A red flag went up in the House of Representatives on Friday. But it wasn’t the disproportionately huge and appallingly expensive one that flaps dismally over the National Stadium. Sports Minister Gary Hunt made a statement, but it wasn’t damage control aimed at reducing public outrage over the multi-million-dollar flag. It was a distraction from that issue, and it wasn’t a defence, but an attack on another front.
Mr Hunt’s statement was topped and tailed with fulsome praise of the national cricket team, but he also waved the flag for the Government’s support of sport. ’We will do so quietly, professionally and without the desire for fanfare,’ he said, then read three pages trumpeting the Government’s generosity and wisdom in funding assorted sporting ventures.
His real purpose, however, was not praise but criticism. He was most put out over a newspaper headline that day that had said: ’$650,000 spent on TT cricket team.’ The story, argued Mr Hunt, had given the impression that the Government had not provided any funding for the team. In fact, he said, the Government, through the Sports Company, had given ’approximately’ (sic) $913,679.01 to the Cricket Board, which included funding for the team’s preparation for the Indian tournament.
Mr Hunt seemed to believe this cleared up the matter. However, several pages earlier, he himself had said $650,000 had been spent on the team. So quite how he concluded that it was nevertheless a vile slander for a newspaper to say the same thing was a mystery. In any case, Mr Hunt was also miffed about several other newspaper stories. One was about the team’s alleged intention of dodging the government welcome being planned for them, and one about Dwayne and Darren Bravo’s father telling the Government to stay away from Piarco Airport when the team arrived home.
These stories, huffed Mr Hunt, were grossly inaccurate and misleading, and the people supposedly quoted in them had denied saying any such things. Furthermore, ’yet again, their denials are never given the prominence of the grossly inaccurate headlines.’ Indeed: but since nowhere in the world does any newspaper follow such a practice, it seems somewhat naïve of Mr Hunt to expect such a thing. At the centre of Mr Hunt’s statement came a passage which seemed to have been inserted as an afterthought-perhaps that was why his statement was delayed. But that passage may have been the most significant-and sinister-of all.
’Another, non-sport-related article comes to mind,’ said Mr Hunt. ’It is relevant to this discourse.’ Actually, it wasn’t, unless his ’discourse’ was really a philippic against the media. Mr Hunt’s statement centred on a story from October 4-that is, four weeks earlier-about a pan-jazz concert at Queen’s Hall which had been ended early because the noise was keeping the Prime Minister awake.
This was not true, grumbled Mr Hunt, but the offending newspaper had not apologised or retracted the story. He extrapolated: ’This is another example of the approach being taken by some sections of the local media with regard to their coverage of matters related to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.’ By now there was a strong scent of paranoia in the air. Where was it coming from?
The trail led to a matter raised by Information Minister Neil Parsanlal, whose job it is to send offenders to the Privileges Committee. Last week it was the turn of Independent Senator Dana Seetahal, no less, whose newspaper column had criticised the bacchanal that had marred debate on the Validation Bill to save the Uff Commission. Mr Parsanlal felt Ms Seetahal had cast aspersions on the Speaker, since he was responsible for the conduct of the debate, which she said had ’devolved into name-calling and bad-mouthing.’ She also said numerous standing orders were breached, such as that ’the conduct of an MP is not to be called in question.’ Who called whose conduct in question? Who called who names? Cast your mind back to the previous week, and you will recall that the row was between the Prime Minister and Dr Keith Rowley. The latter had said it was a ’contrived lie’ that he had been fired for behaving badly in Cabinet.
Mr Manning replied that Dr Rowley became a raging bull and a bully when he was opposed. ’I see hate, bitterness, acrimony, animosity and a man completely out of control,’ the Prime Minister had said, among other things. But it is Ms Seetahal who may be on her way to the Privileges Committee. On Friday, then, UNC MP Vasant Bharath took a risk when he joked about the Prime Minister peeping out of his mansion between curtains that cost $3 million, or wrapping himself snugly in his $3,000 sheets.
He was silenced by Leader of the House Colm Imbert’s customary cry of ’Thirty-six one!’-the standing order which obliges MPs to stay relevant to the topic. Mr Bharath got off lightly. More and more, it appears that criticising the Prime Minister is like waving a red rag at a bull. Or rather, in case that expression is grossly inaccurate and misleading, waving a red flag at a bully.
