Dumas asks - "A galloping dictatorship?"

[Dispatcher]

In this article Reginald Dumas, a man with strong PNM roots, exposes the threat to our demoracy that will result should Manning implement his draft constitution. From the Express.


A galloping dictatorship?

Earlier this month Kenneth Valley, rejected as the PNM candidate for his constituency, let fly at Patrick Manning.

....As anyone who has read the PNM constitution knows, Valley was being polite. A PNM Political Leader has vast power (can you imagine Eric Williams wanting it any other way?), and it was Manning himself who recently said that the Leader's recommendations are hardly ever (in his case, I suspect he meant "never") turned down by the same Central Executive.

....However, I entirely agree with the contention that Manning, encouraged by Sir Ellis Clarke's unhappy draft constitution, is showing every sign of wanting to extend the authoritarianism of PNM leadership to the country as a whole. In my September 2006 articles I pointed to the range of fundamental public institutions which Sir Ellis's executive president would directly or indirectly control: the Judiciary, the Service Commissions, the Public Service Appeal Board, the Ombudsman, the DPP, the Salaries Review Commission, and so on. Let me now add the Elections and Boundaries Commission to the list.

....Last week I gave examples of differences between the two drafts which showed that the 2007 document proposed strengthening one-person control of certain institutional aspects of the country. But those changes were not the only ones to disturb me gravely.

.....One pertains to the Cabinet. In both drafts the Cabinet, contrary to what now exists at section 75(1) of our Constitution, is merely "to aid and advise the President in the general direction and control of the Government." In other words, it will really be one person, the President, running the show. But where the Clarke draft limits the number of Cabinet members, the June 2007 draft gives the President a free hand to appoint as many as he/she "may consider appropriate." Given Mr Manning's notorious obsession with size (quality doesn't appear to count for much), I fear the worst if he were to become the Executive President.

.....A more profound worry has to do with the DPP. In the Clarke draft he is to discharge his functions "under the general superintendence of the Attorney General." Especially seeing that the latter is to be appointed by the President, Sir Ellis' proposal is frightening enough. But the June draft aggravates the situation: it circumscribes the DPP's independence in criminal proceedings by specifically having him consult first with the AG. In several other matters, e.g., terrorism, it's even worse: he can act only "with the prior approval of the AG" (my emphasis). You see where this is taking us?

....I haven't said anything about the virtual absence of checks and balances on proposed presidential authority and action, or about the stretch of central government tentacles over local government, or about Tobago. But I shall.

Ken Valley may not ever have spoken out if his candidacy had been successful. He will have to live with that shortfall in timing and timeliness. But in my opinion the principle he raised is absolutely correct: there is a constitutional dictatorship in the making. If we allow it to take form, we will all, PNMites included, live to regret our inaction.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl ... =161224465 (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161224465)

[TheLight]

there is a constitutional dictatorship in the making. If we allow it to take form, we will all, PNMites included, live to regret our inaction.

Similar words to Valley….I hope all concern really take heed of all these warning

[Maccogirl]

Dispatch you post that you really feel anyone in here cares about that Reggie has nothing in there about Jack. Panday or Ramesh so that article is going to go over the head of most on here....but nice try :lol:

[JPersad]

Panday gave the government to Manning , so why alyuh crying crocodile tears now ?

[Maccogirl]

No we should of all followed Dookeran the savior and he would of helped us right, once anyone decides that they wont vote COP you have a problem, well as far as I know its anyone's right to support which party they want.

You are the first one to come on here a cuss and talk about everything wrong in T&T and about how nice your life is in N.j, but as soon as anyone makes a statement about what is going on in this country your only contribution to it is Panday this and Panday that, and you pass that off as intelligent discussion :roll:

[cm103]

MG who Panday say is the real enemy now? Is not the PNM I hear.

There is no savior for this country beyond ourselves. When people start realizing that then we could start going somewhere. Bas and Patos comfortable in just keeping the people where they are so they handouts could have their desired effect every 5 years.

