A Matter of Trust...

Before he was 'outed' in the Parliament Keith Rowley refused to acknowledge and in fact actively conspired with others to deny the existence of one of his children. And while you're thinking about that, and while those employed to distract and misdirect from this issue attempt to spin it as a simple omission, understand this also, that a lie by omission is a lie where one neglects to include important information; an outright lie is a lie where the truth is deliberately skewed so as to mislead. This was an outright lie.  How we deal with other facts surrounding the outing that may or may not have been true is for other conversations, but this needs to be put on the table naked and exposed and seen for exactly what it is, that over the course of forty three years of his first child's existence and at least twenty five years of his own political career, Keith Rowley set out to deliberately mislead and deceive the public by telling a lie.

The question then begs to be asked, how does one trust someone who is capable of this grand a lie on this epic a scale? How does one trust with public office someone capable of this sinister a conspiracy over almost half a century and who has as of this writing still has not personally acknowledged his lie and given an accounting of his actions?

In all of his biographies including his Parliamentary bio where he swore that the information he gave was the truth to the best of his knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition with forethought and planning lied to the public by claiming two of his three children. What else then has he lied about over the course of that time?

The Collins English Dictionary defines character as - “the combination of traits and qualities distinguishing the individual nature of a person or thing,” and in this regard and for this purpose we are now knowledgeable of at least one defining trait in his character, that for whatever else he might be, Keith Rowley is a liar and a teller of untruths. That he is willing and able to conspire with others to deceive, that he is capable of misleading an entire nation and would skew facts to distort reality as long as they served his needs or ambitions.

Are those Prime Ministerial qualities or the traits of a person that we want to trust with high office?

According to Section 84 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago - "A Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary shall not enter upon the duties of his office unless he has taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance and oath for the due execution of his office." The last hurdle before receiving the instruments of office, can a convicted teller of untruths be trusted to be guided by an oath?

The People's National Movement for their part owe an explanation to the country regarding their choice of political leader and an accounting of what steps if any are going to be taken to deal with this. For a little while at least they have ownership of the matter even though it should also be one for the public domain. We the people of Trinidad & Tobago have been worn down over the years and our standards have been eroded to the point where many do not seem to have a clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Political expediency should never be the filter through which one makes important assessments that could govern one's future or, put another way, it is unwise to apply temporary solutions to a permanent problem.

It comes down to trust. Can Keith Rowley be trusted now that we know he has demonstrated that he is capable of lying and of conspiring to deceive?

In times of strife and other national concern what holds power to the Office to which Keith Rowley aspires is the faith the public has that their leader can be trusted to do the right thing. Now that trust is broken, can the aspirant be considered fit for the position? How we answer that question ultimately reflects our own character in how we view issues such as right and wrong.