Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability.
[00:00:04] Speaker B: The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5. We do have joining us now, gentleman who's been with us on numerous occasions. We've discussed all kinds of things with him. He joins us here this morning to discuss what has turned into a raging controversy.
Let's welcome back to our program here this morning. Shagonas West, MP DNA Rambali MP Good morning to you. And welcome back to our program here this morning.
[00:00:37] Speaker A: Good morning, Satish.
[00:00:39] Speaker B: Good morning to you MP. Nice to have you with us here this morning.
[00:00:42] Speaker A: Yes, Satish, it is my pleasure to be with you. And good morning to your listeners.
I am very elated to be with you this morning.
[00:00:52] Speaker B: I know that you appreciate as well there's a raging controversy now following you, adding your voice to a discussion that has been taking place for a pretty long period of time.
On Friday, I think it was Friday, you made some pronouncements at some event somewhere that went viral and has created increased interest by some in the discussion. It has also unleashed a whole set of criticism against you based on what you've said and persons who have said things along those lines. Let's begin for persons who may have missed it.
Let's begin with the pronouncements that you made last. Was it Friday, last Friday at this event?
[00:01:45] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:01:46] Speaker B: Tell us what, what you said that caused apparently all of this raging debate.
[00:01:54] Speaker A: Well, Satish, it must be taken in context.
Number one, let us start with the fact that we had certain members of parliament who indicated that they were desirous of having party internal elections.
That is a matter which is provided for under the constitution of the UNC's party. And this is something that was spanning out in public domain. First, it was initiated by MP Rushdan Parry, member, Parliament for Mayaru.
If I remember the sequence correctly, it was followed and supported by MP Anita Haynes for Tabakita. I recall MP Rai Ragbir, doctor Rai Ragbir and MP Rodney Charles to have supported this call as well.
What I observed about the call was that, you know, it was being done at a time when the party or certain persons within the party were indicating and clearly referencing the fact that we can't contemplate engaging in internal elections now because we are in general election gear. And I found that astounding. In fact, one member of parliament went onto an official opposition press conference and the theme of that Sunday morning presser was that Rowley was going to call early elections. And I could not believe the things I was hearing. Let us fast forward that a little bit. Now, when this happened what we saw was other parliamentary colleagues and certain constituency executives or persons purporting to act on behalf of an entire constituency executive and other supposedly arms of the party. I say arms loosely coming out with like a vengeance, with a rage. And they started to attack my colleagues, who had simply said, well, we want to have the internals. Nobody said they were challenging leadership. Nobody said anything about misses Prasad be Sassa having to step down or resign or anything like that. And I couldn't imagine what I was hearing and people making these kind of light statements. And it was elevated more than pure political pecan.
It was with some intent and malice that you were hearing statements about people's talent, sorry, ambition exceeding their talent. And I wondered what is really going on. And for my own self, I said, look, you know what? I am not going to get drawn into this debate immediately because I want to consult with my constituents, because at the end of the day, this is a party pattern. And I had a personal view. My personal view was, well, what on earth is going on here? Now? Why are you attacking people for calling for something which is due under the Constitution? And it just does not make sense that we somehow in the UNC, know exactly when Doctor Rowley is going to call the general elections. When it is due in the outer limit date is November of 2025. I think it is more reasonable to assume that Doctor Raleigh will want to present our budget in September, October of 2024, which will be the election budget, you know, giving all the so called goodies or purporting to give out goodies. And then next year, mid year review, you will see that they somehow, you know, miraculously wave around a $15 billion somewhere and start to spend it and doing things that they have been criticized for not having done. That is the nature of the politics. I don't agree with it, but it is more, you know, safe to assume that that is going to be the stance of Doctor Rowley so on his cabinet. So I don't understand where this was coming from. Having consulted satish, let me just make my position clear. And this is what led to last week, Friday.
