In last week's column I made an error. I wrote that a memorandum of understanding was signed between the PNM and the ILP during the elections campaign. In fact, the MOU to which I referred was actually two separate agreements, one between JTUM and the ILP and the other between JTUM and the PNM. I apologise unreservedly for the mistake and offer neither justification nor excuse.
Some have interpreted the blunder as part of a diabolical conspiracy to embarrass the PNM government.
Over the course of my career people have written and repeated unspeakable fictions about me so I would never intentionally perpetrate the same offence.
Given the immense privilege I hold as a public figure of sorts, I fully appreciate the tremendous responsibility that I must bear. As an individual charged with the public trust, I never recoil from my duty to admit when I am wrong and try to put things right.
I am not a journalist and haven't been for many years. I don't work in a newsroom or media house. I'm no longer part of gathering the news. Like the rest of society, I depend on news stories for my information. Mind you, this is no justification for the error.
It was also suggested by the communications arm of the PNM that in last week's column, I "implied" the party contacted the EBC to request an extension of the voting times on September 7.
These were my exact words: "There was reporting, though, on an issue which failed to attract more than a whisper of interest. Both the Express and Guardian newspapers suggested the PNM requested that the EBC extend the voting time because of flooding and ensuing traffic in certain communities.
"If this is indeed true, there are several questions for the EBC to answer. If the PNM did in fact make a formal request, what time was the request made and were the other parties informed of this?"
You may wish to refer to the articles "T&T starts new era under PNM", Trinidad Guardian, September 8, and "Lalla: Court to decide if EBC right", Trinidad Express, September 11.
The word "imply" doesn't enter into it, I merely questioned what was already in the public domain. In respect of that element of the PNM's condemnation of my column, this was an inaccuracy on their part.
Not surprisingly, my mistake, and the PNM's acknowledgement of it, provoked some wildly emotive and peculiar condemnation on social media.
Here are some of the more interesting online comments for your entertainment.
"Remember folks that Paolo is the gay lover of Fuad Khan. He is seeking his man's interests." (Eh Fuad Doux Doux!)
"Poor Palo was hoping to get a senatorship from that defeated, corrupt, low-class dUNCe opposition, poor soul."
(Yes, because I am constantly looking for creative ways to waste my time).
"Mr Kernahan has never been known for his honesty in reporting the news."
Ok, so while these people have never erred in their lives, I am human. The mettle of my character, as a mere mortal, is tested by how I deal with my stumbles.
I've been accused of being anti-PNM, anti-UNC, anti-labour, anti-Baptist (that one still gives me a giggle) and anti-T&T. I try to use criticism, whether well-meaning or ill-intentioned, to build an improved version of myself.
For those who've latched on to my faux pas as a sinister plot to destabilise the new government, you should be aware that some years ago I took a decision to write less about politics and focus more on solutions.
The columns this year which bore references to politics were framed entirely in the context of offering advice to all political parties.
In my columns where I called for a clean campaign focused on national issues, I condemned Vernella Alleyne-Toppin and Fitzgerald Hinds in equal measure for remarks which were beneath those in public office.
In my seven-part manifesto series, I shared ideas, for any political party which would find them useful, on topics of economic diversification, eco and heritage tourism, agriculture, traffic, literacy and so on.
The column I wrote on racism after the general election attempted to show how we are both victims and perpetrators of the same prejudice. Last week's column was meant to alert both the government and the opposition that a hyper-vigilant public, through social media, will punish transgressions in governance.
Some who question my integrity may not be familiar with my work. Those who are familiar with my writing and yet have joined the chorus of personal attacks, show they are bereft of objectivity, their perspectives processed through the prism of tribal politics.
I demand of myself what I demand of our political classes and the wider society; not perfection, but a willingness to admit a mistake and an enduring passion to improve.
