IF YOU DON’T THINK, DON’T THINK AGAIN

The Prime Minister can tell me “just a thought” all he wants, as someone whose job depends on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression and of the press, I am very concerned about his current “thoughts” on those who voice opposing views. If today, Mr Manning is threatening the UNC Opposition with “thoughts” of treason because the party disagrees that Port-of-Spain should be the site of the FTAA Headquarters, whom will he keep in mind to accuse of sedition tomorrow? Regardless of what Mr Manning “thinks” of the UNC, for the moment this party has 16 seats in the Parliament. The UNC thus, represents not only a large section of this population, but it is the democratically elected Opposition and thus, the voice of all TT people. In addition, even if the UNC had only three seats, as Mr Manning did back in the days, this trio of representatives would still be completely entitled to resist Government policy.

It matters not whether Mr Manning “thinks” the UNC is being obstructionist and/or mischievous. It is downright dangerous for a Prime Minister to suggest that if the Opposition holds an opposite view, it is being “unpatriotic.”  What next act or word will Mr Manning deem inimical to what he “thinks” beneficial to the nation? What opinion will he next “think” seditious? As for his so-called “slip of the lip” concerning the Treason Act, it is unconscionable for someone with the power of Mr Manning to even let the words “Treason Act” tumble out of his mouth. Does the Prime Minister know what treason is? Some people might as easily, consider PNM leaders meeting with known criminals, unpatriotic. I also wonder if Mr Manning is aware that when a citizen is charged with treason, he or she is not entitled to bail and that the punishment for this “crime” is death by hanging. Moreover, if our Prime Minister “thinks” that he reassures us by declaring that he really does not “intend” to accuse anyone of sedition, he can “think” again.  Because on the one hand, Mr Manning claims his remark about the Treason Act was not a statement of “intent”, but immediately on the other, he states that a Prime Minister has to say what he “thinks.” This sounds like perilous political double speak to me. If we are to be guided by the Prime Minister’s “logic,” Mr Manning “thinks” that a nay against PNM policy is unpatriotic and thus, by extension, treason. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the gap between the Prime Minister’s “thoughts” and his “intentions” is as wide as he would like us to believe it is.

Neither am I consoled much by his declaration that he and his Government have listened to the “boos” from the populace on their national fingerprinting plan. How can I or anyone else feel at ease when we have not been able to depend on Mr Manning to listen faithfully to us on other crucial issues? On questions of national interest such as the appointment of his wife to his Cabinet and his “thoughts” about, or “intention” of converting the Red House into his office? How can we rely on him to pay attention to our opinions  in the future when he has “thoughts” he really “intends”? The obvious answer is, we cannot. We can only shudder to think what impending “thoughts” Mr Manning has in mind for us. The Prime Minister is most definitely a man who cannot see a gifted horse, without trotting over to kick it in the mouth. Right now, he’s busy reminding us why most people could not stand to hear his name a few years ago. It is as if Mr Manning is unaware that his God, disguised in the form of three fed-up UNC MP’s, made him born again PM, giving him this second chance to live in La Fantasie.

He seems to have forgotten that his God placed the PNM where it is today because Basdeo Panday permitted the UNC Government to rot and then crumble. Yet, Mr Manning is taking his gift of government for granted by frightening the population with his “thoughts”. By his own admission, we can expect Mr Manning to continue “thinking” aloud. That he can make such a bold assertion in 2003 is because the Opposition is weak and because Basdeo Panday is bent on enfeebling it more by speaking for just half the population. If the UNC does not alter its current configuration and rhetoric, Mr Manning is only going to feel increasingly emboldened to keep on “thinking”. And if the Prime Minister is admitting “thinking” today of things such as the Treason Act, fingerprinting the entire population and of forming a covert crime fighting unit, then it is terrifying to think what the Prime Minister may “think” of tomorrow. No one can dispute that Mr Manning, like the rest of us, enjoys freedom of thought, another right enshrined in our Republican Constitution. We cannot deny him that liberty. However, it would really be patriotic of Mr Manning if he were to stop “thinking,” altogether.
Suzanne Mills is the editor of Newsday.