That really was the straw on the camels back when I saw these repeated incessant attacks on my other colleagues who I didn't think had done anything wrong. And so I took the position. I said, look, I have remained quiet over a lot of issues, despite trying to raise it within the lack of a structure in the party. I have tried to raise things with the political leader. Right, whether it be orally, whether it be in writing, email, WhatsApp, howsoever. Otherwise, I have tried to raise things with the chairman of the party. I saw a release this weekend only after I spoke out about embracing unity. Where what I have been calling to see you and to meet with you since last year, probably September, October, and at least three occasions I can remember off the cuff. Satish, I reached out to say, I want to talk to you, Mister Peter Khanhai, innumerable phone calls and messages. I want to see you, I want to talk to you. I have concerns following up on other things I had raised. So if these people and you have certain persons who are designated to entertain certain issues and you reach out to them on those issues and you're not getting through, and don't talk about a parliamentary caucus, if Sati, you tell me, and I don't mean you per se, but I just use that phrase, you tell me if it is of the parliamentary arm which is to be presented, that is really the litmus, that is the indicator, that is the image of what a cabinet could be formed out of as the alternate government, as the alternative to the government. And you are going the parliament and your caucus, and this is what I raised in my press conference is virtually milled. You are not caucusing. What is a caucus? Saying that you show up for a meeting which you label a caucus, or is a parliamentary caucus one where persons are asked to present their views and their ideas, even a paper, as it may be, depending on the topic, to be debated in any particular proposed bill and legislation. And therefore you have discussions and you talk about what questions can be asked and okay, Mister Rambeley, you are an expert in this, or somehow this issue connects greater with your constituency and therefore, you know, you deal with this particular aspect of it, and I'll ask this one and that one or whatever. I think that is totally lacking. And while, you know, 1 may think, well, why are you airing dirty laundry in public? That is, this is not what it is. This is where you want to strengthen the party, because there is no structure. The arms are all personalities who are dedicated to propagating the personality of the political leader. I say that without fear of any repercussions. And I want to say that when we look at it, satish, I want to be very frank with the people.
And I'm glad, I'm really happy that I was able to get onto your program and the listeners to know that this was on invitation, not that I reached out to the, to any media to get here.
I want to make it clear that when you look at the parliamentary arm. I want to let people know. Yes, I am sure misses Posad B says, I have a big roll call, maybe tonight or tomorrow night or whenever she is going to come out with the roll call. Well, listen, Ramble came to x amount of caucuses, but he missed even more caucus and whatever. And Rambolly didn't do this. And Ramble asked this question, but he didn't ask this question or whatever. I, up to a point in time I was debating in the parliament. I had the highest track record number of debates in the parliament over all of my colleagues, including Misses Kamala Posadbi said, Sir, once I was allowed to speak, I have had a standing order with the chief whip who is under the Westminster system, the person who is in charge of the parliamentary caucus. I have a standing order with him that anytime, any day I am there, you can call on me to debate. It doesn't matter which area, which topic, which bill, it doesn't matter. I am ready to debate and it don't matter which lineup as well. I could come last. I could come as the night watchman. I could even go as a first responder. I have made that position clear and my track recording debates will show that. And the reason why I'm saying this is that you get frustrated. When I saw the response of Misses Persad B says that what I had to say about us not debating and arriving at a consensus on critical pieces of legislation and how we were going out there and we didn't even know if we were in support or we're not in support or we playing it by air to see what happens to her response as well.
Some persons apparently spoil the ballot. And I use the word apparently because, I mean, they're trying to say it is somehow linked to me and therefore they had to now withhold information from persons. That is misses Bessad's response and I'm trying to find it so that I can quote it right now. Precautions, this is what misses said. Precautions were taken with the sharing of information internally after three UNC MP's voted against the UNC nominee to protect the party. So some members and MP's will not be aware of all the activities occurring within the organization. So in other words, she was saying that the reason why Ramble is saying that, you know, certain things would not have been clear to him was because she was withholding information because of what happened with the presidential vote.
[00:11:29] Speaker B: Okay, just stick up. Just stick up. Just because.
I just think that needs a little clarification because it's being bandied about. The vote for the president was by secret ballot, correct?
[00:11:42] Speaker A: Correct.
[00:11:42] Speaker B: So how do you, how does anybody determine that the three ballots were cast by UNC MP's?
[00:11:50] Speaker A: Well, Satish, I want to say that I know you are asking it in the form of a question, so I wouldn't say I agree with you. What I want to say is that I will, within minutes my staff is going to put out my press release in response to misses Posad possessor. And I am asking misses Persad to answer these same questions.
How is the leadership able to identify which MP's were the three members in question who voted against the party's nominee? Well, was it by for the secret ballot or was it based on an arbitrary guess?
[00:12:24] Speaker B: Well, I hear it.
[00:12:29] Speaker A: How does the leadership know the identities of the three persons who voted against the party's nominee were MP's and not senators? Because there's a particular media personality who I say is local Jerry Springer, who actually is very close to the political leader and went on a rampage sometime last year and was saying who tried to steal the woman party and actually started to point out to a senator who likes to dress up and go to the beautification parlor and cosmetician and whatever else. I mean, I'm just trying to quote as best as possible suggesting that they knew who had spoiled the ballots. And then on Friday. Now in her response, it is suggesting that I, for the first time I'm hearing that I am one of those who spoil the ballots. I don't know where that is coming from.
[00:13:21] Speaker B: Well, I, as I said, just looking from the outside in, I think it's a relevant question because if you have all these people voting by secret ballot, secret.
It infers directly that nobody knows whose ballot is what.
And I've been asking the question to myself, but we should ask it openly a long time ago. If an entire process, unless you have these ballots being carried in batches and counted in batches and opened in specific batches or whatever else, how do you know that three ballots went from your vote to that one? Is a mathematical thing you're saying, well, all right, I supposed to have so many votes and I didn't have so many votes. So, so it's just automatically a situation where I say this and that and the next. What I find also interesting is that the people who are accused of that vote seems to change because initially you had, it was Rushton Parry, then you had Rodney Charles, then you had Riah Ragbird, then you had Anita Haynes, now you and whoever else. So it's only three, but it seems as though everybody who seems to have a dissenting voice vote against the party when it comes to the president.
Some of these things just don't make sense, but we need to drill back down to what's going on.
[00:14:40] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:14:41] Speaker B: So you made some pretty strong pronouncements about the leadership of the UNC and you've given us in great detail some of the reason as to why you are of the position that you've espoused. Now, as I said to the other persons that I've interviewed, you are not, you have not been one of the MP's mired in controversy in that you are not known for getting yourself involved in all of these very public things and making pronouncements all the time and issuing a press release every other Monday and all that kind of thing. That's not you. So this seems to be behavior that is out of the ordinary. But even though it's out of the ordinary, you are receiving some intense criticism because of what you said. And you said that Kamala Posad Bisexa is a weak leader and that the UNC cannot win under her.
The words may be different, but that's basically what you're saying now. That's a position that has been espoused by some people.
Did you, you filed nominations for Shogonas west again, right?
[00:15:49] Speaker A: Yes, I did. Last week, Tuesday.
[00:15:50] Speaker B: So one of the questions that needs to be asked and answered is if Kamala Posabi says a weak leader and the party has no chance of success under her, why did you file nominations?
[00:16:01] Speaker A: Well, Satish, you know, I am a party person and whilst I have issues and my issue is really, as I indicated in my pressure, there are grave concerns. And I think a lot of people have those concerns. Many have voiced them to me as to her ability to lead the party into government. So, and just that our opening remarks and exchanges Satish about, you know, her saying, well, you know, she had to exclude or prevent information from flowing to certain persons or whatever, that in itself is self evident why I am saying she's unfit, you know, to continue to lead the party to our next election. I didn't call for resign. I didn't call for step down. I just said that in as much as I have put in my nomination, I have great concerns that I have to bring to the forefront because Satish, at the end of the day, in the context person saying, let us have the internal elections, I support that. Halt the screening process that you have embarked upon right now by, first of all, opening nominations. Now nominations are closed. Let the party give a fresh. The membership. Sorry, give a fresh mandate. If the fresh mandate goes in favor of misses Besad be Sessa, then she is free to say, well, ramble, you were the one who was my most severe critic recently. And what is your position? When I go to screen, I may be able to convince her and say, well, listen, misses Pistabni says that this is my concern and if you could assure me, I'm talking hypothetically, in future tense now, you could assure me of something I may be prepared to say. Well, look, I could work with you, but it would be up to her, whoever is in your leadership. But right now my position is, and I have consulted with a lot of groups and individual constituents in Chaguana's west and people have come from other parts of the country and they have voiced these concerns with me. I didn't internalize anything. That was what I consider to be irrelevant considerations. What I internalized with just the rank and file position on how it is they felt about being in opposition. And, Satish, you will not believe the greatest fear that persons have just after being gone down outside on the road or being the victim of a home invasion is, you know what? Being relegated to another term of opposition. With the continuation of Doctor Rowley and the PNM government. It is a. Yeah. And people, they understand that the UNC has persons drawn in it and persons who are attracted to the party who can bring competence to try and reverse these things, they just simply do not have that confidence in the PNM. And they see the PNM as being the Rowley led P and M as being a party that is encroaching on independent institutions and even the non independent institutions that, you know, they are functioning properly. So what do we do in a situation like that? What am I as a member of parliament who is a public figure and I'm expected to represent the views and interests of my constituents. I am under a political leader and a party, and the party's membership is reaching out to me as well now and indicating these things. I have to voice it now, the question that will naturally arise in people's minds, couldn't he have said this before or couldn't he have said it privately? Satish, I have tried it. I have tried on numerous occasions on different issues. And, Satish, you have pointed out something which I didn't even think of as well. It is true. I'm not always commenting on everything that is in the public domain because I try to operate with some level of discipline. I understand that there are different persons assigned to different portfolios, as per the leadership, and I try to abide by that. So you will see me talking about things that fall in the realm of the attorney general, national security. So that is where you will see me. However, I do engage from time to time in writing letters to the editor, because I feel like, you know, when you're representing a constituency, you must be able to voice certain things in a way which is non committal of the party. But it is a discussion paper, so to speak. So you'll see a lot of those things. But leaving that aside, the point is, I follow the senior people in the party. I would go to them for advice. I wouldn't just jump out like that. I talk to them, and I have been trying to do that. I try to reach out to the party chairman, the general secretary since 2021, moving forward on different issues. None of those issues were ever resolved. I left it alone. I remained quiet. I said, well, you know, this is internal politics. This is our internal party thing. Let's move on. Let's just keep moving on. Whatever, whatever. Then you had issues. I raised it with who I know. I'm a lawyer. I am a constitutional lawyer. I'm a public law lawyer. The first thing I did when I became involved in, as a member of parliament, even though we had lost the elections within two days, I went down to book specialists and I bought the latest editions in all of the parliamentary textbooks that they had. Erskine and me and the Lok Sabha, which is a very popular text coming out of more indian India's content and other books as well, cost me a certain sum of money. That is immaterial to say it here now, but the point is, because you want to better yourself. And I know that the head of the parliamentary army under our system of governance is the chief whip. And I have indicated over and over and over again to the chief of my concerns about what is going on. And so this is of trust that I saw Misses Posad be Sassa raised that because of what happened with the votes, considering the presidential election, I want to say that it is really ironic, more coincidental, that she used that issue of trust, because there was one particular matter of trust which came up in my mind when we had to deal with something arising in the parliamentary caucus, which I don't wish to raise this morning. I will just await a response when I send out my press release this morning. Satish and let me see what the leader, if at all, she will respond, or if she will have people who are loyal to her respond or whatever, and I will take it from step to step because I really am trying to deal with the issues in a proportionate manner that people can understand that what this is about, this is about strengthening the party and this is about winning government. No professional party satish, no party of substance, will adopt a position that our strategy most and foremost is that we are going to try and win the next general election by virtue of the high levels of unpopularity of the government and the prime minister that leads it. In other words, that we will win by default if it is we just attacking and scoring headlines and press releases every Monday morning and that kind of thing, that is necessary. It is important, but you can't win an election like that. And I think if anything, 2020 would have showed us, or ought to have showed us in the opposition that, you know, it requires a very strong strategy. All of the arms of the party have to be functioning and everybody must be able to access some structure in the party whenever they have concerns or issues that they think need to be addressed. And I have seen none of that for me to do this now, I am not a person satish who will not voice my concerns, and I have done it internally, but I have not seen any, you know, positive reciprocation. And this is why when I saw that, when calls were made in as diplomatic a manner as I could think of or estimate from Rushton Parry, Anita Hinds young, Anita Haynes, who I mean, I have a lot of admiration for Rushton Parry. I also have a lot of admiration for Rodney Charles. I mean, that man, he just continues to. I admire him. I hold him. He knows this. I always guidance from him, whether it be parliament, whether it be outside of the parliament, constituency level, party level, any level, I always consult with him, as I do with other senior members in the party, and they know this, I consult with all of them on issues that I've had to say, well, look, you know, do you think x, y and z should be the position? I just want to know, because this is my view and I have a concern. The process at which we are arriving at certain things is not really the property. And some of them agree from time to time. Some of them don't agree. They say, finish, you just, you know, just plod on.
[00:25:03] Speaker B: Let me give you.
Yeah, there's a couple things that I want to add again to get your opinion on, but I'll give you a personal experience before I do that quickly.
I was asked to host an event in Chagonas, which I don't really like to do, but I did because of the individual. And it was a grand event. It was in December of a year, many years ago, and Kamala Posadi Sesa was there. She was the special guest and all of that kind of thing. When the event was over, I left. I don't really hang around on these things. And on my way out, somebody braced me by the door and shook my hand and say that they was going to call the program to deal with me and say, deal with me for what they say because somebody tell them I was bad talking the leader. And I say, well, I wasn't. I didn't realize I was here to be part of the leader or anybody pr team. I'm on a talk program to speak about what I think needs to be spoken about. So my very next question to the person who is an esteemed lawyer. Well, what did I say?
The person had no idea what I said or what was said, but said to me that he here Aybar talking the leader and that he was going to call to deal with me. I said, well, feel free to call. I have no, up till now, I don't know what he talking about. But this is how things are twisted. And I'm not even in the party, any politics. I really couldn't care. I'm not here to do anybody's political bidding or PR, that's for sure. To the point where people call me PNM, UNC, coP, ILP, and there's call me all kind of thing and I really do business. But you have committed what is considered to be by some persons in the UNC a cardinal sin.
You bad talk the leader. And if some people had it their way that are stringing up in Independence Square already because you are Persona non grata in their eyes, you're a traitor. And you start to hear all the things that they've come, they've, they've accused, rushed and parry and all the others off is a PNM operative, is our spy, is a traitor. You Makaram, you this, your dot, your next, the other all kind of thing. Now, as somebody who has filed nominations, I asked this question to everybody else. I gotta ask you again.
You really think that this screening committee, which has led by the person that you have openly criticized publicly, you think they're gonna treat you fairly when you go out for screening and appear before them?
[00:27:19] Speaker A: Static. Given the present track record, given my own personal experiences, I am not confident that they will treat with me fairly. But I remember I cannot just adopt a personal position, given my position. I have to do what I have to do in the public. In this sense. I am talking about now the constituents of Chaguanas west. So Chaguana's west constituents have been calling. They have showed up outside my office. Various groups, religious and cultural and otherwise, have come to see me over the last three. When I say last week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evening, came to see me.
All of the documents that I submitted were prepared and luckily submitted on time on Thursday. Right, last Thursday. And I felt, look, given the investment of persons indicating that they would like to see me submit a nomination, I felt that, listen, I owed the constituents and dividers, membership of the party and the country an explanation how things are looking as far as I'm concerned, because the media is very well aware of this, everyone is aware of this. I really have been quiet because sometime I have been looking at these same issues that I raised last week, Friday, and I thought to myself, maybe, you know, it will be resolved over a period of time.
I may just adopt a different approach or role. And so there were different considerations. But, Satish, you can't be an advocate against oppression. You cannot be speaking out on behalf of persons out in the public domain. But when you see oppression and wrongdoing internally, you remain quiet. And that is why I came out last week, Friday in the manner in which I did, when I saw what was taking place with my colleagues, who I have to say I intend to have serious discussions with over the next few days. I will reach out to them. I want to talk to them because I didn't do so before. I will just want to them that, you know, as far as I'm concerned, they spoke out of principle. They stand on principle. And I want to let them know that I am joining that stance. You said something satish, which, if you allow me, I know we go into news time just now. You said, somebody brace you by the door and tell you bad talking leader. Well, I want to tell you, from the very first meeting that I had in this party following the general elections 2020, from the very first meeting when I entered the caucus room, that is what I was met with.
That same statement you used in that the leader going to deal with me. And I hear you talking leader and something's coming. I was like, what?
I couldn't imagine what was going on. This is my first meeting going to our caucus. I put quote on quote right in inverted Commerce caucus. And this is what I was faced with. And I want to tell you what it turned out to be satish. Anyway. I probably would have to leave that. If it is, we actually do have internal elections, I will voice it there.
[00:30:29] Speaker B: Some things are better left unsaid at the point in time. Really and truly, to me, it meant that I was doing something right for that kind of response, but that's a different topic. But if not Kamala Pasadena, who? Because we continue to hear that all the time that Kamala Besabi says, a weak leader, she can't lead the party into a victory. And the party has not won anything since 2012 or something like that, or whatever it was.
But if not Kamala Pasade be Sesa, who? And the reason why I'm asking that is because we have this discussion all the time about the leadership and everything else. If you hold executive elections tomorrow for leadership, Kamala Prasadi says, I go win again because the people who vote believe that they want her, at least enough of them that they want her to lead their party. And they disagree with all the other sentiments that are being expressed, like yours and others that have been expressed over the time. We've seen that every single challenger that has come up against Kamala Pasabi Sasa has been beaten. And not just beaten, but beaten badly. Even though the number of persons participating in the UNC internals goes down and down and down from, I think she won with 20,000 plus votes in 2015. That is down to 12,000 now in the last election for leadership. But it's a question that needs to be answered. If not her, who?
[00:31:48] Speaker A: Well, satish my call and speaking out last week, Friday had nothing to do with, you know, saying, well, we need to drop another leader because it would betray the fact that the party has constitution.
That is a valid question. I'm not sidestepping your question. It is a really valid question. Just how you have explained and informed the question is the same thing that I meet and it passes through my mind. If not misses Prasad, he says, of whom? But you know what, sati? That is what the constitution provides for. If we hold allow persons like myself and anybody else, I'm not speaking for anybody else to face the membership. And when I face the membership, I'll be able to say, well, look, you know, you think I have committed the cardinal sin. Another person thinks I am Annie Makaram. Another person thinks I am. Whatever else they may be calling me, I don't know. But those few people, those few, and I think there are few people. It's just one cult or grouping of people, right, to be feared and one grouping of persons who do this over and over and they troll the social media and they put out releases. I think Guardian has one or two of them today. And they sing. I mean, it is really ridiculous how some people will sing for supper, but at the end of the day, let me be able to face these same people and give them something that I can assure them that, listen, Jerry's life beyond Kamala Posadi says, if the UNC is a true vehicle for change and it is a party of substance, it must be that it will have a life of the United National Congress after misses Pisati saysa, just as it had won before, misses Pesati says her how is it that there was life in the UNC after the great legendary Basil Pandey? And nobody in this country could say otherwise, that Pandey was a living legend when he was alive. And even after he died, it became more apparent that this man was really lion fighter. Right? But the silver whatever we like to call him. So how is it that the party was able to move beyond Basde Upande and even go to misses Kamla Posadbi says? Why can't that take place again? And I'm just saying we can all agree to disagree. We can disagree sometimes vehemently. This is the process. And if you allow the process to take place, I am saying that I think it will throw up some names and let them have a go at misses Posadvi says that she likes to boast she'll take on anybody. Manus. I Manus. Right. But hear what she has been doing that with Doctor Rawley in 2015, in 2020, and she will be doing it again in 2025 if they allow her to. And you know what is going to happen. Rowley is going to say, Manos, Manos, Kamla, take licks in your skin.
