Premier makes false allegation against CPR activist
Premier Alden McLaughlin made an entirely false allegation against one of the activists who has spearheaded the Cruise Port Referendum campaign, as he wound up the Legislative Assembly debate on the Referendum Bill. In a speech delivered today containing several factual inaccuracies, he accused Johann Moxam of being involved in a tender for a previous port project to try to discredit the campaigner. But Moxam has never been involved in any port bids.
The local business owner and long time political pundit was involved in bid in 2010 relating to the long awaited and ill-fated waste-management project - Moxam’s only foray into tendering on government capital projects.
The allegation by the premier, if it had been true, would have been extremely damaging for Moxam, who has been at the forefront of the campaign for a referendum on the cruise issue, as well as the opposition to the project. However, Moxam said that the allegation is false and the premier had deliberately mixed up his involvement in a dump tender with the port to mislead the public.
“I have never been involved or engaged in any project relating to the port or port operations,” he told CNS. “This is real ‘politricks’ and desperation on the part of the premier and his cohorts. I was part of a bid team which responded to the RFP to bid for the Comprehensive Waste Management Solution in 2010, which was subsequently awarded to Dart.”
But what the premier stated in the Legislative Assembly Wednesday morning was factually incorrect, he said, as he accused him of misrepresentation the facts to suit his political agenda.
“It was a deliberate act to mislead the public using parliamentary privilege as protection against potential law actions being brought against him for defamation,” he noted. He also emphasised, in the face of other untruths, that he has never been involved in anything relating to tender boat operations.
But these false statements were not the only inaccuracies the premier alleged as he made his closing bid on the Referendum Law. He misinterpreted, misrepresented and misled the public about several of the contributions in the debate about the port from opposition members and also accused CNS of reporting that China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) had been awarded the contract.
However, CNS has only ever reported on the fact that CHEC was a bidder, which was confirmed by the tourism minister, and that the controversial Beijing-based company remained in the bidding process until the end. Despite the concerns about the company, there remained the real possibility throughout that it could have been selected, as the bidder was only eliminated in the last few weeks of the process because it did not meet the full bid criteria.
Following the premier’s speech, in which he attacked his opponents but urged people to be civil during the campaign, the vote was taken on the second reading on the draft bill. All of the members present voted in favour of the bill.
No amendments have yet been tabled by the opposition to address the widespread concerns about the proposed legislation, but lawmakers were expected to deal with government’s own committee stage amendments Wednesday afternoon.
That presents an opportunity for amendments from the opposition to address some of the main concerns, such as the inclusion on the current electoral roll of the 220 new voters who would otherwise be disenfranchised on the date of the poll, and the introduction of some form of campaign finance rules.
The allegation by the premier, if it had been true, would have been extremely damaging for Moxam, who has been at the forefront of the campaign for a referendum on the cruise issue, as well as the opposition to the project. However, Moxam said that the allegation is false and the premier had deliberately mixed up his involvement in a dump tender with the port to mislead the public.
“I have never been involved or engaged in any project relating to the port or port operations,” he told CNS. “This is real ‘politricks’ and desperation on the part of the premier and his cohorts. I was part of a bid team which responded to the RFP to bid for the Comprehensive Waste Management Solution in 2010, which was subsequently awarded to Dart.”
But what the premier stated in the Legislative Assembly Wednesday morning was factually incorrect, he said, as he accused him of misrepresentation the facts to suit his political agenda.
“It was a deliberate act to mislead the public using parliamentary privilege as protection against potential law actions being brought against him for defamation,” he noted. He also emphasised, in the face of other untruths, that he has never been involved in anything relating to tender boat operations.
But these false statements were not the only inaccuracies the premier alleged as he made his closing bid on the Referendum Law. He misinterpreted, misrepresented and misled the public about several of the contributions in the debate about the port from opposition members and also accused CNS of reporting that China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) had been awarded the contract.
However, CNS has only ever reported on the fact that CHEC was a bidder, which was confirmed by the tourism minister, and that the controversial Beijing-based company remained in the bidding process until the end. Despite the concerns about the company, there remained the real possibility throughout that it could have been selected, as the bidder was only eliminated in the last few weeks of the process because it did not meet the full bid criteria.
Following the premier’s speech, in which he attacked his opponents but urged people to be civil during the campaign, the vote was taken on the second reading on the draft bill. All of the members present voted in favour of the bill.
No amendments have yet been tabled by the opposition to address the widespread concerns about the proposed legislation, but lawmakers were expected to deal with government’s own committee stage amendments Wednesday afternoon.
That presents an opportunity for amendments from the opposition to address some of the main concerns, such as the inclusion on the current electoral roll of the 220 new voters who would otherwise be disenfranchised on the date of the poll, and the introduction of some form of campaign finance rules.
