Yetming: Panday’s view on political morality not UNC’s own

This was the position of St Joseph MP Gerald Yetming when questioned on the morality dilemma in which the UNC has found itself, following statements by Panday at the parliamentary caucus that politics had a morality of its own, and that if someone (Gillian Lucky) cared more about his or her integrity, that person should leave politics.

Said Yetming: "If one looks at any of the party’s publications on what the UNC stands for, it talks about integrity and all those core principles of right versus wrong; good versus bad; honesty versus dishonesty."

He added poignantly: If you interpret political morality to mean that you might not be honest sometimes and lie a little bit, and be deceitful, then that is where we will differ."

Yetming made it clear, however, that he would not be joining Lucky and Khan as independents, though he was sympathetic to their position.

"I respect what they (Lucky and Khan) have done and what signals they are trying to send. It is their way of showing their disagreement with the position of the leader," he said. Stating that he also believed there was no choice to be made between political morality and integrity, since they were entirely compatible principles, Yetming said: "We (himself, Lucky and Khan) have a similar view on the subject, but I don’t know if I need to show where I stand by sitting with them."

He added: "I am of the view that personal and professional integrity are more important than everything else, and there can be no compromising on that."

He pointed out the fact that Lucky and Khan stayed with the party suggested they shared his view that the statements made by Panday were his view, and not the official party’s position.

"The institution and the man are not the same, though many may think so," he said.

Asked if the leader should not be the personification and embodiment of the party’s core values, Yetming replied: "That is absolutely correct. But now for the first time we are seeing that there could be a divergence of views. And if that needs to be resolved, then the party must engage the leader in such debate, or discussion on the matter so that the party can either disagree with him, or adopt his position."

Yetming said if the party stated clearly that it agreed with Panday on this issue of morality, he (Yetming) would leave "because it would mean that the party as an organisation had a philosophy and culture that I don’t subscribe to".

Asked if the situation pointed to the need for new leadership, Yetming stated that he had been advocating a change of executive, leadership and direction within the party for some time now. "And I came under some stick," he said. But he stressed that his stance on the need to prepare the UNC for the "post-Panday" era was an entirely separate matter. Also commenting on the issue was Housing Minister Dr Keith Rowley, one of the central figures in the tearoom brawl.

Rowley said the UNC had fallen into the very pit it had attempted to dig for himself and the PNM. Pointing to the morality quagmire in which the UNC had found itself, Rowley said Panday’s statements confirmed that former President Arthur NR Robinson was absolutely correct when, in searching for moral and spiritual values to form the government, he could find none in the UNC under Panday’s leadership.