In Quest of Quan Soon's Logic

05, Jun 2000
At the same time, he could not compete during the day with big business that could undersell him whenever this became expedient.

Big businesses were closed by early evening. It meant therefore that only the small man profited from the late-night economic transactions.

Ian D. Quan Soon of New York, in all his wisdom, seeks to suggest and advance the view that British colonialism did not utilise a universal policy of divide and rule as is commonly held by many; that colonial policy did not seek to disenfranchise Africans economically on the one hand, and Indians politically on the other; that, prior to independence, Africans were "substantially employed" in the oil industry and civil service, and were "small entrepreneurs".

He went on to list various occupations: the artisan and service trades by and large, as well as a smattering of large African-owned commercial houses.

Strangely enough, in this regard, he mentions Colonial Life and Stephens and Todd, but not JT Johnson and Glendinings.

Quan Soon continues with his own view of history, and his particular kind of logic: "During the early years, political independence brought major social and economic upheaval and depression that forced many small businesses to close and highly trained and qualified citizens to flee, leaving family, loved ones, friends and property behind.

This migration has continued unabated for 35 years..."

You need to read that over and over, dear readers, because it is the fundamental pivot upon which Mr Quan Soon's perspective turns, and the basis upon which he is supposed to be "busting the Bukka Rennie" analysis.

We are not sure whether those were his actual words or the words of the Guardian editors, but his by-line was attached so, like the rest of us, the responsibility is his to accept or reject.

Quan Soon concludes it is this great Afro-Trinidadian migration and resulting "brain drain" that has brought about the present predicament of Africans here; that no nation can lose so much of its citizens without dire consequences; that, instead of viewing the brain drain as a safety valve, we should do everything in our power to woo these people back to T&T and not see them as "deep-pocket foreigners" who should only come for Carnival.

That is the sum total of what Mr Quan Soon has to say. Though we might detect at the end some personal pique, it is beside the point.

Amazingly, the goodly gentleman accuses us of not advancing empirical evidence and "excluding objective research". Imagine that!

We have a great deal to say to Mr Quan Soon, and start with a quotation from our book History of the Working Class 1919-1956, written back in 1972:

"With the sedition cases Ð brought by the colonial government against members of the Negro Welfare Association (NWA) Ð out of the way, greater energy was thrown into the day-to-day issues that concerned the people as a whole...

The Shop Closing Ordinance that the NWA had begun to oppose since October 1, 1936, immediately after the Shop Hours Committee had made its recommendations, was still being debated in the Legislative Council.

The Trinidad Guardian, October 2, 1936, reported on the large meeting the NWA had the day before in Woodford Square and, in its report, the positions of the NWA as regards the shop hours recommended were clearly stated:

I. There has been no demand from the masses of the colony, or from the employees of places of business which the proposed legislation will affect. The few big business representatives of the colony, through their agency of the Chamber of Commerce, were the only ones who wish for any change in the existing laws in respect of shop hours.
II. Proposed legislation will deal a severe blow to the free commercial development of the island.
III. Proposals will tend to bring about the liquidation of small businesses, an unreasonable attempt to injure us, the toiling masses, in the interests of big business monopoly.

At this point the small businessman was mainly African, as the East Indians were still largely tied to the sugar plantation and agricultural estates.

The small businessman around the towns, Port-of-Spain and San Fernando in particular, conducted business late at night to accommodate the workers who usually received wages at such time.

The big businesses were closed by early evening. It meant therefore that only the small man profited from the late-night economic transactions.

The Shop Closing Ordinance pushed by big business was geared to destroy the small man on Henry, George, Charlotte and Prince Streets, and along Marine Square.

If forced by law to close after eight hours of operations on week days, five hours on Thursdays, with Sundays and public holidays as days of total closure, the small man could not survive.

At the same time, he could not compete during the day with big business that could undersell him whenever this became expedient.

Of course, those who masterminded the Shop Hours Bill did so under the guise they were concerned with the extra long hours that clerks, employed by small business, had to work.

The same people who before had fought the eight-hour day ordinance now became its staunchest advocates.

(Continued)