Why PM met ‘community leaders’

THE EDITOR: I listened to one of the popular “talk show” radio stations, and happened to hear the hosts castigating with apparent impunity, Mr Lennox Smith’s comments on his understanding of the rationale for the Prime Minister’s meeting with so-called community leaders from Laventille early in the life of the current Administration. I thought it strange and probably an abuse of journalistic licence and free speech to unfairly castigate an opinion expressed by a citizen, in the manner that was portrayed by those radio show hosts that Monday morning. I also listened on the previous Sunday to the programme on which Mr Smith expressed the controversial opinion as to why the Prime Minister may have met with what turned out to be persons alleged to have been involved in gang wars and killings in Laventille, some of whom have since died. I thought Mr Smith’s explanation was a good one, which not even Umballa could have shaken during the interview.

Mr Smith’s view was that the Prime Minister must have made a humanitarian gesture by meeting with unsavoury and shady characters. This must be taken in the context of the time in which the Prime Minister’s “olive branch” was extended. The gang wars and killings were escalating. Innocent and not so innocent lives were being lost almost on a daily basis. The country was becoming alarmed about the situation. The Government was fresh in office and it enjoyed a slight luxury of moratorium on public criticism, in other words public goodwill and expectations were generous. It is in this scenario I too believe, as Mr Smith has so eloquently expressed, Mr Manning agreed to meet with what some term as miscreants. Moreover the police seem not to be able to make heads or tails of the situation or respond to inspire a pervasive public confidence. There is also precedent for Mr Manning’s action, as subsequently enunciated by Mr Smith, when recollection was given of the actions of the late Dr Eric Williams, in his well documented interventions in the steel band and community riots of the ’60s.

Such actions cannot be seen as condescending to negative elements or the undermining of the role, responsibility and authority of the police or other law enforcement arms of the State. Since the interaction, as was in the case of Dr Eric Williams, many of the same persons were either prosecuted or sent to jail inspite of the intervention. In other words the work of the police or judiciary were never compromised. One can only conclude, as Mr Smith rightly did, that the Prime Ministerial interventions on both occasions were humanitarian in nature and designed to preempt unnecessary bloodshed and loss of life by appealing to the conscience and good nature with which every human being are endowed. Mr Manning may have been badly advised as to the composition and/or the legitimacy claimed by those he met as community leaders. This, however, does not change the disposition of Mr Manning meeting on altruistic grounds. What else is there to gain? At any rate, Mr Manning having assumed the Prime Ministership of the country is expected to make decisions on behalf of all the people of Trinidad and Tobago, a position he has consistently demonstrated.

ALFRED GEORGE
Laventille