When silence is golden

After all, politics is all about the ability to gauge public reaction. But, according to herself, Dr Baboolal did not expect her expression of the same sentiment used as a defence in the trial of former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday to arouse significant reactions. Indeed, when told that Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma had allegedly expressed the same opinion, Dr Baboolal said, “I did not even know the CJ had said that.” We would have thought that a politician would make it her business to keep abreast of the news, especially on the main matters engaging the public’s attention. But, apparently, we were wrong.

Politics is also about perception — as the old saying goes, in this arena, perception is reality. So it is now a matter of significance as to how Dr Baboolal making this statement at this time will be interpreted. One clue comes from the support given by Opposition Senator Wade Mark to Dr Baboolal at Tuesday’s sitting of the Senate. It is clear that, in some circles, Dr Baboolal’s statement would be seen as a breaking of ranks. Not only that, but the statement may even be interpreted as a breaking of political ranks in favour of ethnic solidarity.

Dr Baboolal has denied any such interpretation. “I am not reporting on, or supporting, what Mr Panday has said. I was merely talking about Indian women.” Her comments, she claimed, were based on her personal experience and information from historians such as Brinsley Samaroo. However, the bald statement that East Indian women control the family finances cannot be taken as a matter of hard fact. To do so would be to asseverate a cultural uniformity that bears no resemblance Indian or, for that matter, Hindu reality. Indeed, it is not even clear that claiming the majority of Indian women control the family finances is sociologically correct, save perhaps in the narrow sense that the man of the house might hand over sums specifically for domestic purchases.

Beyond all this, however, we should not ignore the political motives which underlie this particular controversy. The statement about family finances and Hindu women was used in order to prove that Basdeo Panday did not knowingly file a false declaration to the Integrity Commission. This argument was rejected by Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls; but Mr McNicolls’ rejection of the statement was not based on its accuracy, or lack thereof. It was based on the assertion that Mr Panday’s wife, Oma Panday, having received more than a million dollars from businessman Lawrence Duprey as a putative scholarship fund for her daughters, did not even mention this transaction to her husband. The Chief Magistrate, quite rightly in our view, was unconvinced.

We do not know why Dr Baboolal has commented, wittingly or otherwise, on this matter. “As President of the Senate, I try to stay out of controversy,” she told Newsday. This is wise of her, especially as her elevation to the Senate presidency from chairmanship of the PNM was itself controversial. “If you can’t talk the truth in this country, what else can you talk?” Dr Baboolal asked. This is again a good principle: but, when the truth is not clear, silence is often a wiser option.