‘Notwithstanding the entreaties that came from the COP to join them in their campaign, I am not available to them’
Q & A on a Sunday with Ria Taitt
People’s National Movement (PNM) candidate for Diego Martin West Keith Rowley is definitely controversial, not your run-of-the-mill politician. He is strong-willed, opinionated and is not afraid of a fight.
But he is PNM to the bone and is quick to stress that he remains loyal to the party and its principles and not an individual, he tells political editor Ria Taitt.
His first public meeting on Thursday in Diego Martin West pleased a lot of PNM people but disappointed others, namely the Opposition, because it did not, in Rowley’s words, lead to the ’demonisation’ of his leader, Prime Minister Patrick Manning.
Q: Since your declaration that you are a sailor on a PNM ship, some persons, including Opposition leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar and COP political leader Winston Dookeran, have suggested that you have gone soft on your stand against corruption, against the Prime Minister and that is so because you are waiting for the PNM ship to dry dock in
order to take over.

I AM LOYAL TO MY PARTY: Dr Keith Rowley, PNM candidate for Diego Martin West addresses supporters during his campaign launch at Starlite car park, Diego Martin, last Thursday. -Photo: MICHEAL BRUCE
A: I hate to disappoint those in the Opposition who expected me to be their voice in this election campaign. I am a PNM voice.
Insofar as I am a PNM candidate, one of 41, and insofar as this organisation has as its leader for the time being, Patrick Manning, I hate to disappoint the COP and others who believe that my difference of opinion with Mr Manning or anybody else could have resulted in them having a political advantage. If they want to deal with UDeCOTT (Urban Development Corporation of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd) and Calder Hart, they are free to do so. But they are in no position to tell me what stand to take. I have taken on publicly…at personal expense and personal pain, what they (COP and others) did not pay attention to.
And if any of them expected me to go on a PNM platform, in an election where my party is engaged as an organisation seeking votes, to attack the very party that I am a member of and am seeking support from, then I am not as stupid as they think. Notwithstanding the entreaties that came from the COP to join them in their campaign, I am not available to them.
I have always made it very clear I am a member of an organisation and not a supporter of an individual who may lead that organisation, and that has not changed. I am loyal to my party. I am loyal to my country. And I support and work with individuals, insofar as they do the right thing.
On Thursday, I made it crystal clear that the positions I have taken with respect to public administration and public accountability- which involves UDeCOTT and those who defended UDeCOTT or protected persons at UDeCOTT-I stand by.
They-the Opposition-have not addressed the issues of their performance when they held government office. Kamla Persad-Bissessar has not answered my point about her frustrating Bob Lindquist from the investigation into the Piarco Airport, nor has Dookeran dealt with my complaint about his behaviour on serious issues of public administration while governor of the Central Bank.
But I also object to the fact that in a speech where I was very careful to choose my words that the Trinidad Guardian could publish words that I didn’t say: ’Leave my Prime Minister alone’. I never said those words.
Will you be on the national platform?
I don’t think people should make anything special about speaking on the national platform. I have not done so in the last two elections. But my input (on those elections) was very effective because I worked in the marginal constituencies and in Tobago. People are making an issue of speaking on a national platform; it is just for show. I don’t believe in that.
Why was there no one on your platform from the current PNM Government or Parliament (except yourself) at Thursday’s meeting? (Speakers were former ministers Bridgid Annisette and Fitzgerald Hinds)
People offered. But we in Diego Martin felt that we had enough resources to launch our campaign.
Unlike a lot of PNM meetings which tend to have predominantly grassroot persons, the crowd in Diego Martin was more diverse. What accounts for this?
The location. There are alot of middle-class neighbourhoods. But there is also the loss of some middle-class support. Many have parked and want to be reassured. The interesting thing, however, is that they are still prepared to identify themselves as traditional PNM supporters. And the party needs to clarify its position to them in the face of the unusual electoral challenge.
What is unusual about this electoral challenge?
The combined Opposition led by someone who is perceived to have some credibility.
So is the PNM in danger of losing this elections?
This elections is very challenging, and it calls for effective campaigning and an awareness that we are facing a combined Opposition that is very well-resourced. The PNM has deep roots and traditional machinery. But nothing should be taken for granted until the last vote is counted.
You said when a ship goes into battle, it is no time to throw the captain overboard. If the PNM is defeated in this elections, would that be an appropriate time to ’dry dock and throw the captain overboard’?
That is a bridge only to be crossed if we get there. If we don’t get the result that we are anticipating (ie victory), we would have to review what has gone on against the background of the result. But I am not overly worried about the negatives (a possible defeat) at this stage. I am in a positive mode.
Where do you see your political career going in the event of a PNM defeat and a Rowley victory in Diego?
I have made a commitment to the people of Diego Martin West to represent their interest over the next five years, wherever that interest is located, whether the party is in or out of Government.
In the event the PNM wins, would you be prepared to accept a position in the Government?
Well, I can’t answer that and I pay no attention to that at this stage. These are bridges you cross if and when you get to them. The elections are not about membership in the Cabinet. It is about representation of your constituents in the Parliament. The selection of a Cabinet is another operation in which no person other than the prime minister has control. But if you observe how I have functioned as a backbencher, you would realise that I have done my best there as I have when I was in the Cabinet.
What is the difference between the Piarco Airport scandal under the UNC (United National Congress) and the UDeCOTT scandal under the PNM?
There was no singular voice that can be identified within the UNC that took issue with how the UNC government was functioning with respect to the Piarco Airport project and the need to rectify the wrongs what were taking place. It, therefore, fell to a PNM administration to appoint a commission of enquiry and to deal with this issue. In fact, they (the UNC) denied and defended (the airport matter) and continue to do so, notwithstanding the conviction and imprisonment of key players and the ongoing trial of others, including former government ministers.
(By contrast) The end result (of the UDeCOTT scandal) was a Government-appointed commission of enquiry brought about by positions taken by elements of the PNM itself. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government put up resistance, it ultimately came around to accepting the advice that the way to go was a commission of enquiry, and while the life of the enquiry was stormy, the end product was achieved.
What more can the Government do in this matter?
A lot more. Firstly, one should accept what developed at UDeCOTT was unacceptable. People have to be held accountable, and the systems that failed must be rectified by the implementation of the recommendations of the Uff Enquiry. Calder Hart was a functionary carrying out serious business in the State enterprise sector. The model does not apply only to UDeCOTT. And it falls to the Government to comfort the population (and assure them) that this cancer is not widespread.
Who are the persons who misled the population, ’hiding in the shadows,
waiting to come back into government’, that you referred to in your speech in Diego Martin
on Thursday night?
The population is well aware of what happened. All I alluded to is that the party, in order to engender the trust of the population-a requirement for winning the elections and for good governance- would have to hold people accountable for what went wrong.
Even if it includes senior Government members?
No one is above the people’s trust.
You talked about the Opposition campaign being built around the
demonisation of the (PNM) leader. Should the PNM party’s response to the demonisation of the prime minister be to sing his praises?
No. You give praise where praise is due. What you don’t want is to deify. I don’t know if you have observed but between January and now, Kamla has gone from being a normal parliamentarian who ascended to the leadership of the UNC, to ’hail Mrs Gandhi’. If she then begins to believe the adulation that is coming her way, it is only a matter of time before hubris replaces humility. Look around the Third World, once somebody finds favour, they are the saviour and if they are out of favour, they are demonised, in favour of the next ’messiah’. This deification of one leader feeds off the demonisation of the other. The same thing is waiting for Kamla. Some of the statements being made in support of Kamla are pure fluff. And if perchance she gets into office, those things are worth nothing.
That is a Third World phenomenon. You don’t see that in the developed world because they understand that the leader is worth so much in the equation, but that the other components are equally or more important. And the leadership earns that leadership status by virtue of how one is able to deal with the other components.
How do you break that cycle?
You break that by the political party advancing people of quality and letting those people represent the strength of the party as against representing a messianic devotional outpouring. This notion that someone is born to lead or sent by God has no place in a serious modern administration. And if we keeping putting people on pedestals, thinking that that is going to solve our problem, the problem would be recycled and would grow. We have got to say ’nice lady that you are’ or ’nice man that you are’, we have some problems to solve that require commitment, intellect and respect for the people, whose business you are called upon to administer.
After all, the purpose of having an election is provide the country with persons who would be entrusted with the management of its affairs to improve the quality of life. If that is not happening, whoever is in office would be exposed to those negatives (demonisation). And that is not to say that certain elements of personal aggravation don’t help to stir the pot.
You said in Diego Martin that as a party, the PNM had the strength to allow
dissent to survive. But many contend the only instance of that was the survival
of your nomination (as a candidate).
It is a good demonstration. To the extent that it has not happened as widely as people think…It is up to individuals who are functionaries of the party to either stand firm or acquiesce, taking the line of least resistance. There must be a separation between Government and party. When I first started interacting with PNM people in the 1970s, the PNM general council held office-holders accountable. And a lot of the government positions got their first formulation from the general council and other arms of the party. Over time, you are getting less and less of that, and it has to some extent evolved to the stage where messianic policies are part of the government programme. And this is not peculiar to the PNM.
The party cannot turn its back on the Government and, therefore, individuals who get Government authority should be mindful of that. And the party must also be aware that the arrangement which gives to persons in Government the capacity to dispense largesse could be used to strengthen individual positions and ultimately weaken party’s institutions.
Have you forgiven and turned your back on all that has transpired?
I have overcome all the attempts to damage me. I don’t know if it’s a question of forgiving or not forgiving. It is a question of me being on the alert and being on my guard to defend myself from continuing attempts because as you know, there are still a number of investigations (involving me)…But that does not hamper my involvement…I am a public official, and if people feel that there is a need to investigate my conduct or my character and or my involvement, they are free to do so. It is what comes out of the investigation that I should be concerned about. And I can tell you that I have no concerns in that regard. (Trinidad Express)