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.

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Can politicians ever be believed?

by

20140827

In the hurly-burly en­vi­ron­ment of elec­toral pol­i­tics does it mean that high pub­lic of­fice must be achieved by any means nec­es­sary?In­clud­ing spread­ing of false al­le­ga­tions and like­wise, which have the ef­fect of trau­ma­tis­ing an en­tire coun­try and dam­ag­ing its in­ter­na­tion­al im­age?

These ques­tions must now sure­ly oc­cu­py the at­ten­tion of all re­spon­si­ble cit­i­zens of T&T fol­low­ing the dis­clo­sure by search en­gine Google, that e-mails al­leged­ly in­crim­i­nat­ing se­nior gov­ern­ment min­is­ters, in­clud­ing Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, were fake and do not ex­ist.

I do not know what the po­si­tion of most cit­i­zens was when Op­po­si­tion Leader Dr Kei­th Row­ley, in mov­ing a no-con­fi­dence mo­tion in the Prime Min­is­ter on May 19, 2013, read in­to the Par­lia­ment record (Hansard), e-mails pur­port­ing to be mak­ing al­le­ga­tions against the PM and oth­er min­is­ters.The al­le­ga­tions are so se­ri­ous I do not wish to re­peat them at this time as they hav­ing been prop­er­ly ven­ti­lat­ed since that day.

I was trans­fixed be­fore my tele­vi­sion tak­ing in Row­ley's con­tri­bu­tion. I was left emo­tion­al­ly per­plexed and be­wil­dered with a gov­ern­ment that was so pop­u­lar­ly vot­ed in­to of­fice on May 24, 2010. How could they have been en­gaged in that kind of con­duct which was com­plete­ly alien to our po­lit­i­cal land­scape?

So dis­turbed was I over this episode I wrote af­ter Row­ley's pre­sen­ta­tion that if the charges were fac­tu­al then the gov­ern­ment had to re­sign, and if the so-called e-mails were false Row­ley would have no choice but to re­sign his of­fice and at least apol­o­gise to the na­tion.

The ding-dong bat­tle be­tween the op­po­si­tion and gov­ern­ment con­tin­ued on its con­fronta­tion­al course up to last week­end when Google on the le­gal ac­tion of At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Anand Ram­lo­gan, in­formed the AG and by ex­ten­sion the state, that the whole E-mail­gate con­tro­ver­sy was a com­plete fab­ri­ca­tion.Google's lan­guage was not couched in terms that the av­er­age lay­man could not un­der­stand.

Al­though Row­ley's at­tacks were made un­der the cloak of par­lia­men­tary priv­i­lege one still ex­pects that when po­lit­i­cal lead­ers speak in the Low­er or Up­per House it is im­per­a­tive, even though they may not be in pos­ses­sion of all the per­ti­nent facts, that care must be tak­en to be ex­treme­ly ju­di­cious in ver­i­fy­ing the ac­cu­ra­cy of what they speak about.Did Row­ley take the nec­es­sary pre­cau­tion in this in­stance giv­en the se­ri­ous na­ture of the al­le­ga­tions he was mak­ing in the leg­is­la­ture? Against the high­est hold­er of po­lit­i­cal of­fice in the land?

He not on­ly made the al­le­ga­tions in the par­lia­ment but re­peat­ed them in the pu­bic where par­lia­men­tary priv­i­lege does not re­side. Is this the kind of re­spon­si­bil­i­ty the peo­ple should de­mand from peo­ple who are as­pir­ing to hold high po­lit­i­cal of­fice?Now that Google has vin­di­cat­ed the PM the AG and oth­er min­is­ters for any al­leged wrong-do­ing, where do we go from here?

The ques­tion that must now be faced is who were the par­ty or par­ties be­hind in this na­tion­al shame; was Row­ley duped in­to be­liev­ing he was on sol­id ground, that he had hanged the gov­ern­ment's "jack?"Was this plot hatched at Bal­isi­er House and would Row­ley do the prop­er thing and at least apol­o­gise to the na­tion?

Based on the com­ments from PNM func­tionar­ies that it does seem to be forth­com­ing it is amaz­ing that the par­ty's Pub­lic Re­la­tions Of­fi­cer Far­ris Al-Rawi had the gall to even think about say­ing gov­ern­ment had planned the Google re­lease to de­tract from the Sen­ate de­bate which start­ed in the Up­per House on Tues­day, deal­ing with the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Amend­ment Bill.

Would you be­lieve such non­sense from Al-Rawi as he sought to put the PNM's spin on what is clear­ly a faux pas of such mag­ni­tude by the leader of his par­ty? I looked straight in­to his face on the tele­vi­sion and he was even smil­ing mak­ing that un­be­liev­able com­ment.

One of the long-term ef­fects of this sor­ry af­fair is that the pub­lic may not want to be­lieve any­thing politi­cians say in this place. If they could get away with mak­ing such po­ten­tial­ly dan­ger­ous state­ments which has far-reach­ing na­tion­al con­se­quences, then heav­en help us all.

If Row­ley per­sists in stand­ing his ground on this mat­ter he, in my opin­ion, would do his cred­i­bil­i­ty in the po­lit­i­cal are­na a lot of dam­age.

I do not know what the AG in­tends to do and some lawyers have quot­ed the law which states that the Op­po­si­tion Leader could face se­ri­ous le­gal prob­lems were the af­fect­ed par­ties to de­cide to pur­sue their op­tions.The bot­tom line at this time is that politi­cians, be­cause of the trust re­posed in them by the peo­ple, must ad­here to sound lead­er­ship prin­ci­ples.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored