JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, July 19, 2025

More facts and less emotional rhetoric

by

20121127

One of the sad­dest re­ac­tions to what is clear­ly a gen­uine at­tempt by an in­di­vid­ual to in­flu­ence change in a po­lit­i­cal cul­ture of dom­i­na­tion by Gov­ern­ment is the vul­gar­i­ty of el­e­ments of the po­lit­i­cal re­sponse. "He play­ing the fool." "He's be­hav­ing like a spoilt child...he has to grow up."

Then there was the sug­ges­tion that hunger-strik­er Dr Wayne Kublals­ingh goes home at night and gorges him­self on food and drink. That was fol­lowed by a cheap as­sem­blage of a rent-a-crowd in sup­port of pro­ceed­ing with the por­tion of the high­way in ques­tion, the or­gan­is­ers even pro­duc­ing a counter hunger-strik­er.

There were al­so the state­ments from on high which sought to dis­tort and mis­lead about the his­to­ry of the events sur­round­ing the hunger strike and the re­quest/de­mand for a trans­par­ent and tech­ni­cal re­view of the project. One of the hi­lar­i­ous re­ac­tions clear­ly aimed at dis­cred­it­ing Dr Kublals­ingh is talk by the na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty min­is­ter and the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al about the al­leged il­le­gal­i­ty of the hunger strike.

So are the au­thor­i­ties to ar­rest and charge him for at­tempt­ing to com­mit sui­cide? Are they call­ing on the po­lice to throw him in a cell and force-feed him? More se­ri­ous­ly, I de­scribe the re­ac­tions as vul­gar be­cause they seek to re­duce po­lit­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ty that protests poli­cies and pro­grammes of the Gov­ern­ment in a self-sac­ri­fi­cial man­ner to the pop­u­lar eat-ah-food po­lit­i­cal cul­ture that is all-ab­sorb­ing and threat­en­ing to drain the so­ci­ety of its hu­man­i­ty and the pos­si­bil­i­ty of in­tegri­ty.

The re­ac­tion of Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar and the UNC el­e­ment of the Cab­i­net have as its ob­jec­tive, the deep­en­ing of the po­lit­i­cal cul­ture of ig­no­rance and the fur­ther en­trench­ing of trib­al loy­al­ty and mes­sian­ic, un­ques­tion­ing lead­er­ship which have de­vel­oped here dur­ing the 50 years of po­lit­i­cal in­de­pen­dence.

I, like tens of thou­sands of oth­er cit­i­zens, am wait­ing to be per­suad­ed one way or the oth­er by a tech­ni­cal re­port done by a team of in­de­pen­dent pro­fes­sion­als. In­clud­ed in the dis­tor­tion is the at­tempt to make as if the pro­test­ers are against the con­struc­tion of the high­way in its en­tire­ty. It was par­tic­u­lar­ly sad that the prin­ci­pal of the St Au­gus­tine cam­pus of UWI, Prof Clement Sankat, if he was fair­ly quot­ed in a news­pa­per re­port, sup­port­ed that no­tion.

If Prof Sankat was com­pre­hen­sive­ly re­port­ed it would be fright­en­ing that the prin­ci­pal of a uni­ver­si­ty, a place of thought and crit­i­cal think­ing, was not able to make a dis­tinc­tion be­tween the call for a re-rout­ing of a por­tion of the high­way and the sug­ges­tion that the protest is against the en­tire high­way.

In­stead of en­gag­ing in a lot of emo­tion­al rhetoric, what the PM?should have done when she met with jour­nal­ists was to read from the tech­ni­cal re­port she says has been done. The state­ment should have been pre­ced­ed by: who con­duct­ed the sur­vey; what were the fac­tors tak­en in­to con­sid­er­a­tion by the re­searchers and the man­date giv­en. At the same time, the PM's as­sis­tants should have pre­pared full copies of the re­port for the me­dia.

Such an ap­proach would have been in­valu­able to those who pre­fer to be per­suad­ed by sci­en­tif­ic facts, hu­man and en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact sur­veys. In­stead of seed­ing such a po­lit­i­cal cul­ture to ad­vance the pol­i­tics, the PM is set to en­gage in a se­ries of pub­lic par­ty meet­ings to whip up emo­tion­al and even trib­al loy­al­ties and re­ac­tions.

How is this ap­proach dif­fer­ent from when Man­ning re­fused to have the coun­try ex­posed to ra­tio­nale and sci­en­tif­ic ar­gu­ments about the con­struc­tion of smelter plants? There must have been an ex­pec­ta­tion that po­lit­i­cal lead­er­ship would have evolved in the three-to four-year pe­ri­od since.

The coun­try is in no bet­ter po­si­tion to de­ter­mine whether one form of de­vel­op­ment has more ben­e­fits to the so­ci­ety over an­oth­er and this is be­cause of the pol­i­tics of dom­i­na­tion prac­tised by all sides. Dr Kublals­ingh has made his point with courage and in­tegri­ty.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored