Defending Hazel

PRIME Minister Patrick Manning exposed his Achilles heel in the House on Friday when he went to the defence of his wife, the Education Minister, whose performance had come under attack from Opposition member Kamla Persad-Bissessar, who held the Education portfolio under the UNC government. Mr Manning, who had been cool and collected during debate on the Police Reform Bills, suddenly lashed out in an uncharacteristic personal attack on Mrs Persad-Bissessar which was both unparliamentary and unbecoming of the Prime Minister.

It is true that Mr Manning did not refer to her by name but by implication and context the identity of his target was only too obvious. Earlier on, the member for Siparia had called on Mrs Manning to answer questions about the SEA results and to ensure that they were not contaminated or compromised. This was not a personal attack on the Minister who, in fact, had already replied to the concern expressed by the opposition member. What seems, however, to have irritated the PM was Mrs Persad-Bissessar satirical reference to Mr Yetming’s charge against the PNM about “jobs for the boys and girls.” Elaborating on this old two-sided poke, she recalled that the first thing the PM did upon taking office was to look after his family by hiring his wife as Education Minister.

This barb apparently struck home, exposing an unfortunate vulnerability in the emotional sensitivity of the Prime Minister. The truth is that he did appoint his wife Minister of Education, a decision for which he was widely criticised. But instead of overcoming that episode, Mr Manning seems still to be flustered by any allusion to it, thus adding to the jusfification of his critics. Jumping on a high horse, he charged that Mrs Persad- Bissessar had “the audacity to question my integrity on the basis of my appointment of my wife as Minister of Education.” He declared Mrs Manning was the best Education Minister the country has had in his time, “certainly far superior to the one she replaced.” He went on: “I would like to tell the member for Siparia that the country now has a Minister of Education who goes to work every day, who is sober when she goes to work, who does not drink on the job — and who could account for all the furniture that she uses.” Whether or not these charges are true, we feel the Prime Minister should not have descended to the level of a personal attack on the ex-Minister’s character while speaking in Parliament. As leader of the Government, he has set a rather bad example.

The outburst is unfortunate, also, because it is out of character; as a public speaker, Mr Manning has been known to be rather circumspect, often preferring to damn with faint praise or to use satirical and ironical euphemisms to describe the antics of his opponents. His sensitivity over any criticism he may perceive about the performance of his wife and his self appointed role as her champion and defender makes him particularly vulnerable and providcs added justification for the view that his appointment of Hazel to the Cabinet was not, in fact, a wise decision. The PM does not rush with such emotion to defend any of his other Ministers against opposition attacks. As it should be in the political arena, he leaves them to defend themselves. He should adopt the same attitude or policy to the Education Minister, whether the incumbent is his wife or not.