|
clevon_raphael@hotmail.com
Mudslinging
by the PM
-
Is the PM engaging in naked mauvis
langue?
-
Not unreasonable to expect better from the head of gov-ernment.
-
PNM stung and rattled by Gopaul-McNichol’s defection.
Once
again our Prime Minister has done it. Uttering outrageous
statements, completely inexplicable and totally unnecessary.
I could never accused Patrick Manning of being dim-witted,
after all he is the head of government and in T&T assuming
that exalted position is not the task for fools.
So why does he continue to infuriate and anger sensible citizens
by his callous messages?
Is he indulging in the age-old strategy of diversionary politics?
Even if that is so and for all practical purposes campaigning
for the yet-to-be-announced general election has already begun,
one cannot excuse his latest outburst on the almost-anything-gives
charged atmosphere.
Manning’s latest boo-boo took place while addressing
a bunch of party devotees in the Aranguez end of the St Joseph
constituency on Saturday afternoon.
Fresh from being severely criticised for his troubling remarks
on what he claimed to be the lack of independence of the independent
senators and that the President has too much powers, he waded
into ex- PNMite Sharon Gopaul-McNichol and former leading
educator Brother Michael Samuel, former principal of Presentation
College in San Fernando.
He called on Dr Gopaul-McNichol, whose departure from the
balisier crowd is surely bothering them, to “research
the background” of fellow Congress of the People front-liner
Bro Michael, and submit the report to COP leader Winston Dookeran.
Now this is my problem with that “assignment” the
PM has given Gopaul-McNichol: what sin is Brother Michael
guilty of? As PM, Manning has access to information that we
mere mortals do not have.
Instead of putting himself in danger of a serious libel action—which
he has done—why doesn’t he disclose to the public
what bad goods—if any—he has on Bro Michael?
If our dearly beloved PM cannot give us the “dirt”
on one of his political opponents, he should apologise to
the cleric/educator for casting serious doubts on the man’s
character.
And since the word “apologise” apparently does not
exist in Manning’s vocabulary and unless he comes up
with the raw facts, Mr Manning is engaging in one of our dirtiest
and dangerous pastimes—mauvis langue.
We all know that in the heat of the hustings a little picong
and “fatigue” are part of the fare but when a PM
can engage himself in that kind of mudslinging and muckraking,
can we take him seriously when he speaks of taking this country
to developed-country status by 2020?
So far we don’t have a rod map for achieving that laudable
goal—or is bad-mouthing our fellow citizens and character
assassination part of that route?
Is it unreasonable to expect our Prime Minister to lift the
bar of the debate and not to descend to that level of abusing
the office?
If Bro Michael has committed some unpardonable sin, as a pastor-to-be
Manning has a duty to inform us so that we may not commit
an error at the polls that we may regret.
Manning’s belated injunction to Gopaul-McNichol was his
response to her claim months ago that there were acts of homosexuality
in the St Joseph constituency of the PNM.
Prompted by Manning’s surly response on Sunday, she went
further and told the Express that there were 26 such acts
last year in the constituency.
Perhaps Manning and the party’s leadership have been
stung and rattled by Gopaul-McNichol’s defection and
the temerity of Bro Michael to mount a political platform
against the venerable People’s National Movement.
But is that any way for a Prime Minister so confident of winning
the upcoming polls to treat any citizen, especially one who
has demonstrated competence and who, for whatever reasons,
choses to serve his country?
At the end of the day we all have to live and die in our beloved
land and not because some of us may chose to build our country
via a different vehicle than that of the status quo, should
they be demonised on the altar of political expediency.
On Saturday Manning also accused Gopaul-McNichol of causing
dissent and turmoil in the constituency, which she unsuccessfully
fought for the PNM.
I cannot pretend to defend her because the woman is better
equipped than me to do so but that charge is so far from the
truth and I am saying that being a resident of the constituency
for more than 12 years.
I am well acquainted with the bacchanal there and I also know
that the PNM is desperately trying to regain the constituency,
which has not seen a PNM MP for at least ten years, and winning
it this time around would be its crowning glory.
Say what they like, the constituency is still not united and
winning St Joseph would depend on the quality of the candidate
the party puts up.
If the PNM intends to follow the leader and engage in gutter-type
politics, it can kiss the seat goodbye—again—from
now.
n Part two next week
|
