Rowley, Kamla and '$.5m cheque'

As we listen to the passionate political speeches by PM Dr Keith Rowley and Opposition Leader Ms Kamla Persad-Bissessar, it is evident that the tough struggle for votes is on. Which party can attract more votes from the 66 per cent who didn’t vote in 2019?

Political exchanges are such that every allegation today is often rejected tomorrow. leaving the truth hiding somewhere.

Freedom of speech allows that. Tobago House of Assembly Chief Secretary Farley Augustine’s allegations against Dr Rowley get briskly denied by Dr Rowley the next week. And what about the “25 percent inheritance tax”?

So in all this and more, which party could increase their seats to help break the current 7-7 municipal corporations deadlock?

It is a matter of loyalty, yes, but also credibility. Whom do you trust, believe?

Research has clearly shown information alone is not enough to persuade, whether in politics or advertising. The credibility of the source, for example, is critical. The content of the message or speech must also be palatable to the audience. Speaking to a crowd of converts is far different from addressing a new crowd.

It may be trite but important to note that this is a time when the political system requires elected politicians to explain and defend their performance, while those in opposition and other citizens are required to scrutinise such performance and possibly present alternative policies. That is why those candidates, even elected politicians, who can’t stand such constructive scrutiny, who get vexed, who seek revenge rather than correcting their behaviour or policy, should not stand for election. Get out of the public way. Narcissists and thin-skinned candidates become dangerous to democracy. The respective parties should see about this.

While the ruling party enjoys certain advantages, for example, media exposure, advertising, and support resources. it remains vulnerable to the Opposition for what it did or did not do. In this local government election, some issues troubling citizens are bad, potholed roads, broken drains, collapsed bridges, crime-ridden communities, district unemployment and deficient performance by elected councillors.

But, apparently to help get the voters motivated, even agitated, certain far-off, hair-raising issues get thrown into the electorate. I mention just two.

Two weeks ago, Dr Rowley, in a fiery mood, made some explosive allegations against former police commissioner Gary Griffith: allegations of irregular expenditures, issuing firearm licences, “militarising the society,” etc. And the applause was full of gusto and loud.

These allegations were obviously intended to politically discredit Griffith as leader of the new National Transformation Alliance (NTA), especially as the NTA is now in an “accommodation” with Ms Persad-Bissessar’s UNC. Such allegations and Griffith’s explanations and counter-attacks will form part of a rough election campaign. Character is important for political credibility.

Ms Persad-Bissessar also had her political ammunition. Last Monday, displaying an Express report, looking quite refreshed and well-coiffured, she passionately seized upon another politically-tinged episode – the “$.5 million hardware cheque.”

About three weeks before UNC defector Kaveesh Siewdial was publicly welcomed into the PNM by Dr Rowley, Kazim Hosein and Stuart Young, it was alleged that he received a $.5 million cheque from hardware-store owner Ian Lennard. Why?

This apparent coincidence produced political speculation. Was this a political set-up? Ms Persad-Bissessar, repeatedly using words like "Judas" and "bribery,” called for a police investigation.

The mystery deepened when Siewdath denied receiving any such cheque. However, Mr Lennard said he gave Siewdath the said cheque “in his hand.” (The cheque, with Siewdath’s name, was published).

Ms Persad-Bissessar went to town with the apparent contradiction. As reported, however, Mr Lennard further explained he “decided to stop the payment and block the cheque.” The cheque, he added, was getting Siewdath to “help him get monies owed to him.”

From whom? For what? Is there a receipt?

UNC defector Siewdath, disclosing his bank account, added he was “never offered any money to leave the UNC” and join the PNM.

So once again, in true Hitchcock style, the public is left to guess where the truth lies. In fact, many have already decided. It so far seems to be one man’s word against another. But is Lennard’s rationale sufficient?

This issue is important mainly because it is one of the many slippery issues that motivate citizens to vote one way or another.