From: Mervyn Dec 12, 2000
Dear Editor,
The UNC for the moment has won a victory tainted with the criminal action of Voter Padding, which caught their activist in the "marginals" attempting to steal victory, and they are attempting now to claim ignorance and stupidity for clearly designed strategies by persons known and unknown in the party's hierarchy.
The justice of the court in dealing with Gypsy and Chaitan should be quite poetic.
The PNM hopefully will now understand the disadvantage of trying to reach and motivate it's potential supporters without any media that they control, or is opened up for all views and meaningful programming and discourse. UNC has successfully got all the heads of the media organizations on their campaign, while the PNM was left to get it's message through the media of Gillette, Duprey, Sabga, and Panday's NBN [his face is reported to have been shown 1 million times on TTT, during the 5 week election campaign]. Which is disaster from the word go.
Level the playing field, dismantle 102, they have and are disrespecting the callers who would be inclined to support the PNM, the Dale's, the Jerome's, the Lance Mottley's etc. Create a new station, a new talk radio that does not demand and forces people to be sidelined or marginalized, because journalist fall prey to political manipulation. Act now PNM or forever be.....?
______________________________________
From: Kurt Dec 12, 2000
Dear Editor,
I would like to say congrats to, two groups of people who had
the same objective of winning the 2000 General Elections. The U.N.C [united national congress] and the T.H.I.E.F [they had intended electoral fraud], with the latter facing criminal charges at time of writing. Some people are claiming they are one and the same, but one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, after all Abu Bakr was cleared of all wrong doing for the 1990 coup attempt which was also Electoral Fraud intended. Integrity, morality and credibility may be the biggest casualities of the Elections.
______________________________________
From: John Dec 2, 2000
Dear Editor,
I have heard PM Basdeo Panday and AG Ramesh Maharaj vociferously condemn and claim as a real tragedy the fact that the small drug "pushers" always ended up before the court facing criminal charges, while the big "pushers" remain unscathed in the background to benefit from their illegal activities. I wonder what they think about the small people who are ending up in police stations and before the courts on charges of electoral fraud and voter padding. Surely it must be painful for them [PM and AG], to see the small man being abused once again for people in the background to benefit. As guardians of our country's Constitution, Democracy, and Moral integrity, can we expect a clear, unambiguous statement anytime soon on the issue?
______________________________________
From: Akida Nov 26, 2000
Dear Editor,
At some point of a nation's life, there are some things we must all stand up against and condemn with a united voice. Any attack on he very system under which we operate and live is the perfect place to start. If one was to attempt and subvert our democracy or constitution, be it by an attempted military coup or a vote padding, election-stealing scheme, we must react angrily and swiftly in a decisive manner to let the perpetrators know that we as a nation would not tolerate that type of criminal action and behaviour.
We loudly condemned the 1990 coup [most of us] and now we have a vote-stealing scheme, which is similar, and most of us are refusing to let our voices be heard against the perpetrators who have forever stained their organization or group, with the proverbial Mark of Cain. Where are the voices of condemnation from the Religious elites? The very same ones who preach from their places of worship against sin and crimes. Where are the voices of the Business elites who fire and dismiss employees for the very same acts instantly? Where are the Social organizations and NGO's who always seek a place in governance, what about seeking a stake in our moral capital? Where are all the do-gooders, nice and decent people, role models and moral exemplars, are they lying low until this criminal scandal blows over and then they resume their societal profiles. People who do not draw the line on such an outrage, would have lost all moral authority to condemn our youth, workers, farmers, rural villagers and other sectoral groups as they wont to do, when they engage in protest action and struggle for a better life.
The reasons for these validating elites acquiesce and silence on this crucial situation and major blot on our collective conscience, must lie in their assumption that they are afraid to offend the political elites for fear of some kind of retribution, and very plausible in the current scenario, reasons of ethno-consideration and who are the offenders. No one then should then be surprised, when Crime continues to swamp and bedevil us all and the man in the street refuses to assist the police in Crime detection and solution. They are probably just taking "other" considerations into mind and following or adopting the lead of the validating elites. Who is going to lead the way forward?
______________________________________
From: Kurt Garcia Oct 15, 2000
Dear Editor,
If any one had any doubts that when Lindsay Gillette was made a
member of the UNC that it was not a strategy by that party to co-opt that
Radio Station 102 into facilitating it's election campaign, it isplain as
day now for all to see. Here we have a situation where every single media
house is trying to and collecting thousands and thousands of dollars from
the campaign budgets except 102, who has banned all paid ads from political
parties [not from Unions]. Yet they insist on taking 99 cents a minute for
all calls to the station from the people who they say make them number
one[which is normally is much more trying to get in] and is refusing money
from the big businesses who finance the parties political campaigns.
The UNC strategists has long since worked out that call
in programs and talk shows which they have no direct control over cannot be
in their best interest, so what you cannot control you neutralize and if
that fails you get your activists to target and intimidate journalist and
you end up with exactly what is happening at Power 102, where that station
Head of News cannot make a criticism [or hear one] without going overboard to
try and prove to his would be detractors that he is not attacking the gov't,
he is trying to be fair, he hates fanatics, people have agendas [who hasn't]
etc. The end result is that he sounds pathetic and resorts heavily to comedy
to sort out his personal imbalance. This station has now become very watered
down and seem to be operating under severe strains and limits and has become
mortally afraid of open criticism against the ruling party. They know fully
well that the ban on paid political ads would affect one political party
more than the other, as other media houses have no problem with their
political ads both paid and unpaid.
Come on 102 where is your forums for listeners
to discuss Campaign 2000, stop trying to be peripheral to the issues of the
day and deliberately avoiding the views of your supporters of whom there are
so many, with token call in segments and overdoses of offbeat issues. I
challenge Power 102'S CEO to repeat the statement he made about Gillette or
anyone is not that stupid [does Lee Sing still work there] to interfere with
the station's programming and what they Tony and Dale included would do. We
are observing you 102.
______________________________________
From: Bobby Oct 29, 2000
At a recent function UNC minister Morgan Job said that a caste of people, Africans, normally became police officers or end up in jail as a result of PNM education. I wonder if he still thinks he could get away with trying to stereotype African people. I wonder how he feels after they raided the homes of members of the UNC and searched computers and all, showing that they are well versed in the latest technology while doing their job. Very effective police work, eh Morgan.
______________________________________
Fifty-fifty my behind!
A response to calls from hazel Brown and company for legislation to guarantee 50% women in parliament.
It is rare that we are subjected to political ideas of such shallowness and conceit as the drive to have "equal" parliamentary representation, half men, and half women. These people seem to misunderstand the basic principle of parliamentary democracy. Are they saying that Mr. Panday is not the prime minister of non-Hindu, non-Indian, non-male Trinis? Or that Mr. Manning's non-Christian, non-Africanoid constituents are unrepresented in parliament? Even if they voted for him?
Are these 50-50-ists saying that a female in parliament is incapable of representing men? Is there an implication that only somebody like me represents me?
Next, I suppose there will be a drive for proportional seats by ethnic origin. That would start a few arguments. And then there will probably be a lobby that says we need to have 10% gays in parliament. How about proportional representation by profession? In addition, do we have any smokers in parliament to represent tobacco addicts? Do we have any immigrants in parliament to represent voters born overseas?
And what if an indo-female gay smoker from Guyana doesn't vote in a constituency where the indo-female gay smoking gay immigrant candidate is available? Will she be represented in parliament?
There is enough childish silliness in politics without giving attention to people who don't understand either what they're saying, or are simply looking for attention.
______________________________________
Another interesting response:
By Mervyn
What else can one expect from Hazel Brown, after failing to get into Parliament like Lloyd Best, through traditional means, they are now looking for a space in the politics. Hazel would say or do anything, no matter how stupid, to keep in the public's eye to justify her NGO salary. She should instead promote for Parliament a 100% smart and honest composition. That has nothing to do with women being obstructed in any project they undertake. In fact, we might end up with 100% women, which I have no objection to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: S. Simmons Sept 29, 2000
At a recent political meeting in which he attacked Amnesty International, Attorney General Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj reportedly claimed to know more about human rights than anyone in the Caribbean.
However, it is not accumulation of knowledge that counts but what you do with it and the AG has certainly not put whatever he has learned to good use. After all, he was instrumental in Trinidad and Tobago's unprecedented withdrawal from international and regional treaties designed to protect the very human rights about which he professes to know so much.
Moreover, it is puzzling he should only now choose to criticise Amnesty International (AI) for its opposition to the death penalty when the organisation's stance on the issue has always been clearly stated and has never changed. In fact the only shift in position on capital punishment has been the AG's.
We notice Mr Maharaj is fond of quoting comments he once made to AI's Secretary-General on the subject of judicial killing. Ironically, the encounter took place at a conference on the International Criminal Court which, in accordance with world trends and the wishes of the international community, will not have death as a sentencing option.
As for "only seeking the rights of killers and not the victims", the AG must have missed the crucial role AI has played in efforts to bring Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice. That is just one example of the excellent work it does for human rights around the world.
Yours faithfully
S Simmons
PO4 9YW England
Tel/Fax:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 23, 2000
By Kerri-Lyn Edwards
Calling Morgan Job, could anyone please identify the whereabouts
of the vocal chords of the gentleman who had a radio program and for years
aggressively and vociferously condemned on all forums and instances, anyone
associated with the looting, mayhem, destruction and murder caused by the
actions of Mr Bakr and the Muslimeen. His targets were the late Morris
Marshall, Knolly Clarke, the PNM, the Unions, the people of Laventille and
John John, UWI lecturers and the Calypsonians etc.
People want to know if, is it the same Morgan Job that sits
in a government, under whose watch, substantial compensation is being paid
to Mr Bakr and the Muslimeen for damages they suffered because of their
1990, extremely violent and deadly, attempted coup. In contrast to the
monumental damages suffered by the state, individuals and businesses, and no redress has yet come the way of the state and others who suffered. The
present holders of office, should take responsibility for this tragic state
of affairs, especially as it has been suggested that they can be found
wanting and exhibiting unbelievable tardiness, by many observers. The
silence of our well read and eloquent Morgan Job on the issue however forces the question, "Morgan is that you"?.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 18, 2000 From: Kerri Edwards
All power 102 staffers can say to the public, is that they got a simple directive from their board of directors to cut all paid political ads from the station, which of course is aimed at something else except enhanced revenue for the station. However I think they will have to issue another simple directive to state whether it is paid political ads for which the station receives revenue, or those that the party supporters do on behalf of their parties, for which they may or may not be paid.
You would know what I am speaking about "my party did all this and that", "your party did not do this or that", "my party intends to this and that". So you see Sir, any form of censorship is, and never was going to be an easy thing, what are they going to do now with those type of calls. Would they remove all the call in programs, change them to sex and request shows, cut down on number of call to shows.
I humbly suggest that these things are already being done. Stand up citizens for your rights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 17, 2000 From: Cindy Williams
How else can anyone explain a private organization refusing to cash in on an expected election bonanza, spending frenzy. The people who executed the idea in the station to ban political ads, surely cannot represent all the stakeholders in the company. The statement that it was done in the interest of balance and fair programming, would only suffice if they can identify the hitherto unknown imbalanced and unfair programming. Come on 102, you now have more limits and we have less information to assist our choice in exercising our democratic and constitutional right to support a party of our choice. While we are all the poorer for that, the question must be asked, who would benefit from such action?.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 16, 2000 From: J. Clarke
I heard somebody make the point that the pulling of Power 102's plug "proves" that this was why the Prime Minister has encouraged the Gillette family so much.
Well, maybe.
I heard somebody else say that the withdrawal of political ads demonstrates how much the UNC is afraid of the PNM.
Maybe that, too.
I also heard or read (I think it was at this site) someone say that Power 102 can do as it likes; it's a private station. But there's a state media house that does its own thing!
That's a point. It's not so important WHY Power 102 decided to pull the ads, although it would be a pity if it came from political pressure. What's really important is that there's a well-established media organisation that belongs to the state (you and me), and it doesn't really provide much of a forum for us. There's even a new commercial from ttt that says: "It's yours." Or something like that. Well, if it's mine, how come it doesn't offer me much choice?
The sky and the hills around me are as much mine as the state-owned media, and although I can't simply throw up a house there, I am free to enjoy their beauty.
As a forum for my views, and a clearinghouse for the views of others, there's my corner rumshop.
Pity that I do pay my taxes, the state media organization does exist, and I can't get as much of my country-people on my tv and my radio as I do at the Caribbean's favourite form of communication - the lime!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 15, 2000 From: Kurt Garcia
I am one person who never believed Lindsay Gillette was selected to serve over other hard working UNC activist, for any other reason other than a political benefit, maybe in exchange for an economic one. The ban placed on all political ads by Power 102, no doubt would affect the PNM and it's main target audience, which is no doubt expected to clear the logjams to a UNC victory in the upcoming polls.
This is Mr. Panday's time to be repaid, to jump from PNM supporter, to Minister to acting Prime Minister in eighteen short months, must have had a cost attached to it. But please 102 tell us who are the people objecting to your programming, when and where.
Could others use the same process to effect changes at the station.
Back / Home
|