PNM knocks Kamla for gaslighting on Stink & Dutty traffic chaos

KAY-MARIE FLETCH­ER

Se­nior Re­porter

kay-marie.fletch­[email protected]

The Op­po­si­tion Mem­bers of Par­lia­ment (MPs) for Diego Mar­tin are fir­ing back at Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar, over her sug­ges­tion that cit­i­zens should talk to them about the traf­fic grid­lock in the af­ter­math of the Stink and Dut­ty fete in Ch­aguara­mas last Sat­ur­day.

All three MPs joined forces yes­ter­day to con­demn the PM’s re­cent com­ments which, in their view, was her at­tempt at gaslight­ing the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM).

On Tues­day, the Prime Min­is­ter ac­cused the Diego Mar­tin MPs of po­lit­i­cal hypocrisy, say­ing they were the same MPs who cried for fete pro­mot­ers when the Gov­ern­ment clamped down on noise pol­lu­tion. She al­so ad­vised Diego Mar­tin con­stituents to take their traf­fic com­plaints to their MPs, coun­cil­lors and fete pro­mot­ers rather than the Gov­ern­ment.

In re­sponse yes­ter­day, how­ev­er, Diego Mar­tin West MP Hans des Vi­gnes ac­cused the Prime Min­is­ter of at­tempt­ing to dodge re­spon­si­bil­i­ty by point­ing fin­gers at the PNM, even though she lim­it­ed pro­mot­ers by ban­ning fetes at sport­ing fa­cil­i­ties.

“We have to be very care­ful as a so­ci­ety to know when we are be­ing gaslit. Quite of­ten, the per­son mak­ing an ac­cu­sa­tion is guilty of that ac­cu­sa­tion. The Op­po­si­tion nev­er raised noise pol­lu­tion as this great is­sue. It was the Prime Min­is­ter that said the rea­son for the ban of these fete venues was be­cause of noise pol­lu­tion and traf­fic.

“Now she’s chang­ing the nar­ra­tive... We all know when this venue ban was in­sti­tut­ed, we as the Op­po­si­tion, sig­nalled it was a hor­ri­ble idea to move events to Ch­aguara­mas. Rea­son be­ing, sport­ing venues are made for mass amounts of peo­ple. It is not a se­cret. To move an event with 17,000 peo­ple to a lo­ca­tion where there’s one way in and one way out, it was al­ways go­ing to re­sult in dis­as­ter, re­gard­less of what­ev­er traf­fic plan may have been put in place by the pro­mot­ers and by the Gov­ern­ment. It was al­ways go­ing to end with in­con­ve­nience for res­i­dents.”

He al­so called out Gov­ern­ment for au­tho­ris­ing the use of the he­li­port for the fete.

“We know the he­li­port is a mil­i­tary de­ten­tion cen­tre. And while some peo­ple may go around say­ing that it’s a norm for there to be events, fetes and fes­ti­vals at mil­i­tary fa­cil­i­ties, not at a de­ten­tion cen­tre.”

Diego Mar­tin North/East MP Colm Im­bert al­so slammed Per­sad-Biss­esar’s com­ments as stu­pid and ob­jec­tion­able.

Im­bert said, “It’s stu­pid! How can you try to throw the blame on the MPs for Diego Mar­tin for a fete in Ch­aguara­mas. No MP in Diego Mar­tin said, “Block up the road in Diego Mar­tin for 16 hours’… Traf­fic was jammed up from Co­corite to Ch­aguara­mas from mid­night to 6 pm the fol­low­ing day. It is ob­jec­tion­able for the Prime Min­is­ter be­cause some­body in au­thor­i­ty ap­proved that fete in that lo­ca­tion.”

Im­bert al­so called on Gov­ern­ment stop au­tho­ris­ing mas­sive events in Ch­aguara­mas, propos­ing in­stead that Ch­aguara­mas be de­clared a na­ture re­serve.

Diego Mar­tin Cen­tral MP Symon de No­bri­ga al­so ques­tioned if Gov­ern­ment was be­ing dis­mis­sive of the grid­lock be­cause it oc­curred in a PNM con­stituen­cy.

He said, “This was an is­sue of traf­fic man­age­ment, plain and sim­ple. This UNC-Gov­ern­ment took a fete from where it was and put it down in a cul-de-sac and did not de­ploy req­ui­site re­sources to man­age that. And the ques­tion has to be asked, is that be­cause it was PNM peo­ple who raised that is­sue?”

Des Vi­gnes al­so called on Cul­ture and Com­mu­ni­ty Min­is­ter Michelle Ben­jamin, Plan­ning, Eco­nom­ic Af­fairs and De­vel­op­ment Min­is­ter Kennedy Swarats­ingh and Sport and Youth Af­fairs Min­is­ter Phillip Watts to meet with fete pro­mot­ers to dis­cuss the venue cri­sis

He al­so ques­tioned what is be­ing done to make up for the rev­enue loss that would have been earned from Car­ni­val events if held at the sport­ing fa­cil­i­ties, and called for a full ac­count of the State’s $137 mil­lion 2026 Car­ni­val spend.