Why would Bas go after Manning now? Two of them could share a cell in Golden Grove.

[serenity]

Oh geez. Why everything hadda to go back to panday and dooks?
This is a serious issue that transcends every party, including the PNM.
Wais Manning real story? His feeble response that its just a draft is utter nonsense.
Nobody drafts that crap unless that's the way they thinking in the first place.
If I want to put in something about a red bike in the constit, I ent going to start by drafting something on a yellow beach ball.
Rubbish!! And scary rubbish too... Ah wonder if is the seer woman that tell him to follow that path...

[TheLight]

there is a constitutional dictatorship in the making. If we allow it to take form, we will all, PNMites,Corpse included, live to regret our inaction :!:

[JPersad]

there is a constitutional dictatorship in the making. If we allow it to take form, we will all, PNMites,Corpse included, live to regret our inaction :!:
If that happens , Manning will not only thanks RLM again , but he will also include Panday !

[TheLight]

Well some people paying attention!



Yes, Mr PM plenty dictatorial tendencies
Friday, October 26th 2007
The Editor: An open letter to the Prime Minister. I saw where you asked what dictatorial tendencies have you shown in the last 36 years?

Well, since you asked - plenty! Maybe you don't see your own behaviour or don't understand the meaning of the word? For your information a dictator is a person who acts authoritatively, is an absolute ruler, an executive who imposes his will on others, a domineering dogmatic and overbearing individual. I read where you see yourself as cherubic, pretty and clean. But others see you wearing that as a mask, like the devil. Here are some undisputed actions of yours that may open your eyes to what your true tendencies are:

1) You placed the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Occah Seepaul, under house arrest.

2) You disenfranchised the electorate by blocking the holding of lawful elections for their representatives in Local Government. The elections are over due, but one year later, the elections have still not been held.

3) You are unlawfully using the Presidential license plate and National Coat of Arms on the Prime Minister's car. You are not authorised to do this, but you do it anyway because no one will stop you.

4) You usurp the function of the President of the Republic by welcoming Heads of State. You are not the person authorised to do this, this is a function of the President, not the Prime Minister. But the President himself seems unable to stop you.

5) You repeatedly refused to accept the persons selected by the area representatives as their electoral candidates - three undisputed cases Mr Hart, Mr Hinds and Mr Valley. You insisted that your personal view should override theirs.

6) You secretly held a poll and kept the results secret, even withholding the poll from view of your top party officials, making you the sole holder of that knowledge. You then used it in an arbitrary manner.

7) You have undermined the legal system, and brought it in to disrepute in several ways - you have twice caused the Chief Justice to be accused of unlawful behaviour, your actions have caused the Chief Magistrate to be on trial in the courts, and your actions have led to the Attorney General being viewed with suspicion. Which ever of them is eventually proved not guilty or guilty, the fact is that you brought the justice system into disrepute.

8) You plan to take the Red House Parliament building to be your personal office.

9) Based on the fact that the company a person keeps speaks volumes about them. You openly kept company with Abu Bakr in the period between the 1990 attempted coup and the holding of the subsequent General Elections. You were photographed together with Mr. Bakr and crowds of happy supporters and the photos were published in the daily newspapers at that time. Anyone can check, and perhaps we can get it re-printed for you to see.

10) You have consistently failed to attend memorial services for those who were killed in the 1990 terrorist attacks, and you have also failed to respond to calls for investigations into the 1990 acts of treachery. How can this be?

Dear sir, these are 10 excellent reasons why myself and other thinking citizens fear you, fear your steamroller drive to Executive President, and believe we know the reason why you built a palace for a Prime Minister (and never fixed the leaking roof at President's House in 6 years).

Your track record of responding to people who hold different views is well known, and we see no reason to believe now that you will listen to anyone who is against the Exec President system.

No soothing sounds you say now will change your track record. It is well established and in the mode of a dictator.

Finally, there are of course, many kinds of dictators. I personally see you as a Right Wing Dictator the Bible wielding kind who in this multi-religious society saw fit to build a Christian church inside the Palace, to introduce Christian prayers at the start of Cabinet meetings. Your hero George W Bush could not pull this off and Trinidad and Tobago is not redneck America. Expect repercussions. You asked for proof of your dictatorial tendencies - now do you believe us?


Citizen Kate

Scarborough



http://www.thetobagonews.com/index.pl/a ... d=14063387 (http://www.thetobagonews.com/index.pl/article?id=14063387)

[cm103]

Kate have the right idea.

Light, why you doh call Panday and inform him who the real 'enemy' is? While you at it, ask him why the UNC supported the idea of Executive Presidency in the first place leaving only the COP opposed to it.

[Double Trouble]

Oh geez. Why everything hadda to go back to panday and dooks?
This is a serious issue that transcends every party, including the PNM.
Wais Manning real story? His feeble response that its just a draft is utter nonsense.
Nobody drafts that crap unless that's the way they thinking in the first place.
If I want to put in something about a red bike in the constit, I ent going to start by drafting something on a yellow beach ball.
Rubbish!! And scary rubbish too... Ah wonder if is the seer woman that tell him to follow that path...

serenity,

Thank you for that!

All this infighting and people seem unconcerned about the real enemy of T&T. Manning didn't spend $148 million of T&T's money building that palace, to easily step down from running the show. Enough with Dookeran this, Panday that and Jack the other! The Opposition parties have to stop throwing barbs at each other and unite to get rid of this budding dictator.

[TheLight]

Kate have the right idea.

Light, why you doh call Panday and inform him who the real 'enemy' is? While you at it, ask him why the UNC supported the idea of Executive Presidency in the first place leaving only the COP opposed to it.

UNC idea of Executive Presidency base on one man one vote like the US sysytem
and In politics those who oppose you are your enenmy, not so?

[cm103]

In this election time it could be said that opposing political parties are enemies yes. Do you cuss your enemies and then beg them for unity as well?

[vaio]

In this election time it could be said that opposing political parties are enemies yes. Do you cuss your enemies and then beg them for unity as well?

CM, dais the UNC way... :D

[TheLight]

In this election time it could be said that opposing political parties are enemies yes. Do you cuss your enemies and then beg them for unity as well?

Yes, I’m asking you for peace but if you hitting me I will hit you back until we agree on peace

[skl]

Yes, I’m asking you for peace but if you hitting me I will hit you back until we agree on peace

:lol: :lol: :lol:

funny how UNCites have no problem allying with with people they accuse of being funded by drug lords, interfering with small boys and goats, being "dykes".

oh well.

[cm103]

Well the terms for peace are simple

Let those who masquerade behind the illusion of peace leave and those who really want it remain and broker it.

I think the COP called names of who should not be involved. The main name called is probably known mostly for his bitterness and venom.

[TheLight]

THIS IS HOW BURNHAM WAS ABLE TO BECOME A DICTATOR IN GUYANA

MANNING WANTS PRIVY COUNCIL GONE!

he said, he was hoping that after the next general election-which was not too far away-his new government would get the required numbers to pass legislation making the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) the final appellant court.

"It is high time we have our own appellant court," he told a receptive audience at the fourth Public Consultation on Crime at the Signal Hill Secondary Comprehensive School on Friday night.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl ... =161142182 (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161142182)

[cm103]

Well another twist here Light

What about Panday's crusade against the media in his first term? You know who doing something like that now? Patos boy Chavez.

[rivers]

supporters of BASDEO PANDAY talking about Galloping dicktators how sad the most dictatorial prime minister we ever had was BASDEO PANDAY. What we need are true patriots running our country and we have that in the PNM. As anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, there is only one party that's a national and patriotic party and that's the PNM. So allyuh could bump your gums all you want, the truth has to be said about the type of people who oppose the PNM. They are a bunch of Traitors who celebrate crime in our country.

[cm103]

Ummm, rivers...care to expand on how the PNM are patriots?

Crime has increased by at least 200% under them, on the brighter side we have some weather balloons to fight the criminals.

"Resign or be charged". Famous last words. Like Patos try the man already.

Let we build a smelter in a nature preserve. A production method that has been outlawed by every developed country. It doh matter what the people think.

Patos build he mansion for the 'people'. The only 'people' getting to go the will be the ones sweeping the floor and doing the dishes.

Cat-in-bag constitution. Why it so secret?

Plenty skyscraper going up but people starving and hospital have no beds. Best walk with yuh own if you going General.

Explain to me how the PNM is patriotic. You probably thinking independence era PNM under Williams.

[TheLight]

While you at it, ask him why the UNC supported the idea of Executive Presidency in the first place leaving only the COP opposed to it.

OK, THIS IS WHAT HE SAY


Ominous signs on the horizon

By Basdeo Panday

Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s revelations in his speech to the International Conference of the National Association for the Empowerment of African People on the March 31, must have come as a shock to some; to others it was but a confirmation of a tendency noticeable for some time now: a megalomaniacal delusion of his ambitions on power.

Mr Manning is reported to have said that under the present Constitution, the President has too much power and cites as an example the 1995 declaration of a partial state of emergency limited to the residence of the then Speaker, Ocah Seapaul, and her eventual house arrest. What seems to have galled him was the number and nature of the question the then Acting President, Emmanuel Carter, had the temerity to ask him before declaring the state of emergency he (Manning) was requesting. To quote Mr Manning’s own words:

“I began to realise that if he did not want to declare a state of emergency, he did not have to, and nobody could do anything about it. The President, as it stands, is subject to no law…The President is in a position to frustrate the will of the elected authorities if he so wishes. In Trinidad and Tobago, not only is such interference possible, it is very likely. On that ground, and that ground alone, the Constitution needs reviewing.”

What a curious reason for wanting constitutional reform! Even with the most favourable interpretation possible that statement is frightening. The Constitution of our country enshrines certain fundamental rights and freedoms to which every citizen/resident is entitled and provides that these fundamental rights and freedoms shall not be taken away (particularly by the Government) except in very exceptional circumstances of emergency, such as war, insurrections, natural disasters, danger to the population, etc.

Recognising that the political directorate (ie the Government in power for the time being) may be tempted to abuse this provision by using it to perpetuate itself in power, the framers of the Constitution decided to put a check on them by providing that only the President can declare a State of Emergency and before he can do that he must be satisfied that circumstances exist that warrant the need for a state of emergency.

It follows then that if the Prime Minister goes to the President and asks him to declare a State of Emergency the President is entitled to ask him: Why do you want to suspend the people’s fundamental rights and freedoms? What are the circumstances that require such a drastic move? Where is the danger to the people?

Absolute control

Manning objects to such questions by the President. As far as he is concerned the President should not have any right to ask him any questions but should automatically concede to his demand for a State of Emergency as and when he (Manning) decides that there should be one.

He regards the President’s questions as an “interference” on his use of absolute power in imposing a State of Emergency on the people at his whim and fancy. He is reckless enough to advocate that the Constitution should be reviewed to remove this interference, if for no other reason.

But Mr Manning does not stop there! He went on in the same speech to lament the fact that he does not have absolute control over the armed forces. He said that he was informed by a certain Chief of Defence Staff that the nation’s armed forces would obey the orders of the President, rather than the Prime Minister, if the two gave conflicting instructions. That is of grave concern to him. He thinks he should be in absolute control.

The Constitution provides that the President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Mr Manning does not like that provision. If he had his way he would change the Constitution to put the Armed Forces under his total and absolute control. Megalomania may not be the ailment here; it may be worse than that. In any case, we have been warned.

A political exercise

There can be no doubt that our present Constitution is substantially the same as it was when drafted in 1962, some 45 years ago. The 1976 Republican Constitution was merely a change of form, not of substance. The present Constitution is in dire need of reform. It was no doubt relevant to the times when it came into being, but since then much social and economic waters have flowed beneath the political bridge; the society today is quite different from what it was in 1962; it has new fears, higher hopes and greater aspirations, which the 1962 Constitution never anticipated. Simply put, a national Constitution is a set of rules by which a people agree that the society shall be run.

Its purpose and objective should be to promote the welfare and happiness of the citizens; to deal with and resolve their problems and to conduce to the growth and development of the society and the people. It is clear that the present constitution is not doing that and hence the need for constitutional reform is urgent.

To ensure the success of any exercise in constitutional reform it is extremely important how we proceed. Process is very important. The worst approach is to appoint one or more lawyers and simply ask him/her/them to produce a draft of a new constitution, which is then taken to the population for comment.

In the first place the audience would not have seen or read a copy of the draft document before the so called “consultation” and, even if they did the chances are they will not understand the legalese in which the document is written; even some lawyers do not.

Constitutional reform is not a legal exercise and cannot be done by lawyers; it is a political exercise and must be done politically by the final arbiters in all political matters…the people and their elected representatives. But to simply go to the people and ask them to produce a draft would be an exercise not only in futility but one in absurdity.

The farmer, the taxi driver, the construction worker cannot tell you what a new constitution should contain but they sure as hell know more than anyone else the problems they face from day to day; they know the obstacles that stand in their way to a happier life. The first step, therefore, in any exercise in constitutional reform is to go to the people and ask them what are the problems and frustrations that confront them in everyday living and what they perceive to be the solutions to those problems and frustrations.

Life blood of a constitution

For example, most people believe that the greatest problem facing the country today is escalating crime and the Government’s inability to accept responsibility or to deal with it. They are frustrated that no one seems to know who is responsible for dealing with the problem. The Constitution should clearly provide for responsibility and sanctions against those who fail in their duty.

If they tell you that management is lacking and recruitment is based on nepotism and cronyism then the answer has got to be a provision in the Constitution that ensures a meritocracy. The people may tell you that racism and other forms of discrimination, marginalisation and alienation divide the society and so debilitates our most valuable resource…our human resource and so prevent us from moving forward.

The Constitution will then have to deal with that problem by instituting rules and institutions to ensure that such heinous practices are discouraged and punished. They will ask why after an expenditure of over $100 billion in five years they are still without water, roads; why food prices are so high when we have so much agricultural lands going to waste? And they will give you the reasons why they think this is so. They will also give you answers as to what they think ought to be done. This will form the life blood of a new constitution.

The people are not stupid; you will be surprised to discover how much they know of their society and how much they know of how these problems can be resolved.

The Ellis Clarke Draft

This is the only meaningful kind of consultation there can be with the people, and refusal to recognise this simple fact explains the recent fiasco and failure of the consultation on the Ellis Clarke Draft.

Having got the views of the people the politicians must come together and, taking the views of the people with their own knowledge and experience, come up with suggestions of the measures that must be taken to solve the people’s problems and advance their welfare and the welfare of the society as a whole.

These suggestions will constitute the brief that shall then be handed to the lawyers with instructions to reduce such ideas to legal form and language. And that shall be the basis of a new Constitution for the country.

Next week, if I, and this column, are still alive, I shall tell you what my own thoughts are on what a reformed constitution should look like. That promise is, of course, based on the assumption that Mr Manning and/or the PNM/ and/or the Attorney General and/or the Chief Magistrate will not do something stupid during the week so forcing me to divert my attention to comment on their shenanigans instead of keeping to my original plan

http://www.guardian .co.tt/news20. html

[TheLight]

CM, HE CONTINUE

People final of arbiters reform

http://www.guardian .co.tt/news20. html
By Basdeo Panday

LAST WEEK, I promised readers that unless sidetracked by something inane the PNM was bound to do during the week (to which I may be tempted to respond), I would state some of my views on constitution reform in this column. I am sorely tempted to comment on the decision to spend $148 million on a new home for a prime minister (who may never occupy it), and the last-minute election dash of $800 million to fix the long-suffering roads.

But I must resist the temptation, keep to my word and stick to the Constitution. Simply put, a constitution is a system, often codified as a written document that establishes the rules and principles that govern an organisation or political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties of a government. Most national constitutions also guarantee certain

fundamental rights and freedoms to the people. Since I believe the purpose of human existence is human happiness, I am of the view that a constitution must go further: it must contain provisions and provide for institutions that conduce to the happiness, well-being and development of the people in every aspect of their lives. It is then the function of the government to so organise and use the resources of the State to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.

The constitution must be in the nature of living organism, changing to meet the changing demands, needs, hopes and aspirations of a developing people. Cosmetic changes For the sake of continuity, forgive me for repeating some of what I said last week. Our constitution is 45 years old, formulated in 1962 when things were different. The change to a republican constitution in1975 was merely cosmetic, dealing with form while leaving the substance unchanged.

The country and the
people have moved a long way since 1962, and the constitution is crying out for change to meet the changing needs, hopes and aspirations of the people and the nation. The big question is: how do we proceed to effect meaningful reform of the constitution under which we now live. Success or failure will depend on the process by which we move to reform the constitution. The worst method to adopt is the legal approach of taking the old constitution and handing it to lawyers, telling them to reform the constitution without giving them specific instructions as to what kind of constitution we are trying to achieve.

This is what Prime Minister Patrick Manning did to the hapless Sir Ellis. I am surprised he fell for it. Constitution reform is not a legal matter to be dealt with by lawyers; it is a political matter to be dealt with by the final arbiters in all political matters—the people—and their lawfully-elected political representatives. The big question is how do we
approach the people, especially the masses of the ordinary people, in this exercise? Certainly not by asking them to produce a draft and submit it to the government, or by asking them to tell you how to amend the Constitution.

Or, worse still, by calling a consultation to discuss a draft prepared by the lawyers. In nine out of ten times the ordinary people would not have read the draft, or, even if they did, they would hardly be in a position to understand the legalese in which such documents are written. What we do know, however, is that the people are familiar with, and know very well, the problems, frustrations and difficulties they face from day to day in their lives. Unlike the politicians, they are not consumed with politics, but with their lives and the problems of daily living. If you ask them what their problems are, they will tell you, and the answers to their problems will then form the basis of the reformed constitution. For example, suppose the people

tell you that one of their problems is that once the parliamentary representative is chosen and enters the Parliament or the regional corporations, he/she turns his/her back on his constituents, or even on the party that put him/her in office. If you persist, they may even give you the answer. The answer may well be to introduce in the Constitution the right of recall. Should the people indicate that they do not want to vote for any one of the existing political parties,

but would still like their voices to be heard in the political decision-making process, then this problem could be resolved by introducing in the Constitution a system of proportional representation that would allow smaller interest groups to be represented in the Parliament. If discrimination is a problem for the people, then the Constitution should include mechanisms to discourage such action. I can go on and on, but I am sure you have got the idea. Keep asking the people, and they will give you
a clue to their problems and the possible solutions, which must form the basis of any constitutional reform.

Executive president One of the complaints of the people has been that the executive or political directorate has too much uncontrolled power. What is the answer? I am in favour of an executive president, but s/he must be truly and democratically- elected by the people on the basis of one man/woman-one- vote. The president, having been thus democratically- elected, would be entitled to select his Cabinet from the best people in the country, not necessarily from Members of Parliament.

The president and his Cabinet would then prepare an annual budget containing proposals and expenditure for the ensuing year, which s/he must take to the Parliament for approval. It follows that the president will have no power to do anything unless he gets parliamentary approval and funding, the power for which will rest with the Parliament. If, for example, his proposals
discriminate against certain sections of the population, he will not get the support of their representatives in the Parliament unless he can pacify them by amending his budget proposals.

This would certainly curtail the power of the president and put real power in the hands of the people’s representative. In order to ensure that as many interest groups in the society have a say in this exercise, the Parliament will have to be differently- constituted. Parliament I do not believe there is need for a bicameral Parliament in so small a country as Trinidad and Tobago, with a population of a mere 1.3 million people. I believe we ended up with a Senate in the first place because we were copying as closely as possible the British model of Parliament, which included a House of Lords. I suspect that there are many in our country who believe they should be in Parliament, not because they represent anything or anybody, but because of their “lordliness.” I would advocate a

unicameral Parliament consisting of a larger House of Representatives of between 90 and 100 members, elected on the basis of proportional representation.

