Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com

SKNBuzz Radio - Strictly Local Music Toon Center
My Account | Contact Us  

Our Partner For Official online store of the Phoenix Suns Jerseys

 Home  >  Headlines  >  NEWS
Posted: Sunday 4 July, 2010 at 9:45 AM

PAM party rocked by the scandals of its leader

Lindsay Grant
Labour Secretariat

    BASSETERRE, St. Kitts, July 2nd, 2010 (Labour Secretariat Press Release) - After the re-election of Lindsay Grant as PAM’s (People’s Action Movement) leader at their caucus on June 13, Glenroy Blanchette, East Basseterre candidate in the January 2010 and 2004 General Elections, said his re-election can be viewed as an “endorsement of political corruption” and the US$1.7 million bribery scandal at the Marriott Hotel will not go away unless and until he gives up the leadership.

     

    The words of Blanchette, who considers himself a die-hard loyalist to the philosophy of the PAM, must be taken seriously.

     

    After all, as a university graduate, a teacher for many years, a candidate for the PAM in two General Elections and a husband and father, Blanchette must know what corruption is and must know what it is to smell a stinking rat.

     

    The words of Roy Angus Fleming, Central Basseterre candidate in the 2010 General Elections, must also be taken seriously.

     

    Fleming said that he is “safer with Douglas and Labour” than if Grant were to be the Prime Minister of St. Kitts and Nevis. Fleming went on to say that he believes that Grant is seeking power merely to victimize and discriminate.

     

    These men, who have walked the walk and talked the talk with Grant, must know what they are saying.

     

    They were Grant’s disciples for quite a while until the startling revelations about his involvement in the $US 1.7 million dollar “cash for land” bribery scandal at the St. Kitts Marriott; his lack of transparency and accountability with campaign finances; his disappearing act after the General Elections and his failure to provide leadership to the thousands of supporters who put their lives and jobs on the line for the party; his exclusion of candidates from the decision-making process with regard to party affairs and his overall poor leadership during the 2010 General Election campaign were washed in the public domain.

     

    As a shepherd, Grant has not provided the example for his sheep to follow but rather has led them astray.

     

    Blanchette was fired from the Democrat, where he worked for the past six years as Assistant Managing Director. Both he and Flemming have tendered their resignations at the constituency level in a show of disgust and defiance after Grant’s re-election as party leader.
     
    Grant’s re-election as party leader has not healed the wounds of division within his party but has rubbed salt into the wounds of so many who feel let down by his lack of sagacity, sound judgment, and incompetent leadership, including the “Gang of Five” who openly registered their displeasure with him at the wheel in a signed letter to party chairman, Sidney Osbourne.
     
    If candidates from the 2010 General Elections can claim that Grant victimizes and discriminates against his own colleagues, then this clearly indicates the kind of leader that should never have been re-elected.

     

    However, Grant’s re-election is telling on a party that values elitism and the philosophies of the plantocracy more than the values and philosophies of the poor, voiceless and underprivileged.

     

    Grant’s boast is his money and his confidence lies in his backing from the executive and rank and file of the party.

     

    Although there are those sympathetic to him and his cause, corruption and its tendencies must never be shown sympathy.

     

    Blanchette’s words that Grant’s re-election can be viewed as “an endorsement of political corruption” are fraught with truth.

     

    His re-election can be viewed as an endorsement to sell prime crown lands for way below the market value in exchange for cash to fund his party.

     

    His re-election can be viewed as a power hungry man more concerned with hanging on to power than healing the divisions within his party.

     

    His re-election can be viewed as a rejection of the credible voices calling for his resignation.

     

    His re-election can be viewed as an endorsement of his party’s loss at the polls for a fifth and sixth consecutive time.

     

    His re-election can be viewed as a man who has no shame and who’s pride (hubris) will continue to bedevil him.

     

    The PAM is a party rocked and divided to its core because of its leader, Lindsay Fiztgerald Grant.

     

Copyright © 2024 SKNVibes, Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy   Terms of Service