You are hereAnand's Collection / Plotting against Panday
Plotting against Panday
The Panday rollercoaster continues to provide the most amazing and exciting political ride in the PNM’s amusement park. His victory in the Court of Appeal is the climax of one of the most sinister political plots in the history of Caribbean politics.
Panday sharpened his political axe at a time when most thought it was rusty beyond repair, and exposed an incredible conspiracy involving the highest offices in the nation, designed to eradicate him from the politics and ensure that he is treated by historians as nothing more than a pathetic criminal. Imagine the AG meeting with the Chief Magistrate, during the course of Panday’s trial, to offer advice on the thorny issue of the latter’s involvement in a lucrative real estate deal. The AG indicates that he will conduct an investigation (pursuant to non-existent powers), but states that he will refrain from doing so until after Mc Nicolls delivers his ruling. He then contacts a powerful PNM financier, who manages to negotiate a successful cancellation of the purchase of Mc Nicolls’ property. In the end, had the plan worked, it would have been as if this property transaction was never entered into, and the paper trail would have simply vanished into thin air. Mc Nicolls makes the most extreme, unjust and oppressive ruling against Panday. The AG then informs him that he completed his investigation into the worrying property transaction and saw no need for any further action. None of this would have come to light had Chief Justice Sharma simply kept his mouth shut and turned a blind eye to the looming injustice. Instead of thinking and acting like a CJ, Sharma should have thought about the implications of him asking Mc Nicolls for a report about this matter. He was already in trouble because of the allegation that he had interfered and intervened to prevent the unnecessary and unfair prosecution of Prof Vijay Narayansingh. Sharma was about to make the same mistake twice; he was about to intervene in the prosecution of yet another high-profile Indian. All of this because he failed to appreciate the obvious personal consequences, and foolishly chose to focus on the oath he took as CJ. Everyone was bound to accuse him for standing up for two high-profile Indians. The racial factor was inescapable, as every one else were non-Indians: the Prime Minister, the AG, the DPP, the Commissioner of Police, and the Chief Magistrate. Panday was not charged with corruption, and for those who know him he is virtually incorruptible. His personality and traits have no leaning towards materialism and ostentation, and his primary concern and love is politics. One point two million dollars could hardly be credited as a bribe paid to a PM who was in charge of a billion-dollar economy at a time when we were aggressively monetising our off-shore gas reserves by international competitive bidding. If Panday received this money as a bribe, then why, pray tell, is Lawrence Duprey, who admitted to paying it, still free? He has certainly not been granted any immunity from prosecution. The PNM had persecuted Panday for a technical offence that has been committed by dozens of public officials over the years with impunity. The annual reports of the Integrity Commission are replete with examples of cases where people have failed to file their declarations. In some cases, the matters were actually referred to the DPP, but alas, no one has ever prosecuted, except Panday. Panday has been singled out, targeted and prosecuted in an environment of state indifference to what was hitherto a largely-ignored technical breach of a law that was observed more in breach than practice. There is nothing illegal or criminal about Duprey financing the education of Panday’s children. indeed, Manning’s children also received external financial assistance. Duprey is free to spend his money as he likes. Whilst it is true that Panday retained his political heavyweight title because the fight was disqualified, a fair retrial for a ten-year-old offence would not be able to deny him his rightful place as a true champion who struggled for the betterment of his people and country. No court will treat him the way Mc Nicolls did. He has avoided ignominy, defeat and eternal damnation, and will be remembered as the Indian who was such a political force that PNM was prepared to do any thing to get rid of him. Most importantly, it would be written that, but for Sharma, they almost did.
- Printer-friendly version
- 2617 reads
...the same chief magistrate is due to give his descision in the Piarco matter in a couple of months after 5 years of hearings...this ting now start!
The following is taken from msnbc.com:[Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said,] ... “We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful and if we find that he has not been candid and truthful, that’s a very compelling reason for him not to stay on,” Specter said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The Senator belongs to the same party as the President and the AG. Yet, somehow, when their AG is caught in "a less than honest" series of statements to the public and to Congress, elected leaders from BOTH parties call for his resignation.
What we fail to realize in Trinidad is that the Office commands respect, not the office-holders. And, as the CJ stepped aside while his matter was before the courts as a way of upholding the integrity of his office (and was duly reinstated), the AG and the CM should try to preserve the integrity of the positions they hold (note that i didn’t call it "their positions") by duly handing in their resignation publicly.
If the PM rejects it, then the public will hold him accountable, but at least they would have done the right thing.
Somehow everyone who shouted for the CJ to resign, as soon as a few people in power shouted for the same, has now found themselves marking their territory and defending the actions of the CM, AG, and PM.
The "defenders of justice" who yelled that "no man is above the law," now tribally protect their masters with a rally cry of "nothing wrong was done." They seem to think that the PM, AG, & CM ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
On a final note, i want to talk about something that everyone keeps ignoring .... why were the telephone calls into and out of the CJ's office being leaked to the public? Who gave authorization for that, under whose authority, and collected by whom? Was there an official investigation? And most importantly, if all of the above was legitimate in process, then who leaked the info to the papers and to what end?If collusion to force the CJ to resign did not occur, then someone pinch me, 'cause I’m obviously either dreaming or having an acute psychotic episode and need to be institutionalized!
If the AG was biased in the CJ issue, then we must logically assume (as did the Court of Appeal) that this must overlap into the Panday case. To those of you that, after all that has happened, still doubt Executive meddling, I quote Sherlock Homes, "One the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences."
I must say I am disappointed in this article by Anand Ramlogan. Normally, I look forward to his articles each week with much eagerness. It's the first I read each Sunday, even before I read the headlines of the Guardian. This week, my disappoint lies because he has moved from being an impartial observer commenting on the law, to defending Panday. He is entitled to do so, but to me it signifies that one cannot trust in his opinions, much like I have a distrust of the Chief Magistrate now. He has joined the thoughtless masses and brought the situation down to race, not to law. Despite Pa-trick's actions, even I as an East Indian find it hard to believe that he did what he did because of race, especially in this era where the world sees your actions mere seconds after performing them.
Mr Panday may be the only one singled out for legal prosecution of not declaring his bank account (or assets) but that does not mean that he is right in not declaring it. If one person breaks the law, does this mean that he or she should not be prosecuted because 199 others did it and have not been? No, it means that steps should be taken to pursue the other 199, even though one may argue that pursuing the one is victimising him.
On the basis of the statement that C Duprey has the right to spend his money as he sees fit, this is such a closed statement I shudder to think Mr Ramlogan defends clients thusly. Can he spend his money bribing officials? No, I think not. Now, I am not saying that he paid the Pandays a bribe, but when one is in public office, one must be careful as to what gifts one can or cannot receive. Hence the regulation in some states as to the maximum VALUE of a gift. As an ordinary layman, not legally trained, I may not be able to determine that this gift was legally okay like Mr Ramlogan, however I, like many others, think something is morally wrong about it. Saying that Pa-trick also had assistance paying his children's tuition does not make Panday's position any less so.
I hold no brief for Pa-trick. He has become arrogant, and this can be blamed on Panday. By his own irresponsible actions over the years, the ridiculous and thoughtless speeches he makes, Panday has shown Pa-trick he has no worries over an election. He has not provided the necessary checks and balances he ought to have done. Therefore with nothing to stop him Pa-trick rampages on, his actions only to feed his own ego. Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We can see how power has twisted these two men over the past several decades. There is no defence for this.
This is a convoluted and twisted mess, made no easier by the various opinions of 'experts'. One can only delve into the mire and emerge with the truth, and answers to all questions, by having an open, (and publicised) inquiry, now that the criminal proceedings have been stopped. Then and only then, can the questions of bribery, race, law and so forth be answered. Anything less, remains speculation.
Well reasoned Jumbie.
<<Panday was not charged with corruption, and for those who know him he is virtually incorruptible. His personality and traits have no leaning towards materialism and ostentation, and his primary concern and love is politics. >>
This sounds rather 'subjective'. So I've got to know Panday to have confidence in what he would or wouldn't do? I don't think so. No politician can be so trusted from an objective perspective. We are all human beings and must be presumed to be weak and 'corruptible'. History has shown that when we rise into positions of power and influence those weaknesses tend to become more prominent.
<<One point two million dollars could hardly be credited as a bribe paid to a PM who was in charge of a billion-dollar economy at a time when we were aggressively monetising our off-shore gas reserves by international competitive bidding. >>
It wouldn't matter if the alleged bribe was for $TT100. A bribe is a bribe. The size of it is irrelevant. The intention of it and the participation in it relative to failures in duties and responsibilities to the public are what matters most. The 1.2M was supposedly intended to come into Panday's personal possession and control. Whereas the Billions he might have managed or controlled when in office were not in his possession; remaining as 'public money'. So it is highly relevant the question of the bribe.
<<If Panday received this money as a bribe, then why, pray tell, is Lawrence Duprey, who admitted to paying it, still free? He has certainly not been granted any immunity from prosecution. The PNM had persecuted Panday for a technical offence that has been committed by dozens of public officials over the years with impunity. >>
Duprey's 'escape' from the eye of prosecutors, is a separate matter that has little to do with how Panday's supposed actions are to be judged. Once Panday is caught in the net, he's caught. The net may be selective for reasons good and bad. But two wrongs don't make a right.
<<In some cases, the matters were actually referred to the DPP, but alas, no one has ever prosecuted, except Panday. Panday has been singled out, targeted and prosecuted in an environment of state indifference to what was hitherto a largely-ignored technical breach of a law that was observed more in breach than practice. >>
Maybe Panday was singled out. That happens all the time in the way the law is enforced. If they catch Nigel Mansell, Damon Hill or Neil Kinnock breaking the speed limit on public roads (as they all were), those become 'big issues' while several other lesser folk get away with the same degrees of lawlessness.
If Panday was subject to some unlawful bias or prosecuted maliciously that will need to be proved in a proper court of law. But if all that was proved, I doubt it will take away much from anything, if he is proved to have done what he is alleged to have done wrong.
Jumbie, I actually thought Anand wrote another great article. I respectfully disagree with you in that he has lost objectivity.
<<This week, my disappoint lies because he has moved from being an impartial observer commenting on the law, to defending Panday. He is entitled to do so, but to me it signifies that one cannot trust in his opinions, much like I have a distrust of the Chief Magistrate now.>>
The assumption that someone who defends Panday must be biased is simply flawed. None of us are automatically right, we just have opinions that history will eventually sift to record the truth. Anand is right, in my opinion, in that we must keep in mind that the charge was never corruption, it was failing to declare assets. While some may argue that one implies the other, the legal differences are like chalk and cheese.
Don’t get me wrong, I make no assumptions that any politician in Trinidad is free from vice. I think the important issue is what can be proven in a court of law - a technicality that explains why the PNM has escaped prosecution for decades.
<<Saying that Pa-trick also had assistance paying his children's tuition does not make Panday's position any less so.>>
I was doing my A-levels (and trying hard with my friends to get a scholarship for medicine) at the time that the newspapers reported that Manning's son was given a hush-hush scholarship to do medicine in Germany. As quickly as it appeared in the papers, it disappeared. Why talk about Panday when we continually sweep Manning under the rug??!! (This is a pet peeve of mine if you havent realized -- just as my loan officer!)
To me, it seems that every time an indo-trini defends another, “racism” is yelled and screamed, not just from afro-trinis, but from the general population. However, we are accustomed to the status quo of afro-trinis defending other afro-trinis without anyone daring to challenge that. If you challenge it, you are once again called “racist.” This is something that I think Christine (in the last commentary thread) was touching on, and which I tried to avoid getting into.
When I attended a certain well known African-American college in the US “many moons ago” (and was the first indo-trini to do so) they made me feel more comfortable and more welcomed than most trinis made me feel in my prior 17 years of life. And they taught me something – that true racism cannot be perpetrated in the absence of political control. I struggled to accept this at first, but realized that they were right; all can discriminate, but to be truly racist, political power needs to be on your side.
Here is the irony that most trinis of various races don’t even know. Kwame Ture (our own Trinidadian-born Stokely Carmichael) is credited for coining the phrase institutional racism during the legendary civil rights movement in the US. Any questions why the PNM barred him from entry into his home country? Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) is a form of racism that occurs in institutions such as public bodies and corporations, including universities. In the late 1960s he defined the term as "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".
Now tell me, do we indo-trinis need our own “civil rights movement” to prevent the Inshans of tomorrow being arrested? Or to prevent the Sharma’s of tomorrow being bullied? Or to prevent Gospel concerts in Tobago, and lavish Christmas dinners in Trinidad, paid for with my tax money while policemen and school kids are banned from lighting deyas (paid for out of their pockets)?
<<Despite Pa-trick's actions, even I as an East Indian find it hard to believe that he did what he did because of race, especially in this era where the world sees your actions mere seconds after performing them.>>
The reason, my friend Jumbie, that we can calmly talk about and discuss Panday’s charge of failure to declare, while scores of other people are in the same boat without being charged, is because we all know deep down inside that political victimization, racial and religious bigotry all occur in Trinidad and we haven’t broken free from pointing the finger at the victim to cover up such actions. We’ve been brainwashed to think it doesn’t happen in Trinidad. We don’t have the checks and balances that first-world countries have. Why is it so hard to believe that racism occurs? Will our ego be bruised if we admit we’ve been stepped on for 40 years?
Anand isn’t being biased, he’s speaking the truth. We’re so used to the pendulum being so far right for so long, that the middle actually “feels” like the left.
One last thing. If you doubt the motives of Pastor Manning, then find the webpage for the Trinidad embassy in Washington. Look at the domain name of the webpage (ttgospel.com) and see the links to religious E-books and other religious themes. Will anyone comment on this?
The point I was making G, is that (and you may have seen it in one paragraph) while Anand is free to defend Panday, he should do so on a basis of law, not by stooping to score political points by dragging race into it. It is a cheap tactic that demeans us all, having more to do with riling emotions and clouding the issue further. As I pointed out, the only way to settle the issue is to have an inquiry of sorts, free and public, where all questions are answered.
If there is a basis of discrimination on Panday's race, then that is the proper forum to bring it out, not in newspaper columns where a legal luminary like Anand can incite people merely because he is a lawyer and therefore WILL influence people simply on the basis that as a lawyer he is an expert. I hope you see my point.
Greetings,
It seems as though some of you are under the egocentric notion that we are living in an age and in a land of saints and sages, it is as if you have found the Messiah.
It is as if you would have us believe that we have among us, moral and spiritual denizens of sublime effulgence, squeaky clean, with professional integrity, sitting on thrones of immaculate divinity.
I am still searching for him who is without sin.
Could you tell us (“lesser mortals”), who was the squeaky clean minister of finance (along with Mr. Moral & Spiritual), who forgave his very good Church-going buddy (TJ), from the appropriate (with Professional integrity) criminal proceedings, regarding a Six Million Dollar tax evasion scam. Could you tell me, if Mr. Squeak’s good friend is/was a business man from Chaguanas and is now a Moral and Spiritual Preacher.
Could you tell me which minister of finance brought four notes to the Cabinet, to facilitate his extremely wealthy and influential friend in acquiring four lucrative business deals, Caroni Tanteak etc., and who was the then Attorney General that paid the ultimate political price for daring to obstruct this vicious conglomerate.
Could you tell me which Conglomerate and its agents are embroiled in the putrid acts of “alleged” decadence involving the Chief Magistrate and senior Government officials, for an alleged four Million dollar parcel of land?
Could you tell me if John Humphrey and Sadiq Baksh, were the individuals directly involved in the Airport scandal?
Could you tell me how the lands around the Mani Ramjohn stadium was acquired and later distributed to particular business interests?
<<<<<>>>>>>
I believe that history is replete with evidence of interracial betrayal, e.g. Blacks sold Blacks into slavery, Native Americans worked with the invaders to annihilate opposing tribes, East Indians (Harkatias) betrayed their own to the egocentric British, etc.
I am therefore not surprised when Parasitic Narcissistic Masochists take offence to genuine complaints of Racial, Political, Commercial, Cultural and Religious Bigotry.
Historically, people have been crucified, stoned to death, burnt at the stake imprisoned, assassinated, demonized, vilified, persecuted, terrorized etc., for daring to challenge the supremist rulers.
What you describe reeks of cronyism, not necessarily of race. Now, it could be cronyism based on race, but is it necessarily racism? Any member of an ethnic group would naturally have more friends who are of like persuasion, so if one has to help one's friends then the chances of helping a person of the same race will obviously be higher in proportion.
I see discrimination, based on race at times, but I think racism as other readers wish to supplant it does not necessarily exist. There was never a 'race' issue until Panday and Anand Ramlogan began to shout out to the rooftops. Don't get me wrong, I said it before and say it again, there was discrimination, but not racism.
I believe that the long diatribes on race are pushing people to see problems where they are not necessarily existing, but by the long wails, they have succeeded in dividing the country more efficiently. Here we have 2 well known individuals, who by the very nature of their professions and publicity, have the attention of the public. Their words are lapped up by a population that is largely uninformed and illiterate. Independent thinking is minimal to say the least so hence the success of 'partisan politics' i.e. voting based on ethnicity.
If you tell me now that there is a small presence of racism I will say yes (largely created by our good wailers so that each group views the other with heightened suspicion), but it is still minimal compared to the cronyism that goes on. I believe Panday was on a particular agenda to hold on to power, it failed, and now his bruised ego seems to be taking a beating that has him seeing 'visions'.
I like your passion in your argument though.
G, I'm not sure Jumbie contended that Anand lost objectivity. Did he imply this?
There appeared to be much pro-Panday sentiment at a personal level when Anand said <<Panday was not charged with corruption, and for those who know him he is virtually incorruptible. His personality and traits have no leaning towards materialism and ostentation, and his primary concern and love is politics.>> Comment about personality traits requires personal knowledge. Panday's personality traits would not nomally be given to inspection in a court of law. How is any objective observer to know with any degree certainty that <<..His personality and traits have no leaning towards materialism and ostentation..>>? I certainly don't know Panday from Adam. What am I supposed to do - trust Anand on his perception of Panday's personality traits? I don't think so.
On the other hand Anand made a good observation that was very objective that <<The racial factor was inescapable, as every one else were non-Indians: the Prime Minister, the AG, the DPP, the Commissioner of Police, and the Chief Magistrate>> This fact is open to inspection by a court and all sentient observers. There was a 'racial factor'. This does not automatically translate to mean racism was a factor. It simply means the head count of those of a certain race contrasted with one who was not of that common race - and that's that - it doesn't translate to mean racism, at all. But I'll stand corrected by Anand if he knew he meant racism, however, nothing in his choice of words indicates racism or racial discrimination. It was simply a highlighted risk factor for the possibility of that.
<<The reason, my friend Jumbie, that we can calmly talk about and discuss Panday’s charge of failure to declare, while scores of other people are in the same boat without being charged, is because we all know deep down inside that political victimization, racial and religious bigotry all occur in Trinidad and we haven’t broken free from pointing the finger at the victim to cover up such actions.>> Perhaps Panday was simply the biggest and best catch - that doesn't have anything to do with race. Our subjective feelngs about the probability of victimisation, racial and religious bigotry etc holds its own subjective truth, but it may not be an adequate or factual explantion of what went on.
<<Why is it so hard to believe that racism occurs?>> I don't think any one is disputing that racism occurs.
<<Anand isn’t being biased, he’s speaking the truth.>> I think it was Bertrand Russell who once said the 'truth' is what we choose to believe. Anand speaks something that resonates with your truth. If the gap between that and what the situation is in the real world, approaches zero, then it is almost the real truth. The real truth depends on so much and so many perspectives. We risk being like Khayyam's Blind Men and the Elephant.
I honestly was led to believe that Panday was scum having been convicted etc. Now my perspective is different knowing more about McNicolls and seeing behind yet another set of veils that I did not know existed - point being that we must be careful, very careful with what we hold to be the truth.
I just love the second to last paragraph of your commentary. It is very apt to describe the situation.
The root of the problem with this comment is that even now, the writer refuses to countenance the possibility of racial discrimination. In one corner, you have Vijay Narayansingh, Panday and Sharma. In the other, you have Trevor Paul, Mc Nicholls, Manning, Henderson, Jeremie. If the tables were reversed and this had happened to Chief Justice Clinton Bernard with Panday as PM, Ramesh as AG, Noor Mohammed as Police Commissioner, Mark Mohammed as DPP and three indian judges in the court of appeal trying the case what would have been the reaction?
Perhaps the writer can tell us his view on the maha Sabha Radio Licence case. Has he read the findings of the Privy Council?
I have to somewhat agree with the comments made by Jumbie. I firmly believe that racism was not an issue until certain persons deliberately made it an issue in the public arena. However, Mr. Ramlogan, under freedom of speech, is allowed to say anything he chooses, even if it fuels racism. As citizens, we may or may not agree with his statements. Educated people may not be easily swayed by his words, but there are so many people who do not know all the facts, will allow their judgement to be clouded and will be influenced by his position and reputation.
Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant. These are issues that have been overlooked thus far in all the confusion.
Yup, the AG and the CM should resign - instantly!!
As Prime Minister how can you or your wife accept a million dollar gift (scholarship) from a businessman. In most simple job contracts there are clauses preventing you from taking gifts what about for the PM?? I am asking, from a legal standpoint is anything wrong with accepting such a gift as PM???
Greetings,
I would like to know if the Judge handling the case of the PM having to attend court, to be cross-examined on the CJ matter is the same Judge who made politically prejudiced statements about dictatorship when Panday was in Government. If this is so then we can never truly trust this decadent system of political tyranny.
I also believe that the then CJ, defended this Judge’s (bias) right to publicly express his politically prejudice opinion. This is the same CJ who is now in charge of the Caribbean Court of Justice (injustice). So the apparent tyrannical cartel has extremely long tentacles with far-reaching and conniving implications.
Regards,
RIK V
Another partisan UNC/COP/DLP/ULF/WorshipPanday website nothing about it reminds me of objectivity, it is nothing more than trying to monopolise political opinion around an Ethinc agenda.
The Guardian no longer has any credibility beyond the Indian community with its Indian "journalists commando team" pouncing on every REAL or IMAGINED slight towards Indians.(I can understand their loyalty to Panday since he got them their "jobs" after Panday became Prime Minister) complete with FAKE letters with Afro names supporting a UNC party issue/or anti PNM or "bring 100,000 immigrants to T&T from india.
This type of the worse form of gutter journalism reeks to high heaven (fake kidnap stories don't and CANNOT help those that are REAL)
All this is just to rally the dying UNC behind the failed PM Panday, the UNC keeps talking and writing itself into political extiction come next election, if crime is the ONLY agenda the UNC hacks can write home about till the "bell rings" then the UNC has already LOST.
Jumbie, The kind of rhetoric I see being spouted out here by some - without a hint of real reasoning or foundation of evidence - leads me to think that some may have their own agendas.
We now have direct or oblique allegations that Anand and the Guardian have been guilty of concocting or supplying fake kidnap stories. Anyone could now retaliate with more rhetoric on what they perceive as a bunch of 'PNM lies' - for example. Then we all head down a blind alley squabbling and fighting while the country is ransacked and hijacked by dangerous and powerful forces.
I feel people need to see the bigger picture. What are the big issues? We have clearly documented some of these at this site e.g. equality, justice, fairness etc.
Discrimination flourishes in the absence of equality and an organised efficient system of justice. 'Paranoia' and mistrust breeds in systems lacking openness and accountability. Sounds like a Nation you know? This is not my rhetoric. It is sourced from from well known principles of sound management (as a discipline in itself). Even Mr Manning has recently identified management failures as responsible for much of the countries woes.
Discrimination and mistrust in their many forms are divisive and destructive. It polarises individuals and communities instead of unifying them on common grounds - each resorting to fighting his/their own corner - his/their own agenda or perceptions. From my knowledge and experience this is how Trinbagonians have been divided and chronically abused.
I hope that many of our respondents can appreciate that while we express our differences of opinion, we all agree to work towards the key issues: equality, justice, fairness, opennness, accountability etc.
This is the kind of post i like to see. Trini_Dude represents the status quo. Whenever anyone talks of racism or discrimination against the indian community someone (of any ethnicity) usually jumps up and says, "shut-up, you are the racist for talking about racism."
This chap really makes me smile. Here it is in black and white that people really believe that indians should "put up and shut-up."
Trini_Dude, you've proved my points from previous posts. If you want to engage in a debate about an issue, then great, but if you want to attack people for trying to move the pendulum from the right, back to the middle then you are the the one who should do some soul searching on whether your views are the ones clouded. Yes, i understand that the middle looks "like its left" of where the pendulum used to be, but its still the middle! Every time we try to talk of equality for all, because it means that the PNM base loses ground, we are accused of racism.
Oh, and let me not waste time. Let me counter some of your statements.
1. Objectivity at a website like this comes from the people posting comments. Some will be left and others right. So if you dont agree with the pro COP/UNC views then post some pro PNM views and we'll chat about it. But that will never happen because debating is not the nature of the majority of PNM supporters. Only attacking.
2. No one monopolises around ethnicity more than the PNM. The PNM had all black + some indian support in the pre 80's. After they screwed Kamalludhin and Errol, when Williams died, They lost the indian base totally to the NAR -- they started to open their eyes politically. The indian base is the one people are fighting for. The PNM base will always be the black, the extreme poor, and the very affluent. So really, which party has the most to gain from dividing people ethnically (considering the indians are the only ones who arent glued to a political party) -- the PNM!
3. Every real act of discrimination NEEDS to be highlighted in the newspapers. If you lived in Alabama in the '60s (whether you are indian or black, you're still black in the USA) you would clamour for all "real or imagined" acts of racism to be highlighted and discussed openly. Only the racists fear publicity or debate about racist issues. Even if some are imagined by the indians with "inferiority complexes" then lets still discuss them publicly. Hiding these issues are dangerious.
4. Panday and people getting jobs! -- riiiiight! ...... lets see, 94% of all state board members were non-indian when panday came into power. The whole public service is bigoted in its hiring policies; are you looking at the percentage of indians in the police or defence force? What about in various ministries? Dont even mention our glorious CEPEP. So we're back to the pendulum analogy -- if we fire lots of non-indians to make things fairer, then we're racist right Trini_Dude?
5. Fake kidnap stories? Like you and pastor patos does lime? From little vijay persad to the girl found in the trace days later raped and murdered, lots of kidnap victims are accused by police (and the the executive!!!) quite publicly of "running away with someone." You have to be either heartless or with an agenda to talk of fake kidnappings without chastising the police and the government for horribly managing the real cases. Its sickening!!!
6. I actually agree with you that Panday is dead politically in most ways. But hey, thats what this site is about -- agreeing with some opinions and disagreeing with others, not just attacking people for their views. That is the nature of Trinidadians i guess though.
innocent, during or just before the 2002 elections he (the CJ) made pro UNC statements in public claiming that "we will hold our noses and vote for him". this is a FACT.
