Saturday, October 31, 2015

Questions for Roodal...

If one were to use Roodal Moonilal's logic as stated at the announcement of the throwing of his hat into the ring for political leader of the United National Congress, then would have to assume that all who had a part to play in the UNC's last five years should be taking responsibility for that party's (mis)fortunes and all should be vacating their positions and avoiding making themselves available for promotion or election as well.

Not so?

Without question the People's Partnership was at once the best and the worst government this country has ever had, and while it can be said without fear of contradiction that no government has done more to develop this nation in five years, it can also equally be said that no government has damaged the institutional framework of this country as badly as the UNC led People's Partnership has in such a short space of time and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. From the misuse of state funds to deify their leader to misusing the state communication machinery to engage in naked politicking for almost their entire term in office, nothing was spared.

I have scoured the news over the past five years searching for examples of Roodal's objection to the more glaring issues that the public had with the UNC and could find none. Rather, I found him a staunch defender of others that have brought shame and eventual defeat to the party, so how is Kamla the only one to blame? Did Roodal stand against Life Sport? Or against Anil Roberts when eventually exposed? What about the Section 34 fiasco that removed civil society's support for the government, what was Roodal's position on that? Did he call for investigations? Commissions of Enquiry? For those who conspired to pervert the administration of justice to be brought themselves before the courts and charged? History does not show that, and Roodal needs to defend that. Then there was the Run Off amendment proposal that looked to all like a government attempting to bend the Constitution to achieve a hegemony they could not otherwise at the polls, what did Roodal have to say about that? In the face of widespread public condemnation, did he side with the public? Or did he defend his government's position? What was Roodal's position on the firing of the government's most successful and popular Minister to shield the removal of publicly tried and condemned Attorney General? Did Roodal call for an investigation into Anand's activities? What was his take on Gary Griffith being fired for refusing to engage in a cover up? Did he publicly condemn it and call for a rethink of that decision? Did he call for a firing of Communications Minister Vasant Bharath for using the mechanism of a government release to propagate a lie? I cannot find evidence to suggest that, nor can I find evidence of Roodal condemning Vernella Alleyne Toppin's moment of ignobility, so to what does Roodal refer when he infers that Kamla is alone to blame? Did he take a public position against the nonsense being propagated by Rodney Charles in the foolish 'No Rowley' campaign that backfired so badly former supporters of the PPG ended up cheering for the same Rowley?

I think I have made my point, and I look forward to Roodal's responses to all of the above, but truth be told the United National Congress and People's Partnership's fall from grace was not accidental, it was deliberate and occurred through conspiracy over time. This country may never recover from what was attempted through Section 34, and the fact that a few Ministers are not cooling their heels at the President's pleasure because of it is an indictment against our ability to govern ourselves, but that is grist for another issue. In this one I hoped to make the point that thinking people need to do just that, think.

Stop being spoon fed nonsense regurgitated by a lazy media, ask of those who would seek your support for positions of power to defend their track records. Many in the know and even those with the most cursory of knowledge of how the PP was run would tell you that Roodal Moonilal was more than second in command and heir apparent but was in fact making the calls and pulling the strings.

I suggest to the contrary of his statement that Roodal is being selective in his memory and telling of events. If Kamla needs to step down for her decisions and directions that led the the failure of the government then others must as well, for collusion in and execution of those dictates.

So on that one point I agree with you Roodal, that Kamla needs to step down, but so do you.

Phillip Edward Alexander

No comments:

Post a Comment