And more so because we also have, swirling between the real issues, mists of distractions, red herrings, and deliberate machinations of politicians with murky agendas and cocoa in the sun.
It is up to us—the society at large—to define the agenda, and to work towards its fulfillment. But to define our agenda we need to separate the issues from the swirling mists of distraction.
Let us look at what the distractions actually are.
First, there is the debate about what led to Calder Hart resigning. Then there are the ongoing calls for the rest of the UDeCOTT Board to resign.
Why did Panday and Ramnath vote against the adjournment motion? Why did the government bring Ronald Birk into the country at this time? And, of course, we had Manning’s tirade about religious persecution.
These are non-issues, my friends, floated out to distract you from concentrating on what is really happening.
Let me explain: Calder Hart resigned when Justice Dean-Armorer ruled against him. Both he, and government, were clinging to the belief that the Uff Report would have been suppressed.
Manning and company were still supporting Hart when Kamla moved her motion. Even Imbert was suggesting the recent evidence from Malayasia was forged! Cabinet never met to tell Manning to fire Hart. Senior Cabinet Member Dr. Lenny Saith professed his surprise at the sudden resignation.
Hart fled the country as a result of the judgment against him and UDeCOTT. And let us forget the rest of the "squeaky clean", "I did no wrong" UDeCOTT Board. They are already irrelevant, even as they cling to their positions.
When Uff is made public, they can be prosecuted for their "collective responsibility" in any matter of wrongdoing.
Panday’s action in the house was related to Ronald Birk’s arrival in the country. Birk was brought here at this time to have his charges dropped. Panday has charges which he needs to have "dropped".
Connect the drops, folks—a deal is in the making, so Panday is supporting Manning. But do not let that distract us.
Manning’s embarrassing tirade Friday before last was to distract from the critical question in this whole ridiculous church affair. And the question is: Where did, or where is, the $30M for Shanghai coming from?
And the answer lies hidden in a letter published in Tuesday’s Newsday: Titled CHURCH PAID FOR?, the writer asked “Is it possible or probable that the highly controversial church...now being constructed at a cost of $30 million is already paid for and Shanghai Construction is smiling all the way to the bank”?
He knows the answer to his question—so do you.
So, having blown away the mists of distraction and confusion, let us look at the issues, without the smoke in our eyes.
First, the Uff Report must be released to the public, and if Manning, Imbert and Annisette try to thwart this, President Maxwell Richards must release it. It is our collective duty to ensure its release and publication.
And following its release, if wrongdoings are exposed, these must be prosecuted without fear or favour. Then we must expose the funding of that structure in Guanapo.
The first step is to have a Member of Parliament put the following question to the Prime Minister: “Can the Prime Minister assure this Honourable House that the monies assigned, or about to be assigned to Shanghai Construction for the construction of the…church at Guanapo, did not come from, or were not included in payments already made to Shanghai on the Prime Minister’s Residence and/or the NAPA building?”
Let Hansard record his answer, and we will then wait for the truth to come out. And come out it will!
But ask yourself, dear reader—in this day of government and banks claiming that they scrutinize money transfers and deposits in light of money laundering and the drug trade—where might a small local church have acquired $30million to pay to an international contractor?
That is a real issue! And will it be found to be connected to Hart and UDeCOTT? All this will be revealed eventually—provided we are not distracted.
And, as matters unfold, and we seek to separate substance from smoke, we must call upon the Commissioner of Police and the Mayor of Port of Spain to state emphatically that there will be no permission granted to any form of meeting, rally, prayers, gathering of people in Woodford Square when the Motion of No Confidence in the Prime Minister is debated in the House.
And the Speaker must not permit any adjournment of any debate so that Manning can walk around the Square!
This column has been published with permission from the author, Peter O'Connor. Peter's columns also appear in NEWSDAY.
No comments:
Post a Comment