The case of Dr Winston Mahabir

THE EDITOR: In response to a letter from one Linda Edwards of Port-of-Spain in your edition of 14.10.03 I wish to state that the contents of my letter on Dr Winston Mahabir would hardly have caused pain to his relatives who knew the details of his association with the PNM. My letter, however, would be very painful to PNM diehards and apologists. With respect to the social value of what I related, anyone with a sense of history would recognise that the first term of the PNM in office during the years of 1956-1961 was an extremely significant formative period and set the tone for much of our political and social evolution in the ensuing decades.

Dr Mahabir’s experience clearly indicated that Dr Williams and the PNM overwhelmingly represented Afro-Trinidadian concerns, interests and aspirations. For all his significant contribution to party formation and political development of the country generally, Dr Williams must also be credited with initiating the culture of virulent partisanship based on ethnicity which is one of his enduring legacies to this day. It could have been different. Dr Williams was also largely responsible for the mobilisation of members of the public and police service to support party ends which is one of the reasons why today there is a virtual absence of accountability by public servants and police officers for their actions and a corresponding lack of discipline and performance. It was “Massa Day Done” and party paramountcy. Evidence of the persistence of this self-serving culture is everywhere today and was very much so in 1987 in the first year of the NAR government.

One can imagine the futility of any attempt by Dr Mahabir in 1958 to try to institute an investigation with the objective of taking disciplinary action as a deterrent and corrective action for system failure. In retrospect I empathise with him and understand why he migrated after placing so much hope and faith in the PNM. When the incident of my father’s death occurred, I had just completed secondary school. I was not aware of any legal implications or possibilities, but if the matter had been taken to count, Dr Mahabir as a private practitioner would have had to testify against his Ministry of Health and possibly himself as Minister of Health. I was not Minister of Health in the NAR government in 1987 but, if I were, I would have considered it my duty to investigate the circumstances of her cousin’s death with a view to disciplinary action once it was drawn to my attention. But the implications of Linda Edwards’ letter is worrisome. It suggests that we must accept the grave failures and shortcomings in our socio-political and governmental system in order to preserve the status quo since to query, investigate and publicise would re-open old wounds particularly if they are wounds of a political nature. With such an attitude one is left to wonder how can this country change for the better.

TREVOR SUDAMA
San Fernando