The UK lawyer hired by the state to pursue the Panday matter in court also testified that Sat Sharma made statements to him while traveling on a flight to London, these statements were then used by Panday while in court remember "in Indian familes the hindu women does handle the family money" etc or words to that effect.
Trini. ?
? PNM for life ! ^
If you truly have the potential to be objective, then explain to me in grass-roots terminology, how the Elections ‘Boundaries’ are so conveniently delineated to accommodate Racial voting in support of the superior tribe.
Could you convince me that your calypsonians, are patriotic social commentators and that NONE of them are engaged in cultural prostitution in bigoted support of tribal loyalty? You can also use the same measurement to gauge the performance of the P.O.S. centric media (audio visual included) with particular reference to the ‘NEW?DAY’.
I'm glad you have the intelligence to decide who is innocent and who is guilty based on newspaper reports. Why have judges when Trini_Dude can claim with authority who is guilty?
Well, lets chat about the cae against the CJ. If he was under investigation then why the need to try to arrest him on a friday (weekend jail) with jeeps of armed policemen instead of serving him a writ to appear in court on a charge?
What about the tapping of his phone? If you even dare argue that tapping his phone and checking his phone records might have been legitimately authorized, then i have to slap you with the question, "who leaked it to the newspapers?" Really?
The collusion of the CM and the AG was discussed in detail in previous threads. You havent defended them there, maybe you should go back and read them and comment.
But let me guess, just because Manning, Jeremie, and Henderson say the CJ must be charged with something he must be guilty right? Never would there be collusion in Trinidad politics <gasp>! Just like Vijay must have killed his wife because he is wealthy and everyone says "it hadda be he cause we cant think of anyone else." That is superb investigating!! Read the court transcripts. There was another suspect that the defence kept asking the police to investigate but never was. A doctor from south was allegedly invloved with vijay's estranged wife. His wife allagedly belonged to a family "known" for illegal activities. When it was roumoured that the woman who met with Shaun Parris was Vijay's new wife, no one asked if it could be this third woman. But its all just gossip -- cause the police never seemed to follow up on it, so lets move on to something else, shall we?
Shaun parris' charge was abruptly changed from murder to manslaughter in the MIDDLE OF HIS TRAIL even though the evidence pointed clearly to premeditation. The state repeatedly claimed no "deal" was made for his testimony even though this happened. Vijay Naraynsingh was in jamaica with students on the day he puportedly met with Shaun to plan the murder. The building they puportedly met in had burned down six weeks prior to the meeting. Letters from the chief immigration officer and the chief fire officer were given to the state prosecutors from the begninng supporting this, but they contiuned the case against him!
But i guess, Trini_Dude, you think he's guilty too? Just because you read it, right?
I think I won't be coming back into this site since it seems its nothing more than a waste of my valuable time. keep blogging folks since it won't do any good for the UNC/COP.
Trini_dude, This is a place where affiliates of any political party can express their opinions. As I saw it, you were invited by another supporter of the site, to express some pro-PNM opinions if you felt you wanted to - but I didn't see you express anything that looked particularly PNM in nature.
This site is about expression and examination of opinions and issues facing supporters. Supporters would naturally give support to opinions they find worthy of support and they would challenge those that they find disagreeable or without merit. That is life in general - and it is no different out here.
Mr Ramlogan's commentaries are used to stimulate debate. I see some very good contributions on some really difficult issues. I've also seen good support for a teenager who felt treated unequally in some way.
It is unfortunate you felt a need to hurl a sarcastic comment about persons out here not achieving good for UNC/COP, whilst you head off seemingly upset. It would be pretty obvious to many that you expressed a sudden need to depart in close proximity to your opinions being challenged head on - and that you made an unsubstantiated accusation about contributors to this site wasting your time.
I felt you raised some very interesting points that stimulated a debate that educated me on some things I had not known about. I would not have expected you to depart like this. But if you really must go, all the best in the future. You can use the 'Contact Admin' link to ask the Site Admin to remove your contact details permanently if you wish.