|
Where is Raymond Choo Kong when you need him
Posted: Saturday, April 6, 2002
By Donna Yawching
AS I WRITE this (it's Friday), all eyes and minds are glued to the spectacle that is occurring in the Red House. And for good reason: it's theatre of the first order. Panday's threat/promise to propose 2000 prospective Speakers, and then vote them all down, has turned it into Theatre of the Absurd; meanwhile, Manning's mere presence on the stage promises to put the entire audience to sleep, in the manner of bad high-school Shakespeare.
As all these silly men babble about "going the distance" for five whole days, it is clear that none of them has done even a minimum of psychological research, which details what happens to rats (and what else are politicians?) who are deprived of sleep for more than about three days. If I remember rightly, insanity begins to set in-though in this case, that may be superfluous. I personally doubt that any one of the MPs in the Red House tonight is capable of remaining awake and coherent for five days-and the minute one of them dozes off, the other side will call for a vote!
One might conceivably argue that Mr Panday's side of the table is already incoherent, so perhaps their slide into insanity will pass unnoticed. What could be more demented, after all, than their decision to spend Thursday night at Crowne Plaza, for fear that one or more of their number might be "kidnapped"? If I were a UNC member, I would be burying my party card in the backyard, for sheer shame. Kidnapped, indeed. Get a grip, guys: who would want you? And even if anyone had devised such a stupid way to keep you out of Parliament, why would they wait till the very last minute?
The kidnapping scenario was just one more instance of Panday playing to pit-more than anything else, this man loves cheap melodrama. Robin Montano limps in a poor second with his "provocateur" theory: that the PNM was planning to dress its supporters in UNC jerseys and use them to stir up trouble. If the thin straggle of people on TV tonight were actually PNM provocateurs, then all I can say is, the party really needs to take a hard look at its finances: they must be reaching the bottom of the barrel. If, on the other hand, the handful of people who turned out were bona fide UNC, then it's time for Panday to wake up and understand that the masses do not intend to take to the streets on his behalf: Gandhi he is not.
Another fact which suggests that Panday's boys and girls have lost touch with reality is the 2000-Speaker stratagem. Is it even legal for someone to propose a person for a post, and then not vote for him/her? Surely common sense and convention both dictate that at least the persons who nominate and second a candidate for anything are expected to vote in his favour? How, then, can the entire UNC vote against its own nominees? No-one thus far has either mentioned or explained this discrepancy.
Also: this "stratagem" must make us look like real jokers in the eyes of the world. If we were to read in the newspapers of something similar occurring in Africa or India, we would all be laughing hysterically at "dem stupid Third-World people". Well, guess what: that's exactly what any international observers must be thinking about us-and it's not the best image to project if you're hoping to attract foreign investment. Panday's silly stunt is probably doing this country untold future harm, since negative impressions will persist long after the event is over.
While the Red House Comedy (our latest theatrical farce) understandably commands most people's attention, the truth is that it really is little more than political playacting and arm-wrestling. I do not expect much to come of it, apart from some self-serving manoeuvrings on each side. On the other hand, a much more significant event in our political history is quietly playing itself out right next door-and the media, interestingly, are not being allowed to comment.
I'm referring, of course, to the arrest of the "Big Six"; and to the DPP's strict warnings regarding contempt of court. This court case could, in real terms, prove to be one of the most important political watersheds in our history: whatever the outcome, it will affect the way politics is conducted in this country for many years to come-and how much informed analysis have you read about it? None. Media commentators are creeping around with their mouths tightly shut, not wanting to find themselves in jail. This raises some interesting questions about our laws, and the way in which they are used.
The law governing contempt of court is designed to ensure that a defendant's right to a fair trial is not prejudiced by injudicious public comment. This is his democratic right, and I would never dispute it. However, in T&T, this law is effectively used to bludgeon virtually all comment, whether or not it would prejudice the trial. It amounts to a de facto form of censorship, particularly when the implied threat comes all the way from on high. Media houses back away quivering; and the public is denied the opportunity to discuss the implications of something that ultimately affects all their lives, and their future. Instead of informed debate, we are forced to resort to streetside picong.
Contempt and libel laws exist in other countries as well, of course; but the effect is not the same, since the media view their social role differently. In T&T, these laws operate as an effective gag order; and one must wonder whether this is not undemocratic. Of course, to change this reality would require legislative reform-and which political administration would choose, willingly, to give the media more, rather than less freedom? Restrictive laws serve governments all too well.
But they don't serve the people well; and the ongoing saga of the Big Six is about to prove this beyond dispute. Wait and see.
 Send page by E-Mail
|
|
