PM’s health our business

We do not deny a prime minister has a right to privacy. Indeed, the same Constitution that protects citizens from the unwarranted abrogation of their rights – however qualified – also clothes the occupants of Whitehall with certain privileges. To suggest a citizen no longer has a private and family life because of their post is to subject all citizens who come forward to serve the nation to a particular kind of indignity. It is to strip them of their humanity.

But we do not seek a running commentary on the private life of Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley. He has a right to privacy, but if it emerges that he has medical issues that will affect his ability to function as a statesman then an obligation to disclose arises. As such, we concur with the position articulated by the PNM’s outgoing THA Chief Secretary Orville London.

What cannot be condoned, however, are the attacks that have been launched against persons who have sought to raise this issue in the public domain.

The characterisation of the discourse as “unseemly and unbecoming” by the PNM Women’s League is ill judged. As is the bald declaration from former UNC Prime Minister Basdeo Panday that the matter is nobody’s business but Rowley’s.

The Prime Minister is elected to represent citizens. His business is literally our business.

In the corporate world, senior company officials are, at regular intervals, subject to highly invasive medical checks to ensure they remain fit for the job. The Prime Minister is no different.

It falls ill in the mouth of this administration to invoke privacy as an absolute blanket for its leader while marching forward with simple-majority SSA legislation that clearly qualifies the privacy of ordinary citizens.

At the same time, it would be unproductive and damaging for a sitting Prime Minister to encourage speculation and conjecture with constant, inconclusive tweets. Rowley quite properly disclosed – in a political address and in a press release – that he would take the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: he would take his vacation while at the same time getting medical checks done abroad. If the Prime Minister himself did not know what the outcome of his tests would be, how could he be expected to tell the nation? In fact, it would have been irresponsible for him not to double- check.

We feel the question of disclosure arises if there is reason to believe that a condition or situation has developed which genuinely affects the post-holder’s ability to function. Where the line is drawn will be hard to judge without all the facts and the public will always be disadvantaged in this regard. It therefore falls to the post-holder to exercise mature discretion.

However, to say the matter is within the PM’s discretion is not to deny it remains in the public interest. Rowley’s own statements and those of his ministers who have called for prayers have muddied the situation.

Prayerful invocations to God have been interpreted by some as suggesting a serious problem might be looming.

When they are done, Rowley should give a clear statement as to the outcome of his medical checks in order to assuage concern, remove doubt, and maintain confidence. Meanwhile, this matter should not be politicised and we join with those who wish the PM the best of health.