These results are from a nationwide survey on current issues conducted by the ANSA McAL Psychological Research Centre, University of the West Indies, St Augustine, for the T&T Guardian. The main intention of this survey is to assess popular opinion on a number of major issues.
A representative random sample of 503 respondents were interviewed and comprised people 18 years and over with 34 per cent Afro-Trinidadians, 40 per cent Indo-Trinidadians, 25 per cent mixed and one per cent other ethnic groups. The sample consisted of 51 per cent females. Respondents were selected using the Random Digit Dialling Method. The margin of error is plus or minus four per cent.
This poll was conducted during the period May 10 to 12, and was supervised by Dr Derek Chadee, director, ANSA McAL Psychological Research Centre and senior lecturer, Department of Behavioural Sciences, University of the West Indies, St Augustine.
When asked about the Government’s handling of the Section 34 issue, almost 70 per cent of respondents gave a negative rating. Specifically, one per cent stated “excellent,” eight per cent “good,” 24 per cent “fair,” 41 per cent “poor” and 26 per cent “extremely poor.” For the following analyses, the responses “excellent” and “good” were re-coded into the category “good,” while “poor” and “extremely poor” were re-coded into the category “poor.”
Analysing responses by ethnicity showed that Indo-Trinidadians were considerably more likely than Afro-Trinidadians to rate the performance of the Prime Minister as “good.” Particularly, 18 per cent Indo-Trinidadians, seven per cent mixed and one per cent Afro-Trinidadians stated “good.” Similarly, Afro-Trinidadians (16 per cent) were marginally less likely than mixed respondents (24 per cent) and Indo-Trinidadians (29 per cent) to give a rating of “fair.”
When asked about the Government’s handling of the Section 34 issue, Indo-Trinidadians were least likely, but still over 50 per cent, to state “poor,” with 83 per cent Afro-Trinidadians, 69 per cent mixed, and 53 per cent Indo-Trinidadians giving this response.
With regard to sex, no significant differences were observed across responses. A rating of “good” was indicated by ten per cent females and nine per cent males regarding the Government’s handling of the Section 34 issue. Males (25 per cent) and females (22 per cent) gave similar ratings of “fair,” while the majority of both females (68 per cent) and males (66 per cent) gave a rating of “poor.”
Assessing responses by age showed that there was a marginal difference among age groups rating the Government’s handling of the Section 34 issue as “good.” Specifically, seven per cent of people 18-30 years old, six per cent 31-40, 10 per cent 41-50 and 12 per cent of those 51 and older stated “good.”
Respondents in the 41-50 age category were less likely to give a “poor,” rating with 27 per cent 18-30 years, 28 per cent 31-40, 19 per cent 41-50 and 21 per cent of those 51 and older giving this rating. The response “poor” was given by 66 per cent of people 18-30s, 66 per cent 31-40, 71 per cent 41-50 and 67 per cent of respondents 51 and older.
With regard to education, once again mostly marginal differences were observed. Specifically, 12 per cent primary, nine per cent secondary, nine per cent tertiary, and four per cent technical/vocational educated persons said “good.” Tertiary educated individuals were the least likely to state “fair,” with 28 per cent secondary, 28 per cent technical/vocational and 27 per cent primary, and 14 per cent tertiary educated giving that response.
A rating of “poor” was given by 77 per cent tertiary, 68 per cent technical/vocational, 63 per cent secondary and 61 per cent primary educated.
How do you rate the Government’s handling of the Section 34 issue?
Excellent one per cent
Good eight per cent
Fair 24 per cent
Poor 41 per cent
Extremely poor 26 per cent
PUBLIC COMMENTS
How would you rate the Government’s handling of the Section 34 issue?
EXTREMELY POOR/POOR
The Government is trying to cover up the issue. Another example of how corrupt the Government is. The Government was very disrespectful to the country about it.
FAIR
They could have done much better with this. They should have been honest with the people of the country.
GOOD/EXCELLENT
They handled the only way they could, by firing the minister responsible. They realised that they made a mistake and tried to fix it.