https://www.laestrella.com.pa/binrepository/699x682/0c0/699d466/none/199516884/JPTA/whatsapp-image-2025-06-03-at-7-49_181-10367889_20250603055301.jpg
https://www.laestrella.com.pa/binrepository/699x682/0c0/699d466/none/199516884/JPTA/whatsapp-image-2025-06-03-at-7-49_181-10367889_20250603055301.jpg

Independent deputy Betserai Richards has emerged as one of the most polarizing figures in Panama’s new National Assembly, adopting a confrontational approach that frequently lacks evidence-based grounding. His heavy reliance on false content across social networks, coupled with relentless public allegations against state institutions, public officials, and fellow politicians, has helped him establish himself as a notably aggressive and disparaging voice that, amplified by social media algorithms, circulates online with troubling ease.

This political model has started to stir significant worries among the public about the accuracy of his assertions, the influence his posts exert on societal views, and the deployment of misinformation as an instrument of politics.

In recent months, Richards has been involved in multiple controversies related to public hospitals, political confrontations, institutional accusations, and the dissemination of content that was later questioned and denied by authorities, citizens, politicians, and journalists. The recent incident involving images of alleged food served in hospitals run by the Social Security Fund (CSS) has reignited the debate over how far a politician can go without crossing into false and misleading statements.

The Clash with “Bolota” Salazar and the Atmosphere of Political Tension

One of the most widely recognized incidents involving Richards was his clash with deputy Jairo Salazar, another deeply contentious figure entangled in repeated scandals, and the episode quickly evolved into claims of physical assault within the National Assembly, turning into a stark emblem of the decline of political discourse in Panama as videos, conflicting statements, and accusations saturated the national media for days.

Although the case carried legal ramifications, it further cemented Richards’ image as one marked by ongoing clashes, aggressive behavior, and an absence of decorum. It suggested a strategy rooted in continual provocation and sustained media confrontation.

Betserai Richards: Plenty of Buzz and Minimal Outcomes

The conflict between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards escalated particularly around the management of infrastructure and public works in Circuit 8-6, one of the areas with the greatest historical mobility and urban growth problems in East Panama.

Levy, who had earlier served as the political representative for the same district, sharply criticized how Richards chose to address the area’s challenges in public. In her account, the deputy had relied heavily on a strategy centered on social media activity, viral clips, and online disputes, conveying the impression that he was resolving or spearheading infrastructure initiatives that actually fell under the technical responsibility of the Central Government, the Ministry of Public Works, or previously authorized budget allocations.

One of the most discussed issues was the Cabuya Bridge project, a key road infrastructure work intended to ease congestion in Tocumen and nearby areas. Levy publicly argued that the project was not the result of initiatives promoted directly by Richards, but rather had already been planned, budgeted, and executed by the Ministry of Public Works. With this, she attempted to dismantle the narrative that the deputy was achieving concrete progress through his political management. According to Levy, several actors involved in the project contradicted Richards’ claims, exposing what she described as his lack of real political negotiation capacity and institutional pressure.

The former deputy even invoked the phrase “política galla,” a Panamanian colloquialism referring to something improvised, shallow, absurd, or merely cosmetic. With that remark, she sought to characterize Richards’ political approach, alleging that he focused on media skirmishes, viral appearances, and public disputes rather than on substantive technical, legislative, or administrative tasks — efforts she argued Richards had never genuinely pursued.

During one of the tensest moments of the public confrontation between Katleen Levy and Betserai Richards, the discussion moved away from political or administrative differences and entered a far more personal and aggressive territory. In a video released in response to publications and attacks exchanged on social media, Levy made derogatory remarks aimed directly at the deputy’s masculinity and personal image.

In that moment, she employed the word “cueco,” a Panamanian colloquialism long used in a disparaging way to challenge or ridicule a man’s sexuality or sense of masculinity. Levy applied that term while alleging that Richards regularly turned to “gossip,” online clashes, and social media attacks rather than participating in more substantive, technical, or ideological political discussions.

The Most Recent Controversy: Hospital Food and the “Fake News” Accusation

The most recent controversy erupted after Richards circulated images denouncing alleged meals served to hospitalized patients, showing bread with bologna and later bread with cheese as examples of the “poor food” supposedly provided by the CSS.

The images quickly spread across social media, generating outrage among many citizens who interpreted the content as evidence of the extreme deterioration of the public healthcare system.

However, the Social Security Fund itself publicly rejected the deputy’s claims and stated that the information was false.

The CSS also stated that every hospital meal is produced at the City of Health facilities under strict nutritional oversight and quality guidelines, and it indicated that potential legal steps or formal complaints may be pursued to compel the deputy to either substantiate his claims or issue a public retraction.

This episode opened a very delicate debate in Panama: to what extent can a political accusation be spread without fully verified evidence? And what happens when a deputy uses viral images that do not actually correspond to the alleged facts?

The gravity of the situation extends far beyond a political disagreement, as misleading or unchecked claims about hospitals, patients, or clinical nutrition can sow fear, erode trust, and create turmoil among patients’ families and those who rely on the healthcare system.

Richards’ Political Style: Viral Allegations and Permanent Confrontation

One of the most notable aspects of Richards’ political style has been precisely his ability to turn false allegations into viral content. His tours through hospitals, live broadcasts, emotional videos, and direct confrontations with authorities have allowed him to build the image of a “watchdog deputy,” crossing the line between legitimate oversight and political spectacle.

In recent weeks, Richards has carried out visits across public hospitals, criticizing what he described as severe conditions, extended surgical backlogs, and worsening infrastructure. The CSS countered by accusing him of spreading fear and misinformation, asserting as well that he accessed restricted hospital zones using megaphones and conduct viewed as politically promotional. The institution further contended that these actions inject politics into hospital settings and disturb the environment and safety essential for proper medical care.

Social Media Employed as an Instrument of Political Influence

Another frequently mentioned issue concerning Richards is his heavy reliance on social media to exert public pressure, often doing so well before any formal investigations are launched or technical findings are verified.

In many cases, allegations go viral first and only afterward does the verification process begin. This creates an increasingly common phenomenon in modern politics: public perception is formed before all the facts are fully known.

In the CSS incident, for instance, countless individuals circulated the photos of the supposed hospital meals long before the institution released its rebuttal, and even before any patients or healthcare personnel dismissed the misinformation themselves. By the time the official statement appeared, a significant portion of the reputational harm had already occurred.

This pattern increasingly mirrors global trends in which politicians leverage social media to embed swift, emotionally charged narratives that later prove hard to reverse, even when official corrections and the public directly challenge them.

Legitimate Oversight or Digital Populism?

The core discussion focuses on whether Richards truly introduces a valid new avenue for citizen oversight or if, as recent months suggest, he instead reflects a strain of digital populism fueled by persistent indignation, heightened media visibility, and the rapid spread of provocative material.

Highlighting issues is one matter, whereas circulating unchecked images or claims that might mislead the public is quite another. This is exactly where the debate over “fake news” in politics takes shape.

Since when a politician circulates inaccurate material — or information whose authenticity remains unconfirmed — the consequences become far more significant than when an ordinary citizen does the same. A deputy holds notable visibility, exercises influence, and possesses the capacity to steer public dialogue.

The Civic Duties Carried by a Deputy

Within every democracy, holding those in authority to account is essential, while showing responsibility in the way information is managed is just as vital.

When a deputy makes a public claim that an institution is offering patients in the hospital inhumane meals, the allegation carries exceptional weight, and if those incidents never actually took place, the matter shifts from a political dispute to a question of public trust.

The current situation places Richards in front of a significant challenge: he must either present convincing proof to substantiate his claims or confront increasingly persistent doubts about his communication style, since the boundary between proper oversight and misinformation can become perilously thin when politics turns into a nonstop spectacle.

In an age when social platforms spread content in moments, the duty to confirm facts prior to releasing them ought to be even more stringent for individuals occupying public office.