased way” (after admitting that the government’s communications have been problematic) is to suggest that the statements were essentially fine but our feelings got in the way. That’s a really interesting stance to take given that some of the most egregious statements weren’t mentioned at all in this article.

So, in the interest of clarity, in the interest of viewing things dispassionately, let’s take a look at those words (which again, came directly from their own mouths) side-by-side with the reframing Dr. Rowley has been so kind as to provide:

On the government’s work-from-home policy:

While Dr. Rowley did indeed note that technical infrastructure is an issue (not that that stopped work-from-home from happening for two years), is it unreasonable to be concerned about his implication that indiscipline is the reason it won’t work as a policy? Is it odd to wonder why he didn’t address that implication at all in his clarification?

On avoiding traffic/coping with rising fuel costs:

This is one of the statements that really highlighted the disconnect between the government on its constituents while suggesting a lack of awareness that people are well-versed in cutting back where necessary to deal with ever-rising costs. The clarification doesn’t help. If the intent was to suggest ways that people could save fuel on recreational activities when the issue is that the vast majority of the population spends 4-6 (or more) hours burning fuel in traffic every day, how was it helpful? To whom would it have been helpful? This is a nation of full-grown adults managing households. Most of us are burning most of our fuel during the morning and evening commute because we have to be at work by 8/9am and thousands of us, therefore, leave the western peninsula at the same time. So, who precisely didn’t know they would need to cut back on discretionary travel in order to afford fuel to get to work? Who among us would be choosing to sit in hours of traffic for fun? What about those of us who don’t have cars? Do we get cheaper taxi and maxi fares during off-peak hours?

Against the backdrop of his statement about a government work-from-home policy—which would take many public-service commuters off the road while setting a tone that the private sector can (and will) follow—it suggests that the government is unwilling to do what is within its power to help ease the burdens we obviously have to bear. It reads as especially tone-deaf coming from a group of people who don’t have to sit in traffic because they are afforded passes, drivers and sirens that part cars like the Red Sea when they’re coming through.

On the tone and tenor of the government’s response to the backlash:

Then

Now

Told that having the policies in place is one thing, but there was a sense that the Government sometimes appears to be irritated by the complaints of the public, he said: “You have just used the word that I was looking for—irritated. The public is irritated by the circumstances that confront them.”

Asked whether the Government is irritated as well, the prime minister said no. He said, however, in explaining the situation, members of the Government may be exposed to the public irritation. “It is not that the speaker is trying to offend, but the Government, as decision maker, finds itself at the centre of that (irritation),” he said.

Dr. Keith Rowley, per The Trinidad Express

Come, nah. Is the public bothered by the tone coming from the people drawing paychecks to represent them? Sure. It’s unprofessional at best and disdainful at worst. Is the backlash simply a product of irritation? Nah. Are the ministers clearly irritated by the fact that we presume to question them? I mean, we big and we have sense, right?

On the staggeringly out-of-touch ministerial statements:

Not much more needs to be said given what the ministers said for themselves. As for the “quip” about microphone troubles, all I can say is that I suppose the camera glitched same time.

So there it is, in their own words. They said what they said.

A dispassionate, unbiased viewer could be forgiven for concluding that something is very off about the government’s perception of its people. I understand why the Prime Minister would be eager to downplay the things that have tumbled out of the mouths of his ministers over the past two weeks. However, as a person with no political affiliation and a genuine interest in seeing this country fulfil its considerable potential, I believe they can do better than that. I would suggest that a great way to move forward from a place of empathy and respect would be to really face what they’ve said and use it as an opportunity to show us how this government intends to change, not just what it says, but also what it does. It’d be great to see our government actually treat with the population as if they recognise our humanity and intelligence.

That is, assuming they do recognise these things.