Remy

Originally Posted by Remy

“Oh! What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.” Deception is described as the practice of deliberately making somebody believe things that are not true or as an act, trick, or device intended to deceive or mislead somebody.

The recent “revelation by our prime minister that the previous government was spying on citizens may not have created the furor it did had the element of ignorance on her part, and that of her government of the existence of this agency not been added into the melee. Hell bent on discrediting the PNM, the PP proceeded to publicize these “revelations” without considering the damage it could cause to its party, the government and, by extension the country as a whole. Mr. Panday who by the way is not one of my favorite people, is quoted as saying: “ But what had to be done, should have ensured it was done in a way that the nation and all other quarters could have confidence in the security services but that confidence has broken badly now.”

On what grounds can Kamla claim that she did not know of this agency when she was (a) part of a government (in which she acted as prime minister) this agency reported to. And, (b) is now Prime Minister and head of the Security Council for some six months. This agency was conceived and financed by the government as an antidote to subversion and as a means of combating organized crime. The criminal elements in society had become organized and more sophisticated in their operations and were collaborating and streamlining their operations in a manner hitherto unknown. The Government had to respond. To now high light to the public only the morbid aspects of this agency, and, to publicly refer to it as the personal agency of one man and not a government invention bespeaks a lack of appreciation of the need for tact and diplomacy at the level of government when dealing with sensitive matters.

This issue is not new and has been in and out of public spotlight since the 1990’s. One will recall that Reeza Mohammed while serving as Minister of Agriculture had his phone conversation replayed in public by members of a religious organization who sought to prove he was lying on a certain matter which concerned them. I recall the former minister utter speechlessness when confronted with the recordings.

Mr. Russell Martineau in response to a news paper article on the Sat Sharma issue in 2006 said “I am scandalized by what is happening in this country. The releasing of people’s cell phone bills and people’s telephone records; making public the fact that conversations between lawyers and their clients are now being released and made public in the press, is a complete scandal and a sad state of affairs”. We have also had Prime Ministers publicly boasting about knowing things they cannot reveal to the public.

Additionally, I know some who knew a person who was able to produce transcripts of cell phone conversations between other persons involved in a certain matter in which he had an interest, and wanted “cleared up”. He suspected mischief was afoot by some of his associates and needed information to prove their treachery. He got it for a price. This however was all done privately and did not have the far reaching consequences as the Prime Minister’s exposé.

Based on the information now in the public domain it is clear that government past and present, and, also private citizens not only knew of the existence of this agency, but also used its services at their convenience. For the government to now claim ignorance of the existence and operation of this agency at a time when many legitimate questions are being asked relative to its performance is nothing but an unabashed attempt to hoodwink the population and divert attention away from the many burning issues confronting it.

I agree that this agency must be streamed lined and legitimized. But, could this not have been done minus the political charade? Is it to much to ask that the government temper its predilection to score cheap political points and focus instead on running this country consistent with the new brand of politics they promised? This latest charade serves only to convince citizens that no political change took place in this country with the recent change of government. Indeed, one is hard pressed to pin point any substantive change that occurred with the change of government. In six months, this government has succeeded in undermining confidence in our economy; and our image both regionally and internationally. Additionally, by referring to the SIA as a spy agency, and, giving the impression it was designed by Manning for his personal use, our security services now stands to loose its credibility by the untimely and ill-advised “revelations” that one aspect of its operations is being referred to as a ‘spy agency” and the personal toy of an individual.

What this issue demonstrates is that we still have a leadership crisis in this country. Kamla is not a leader and she now runs the risk of being the worst Prime Minister this country ever had. She must find a way to quietly leave the scene with some measure of her credibility intact. One wonders if her premature naming of a predecessor is not a hint that she is fully aware of her shortcomings and is already in escape mode. To the extent that this is true what she should have done in my view is resign and name a replacement if the constitution of her party allows her so to do rather than name her successor.