[00:34:40] Speaker B: Well, MB, would you be able to stay with us after eight until about 820? Because the callers would like to interact. The phones are ringing off the hook. Would you be able to do that?
[00:34:48] Speaker A: Of course.
[00:34:49] Speaker B: Okay, so I have a couple messages to take us up to the top. We continue. Ladies and gentlemen, our conversation with our guests this morning, Shakonas West MP Dinesh Rambali, after the 08:00 News until 820, because I know that the callers, they want to have their say and they want to get your responses as well. So allow you all to do that. The MP has graciously allowed us more time. Couple messages, news and then we get right back. Stay with us.
[00:35:13] Speaker A: This is the morning rumble with Sam heavier.
[00:35:31] Speaker B: Three and a half minutes after eight with us probably until just before 820 because we do have another interview scheduled to begin at that time. We have our guests this morning, Shogonas west. Ambiguous. Rambali, let's take a couple of your calls now. I urge you all to keep the calls brief so that we can probably get as many and responses in as possible. Hello, good morning Satish.
[00:35:54] Speaker C: Good morning to you and morning to your guests.
[00:35:57] Speaker A: Satish.
[00:35:59] Speaker C: I want to ask Mister Rambali this morning, he said that he never met with Mister Parry before. Satish, I have first hand information that he's one of the MP's that met with Mister Parry in the past already. Sataysian if he believes that consultation in Chaguanas west is the only constituency that the UNC has, there are 39. There are 39 constituencies in Trinidad. To take the consensus from Shagwana Sus to do what you do on Friday is not the right thing. And if he's saying this is not washing dirty linen in public, then what is washing dirty linen in public? Satish, I agree with one of the commentators who say we should get rid of those dissenting voices in the party. Satish, you recall before the 2020 general election, when Lahonta resigned from the PNM and he went to screen for Libre, what did the PNM do with him? And Prime Minister Rowley brought that gentleman from Ghana to be part of his government. Satish, this is what you call political indiscipline. And Mister Ramballi could say what he want. His behavior and the behavior of himself. Rodney Charles, Rushton, Parian, Anita, he's what will make the UNC go back into opposition. And if they are the reason for going back into opposition, then we have to find reasons to find ourselves in government. And if moving them is part of that we are, then we need to take that action. Thank you.
[00:37:33] Speaker B: Let's, let's take another call before we get your response. Hello, good morning.
[00:37:37] Speaker D: Morning. Saturdays morning.
[00:37:38] Speaker A: Shenandoah.
[00:37:40] Speaker D: Hi, morning to you. Mister Amberley Morales here, newground. You know Mister Amberly and I want to say this morning, Mister Mayweather, that's what I call that, partner. All I'm going to say, Mister Ramballi, you are not attacking the political leader. What you are saying is certain aspects of governance and certain aspects of operation will work against you going to the election. And if you can change that, you're good. Because take for instance, none of the two political parties, whether the UNCNM, have.
[00:38:11] Speaker A: A proper.
[00:38:15] Speaker D: Members list where they move people who die and so on.
[00:38:19] Speaker B: None of them.
[00:38:19] Speaker D: And they are governor of our country and we people in China and Tobago accepting that. I mean, let's be real.
[00:38:26] Speaker B: Doctor Ernest okay, thank you mp your responses to the calls.
[00:38:33] Speaker A: Thank you Satish. And so I didn't interrupt. I know how these streams go. So let me say good morning to both gentlemen called in to the first caller, Satish. I think he, he misunderstood what I said earlier about meeting. I never met, I didn't say I never met Rushton Harry in the past. I said on these issues that I took on on Friday, I intend to speak with these same people who have been calling for the internals about these issues. So it is a huge difference. I think that I was clear about that. I meet Rushton parry all the time in personal settings. He's a family man like myself, his daughters, I know them, they study. But when they come home, well, some of two are abroad and whatever, but when they are here and stuff, we get together as families and you will not believe we do some karaoke and things like that and we just take a little departure from the politics to enjoy some personal time. But on the issues that I raised last Friday, I intend to speak with them on that. So it's not a matter of meeting or not meeting. I never had any meeting of minds with them on the issues I decided that I had to speak out when I did last Friday. On the question of consultation and Chagon, I never said I only consulted with Chagones west. As member of parliament for Chagones West, I am within my right to consult my own constituents. So that was consultation. But I also said, caller, that what I did do was that I was in a position over the last two weeks, particularly in receipt of innumerable satish. I can't tell you the amount of calls and text messages, WhatsApp I've been bombarded with. And these are not my constituents. They come from other areas and they took a certain stand with me in terms of, you know, I have been quiet and I should say something and what is my position? And some of them said, don't ever, don't ever not submit a nomination. Make sure. So the dirty linen part, it could never be part of a modern organization, political or otherwise, that you will have leadership without accountability. And guess what? Accountability carries with it some of dissenting voices. In my case, you could label me what you want, but you could say we have been politically indisciplined. The biggest act, with the greatest of respect, the biggest act of political indiscipline would be not to start a proper process, engage in a proper process which will lead to having the culmination of the internal elections in a timely manner as provided for under the constitution. That would be political discipline which has already started because I haven't seen anything engaging in the process. And this, we are talking about June. So I don't know if misses Pasnabi saysa intends, and I say this respectfully, I don't know if she intends on the 30 May, 31 May, 1 June to say we have any elections in three weeks time. I don't know. But the point is that if you have to have that, a process should have already been taken place, as we know happens in other places.
