BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE Prime Minister’s explanation of terms he recently used at a public political meeting referencing People’s Action Movement (PAM) candidate for Constituency Number Eight, Eugene Hamilton, has been dismissed as a “lunatic explanation” and has no merit.
These sentiments were expressed in exclusivity to SKNVibes by popular social commentator and activist Washington ‘Washie’ Archibald’.
During a public meeting in Conaree on Sunday, May 24, Prime Minister Dr. the Hon. Denzil L. Douglas, who is also leader of the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party, made reference to Hamilton’s position as Shadow Minister of Social Security and suggested that, “If you all don’t want a revolution in this country, you all better keep Hamilton hand and finger off Social Security money. There will be a revolution! There will be a revolution!”
In Archibald’s opinion, the overtone which arises from Douglas statement is that, should Hamilton become the Minister with responsibility for Social Security there would be some sort of “violence” and or “bloodshed”.
“It is a very ominous statement coming from the leader of the government, the Prime Minister who holds power right now. I consider it ominous because it sounds very much like a threat against the Conaree people that if they vote for Mr. Hamilton and PAM there is going to be bloodshed in the country. Revolution means bloodshed. I don’t think he meant an educational revolution. I don’t think he meant an economic revolution either. My reading is that he meant revolution in the violent sense of the term and he is sort of predicting that if there is a change of government, there is going to be violence in the country because people are going to react against Eugene Hamilton getting hands, as he calls it, on the Social Security money.
“I take issue with the Prime Minister giving us the implication that if he loses the elections he will fight to stay in power even if it means a revolution, which might mean bloodshed. I think that’s a horrible statement. That’s a horrible statement!”
Archibald explained that against the backdrop of comments made by the Prime Minister such as “I incite already, I could incite again”, “…the country is going to have to stand back and take note of this outrageous statement coming from the Prime Minister of this country, especially against the background of threats which he has made in the past…”
In further support of this point, Archibald said, “I consider this (the revolution statement) to be a threatening statement especially against the background of what happened in Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister, Mugabe, lost the election but he was determined to stay in power and he presided over a whole lot of bloodshed in the country before he was able to compromise. And he is still in power, which he should not be because he lost the elections. We are afraid. The Prime Minister has given us cause to be afraid.”
During his monthly press conference held on Wednesday (May 27), the Prime Minister explained to the media that by his use of the term “revolution”, he was merely referring to “something dramatic. Archibald, who obviously did not buy the PM’s explanation, rejected it as nothing but “an afterthought” and “a foolish explanation”.
“…You know that that is ‘stupidness’” Archibald challenged, and continued that, “You are not going to fall for that kind of lunatic explanation. You know the English language, you know what revolution means and you listen to the tone in which he said it. Anybody talking about revolution is talking about it in particular tones and they will be in a particular mood. No explanation could eradicate the fear that he intended to instill in the minds of the people. What he was staying is that if he loses the elections, he will fight back. This is what we have to understand by it.”
The popular social commentator opined that the innuendo in Douglas’ “revolution” statement “is that Hamilton is a thief”. It is on that basis that Archibald based his belief that Hamilton has a case for libel against the Prime Minister.
“…He aine want the Social Security money falls in the hands of Hamilton, but you know that can’t be a reason because if Hamilton goes to Social Security he can’t have more access to the money than Chiney, and nobody accusing Chiney of stealing Social Security money. You couldn’t dare to do that. Suppose somebody goes around saying, ‘Aye you got to watch Chiney…he fingers sticky?’ He could sue you for that because the implication is that he is a thief.”
A stern warning was issued by the seasoned educator to the electorate for it to “be very alert because we know that there are a lot of guns around the place and we don’t know who really holding the guns. We don’t know which party is behind the guns and when a Prime Minister is going to talk about revolution and you know that the country is full of guns, what are you to expect? That is all the public could do, be alert and take due vigilance.”
