I continue to be alarmed though not surprised by the erroneous reporting by the media on statements by National Security Minister Jack Warner on the lack of diversity in the Section 34 march.
Minister Warner was clear when he said that since the Indo-population is about half of the national population, the absence of even a near proportional mix of the demonstrators showed that the march could not have represented the views of the majority of the population.
Why is that so hard to understand? Or is it just too hard to swallow?
Carmelita Mohammed | Via Email Diego Martin
It appears the media refuses to get it right or cannot understand plain English despite the Minister being on record and clearly stating what he meant.
There is a difference between saying that the march only represented one ethnic group and saying there was a lack of diversity.
What Minister Warner said was that the lack of ethnic diversity of the marchers showed that the PNM had failed to attract a wide cross section of the population and that this was because the PNM had historically isolated the Indo- population and was yet to attract diverse support.
He demonstrated with facts that East Indians under the PNM hit a virtual glass ceiling since there was not a single Hindu in the PNM Cabinets from 1956 to 1986, that up to 1986 East Indians were restricted to a maximum of 23 per cent of Cabinet and State Board appointments, that the immediate past PNM National Executive had not a single Hindu, and that there is not a single Hindu on the Opposition Benches of the House of Representatives.
He further pointed out a litany of court cases where the PNM, when in government, discriminated against the Indo- and Hindu population such as the unconstitutional denial of the Maha Sabha of a radio license while PNM supporter Louis Lee Sing got his in less than 48 hours, the discrimination against Devant Maharaj at the NCLB and against public servants such as Feroza Ramjohn and Ganga Persad Bissoon.
Minister Warner was clear when he said that since the Indo-population is about half of the national population, the absence of even a near proportional mix of the demonstrators showed that the march could not have represented the views of the majority of the population.
The PNM, and the supporting groups, started out in a disadvantaged position since, against the backdrop of a lack of diversity in the crowd, their best case showing could not cross 50 per cent of the population or even the politically active population.
Why is that so hard to understand? Or is it just too hard to swallow?
Carmelita Mohammed | Via Email Diego Martin
No comments:
Post a Comment