Sudama's credibility needs to be questioned

THE EDITOR: Challenged to present evidence from Hansard to support his categorical statement of “vividly recall(ing) some of Overand Padmore’s pointed (racist) remarks during the 1981-1986 Parliament”, incredibly Trevor Sudama responded they were made soto voce. Are we to conclude that all such remarks that were made soto voce were heard only by Trevor Sudama? After all he did not suggest hearing Overand Padmore making such a remark only once, he implied such remarks were made more than once.

To say that he sat opposite to me concealed from his readers the relevant fact that the Hansard reporters sat closer to me than he did. How come they did not hear what he claims to have heard? And they do record as cross talk the interruptions of members. His credibility has taken a beating on this one. I wonder what inference he wishes to draw in enquiring how I voted in the contest for Political Leader of the PNM in 1974 between Kamaluddin Mohammed and Karl Hudson-Phillips. I will satisfy his curiosity. I supported the continuation in office of Dr Eric Williams, but if he insisted on resigning, I then indicated I would support Hudson-Phillips. The simple reason being that I considered Hudson-Phillips the better of the two candidates to lead the PNM. Sudama can draw whatever conclusions he wishes from my assessment.

No Mr Sudama, read Malik’s book again, dated though you claim it to be, its analysis still offers insights which are helpful to the discerning reader in understanding why the UNC found itself in the predicament it did after six years in office. Its claim to be a party of national unity was pure rhetoric and your own utterances contributed in shaping the public’s perception of your erstwhile party.

OVERAND PADMORE
Port-of-Spain