Contrary, Mr Panday

TO PUT it mildly, consistency has never been Mr Basdeo Panday's strong point. His life-long political career has been fraught with so many twists and turns, so many contradictions and reversals that one now finds it difficult to simply accept his decisions and declarations on face value, for what they are claimed to be. We should, for example, consider in a positive light Mr Panday's intention to meet with Commissioner of Police Hilton Guy and Minister of National Security Howard Chin Lee for the purpose of offering the UNC's assistance in combating the high level of crime in the country. On the face of it, such a meeting should be welcomed as it appears to indicate a serious concern by the Opposition party over the crime problem and a genuine desire to assist, in whatever way it can, in dealing with the situation. But how can one reconcile this apparent concern with the stand taken by Mr Panday and his party not to cooperate with the Government in its legislative programme which includes a bill to strengthen the capacity of the Police to deal with the now prevalent crime of kidnapping and to impose exemplary penalties on convicted kidnappers? Again, where is the consistency?

Mr Panday and the UNC have taken a decision which, in effect, holds up to ransom all of the government's major legislative measures — such as the Kidnapping Bill which would require a special majority in the House — in pursuit of their campaign against Government's plans for restructuring the grossly inefficient sugar manufacturing operation of Caroni (1975) Ltd. On the one hand, Mr Panday wants to offer the CoP and the National Security Minister his party's help in fighting crime, on the other the UNC and its leader are quite prepared to stymie legislation urgently needed to deal with the same problem. One is almost moved to laughter by such an aburd contradiction, but the implications of the situation are too serious to be taken lightly. If it is to fulfil its role, maintain its image and enhance its prospects as an alternative government, an opposition party should be concerned always to act in the best interests of the country, its priorities should ever be aimed at improving the lot and meeting the needs of the entire population. In the decision they have taken and the campaign they are waging, Mr Panday and the UNC appear quite unconcerned about meeting such standards; instead, they seem determined to play the old emotionl and obstructionist political game with sugar workers to the extent of placing this issue above all else.

Now that they have been given the all-clear to initiate a national debate on the restructuring of Caroni, UNC parliamentarians have changed their minds. Instead, they are arguing that the Government should first lay its plans for Caroni on the table and then they would have the substance for a debate. But the Government's plans for Caroni have been appearing in full page ads in the daily newspapers over several weeks. If this public information is not enough for the UNC, why are they reluctant to launch a debate on Caroni and so force the Government into replying and disclosing its plans for the company? In any case, how would the UNC deal with the Caroni dilemma, if, as the party claims, they never intended to shut down the outated sugar operation? As we said before, it is time for the UNC to wake up to their responsibilities to the entire country. Indulging in useless confrontational rhetoric, appealing to strict partisan feelings and emotions, and the use of meaningless threats would hardly serve to execute their national mandate. Is the party not capable of producing fresh and constructive ideas?