In the run up to the elections the state of the economy was on everyone’s mind. The long-time lover and long-time roommate of the ex-Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition who would win back the government in that election got him in bed, loved him up, made him feel good and as he relaxed said to him; ‘What are you going to do about the economy?’
“I am too old. We will have to go to the IMF.” He said.
Every week a man claiming to be the bagman of the international Saudi Arabian arms dealer and billionaire telephoned the Leader of the Opposition and together they worked out a plan to “buy up the place.” This next-to-be Prime Minister was impressed. “I saw a picture of them and his friends in the international papers,” he said “and they are better dressed than on Dynasty.”
“Exposure,” the elder columnist whose guidance was sought said; “most of the time mere exposure will make people like him back off.”
Partisan, one-sided view - Letter to the Editor Sunday Sun
“In reply to an article in last Sunday Sun, the view that confrontations were enjoyable up until the elections and now they are objectionable is partisan and one sided. This article is not serious thinking. The article was rude and did not deal with the points raised. Perhaps the lawyers advise that when you have no case you abuse your opponent has been taken seriously. The does not appear to understand even so simply a term as “sitting on the fence” or it could never have applied it to someone who is doing battle for a cause and taking dangerous chances. Since the article has attempted, in vain, to defend the Prime Minister, perhaps, it could answer the following questions.
Where is the Prime Minister taking this country? His words and deeds seem to be in contradiction. When in opposition did he meet with a few United States State Department officials and agree to “continued collaboration?” Later that year he went to Cuba compliments the Cuban government for talks on the debt crisis. This visit may have borne fruit.
Was the State Department playing up to him when he was shortly after selected by them to oversee the Philippines elections? There was much evidence of a United States coup against Marcos. During the election campaign did he woo the electorate with his socialist rhetoric, which envisages control of the “commanding heights of the economy,” and at the same time is he proposing to reverse the status quo by privatizing a number of publicly owned institutions?
This is not only confusing to the simple man but one must ask whether privatization is to be in native hands or is it to be as is rumoured, in the hands of rich Saudi Arabians? The Prime Minister might be wise to tread softly having been misled a decade ago by the Israeli government who turned out to be working for the apartheid government of South Africa. Guerrilla fighters of the African National Congress (ANC) reported that the guns he helped the Israelis obtained with their effective long rang firing capability had created a no man’s land, a buffer zone, around the borders of South Africa and Namibia preventing the ANC fighters from getting into those countries.
And last but certainly not least his Laminesque speech to the CARICOM heads of states. Is he now mouthing Soviet propaganda and disinformation? The Kremlin must be congratulating themselves for even if we could support ourselves without dirty money from outside, the zone of peace would still be apartheid in reverse where we would be holier-than-thou puritans, withdrawing our skirts from the dirty world, secure in ourr self righteousness and to the devil with the sinners out here.”
No further deals with the bagman for the arms dealer were made except the original one, the purchase of a toilet paper company.