Wayne Kublals­ingh

Even if the Syr­i­an-Lebanese cit­i­zen­ry had not dis­tin­guished it­self in Trinidad and To­ba­go, it would still be guar­an­teed the pro­tec­tions and rights en­shrined in our na­tion­al con­sti­tu­tion. Dis­tin­guished it­self in itin­er­ant cloth hawk­ing, in hard­ware and hab­er­dash­ery vend­ing, in mall and bazaar build­ing, in the law and ju­rispru­dence, in ac­tivism, in the lit­tle touch of mag­ic which they brought with them from Arab-West Asia, the food, the cui­sine, the chick peas, cel­ery, split peas savouries, falafel, in kaiso, in art, in me­dia, in gen­er­al or­gan­ised com­merce and the fast-food trade.

Even if our Syr­i­an-Lebanese cit­i­zens, who be­gan ar­riv­ing in Trinidad and To­ba­go in 1904, had sat on their haunch­es in those pen­ny-pinch­ing board­ing hous­es along Ma­rine Square, cor­ner George, Duke, Dun­can and Char­lotte streets, and flipped coins, gam­bled and played cards, they would have still been guar­an­teed such pro­tec­tions and rights.

The list­ing of “na­tion­al con­tri­bu­tions” by and on be­half of Syr­i­an and Lebanese cit­i­zens, in the face of a rep­re­hen­si­ble, ser­pen­tine, racist at­tack by the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, is non-rel­e­vant, im­ma­te­r­i­al. No such de­fence is re­quired. “Frus­tra pro­batur quod pro­ba­tum non rel­e­vat”. It is vain to prove that which is ir­rel­e­vant, even if proved. Tri­ni Syr­i­ans and Lebanese folk do not have to prove them­selves. To be hauled over and over again across the coals to prove them­selves. The proof lies in our na­tion­al con­sti­tu­tion.

Lest we for­get, Sec­tion 4(a) of our Con­sti­tu­tion pledges no “dis­crim­i­na­tion by rea­son of race, ori­gin, colour, re­li­gion or sex, the fol­low­ing fun­da­men­tal hu­man rights and free­doms, name­ly: (a) the right of the in­di­vid­ual to life, lib­er­ty, se­cu­ri­ty of the per­son and en­joy­ment of prop­er­ty and the right not to be de­prived there­of ex­cept by due process of law.”

Con­sti­tu­tion­al pledges are not al­le­ga­tions. They are bind­ing. Sworn. Law.

What is this al­le­ga­tion thrown at our kin­dred cit­i­zens, like a le­gal book, by AG John Je­re­mie, from the Par­lia­men­tary cham­bers, that they are the “one-per­centers”? This term was pop­u­larised by the 2011 Oc­cu­py Wall Street US protests. Wall Street is re­gard­ed as a fi­nan­cial hub of glob­al cap­i­tal. But we im­port­ed the slo­gan and se­lec­tive­ly ap­plied it to our Syr­i­an-Lebanese com­mu­ni­ty, not to wealthy mem­bers of our con­trac­toc­ra­cy, our po­lit­i­cal elites, our bank­ing fra­ter­ni­ty, not to the ma­jor­i­ty East In­di­an or African pop­u­la­tions, but to the mi­nor­i­ty Arab pop­u­la­tion.

Here is the AG in Par­lia­ment: “There are al­so gangs who de­scribe them­selves in terms of per­cent­ages. For ex­am­ple, the 1%. A use­ful place to start is the An­ti-Gang Act. A gang is de­fined in that Act as a com­bi­na­tion of two or more per­sons. Two or more per­sons, whether for­mal­ly or in­for­mal­ly or­gan­ised, who en­gage in gang-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty. There’s a broad de­f­i­n­i­tion as to what con­sti­tutes gang-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ty. By way of back­ground, I’m sure we all re­mem­ber an in­fa­mous in­ter­view in 2017 when my col­leagues were in pow­er, when a promi­nent mem­ber of a per­cent­age, the 1%, de­scribed the com­mu­ni­ty as fol­lows: ‘The pop­u­la­tion size is un­der 5,000. Ac­tu­al­ly, we are the small­est eth­nic group in Trinidad, but the most pow­er­ful, al­most the most pow­er­ful.’ It took An­tho­ny Bour­dain, a for­eign cor­re­spon­dent work­ing then with CNN, to speak to those truths.” (11th June 2026).

If there was any doubt that the term “one-per­cent” in T&T refers to the Syr­i­an-Lebanese com­mu­ni­ty, here we have it from the horse’s mouth of the AG in Par­lia­ment, nailed up­on the cross of Hansard. Can the AG prove his al­le­ga­tion that the Syr­i­an-Lebanese com­mu­ni­ty refers to it­self as the one per cent? That the en­tire com­mu­ni­ty con­sti­tutes a gang? All con­duct­ing gang-re­lat­ed ac­tiv­i­ties? Can he prove that this com­mu­ni­ty in its en­tire­ty is pos­sessed of eco­nom­ic pow­er and po­lit­i­cal in­flu­ence? And, even if this were the case, are all ac­cord­ing­ly de­barred from con­sti­tu­tion­al rights and safe­guards?

The AG con­tin­ued: “If you be­have as gang mem­bers do, you shall be treat­ed in ex­act­ly the same way that blue-col­lar gang mem­bers are. If your des­ig­na­tion hap­pens to be with­in the 1%, it hap­pens to be six, sev­en, or eight, Teteron awaits. Mr Speak­er, for the record, I say this in clear lan­guage. If you’ve not re­alised it be­fore, the pro­tec­tion or suc­cour you found at your Wood­brook Cab­i­net meet­ings with the for­mer Prime Min­is­ter is at an end. And I add on­ly that if you tar­get me, as I ex­pect you will or my Prime Min­is­ter as you have, hid­ing be­hind the news­pa­pers you con­trol, if, as our in­tel­li­gence sug­gests, you have in con­tem­pla­tion more di­rect ac­tion, the in­dig­ni­ty of the cells at Teteron awaits.”

Does the AG have ev­i­dence that the Syr­i­an-Lebanese com­mu­ni­ty is be­hav­ing like blue-col­lar crim­i­nals? That it in­tends to threat­en him or his Prime Min­is­ter? That it con­sti­tutes a gang? Then why not ar­rest? Why threat­en with Teteron (thrice)? Why not act? Why let the cat out of the bag? If, as you claim, that your “al­ly” in the “North” has an in­tel­li­gence in­ter­est in Syr­i­an-Lebanese cit­i­zens, why not bust them? As the Gov­ern­ment busts the AG’s “poor lit­tle black youths in Mor­vant and Laven­tille”? And your “al­ly” busts up pirogues?

Why hide be­hind the cov­er of Par­lia­ment and al­lege, threat­en, in­sin­u­ate, de­monise? Is this just bad­john bluff? Scape­goat­ing? And why is this de­fend­ed by “my Prime Min­is­ter”, who sat along­side you whilst you enun­ci­at­ed with ut­most care your pre­pared text?