The present crop of independent senators would then have an opportunity to represent somebody, but not before they face the polls. The purpose of having a Parliament constituted in this way offers many benefits. In a highly plural and diverse society such as ours, the representatives of more and diverse interest groups will be represented in Parliament, and will have the opportunity of having their input in the political decision-making process.

What could be more democratic in a society such as ours? Mr Manning has argued that proportional representation will exacerbate the racial divisions in the political society. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the contrary is true. Under the present electoral system of first-past-the- post single member constituencies, the result can be quite undemocratic.

Because of our historical antecedents of political parties being generally supported by the two major racial groups in the society, the political spectrum in this country has demonstrated over and over that it can and will contain only two major political parties, with the smaller ones being unable to get any seats under the present electoral system.

One recalls the fate of the Organisation for National Reconstruction in the 1981 general election, when that party got 90,000 votes but did not win a single seat in the House of Representatives, while the United Labour Front, which got some 85,000 votes, got ten seats.

The system disenfranchised 90,000 of our citizens; what could be more undemocratic than that! Why should people who do not wish to vote for either of the two major political parties not have the right to be represented by another party of their choice? Proportional representation On the issue of proportional representation, former Prime Minister, the
late Dr Eric Williams, was more candid than his successor, when he said proportional representation was a dagger aimed at the heart of the PNM.

It is a pity that he chose to put the survival of the PNM before that of the nation and its people. With the timorous rejection of proportional representation by Mr Manning, PNM history is now repeating itself.

The truth is that proportional representation would break the racial stranglehold on the politics of T&T, and that is the one thing the PNM does not want to happen, because it knows that its survival depends on the politico-racial cleavages in the society. A second reason why a larger House of Representatives elected on the basis of proportional representation would be beneficial to the country would be the members’ greater ability to monitor the activities of the government in power.

At the present time, there are 36 members in the House, more than half of whom belong to the government. It is not possible for the
rest of the elected representatives, who are in opposition to the government, to monitor the activities of the government with an annual budget of more than $40 billion with the several sparsely-populated House Committees that now exist.

Such an expanded House would be able to establish new House Committees to monitor the activities of the president, particularly his power of appointment of persons to high office, such as the judiciary, the Commissioner of Police, the chairman and members of the Integrity Commission, the members of the Public Service and other commissions, other State enterprises, and so on.

There should be a House Investigating Committee to inquire into any allegations against the government, or any other member, for that matter. Such a system would go a long way to the establishment of a meritocracy in the Public Service generally. There are, of course, much more to a reformed constitution. These are just a few thoughts that should provoke some
discussion on so important a subject.

©2005-2006 Trinidad Publishing Company Limited

[TheLight]

Gladiator say pnm have a mongoose gang :shock:

[TheLight]

If you all had doubts what Manning intends to do, well this should remove it


Sunday 1st October, 2006

Prime Minister Patrick Manning hinted yesterday at the possibility of more than one general election being called within a short period.

That is, if Government succeeds in getting parliamentary approval for the new draft constitution which clears the way for an executive president.

Manning made the disclosure to reporters after delivering the feature address at his San Fernando East Constituency’s, 40th annual conference, at Oasis Garden Terrace in the city.

Although he did not reveal any date, and admitting that the new constitution may not be ready before the election, he said: “It is more than likely that whatever new constitution we put in place will have to have the approbation of the public.
“We will have to have a basis to go to election with. (The new constitution) is an election issue. What it could mean is more than one election in a short period of time.”
He refused to elaborate.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2006 ... news4.html (http://www.guardian.co.tt/archives/2006-10-01/news4.html)

[peanut]

T&T better brace for another election real soon as the PNM eh winning no special majority in this election :mrgreen: