SPOTLIGHT ON THE PNM

[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5. [00:00:08] Speaker B: Eric Hopkins II is in the building with me and he represents this arm of the pnm. [00:00:13] Speaker A: Yep. So I'm representing the PNM and the Heliconia foundation this morning. [00:00:17] Speaker B: The PNM and the Heliconia Foundation. Let's talk a little bit about what that foundation. Let's just remind the people about the Heliconia foundation very quickly. [00:00:24] Speaker A: Sure, sure. The Heliconia foundation is a think tank for young professionals, 25 to 45 years old, who are interested in making TorontoBago a better place. So what we want to do is be a home for people who are smart, who have lots of ideas. With GATE funding, you have a lot of young people who have studied specific things that they think can be solutions for Trinidad and Tobago and many of them don't know how to get these things implemented in policy. We help them refine those ideas, perfect those ideas, meet with other professionals and then speak to government leaders to get those things actually implemented in different government policies. [00:00:54] Speaker B: And I thank you for explaining that. So I'm grateful that the PNM has that youth forum inculcated in there to give persons between those ages of 25 to 45, which is considered. [00:01:04] Speaker A: Yeah. And to join, you don't have to be a member of the pnm. [00:01:07] Speaker B: And that was most noteworthy the last time we spoke. You'd rather be a member of the PNM to be part of the Haleconia Foundation. You can come in once you have the ideas and you're willing, they are going to work with you. So welcome to freedom. 106.5 of them to one of the shows that. Well, you heard it. I face it every morning. [00:01:26] Speaker A: Yes. So thank you. Thank you for having me. I'm very happy to be back. I would be remiss, I want to say congratulations to our new Prime Minister and Fitzgerald and Tobago for having, for the first time ever, three women leaders. And I want to point out for me, as a young person, it feels not so special because we kind of accustomed to this. And that, I think is special in and of itself that this could happen. And people going, oh, good, oh, good. But like, yeah, we kind of expected that one time or another that was going to happen. [00:01:50] Speaker B: But not just, you know, it speaks well to women in leadership positions. And when women. There was a conference at the Hyatt Regency, I think it was earlier this year, last year, that Freedom carried and it spoke about the inequity that women have to fight in the workspace among especially in a field dominated by men or perceived to be dominated by men. But she's not women in politics and ascending to political power. It's not the first we have seen of its kind. We have Mia Motleys and others in other we have Argentine president of Argentina at one time was a female. So we have females not dominating but rising to the occasion and reaching to the pinnacle of their professions and careers and we congratulate them all. Do we as men feel infuriated in any way or feel slighted or is a word I'm looking for? You know, it's eluding my memory right now. Emasculated because a woman we answering to I love. [00:02:43] Speaker A: Nope. Yeah, it's normal. It's normal. [00:02:44] Speaker B: It's normal. I am answering to the office. [00:02:47] Speaker A: Yep, it's normal. [00:02:48] Speaker B: I'm not studying because it could be a man there and he very arrogant indeed and piggish. But the macho is a man. So let's talk about the internal ramblings of the pnm. You know we spoke about the way that things happened when they were in Tobago. You know I will tell you quite frankly I did ask the question because I wanted to understand the constitution of the pnm. Maybe you can help me. And the Thursday pre elections we had Dr. Amory Brown in and I think he's the chairman of some part of one of the councils in the party something position he was holding. I can't remember it offhand right now. However, one of the things he spoke about is, you know, the way the baton was passed on. And I asked him is it yes or no? Does the constitution of the PNM allow for it? And he said yes, I know. Are you inside? [00:03:41] Speaker A: No. So I think technically the answer is yes. But if you wanted a slightly more democratic process that could have easily been achieved. So the only question people have to ask is if that slightly more democratic process didn't happen, why didn't it happen? Because these are choices that we have. So it wasn't illegal, which is why no one challenged on the legality of it. But it's a how we go look kind of situation where you could have easily been more democratic if you had chosen to and they chose not to. [00:04:08] Speaker B: I like that. It's more or less how it go look. Yeah, yeah. So it was how it go look. And I mean we had to be sensitive to how people perceive things within the party. So what is happening there at the moment? I mean they have lost and so. [00:04:23] Speaker A: Two things so A lot of internal stuff. There are a lot of people who are afraid and concerned for their jobs, so there's a lot of that going on. Heliconia doesn't have as many people who are specifically dependent on paying them for jobs. We're young professionals. Our issues tend to be more concerned with the public sector having also contract workers. We tend to make up the brunt of those types of contract workers. But there are lots of people who are specifically hurting, concerned and afraid about how they're going to pay their mortgage and feed their children and so on. And I think Kamala's speech spoke to that. We'll see how that comes out in the next few days. But as one of your callers said, we're all Trinidadians, right, regardless of what happens. So we want her to succeed, we want her to do well. And if she does that, then all of those people who are concerned should be slightly less concerned. And then there's shock. Lots of people knew it was possible that PNM would have lost. I don't think I knew one or two people because I know a lot of PNM people, so I do know one or two. But the vast majority of PNM people thought we would have won. And the fact that we lost, not just Elizabeth, by such a significant majority, was a shock. So a lot of the emotions that you're seeing are very raw emotions because of the extent of that shock. And people just have to process those chemicals in their brain and they'll dissipate. We'll go to the beach and then we'll go back to complaining about government. So that's the first part. But then once that shock kind of wears off, what you do here is people saying, you know, if you think about it, so and so did say so and so did say. Last time I came on your show, I made it very clear, although in muted terms, that the ascension of our interim prime minister was something I didn't agree with as a more die hard paying person. I'll go vote. But I remember last week, Friday being at Tranquility Credit Union, where I'm a member, and this lady was there and she said, oh, I was going to vote. I don't know who she's going to vote for, but I was going to vote. And then I went to the wrong polling station because they had changed her polling station and she just went home. So there are lots of institutions where people who otherwise would have made the effort just simply didn't make the effort. There's 100,000 votes. We lost. And some of those people didn't feel as if enough was done for them for them to be worth the effort. So. And if it was raining, it might have been worse. [00:06:25] Speaker B: You know, that is a very startling revelation. And when I saw the numbers of 100,000, I was like, whoa. But then yesterday on the show, I told my listenership that I spoke to persons. And you said it best. One of my good friends, you know, for the last 20 something years, said two of them, as a matter of fact, they. They PNM. But they said, pal, listen, I think one area column in but is his mp and he's like, I just. I just can't go and vote for him again because we're not in DB up in long circle. We don't see that man. This. He building a building somewhere down Donald street where, you know, a lot of talk went out and we can't. He couldn't go and vote for the unc, right? [00:07:08] Speaker A: Yeah, I couldn't do that. [00:07:10] Speaker B: That one. Oh, gosh, boy. You know, but. And it just didn't go. Yeah, and that's the thing with PNM UNC coming out. Sure, sure, sure. We have always heard that. [00:07:19] Speaker A: So they. [00:07:20] Speaker B: Please, they're coming. [00:07:21] Speaker A: No, no. So that. [00:07:22] Speaker B: What did they say? [00:07:23] Speaker A: No. So they. They do it. They do it more than PM voters. But I think that is also overblown because Trinity has successfully fired UNC UNC government in the past because their voters know. So they. They're less likely to do it in pnm. But they're not as sycophantic as people make them out. That's a bit of a hyperbole. So I think I want to point it out. No, because people assume that this is big tribalism. Most Trinidadians, we have gay to know. So all. When I lived in America, all grandparents are racist. And Trinidad and Tobago, I'm sure we have that young people is partying together, so you can't help inherit some of that. But this thing about UNC people are they're still Chinese. So when things get relative, but they go, ah, nah, man, you're being ridiculous. And they do the same thing to a lesser extent. But, you know, it also happens there as well. [00:08:08] Speaker B: If you find any young person that's racist in this world today, in this country, it's because it's a learned behavior passed on by grandparents. And I think Satish Mahabia, when he was at the helm of this show, said it best. He said it's a granny, grandpa, nana and nanny kind of Nannon kind of thing he said. So any young person that's spewing that narrative today, it is a learned behavior passed down to them because you're going to the schools, young people doing it together, children, they play. It's only the peers, you know, it's really. And the grandparents, mostly the age ones, you know. So, I mean, I'm happy that you said that. So coming further afield, they were pushing and soliciting the the narrative of Penelope Beckles becoming leader. And they said it is a little too late. Not too late, but a little late because, you know, we lost. And I was of the view at one time, and I will be very candid with it, I did not think that Kamala Passat Bisesa, our prime minister, had the tenacity to win again. At one point in time, we felt that way. We were wrong. Right. She has risen from the shadows, impressively so. Yeah. And I'm happy to hear you say that. Outside of that, let's talk a little bit about Ms. Penelope Beckles. I felt that people were saying, but she did long. And I was like, that could never be a measuring stick for promoting someone because you're there long. I want to hear her track record. She's present in her constituency, she's helping, she's this, she's that. She has held dispositions, she's well trained because she has operated in multiple portfolios. So she understands the dynamics of various ministries. But don't tell me she there long. What are your thoughts? [00:09:52] Speaker A: No, I think. Well, pnm, the entire bench of the pnm, I think, has significant amount of talent. The fact that most other parties take their talent from the Panem speaks to that. And Ms. Penelope Beckers is the epitome of that. She's someone who's been around. She served as UN ambassador in different fields and so on, and that speaks to her broad wit. But one thing you find, and when PNM had the internal debate we had within the party about constitutional reform, which we spoke about last time, Marvin, who is technically my MP in the area I live in, Darby, spoke to the fact that it was difficult or it is difficult to juggle both jobs. I think there are ways to do that, and I don't think that's a full excuse, but it is difficult and that's a reality. And Penelope Beckles, in terms of what she has done, is one of the few MPs who stands above the rest. Maybe she can do more, maybe others can do more, but she definitely clearly stands above the rest. So in an election where the general narrative, which I think most people agree with, is the lack of connection to the ground. She is being someone who's connected to the ground is the right choice at the right time, at the right moment. [00:10:53] Speaker B: So do you feel that it's a little too late? Did the PNM take too long to bring her to ascension? [00:10:59] Speaker A: No. So I think because she's older, I think it's important for us to look and make sure we don't have a Joe Biden situation. But from any of her public speakings, her physical mannerisms, nothing suggests that she's not physically or mentally capable of doing the job. And so long as she can mentally and physically do the job, then we're fine. So there's definitely no issue there. The issue in terms of being there long could be that you become corrupted by the system, by the machine. But because she's the exception, as being a PNM MP who speaks to the ground means that on a specific issue that we're trying to address, she's not been corrupted by the system. Mobile machine. Because you have an mp, when you go in there, you really care about people because you know that's where you got your job. But then you have a car, you have police escort, you have all these things. And even if you are a good person, right? Politicians that I don't think are generally on average, as good as the average citizen, I think of them as being less than us. But even if you're a good person, all of us can see how we could falter because you're disconnected, somebody bringing you coffee, tea, and you know she is. If you talk to anybody, of all the flaws they list, that is not one of her flaws. And if that's the thing that we want to focus on, she's the person we need to teach the other MPs, this is how it is done and to lead by example. So I look forward to her example. I look forward to that spirit and the values being emanated throughout the pnm. And Fish is dropped from the head. So if we remove the old leadership, put in new leadership, that should then emanate just in terms of the example to the whole organization. So I look forward to that. [00:12:21] Speaker B: What about the resignation of Stewart Cheung as chairman of the party? Do you think that was a very good move or should he have stayed on? [00:12:29] Speaker A: I'm not sure. I don't fully understand why he resigned as chairman of the party. So I think he called the election. You were the prime Minister, you called election. You definitely need to make sure you don't vie for lead of the opposition. I think that's one thing. I can speak more frankly on it now that he's gone. But what Dr. Rowley did, while legal, definitely seemed like a setup. And for a lot of citizens, not just within the pnm that stitch up where instead of getting your ascension to leadership from hobnobbing with regular trainees, that means kissing babies, hugging up smelly old men, all those kind of things you have to do. And that is an important step because that connects you to the party. It also allows the party to have discussions pnm. If you ask any PNM person, where's PNM crime plan? We don't know what that is. If you ask PNM people, the unions have been making tons and tons of noise about what they want and what they want. Heliconia. We actually lost members from Heliconia and from PNM people who I worked with when I was an executive who left and I see them on Facebook in UNC jerseys. When I call those people privately because they are personal friends of mine. The PNM wasn't engaging them. And when I read the manifesto, which came out very late, the manifesto spoke to belatedly a lot of those things, I'm like, oh, this looks promising. But it was his choice to call election. So I think him not going up as leader of the opposition was fine. But the party needs reform. And if you read the manifesto, the manifesto that he put forward or he's responsible for in some form or fashion speaks to some addressing some of those issues and that it might have been helpful to. To have him stay there. Prove it because you appointed new ministries. We finally got rid of hinds. All are trying to make us like, oh, finally. I would have liked to have seen the opportunity for those new ministers in those new positions to show their word, show what the difference would have been. And then we could have believed you. But without giving that. I think people kind of had to fire him as prime minister, but I'm not sure if also as chairman of the party. [00:14:12] Speaker B: You see, the recycled political notion is what I tried to remove myself from. You didn't just remove. Well, Hines was actually gone and I think Hines was removed and out. He didn't put him in an exponent, did he put him in an exponentially. No, he didn't. [00:14:23] Speaker A: No. He might have been minister in something. [00:14:25] Speaker B: In something. [00:14:25] Speaker A: Minister in the prime minister's office. [00:14:27] Speaker B: Something. Something like that. He was. He was. But he was gone and. And I and Col was removed from Finance payments. You see, for me, go. I am go. Not because it's the same person in a different ministry. They're still there. They're still very influential. That's how I see it. [00:14:46] Speaker A: I could be wrong. They're not. It's a fair point, but I mean. So I'm not gonna hold any water for Hinds. So I am very glad that he was gone. But part of it is also the internal politics. These are your colleagues and so on. You want to give people the opportunities to save face. And Minister Imbert, if you think about what he did in terms of not getting us to the imf, given the situation the Prime Minister presented to us in all those lectures over the five years, if those things are true, which I believe they're true, he did a superb job. So I wouldn't have kicked him out totally. And I think finding a better place for him, another place, another place for him was useful. Whereas with someone like Heinz. Nope, good riddance. I'm happy that he's gone. Okay. And not all people you put up as MPs prove their mettle. And when some of them fail, they're human beings, we respect them as human beings. Politely we say, we thank you for your service, and then you find someone else. But other people are skilled, but perhaps not in the role that they were in. So they're in the wrong position, football field, and we put them somewhere else. [00:15:41] Speaker B: Noted. I like that point. So with that being said, now, should the Prime Minister call the Elect? No. Was it a snap election? [00:15:48] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. You believe? Yeah. He shouldn't have called it so quickly. [00:15:51] Speaker B: I do believe it was a snap election. [00:15:54] Speaker A: Maybe so. If you look so. I mean, Dr. Oli had told us a long time ago in Barrettara, Samoan, where I'm on the constituency executive, we had our candidate for six months. So in one respect, you could say we didn't have it for six months. But having been on an executive and trying to get the executive and the campaign management team to do certain things, most of those things weren't done. And when it comes to why we lost, the Helokonia foundation is going to be leading at some point in the future, a retrospective where we go across the country and speak to people because our membership is asking, because we are also on different PNM bodies and so on. What happened and let's have conversations about it. And you're getting pushback. So hopefully with a new Prime Minister and we'll get a new political leader at some point soon, we can have conversations about what happened and what went wrong. But when you read the manifesto, the objectivity, the policies and so on, I'm a policy wonk. That is I live and breed nerd stuff in terms of how to make Turret and Tobago better. Nerd stuff is not always good at implementation. But. But when you read that document, that document speaks to what we need to do, how we need to do it. And a lot of the ideas were good. And I think given that 2020 was hard and we give you a chance and voted you back in because of either how you handle Covid or because the things that Kamala and that regime had done was fresh in our minds, fine for you to come back now and ask us to believe you without having shown something I think was a bit wrong. Whereas if that manifesto had some time to be implemented, or at least start to be implemented, then people would have given them more of a chance. Whereas on the campaign trail, Dr. Rowley was still there, a lot of the ideas and so on. If you think about what happened in the US where Biden left and Kamala Harris came in, people were saying, you need to make a stand on Gaza. You need to differentiate yourself from so many policies. There was very little understanding in the minds of regular Trinidadian citizens and PNM members as to what the difference was between Dr. Rowley and Stuart, especially because he was anointed. Right? He should have said, I respect and mind you, when Dr. Raleigh dies, we'll come back and speak of how great he was and all the things he did and so on, right? So that these people aren't totally useless. These are good people who carried us through hard times and did a good job. But there are some things that we as citizens didn't want and he didn't allow us to make those choices. And Stuart could have come to the public and say, we had a good Prime Minister. He did many good things. Here is where we differ. And I think I would be hard pressed to know where he differed on that. [00:18:10] Speaker B: Once again, welcome Back to Freedom 106.5. We are talking to Mr. Hopkins II and of the Haliconia foundation out of the pnm. Welcome back, sir. [00:18:19] Speaker A: Thanks for having me. [00:18:20] Speaker B: Nicely. One of the things we started discussing is the way in which de. The hierarchy passed over the baton as one of the last points you were making. The people didn't want that and they were denied what they wanted and that felt like a disconnect. Let me take a quick call here. Good morning. [00:18:36] Speaker C: Good morning, David. [00:18:36] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:18:37] Speaker C: And good morning to Eric. Eric Yeah, you know, I heard him made a statement a while ago that really struck a nerve in me. Mr. Hines has been Minister of National Security of this country for the longest serving person in the last 15 years. Now, while he was Minister of National Security, he begged the other side, give me whistleblower legislation. They say no. He begged them, give me polygraph legislation. They say no. We are begging them. Dr. Derision have a series of reports here, we need to implement them. They're saying no. [00:19:14] Speaker A: Now. [00:19:15] Speaker C: Trinidad and Tobago is a nation of lords. And like I said, when Ola Christopher took the helm and she said it was the storm before the camera, she going to fix it. I for a very positive attitude. But I said, and David, remember that she will not fix it because the same commissioner in the same office with the same officers, and if the sergeant in the station decide that he have to borrow money from the local drug dealer in order to satisfy his deputies, north, south and whatever it is, how do you expect that sergeant to investigate him or arrest him for the murders that just took place on the road? So this is the problem in the country. If we are unable to change those laws by which the police service is governed, every minister of National Security is going to fall like 10 pin 1 after the other. We are a nation of laws. Mr. Hines cannot write his own law. If you live in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you could write a few laws, we know that. But he can't write a law. Dr. Rowley cannot write any law. And if you don't have the parliament to do the work that is to be done. But if you are person in parliament who are malicious to the country and decide, no, we're going to keep it so we want it to look bad, where will you go? So when you made that statement about we finally got rid of Mr. Hines, it really stuck a nerve on me. Thank you. [00:20:37] Speaker B: You know, I often wonder when in opposition what the word oppose mean and why are we surprised when the current administration was in opposition and they opposed? I not surprised. [00:20:55] Speaker A: No, no. I think there's such a thing as loyal opposition where all governments are prone to logical mistakes, implementation mistakes, and then hubris. And your position there is to help fix logical mistakes. So in a debate in Parliament, if you have a dumb idea, they're going to point out in an embarrassing format, which we watch those clips on Parliament Channel where you were wrong, you may have a good idea, but implementing it, you implement it wrong and people are hurt or left out. And the opposition, because they're specifically looking for these people, help refine and make ideas better by saying, yes, you had a good idea, but here are examples where your idea fell short. Those things help the country. Recalcitrant opposition, which is what we had with the UNC under the last 10 years, is one where they specifically block progress of Trinidad and Tobago so that they can look better and we don't need that. And I think the caller is right to point out to some extent, because PNL did have a crime plan that involves the implementation of several bills, bills that all of our academics and intellectuals said would have helped the situation. And the UNC opposed those bills, including some bills specifically that UNC had put forward with no change at all in the wording of the bills. They opposed it. However, as a citizen with two young children under five, I do not believe that the government of Toronto and Tobago has zero power other than those bills. I believe that if you sit down, if you and I go to a bar and we sit down, we can think of things that could have been done that weren't done. The PNM never had those conversations internally. In any taxi, you go with any maxi, you talk to anybody or they're talking frank, right where you know, who or wrong doesn't matter. We can think of things that could have been done. Heliconia's put forward some of those things, not all of them are fully legal in terms of how you do it, that things that could be done to make the lives of Toronto Tobago better. And I think what the PNM misunderstand because Dr. Raul is a process man. He believes in systems and so on, and I applaud him for that because that's generally approved with crime. Most citizens in our democratic society would be more flexible as to what they're willing to allow. And that conversation never came up. So, you know, there's a lot of things that I think could have been done and we didn't see that. Innovative thinking and ideas around those ideas. But equally, color is right that the PNM's plan was centered around these bills and the UNT blocked those bills, including bills that they had supported before. [00:23:04] Speaker B: Well, hey, I know surprise. And I mean, I do understand. And for me, hey, if my job is supposed to be country, I'm supposed to hold you to account as the government, as opposition, make sure your country. But if in the interim I could hit you a latch and make you look a little bad to make me come in power, I mean, oh, gosh, pal, I, I don't know. I. I don't know. I am not here. I'M objective. I, I, I just. Good morning. Quickly, please, Very quickly. [00:23:38] Speaker D: Hi. Good morning. [00:23:38] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:23:40] Speaker D: I just wanted to. All right. Bloody volume. Okay, great. So I, I just wanted to see what Stewart, you had to offer the country. Yeah, I was disappointed in the fact that he called election the day after he was sworn in. He would have had probably around four to five months that he could have run the country under his own tenure. And in my opinion, I think if he did that and he showed the country what he had to offer as a new prime minister, he would have stood up at a chance in the poll. What's your opinion on that? [00:24:18] Speaker A: I think it's a good point if you think about it. Part of the reason that Dr. Raleigh didn't go up is that people were fed up with him. You need to make sure the population have the opportunity to experience a new prime minister for that change to be real. By him calling the election the day after means that his term, instead of being the first term or the opening salvo of a new administration led by Stuart Young. SC what we got was a third term of Dr. Rawley under different guys. And it was very clear for the population nobody was interested in a third term for all of his benefits and so on. People had had enough and his time had passed. And we wanted a new administration and Stuart Young didn't allow enough time for him to cement the differences between him and the previous administration. [00:25:01] Speaker B: Could it have been perceived as tactic, you know, and people saying snap election, the election was constitutionally due this year anyhow, you take it? [00:25:07] Speaker A: No, no. But he had four or five months and you could have done a lot in four or five months. Just the fact that we had new ministers. So the ministers that we spoke about are ministers that people are frustrated with. And as the caller pointed out, not all of that frustration is legitimate. I'm not saying that these people have a hard job. And when you go in the job, some things that we ask for as citizens isn't realistic, but it's not impossible. When you look at what Marvin, my mp, had done in terms of getting access to water when he wanted to do some of those reforms, remember, we had Lahunt. There was no money available for it. Lahont said, you need to fire these people from wasa. You need to do these different things. Instead of doing that, we allowed attrition to take place. And now WASA only has to remove, I think, a few more hundred people to complete that transition. Instead of having to fire people and send them home, he went internationally, got international Funds where we borrowed to all the new wells and things that we've been seeing. So that means that that person thought outside the box, tried to find ways because the minister of finance wasn't giving any money. The money that wasn't there to give to get things done. So the possibility of someone with that innovativeness and so on, and that is Marvin. Marvin. He did that, I think. No, but he, I think was the new Minister of National Security. He may have had a different approach where. Because the limitations that the caller pointed out in terms of the bills that we wanted to pass, all of our intellectuals, the Osiran and so on, being clear, these bills would help. These are bills that UNC put forward and UNC blocked them. Now that they're in opposition. Fine, we agree with that. Other than those bills, is there anything that could have been done? And what you got from the doctoral administration is no, we did all we could do. We threw our hands up as a citizen. If someone attack your family, you pick up a stone. The man blocked that. You pick up a big stick and then you run. We're thinking of all kinds of things to do because you have no other choice. And you didn't get the sense that they were fighting as we would fight to try to find any way to make it happen. And mind you, a new minister could have failed the same way because the problem is intractable. But having a new person and give them the time means that you have an opportunity to prove yourself. [00:26:54] Speaker B: You know, I really like that point because at the end of the day, I always was one that would say, you can't. You can't put. There are laws existing in this country already. There's already legislation that has already been passed. There are things that we could do, okay, these new ones would help us. But in the absence of it, are we dumbfounded? Are we the. You know what. What could happen? And you're right. I mean, I hear. I hear you throw your hands up, it's them fault. [00:27:18] Speaker A: But it's not just that. We had Gary Griffith and a lot of people had believed and had faith in Gary Griffith as commissioner. Gary's mouth got him in trouble. The Prime Minister got rid of a man because he dis him as a citizen. This man could dis you six ways a Sunday. I don't care. Take your disk. Letty man fix crime. If he fails, then he fails. But I think he didn't get a full chance. [00:27:39] Speaker B: You think Dr. Rowley's ego was bruised? [00:27:41] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. And that to me shows that he cared more about that than the citizens and crime being the number one thing all of us care about. When I leave here and go back to my car, I'm looking left and right. When I drive on the road, if somebody have an accident, I come out of the car. I think about it all the time when I go to sleep. And if crime was your concern in the same way it is for all the citizens of Torontobago, Gary could say whatever he want. That wouldn't have been your concern. You would only fire him for performance. [00:28:08] Speaker B: Which should have been the order of the day. [00:28:11] Speaker A: All right. [00:28:11] Speaker B: Hello. Good morning. [00:28:13] Speaker E: Good morning, gentlemen. This is just my opinion. Number one, Prime Minister Young had six months clear to call an election. The promises he made were low hanging fruits, like doubling the food cards and these other things. He could have done that had he taken the time to do it. And I believe he could have had a far better chance and maybe even won. Secondly, with respect to the this not the calling of the election, but the way it was done with Dr. Rowley moved aside, you said it was legal. I have a belief that it could have been illegal. When you look at the constitution, to be the Prime Minister you need two things. You must be elected as the head of your party, so you are the political leader. The party must win and you as the political leader must win your seat. Now, the party could win and the political leader may not win. So in B now we say where there is no undisputed leader or where no party has a majority, then the president could act. And that is the only way the president could have intervened. But the party with the majority still had an undisputed leader in Dr. Rowley who was a political leader. So this is what I'm saying. Had he resigned as the political leader of the PNM and stayed on as the Prime Minister, that would have been the legal and the constitutional thing to do. Because if you read section 76, and I'm very serious, I believe I wouldn't be surprised if the government there now would really dig into this thing properly. And as another thing I would want to find out quickly, please. After a new government is sworn in, we're supposed to convene the parliament in two weeks. Now, when Mr. Young came in, it wasn't just him alone who came in. He came in with a new Attorney General. And technically that's a new government. So I don't know, there's a lot of things that could come out of that era of calling a snap, when I say a snap election. And that was the reason for it, people would have expected Mr. Young to continue so by calling the election immediately after that was used to catch the opposition off guard. I am sure of it. All right, thank you very much. [00:30:32] Speaker B: Thank you very much. And that is what I have no problems with. We want to catch our opponent with their pants on the line drying. If I had warned you in advance, I come in on this date, you go prepare. But the mistake was the UNC was preparing. They knew it was. They knew it constitutionally due. [00:30:48] Speaker A: They had ads on the TV and the radio already. [00:30:50] Speaker B: They was ready for you, pal. So when you come and ring the bell, down them was way. That was all these table running already. So. And that's the point, you know, so snap or not, Tiffany Knight or not, he had. [00:31:03] Speaker A: He did. [00:31:03] Speaker B: He did what was constitutionally bound in this country. And I would say that when I call election, when I ring the bell, you have a minimum to give your opponent six weeks to campaign. Six weeks is the minimum. You can get two months, you can get three months. I could call it now and tell you elections is in August 1st. So you have all this time to campaign and have a whole pillow party. But I cannot do it. Ring it now and tell you next week is election. I can't do that. I must give her six weeks. And he gave the six weeks to not only the opponents, but to himself, too. You see, the thing about it is, it didn't affect just the unc. It also affected the PNM because they had six weeks to get the house in order to. [00:31:42] Speaker A: That's the thing, too. So, I mean, to the caller's point, I want to point out the UNC is full of lawyers. And if it was wrong, I think one of their lawyers would have challenged it and we would have seen something. But in time, we will find out, because I think our intellectuals would look into it, because it's an important and serious issue that we should have an answer on. But internally, within the pnm, one thing that we saw was the connection between party groups and how those organs functions. So, which is odd, because party groups are kind of like my friends in the union movement. We have Soviets, and each Soviet is supposed to be a small group of people who come together and then they aggregate into the constituency executive. And then from that we go into general counsel. So the PNM is supposed to be this party where small groups of people in the neighborhood have a party group. We discuss the issues and so on. A lot of those party groups are not functioning. And even though Dr. Rawley had given us months. We had our candidate for five or six months in Barataria even though the those those party groups had given couple given months. Those the party groups and constituency execs executives are not functioning as well as they should. And that's something that PNM can fix internally and hopefully with the new leader of the opposition and the new leadership that we have now that Stewart and Dr. Rowley have resigned, we can look at those things and fix those issues. Because a party where you and me as neighbors come together and ask which road need to fix what we need to focus on, go up to the constituency level, argue debate, including losing some arguments means that that's a responsive party. If that is broken, then that responsiveness isn't there and then that's where the system broke down. [00:33:11] Speaker B: Eric, I thank you very much for being with me this morning. [00:33:14] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.