[00:41:40] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:41:40] Speaker A: So yes, I take the points of the two calls. I think the second call, Morales, I didn't hear him properly satish. It sounded as though he was telling me to, well, he was somehow saying that, you know, agreeing or something. At least that's how I interpreted. Little that I heard. Yeah.
[00:41:56] Speaker B: I had interviewed Ramona Ramdial in her capacity as a former elections officer because I wasn't too clear on what the procedure was, what the timelines were and everything else. And she said exactly what you are saying, that if the national executive elections are to be held when they are due, then there are some things that should have happened already. Let's take another call. Hello, good morning.
[00:42:20] Speaker E: Hello and good morning, gentlemen. Calling from DB. So I know this whole process is basically for these guys want to move up with position. Nothing wrong with that election will give that. I think the leader will give it an opportunity. What I'm asking now, will you respect the result now? Because this is your view, then the party view and then the citizen have a view. Now when we get the result with the voting now, if you, if you disagree with the voting part and then you shouldn't contest, you shouldn't be in the party too. So what I'm saying now, when you get the result, will you respect it? I'll just know, sir. Thank you.
[00:42:59] Speaker B: Maybe a call, a relevant question. If there are internals and the results don't go the way people are expecting. I'm assuming he's talking about leadership, which is not due yet, but the response to that, because as I said, the history suggests if there is a leadership election, Kamala Pasay be Saysa is going to win as she has done in the past, unless there's something that dramatically happens.
How would you respond to that moving forward?
[00:43:28] Speaker A: No, if it is satish, remember, at this point in time we could only operate with what structure is in place in the party. The constitution is the governing document, right is the supreme authority of the party. So I can't do anything outside of that. What is available to be done is just that if it returns the same results, which it is. Now, what I'm saying is that you don't know. I am not ruling out misses Posad's position in that case, as to her being open minded as to how she's going to lead moving forward. And if it is somebody new, even then, again, I don't know what that person's position will be, but at least I can speak of my own position, which is the party as it stands now has a structure and I could only go by the structure and that is what I'm doing. And if by speaking out within the current structure, you know, it causes people to think that I'm doing something wrong. Sorry satish. I have a personal conviction and it is that I will say the truth and I will speak out in a proportionate manner. Because what none of the callers or anyone has been able, social media otherwise, to suggest, well, the party is actually acting properly and in a professional manner. They can't show that right now because the party has not been doing so.
[00:44:46] Speaker B: In preparing some programs. A long time ago, on the same very discussion, I went back to look at some of the videos available on social media and everything else, YouTube, and I found a story that I had done on the 16 January 2010. Now clips from that have been used and widely shared. It was Kamala Persad Bisexa speaking at the podium for the internal elections and speaking of Basdeo Pandey's track record and the number of elections that he had lost. And she was on the poor. And probably if I find that playback again, but I had a search for that.
She was saying that if people kept Basd Pandey, they would have the same result. And she went on to list which one he lost. He lost. He lost. He lost. And she had asked the question, if you keep him as political leader, what do you think is going to happen in the next general election? And she ended by saying loss again.
There's something that I find real interesting and you could probably explain it to me, or probably you might not be able to. UNC people, UNC supporters, criticize the PNM administration and PNM supporters for keeping the PNM in power and supporting the PNM. Because there's the view from the opposing side that the PNM has not done a good job in running the country for the past, what will be going on ten years. And that if you keep the PNM there, things will continue to get worse. The cost of living go up, crime go up, the economy will be in shambles and everything else. And they say that PNM people will not change because they support their party and that is all that they see.
But we could impose that on the UNC and its political leader.
Kamala Pasaibi says that has lost every election that she has been the head of since 2012.
And yet still, if you have an election within the UNC, UNC people going to vote her back again.
But these very same people that are refusing to change their leader because they don't think they need to criticize the PNM for saying that, well, the PNM will be in office and if they're in office for 15 years, we go catch retail, but are holding on to defeat so many different times now as to whether or not Kamala Posad needs to be changed and that go better. The fortunes for the UNC, I can't tell you. I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. The people who should make that decision are the elected members, the people in the party who have the right to vote for a political leader. They are the voice of the party. They are the ones who decide what's going on. But it seems, it seems a bit hypocritical to me if from all intents and purposes, and this is where we're probably going to end our interview this morning, things do not change.
And Kamala Pasadebi Cesar remains as the political leader of the UNC.
The MP's who have raised their voices, Parry, Haynes, Ragbell, yourself. Well, Rodney, channels ain't going back up against. So here you are. Anything to lose? I am. And I say I'd be very surprised if any one of you are selected as a candidate for the coming general election. That aside, what do you see as the future for the UNC in this election? And probably moving on, if there is no change, as you and others are calling for?
[00:48:07] Speaker A: Well, satish the starting point to whether we can see change is the internal elections. So that is what is going to, to me to be the starting point as to whether we can extend change and whether we will in fact see change. If at the turn of the internal elections, what we have is the return of misses Posad be Sesa. I have certain views on that, but I don't want to prejudice or prejudge what can take place at that point in time in the politics. I am of the view and I will repeat it again. I, Deene Tramberley have serious concerns about the inability of misses Kamala Persad Bisexa to lead the UNC successfully in the next general election.
Sarish, was this the video? Was this the video you were talking about in 2001 lost. 2002 lost. 2003 local lost. 2007 lost.
And you want to talk about track record and trench.
Oh sorry Satish that I was looking for because that's the exact exact.
[00:49:21] Speaker B: It was a sound bite that I had done for the news in CNC. Three is the very same thing. It is. Yes.
[00:49:27] Speaker A: So. So I think that, you know, when we use what misses Posad be Sesa herself said about Mister Pandey back then 2009 or whenever it was by her own estimation, her own assessment of the politics. How is it different now than it was then that when she was saying but pandey you lost this one and you lost that one. She has lost more elections than what she claimed Pandey had lost at that point in time. And still she thinks people believe that she can win thoroughly. And I come back to this point there. I am no supporter of the PNM. I am definitely not a supporter of Doctor Keith Christopher Rowley. But at the end of the day we have to look at the logistics of our politics. How is it that everybody is very happy satish to throw up maps and they say oh go Trinidad gone yellow. And you know, yeah, you're like this is a big victory. We go on yellow and this and that and whatever. But you don't have the control of governance. You have not won the east west corridor or sufficiently along the east west corridor under misses Posad. We said. So we have only see a retreat to the. I don't. I use the word south loosely but we have seen a retreat of the party. And I think Mister Pandey said this as well. That under her leadership you can see the party retreating further and further. We have retreated from Tobago. So why is it that we don't have a presence in Tobago, right. It is easy to say that we respect Tobago Ns and we are always willing to be in partnership with them. But that doesn't mean that we can't have an active political entity in a dispensation of the UNC in Tobago. Why is that? Why are we retreating? And every time people want to hold up that yellow map and say well look, we win TNT Guan yellow. No, it doesn't work like that. That's just plain smart with foolishness. So I think at the end of the day, if the people, they have to ask themselves very carefully, satish and they need to do some introspection, are you really so hung up right on yourself and your own inclination to what you think is loyalty that you prefer to be in opposition with misses Kamala persadices or do you prefer to be in government with another leader? That is what they should asking themselves and analyzing why they are continuing the.
[00:51:53] Speaker B: Way they are and be that's we going to have to leave it this morning. We're out of time. We could have carried the show. And I'm sure that the responses are going to be very, very heated because people are passionate about this for many reasons. The obvious, of course, it's their party. The other is people are not satisfied with the way the country is going and they want better and all these kinds of things. I want to thank you for being with us here this morning for this extended time. I knew I took more time than we were supposed to have this morning. These discussions don't seem to be discussions that are going to end anytime soon. And I'm sure that we'll have other just after nominations and we figure out who get the seat and everything else. We'll have more discussions and I'm sure that we'll speak to you again. I want to thank you for being with us here this morning, Satish.
[00:52:35] Speaker A: I want to thank you and your team there for having me. I want to thank the listeners, the callers, particularly, even those who may not have agreed with me. I want to thank them as well for their point of view. I want to say, Satish, that at the end of the day, this is my closing comment. I thrive on criticism because it is the criticism that will make us review our own position, make stronger attempts to better ourselves and to see where we can correct what it is needs to be corrected moving forward. That is what we need to do with the UNC. We need to strengthen the UNC to win the next general election.
[00:53:12] Speaker B: Thank you. And as we drove the curtains on our interview here this morning with Shoguna Dinesh Ram Bali, the best insight, instant feedback, accountability.
[00:53:22] Speaker A: The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
