Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flex on August 05, 2014, 07:02:40 AM
-
Kamla wants sweeping constitutional changes.
By Gail Alexander (Guardian).
No more minority MPs
Government next week will debate legislation in Parliament to provide for a runoff poll in elections so that MPs can only take their seats in the Lower House if they obtain more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in their constituency. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar announced this planned legislation, which only requires a simple majority vote for passage,during yesterday’s opening of the first and last session of the current tenth Parliament. The session is the final one leading up to a general election, nine months off.
On the proposal to ensure all MPs are elected on a majority, the PM said: “This measure reaffirms democracy and ensures the balance of power is always tipped in favour of the people, not the government. “Over the years, we have seen so many candidates get elected to this House on the basis of winning less than 50 per cent of the votes cast.
“It would be unfair to future candidates who will be elected and who will now come under the revised constitutional provisions for being recalled by their constituents, that they should start their term of office as MPs on the basis of being minority winners. “That will only serve to strengthen any persons who may wish to use the revised recall process for ulterior motives.” She added: “It is necessary to protect against this by having all MPs elected on a majority basis.”
Persad-Bissessar also said legislation for a two-term limit for the Prime Minister, a right of recall of non-performing MPs and fixed dates for elections were coming soon. She said the moves were to ensure the People’s Partnership administration kept more of its 2010 manifesto promises Citing background work on the issue by the Constitution Commission, she said the bill to be laid was based on the recommendations and amendments to the Constitution set forth in the commission’s report and post-script report.
She said: “A Constitution Amendment Bill 2014 is to be introduced today, which will propose a term limit for the office of the Prime Minister, a recall provision and a runoff poll in elections for the House of Representatives. These measures require only a simple majority. “Further, I will in the near future, lay a bill to fix the dates of Parliaments so the dates for general elections will be known. Such a bill will require a special majority.”
On the second ballot runoff proposal, she said while Parliament was vested with the authority to provide for the manner by which MPs were to be elected, “I wish to change the way we elect our members to strengthen our democracy in a way that makes the power of the people supreme.” Persad-Bissessar added: “This means that where, on a first poll at an election that is not achieved, a second poll will within 15 days be held between the top two candidates.
“This will place greater emphasis on the quality of the candidates selected, as the question in the runoff will be, ‘Which of these two candidates will better serve me and my constituency?’” “In such a system,” the PM argued, “the voices of the minority would be respected even as effect is given to the will of the majority and every single vote would matter and count, as the possibility of voting a second time will breathe new life and meaning into the democratic process.”
In recent elections some MPs have won by slim margins. Persad-Bissessar added that the runoff is often viewed as a corollary of the right of recall, as an MP who was elected with less than 50 per cent of the votes cast was obviously immediately vulnerable to a recall. Such polls, she said, were “widely used in countries with substantial democratic traditions, including France, Switzerland, Argentina, Venezuela, the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea.
Persad-Bissessar said Government was also seeking to expand the existing right of recall in the Constitution. She said it would create the ability to recall individual MPs after three years from the date of election. She added: “The right of recall is a term used to describe a process whereby the electorate can petition to trigger a vote between scheduled elections on the suitability of an existing elected representative to continue in office.
“This forms part of the systems of government at different levels in several countries, including Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Philippines and Venezuela. “Section 49 A, which is a right of recall, is only within the hands of the leader of a party. It was exercised in the case of St Joseph recently. “What we’re seeking to do is to expand that right of recall to place the power in the hands of the people and the people of the country will be the ones to trigger recall of an MP.
“The right of recall, Mr Speaker, doesn’t yet exist at Westminster and so this is a very bold step. “It may well be that T&T may lead the way for Westminster because we would be the first Westminster-style democracy that will be adopting the right of recall.
“In the Queen’s speech (on) June 4, 2014, she stated that her government will introduce legislation on the recall of MPs. So we shall be the first of the 52 Commonwealth countries.”
-
Constitutional reform a distraction, says Rowley
By Anna Ramdass
Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley has said Government is moving in violation of the new Standing Orders to debate reform to the Constitution in an attempt to distract from the scandals plaguing the country, including LifeSport.
The new Standing Orders of the House came into effect yesterday at the first opening of the fifth session of the Tenth Parliament.
Standing Order 14 provides for a fixed recess which states, “Notwithstanding Standing Order 11 (Meeting Days) and subject to Standing Order 13 (Extraordinary Sitting), unless there are urgent or extraordinary reasons for so doing, no sitting of the House of Representatives shall be held from the first week in the month of July to the first week in the month of September in any year.”
Following the adjournment of the House yesterday, Leader of Government Business Dr Roodal Moonilal moved that the House meet next Monday at 10.30 a.m. to debate the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill.
Rowley said this sitting was “illegal and improper” as it goes against the new Standing Orders.
However, when contacted, Moonilal said the House unanimously agreed to meet on Monday and neither Rowley nor any members of the Opposition raised any objection on the adjournment.
Speaking at a news conference yesterday, Rowley criticised the move to hold a sitting on Monday during a period usually carded for vacation for Parliamentarians.
He made it clear the Opposition has no objection with Parliament meeting to treat with the people’s business but was opposed to it being used by the Government for “political survival”.
Rowley said in his near three decades as a Parliamentarian, the House goes into recess in the month of August and politicians plan their vacation time with their families during this time.
A number of Opposition MPs were absent as House Speaker Wade Mark had granted leave of absence to Opposition MPs Colm Imbert, Donna Cox, Dr Amery Browne and Nileung Hypolite as well as Government MPs Jairam Seemungal and Lincoln Douglas.
Former prime minister and San Fernando West MP Patrick Manning was present and smiled and waved to his colleagues and Government members.
Rowley questioned why Government was rushing to bring reform of the Constitution when, “you on your way out through the door”.
He said the right of recall was a promise made since 2010 in the People’s Partnership manifesto.
“If we have the recall of Parliamentarians in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 how many of them would have been recalled so far? They didn’t want any recall during their term, they want to recall PNM (People’s National Movement) MPs because the PNM is going to win the next election and they want to create mayhem in this country pretending to recall MPs,” said Rowley.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Constitutional-reform-a-distraction-says-Rowley-269918201.html
-
I wonder how many people think along these lines after hearing about the PM proposal. This is how people should be thinking
James said the Prime Minister failed to outline the problems the changes would fix.
“It is up to the Prime Minister to say what problem there was that the people were clamouring about that led to the changes—she did not do so in her statement,” he said.
Speaking on the proposal to limit the term of a prime minister to ten years and six months (two terms), Dr James said this would in no way improve the country’s democracy.
He said while it would be a dignified way for a prime minister to leave office, the only purpose it would serve is to make way for new talent.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/James-Proposed-changes--to-Constitution-no-big-deal-269917211.html
-
Jack nah holding back :D
“The Prime Minister did (run-off vote) that which is totally not in her manifesto, she did that to save herself for another term, hoping to wipe out all THIRD PARTIES like the ILP,” said Warner.
“MORE than that, she has followed the wishes to the hilt, the cabal’s wish has always been to Indianise and Hindunise the country, and the feeling is that this decision will divide the country along tribal lines, African PNM, Indian UNC and COP sorry out of their soul,” said Warner. He said there will be no room for a third force.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Proposal-aimed-at-destroying-ILP-says-Warner-270087841.html
-
Jack nah holding back :D
“The Prime Minister did (run-off vote) that which is totally not in her manifesto, she did that to save herself for another term, hoping to wipe out all THIRD PARTIES like the ILP,” said Warner.
“MORE than that, she has followed the wishes to the hilt, the cabal’s wish has always been to Indianise and Hindunise the country, and the feeling is that this decision will divide the country along tribal lines, African PNM, Indian UNC and COP sorry out of their soul,” said Warner. He said there will be no room for a third force.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Proposal-aimed-at-destroying-ILP-says-Warner-270087841.html
Trinidad needs to invest in the world's smallest violin quick!
-
I would like to believe that change sometimes comes about in order to improve upon what is currently in existence . I am not oppose to challenging the status quo simply because that is the way it has been does not always make it the right way. If. Change could reduce flaws and foster efficiency then why not?
Now having said this, I put forth a challenge that structural changes is merely cosmetic and could be ineffective if the same human practice continues. Therefore I am proposing that there be some constitutional. Hangers implemented for which ever party that is victorious in an election .
Prior to appointing elected officials to ministries or individuals to a public office:
Said individuals must possess and have demonstrated expertise , competences in the area to which they will be appointed
Said individuals if they do possess degrees must substantiate that these are indeed legitimate
SId individuals must be without any matters pending in any court of law or free from any unethical practices that may contradict with public office
Said individuals must have a strategic plan and or shared vision to be shared with the public prior to being elected
Parties must ensure that nominations criteria in leu but not limited to people who has a desire to serve but to do so with the best of the public interest and not with a partisan political view
any said individual with a racial prejudicial and or discriminatory bias should be barred from public office
Yes changes to structure may have some impact but in mu opinion elected parties government ought to carefully examine the manner in which ministers are given appointments.
-
Why not have a referendum for the people of T&T to decide what is best for our country?
St Lucia PM says term limits for heads of govt should be decided by the people
“I believe that’s a matter for the people to decide, and I share the view that the people of the country will decide whether they are tired of you or not,” Anthony said.
Anthony, a former law lecturer at the University of the WEST INDIES (UWI), was speaking against the decision of the coalition People’s Partnership government in TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO to introduce legislation to amend the country’s constitution providing for two-term limit for prime ministers and the right to recall legislators.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/St-Lucia-PM-says-term-limits-for-heads-of-govt-should-be-decided-by-the-people
-
Why not have a referendum for the people of T&T to decide what is best for our country?
St Lucia PM says term limits for heads of govt should be decided by the people
“I believe that’s a matter for the people to decide, and I share the view that the people of the country will decide whether they are tired of you or not,” Anthony said.
Anthony, a former law lecturer at the University of the WEST INDIES (UWI), was speaking against the decision of the coalition People’s Partnership government in TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO to introduce legislation to amend the country’s constitution providing for two-term limit for prime ministers and the right to recall legislators.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/St-Lucia-PM-says-term-limits-for-heads-of-govt-should-be-decided-by-the-people
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Taking it back to the people makes more sense and has more merits- I eh know is like all of as sudden we leaders get real dunce but wait nah is like some blight hot the entire nation because when the people did chose lat election is like they chose with something other than ah brain
-
Citizens of Trinbago welcome to Guyana .
-
I want to sweep she out of office............
-
this is ridicules. has the present system cause any problems? how about de people right to recall a Prime Minister?
-
Think about it.
This government ever write one good law amendment?
Little of this was even discussed in the so called constitutional reform conversation.
How is the run-off going to help? This coming from a party that was pushing proportional representation. What happens to the government while they wait on this run off? Do they get sworn in and wait or would they be sworn in after all seats are confirmed? If the former...what about in instances where the result of this seat (or seats...considering the amount of marginals that exist) could change the total seats won by a party and thus change the winner? If the latter, how long could or would this process take? Is it 50% of the votes cast? Or 50% of the votes in a constituency? Would persons who didnt chose to vote the first time be allowed to vote this second time (because this would be related to the previous question of votes cast or votes available.) What happens in the case of a low voter turn out? What happens in instances of voter irregularities...where people's names suddenly appear on a list with no proof of their residency? How far in advance would or should the EBC allow for voter registration and confirmation before this is implemented?
Right to recall. In the previous instance where this was mentioned, a minority percentage of the voters on the list (something like 10-30%) would need to submit a petition to trigger this. What kind of brain would put a low percentage like that for something like this? There could be a troublesome group looking to trigger and undermine the MP and trigger this. If an MP is recalled under this...can he stand again for re-election given that a minority may be responsible for him being recalled? How often can this recall be applied? Wouldnt the potential frequency for this to happen add to the political instability? How will this petition be generated...and authenticated? What happens especially in the instance of marginal constituencies...where the margins of victory will be close....and soon after winning a seat (especially if you consider a run off) that could shift quickly in any short space of time?
Fixed date. I could work with this. Something like the first or second Monday in July. Gives a government enough time to formulate a budget in time for September I would suggest having both local government and parliamentary elections on the same ballot. In fact....maybe even voting for President, Prime Minister, Member of Parliament and Local Government representative. This however could be a bit draining on the resources for recounts and records, especially given how things can be with these changes.
Two term limit.....interesting. Far too often replacements are not groomed because they are deemed a threat. I could also work with this. I certainly hope this current PM doesnt get another term.
These changes are too drastic to be done in this manner. The parliament was due to be on recess around now...no time given to study the bills...people unavailable and many other technicalities that show that this isnt a move done for the sake of "We the People" but the "We" in the "We will Rise". This government's track record proves to me they cant be trusted..and their drafting of legislation is chronically (almost deliberately) poor (Anti-gang, Section 34 etc).
Just like section 34 was taken and proclaimed on its own..without the other aspects which would have kept things under control...this government has shown that they are willing to apply convenience to proclamation only when it suits them. What happened to the Tobago Self Governance bills? What about the Proportional Representation for Local Government? The Dangerous Dog Act proclaimed yet the Local Government bodies who have to implement the control measures dont have the equipment, systems or anything in place to enact these laws. The Anti Gang bill is another example. And now....in the face of a torrid election campaign...you coming with this?
I not accepting this. Certainly not from this government.
-
Nice post Bourbon ......
-
I would like to believe that change sometimes comes about in order to improve upon what is currently in existence . I am not oppose to challenging the status quo simply because that is the way it has been does not always make it the right way. If. Change could reduce flaws and foster efficiency then why not?
Now having said this, I put forth a challenge that structural changes is merely cosmetic and could be ineffective if the same human practice continues. Therefore I am proposing that there be some constitutional. Hangers implemented for which ever party that is victorious in an election .
Prior to appointing elected officials to ministries or individuals to a public office:
Said individuals must possess and have demonstrated expertise , competences in the area to which they will be appointed
Said individuals if they do possess degrees must substantiate that these are indeed legitimate
SId individuals must be without any matters pending in any court of law or free from any unethical practices that may contradict with public office
Said individuals must have a strategic plan and or shared vision to be shared with the public prior to being elected
Parties must ensure that nominations criteria in leu but not limited to people who has a desire to serve but to do so with the best of the public interest and not with a partisan political view
any said individual with a racial prejudicial and or discriminatory bias should be barred from public office
Yes changes to structure may have some impact but in mu opinion elected parties government ought to carefully examine the manner in which ministers are given appointments.
Leh we do a recall of right now to test this
-
Fixed date and 2 terms for PMs are cool with me. I think there should be a referendum on the PM term limits. And if they do set a referendum, add the privy council issue to that.
-
I want to sweep she out of office............
:beermug: CO-SIGNNNNNNN
-
Fixed date and 2 terms for PMs are cool with me. I think there should be a referendum on the PM term limits. And if they do set a referendum, add the privy council issue to that.
:beermug:
-
See?
Always something underhanded.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/AG-People-want-the-change-270418031.html
AG: People want the change
By \\\\\ Leah Sorias
Story Created: Aug 7, 2014 at 9:13 PM ECT
Story Updated: Aug 7, 2014 at 9:15 PM ECT
The Government’s proposals for constitutional reform are not a disguised assault on democracy, according to Attorney General Anand Ramlogan.
Speaking on yesterday’s Morning Edition on CCN TV6, Ramlogan said the proposed changes, particularly the second ballot run-off voting, were what the people wanted.
The Prime Minister has said the run-off poll is proposed so each MP will only be elected into office if he obtains more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in a constituency.
“The run-off is important as a matter of arithmetic that you do not have a minority member of Parliament because that would make the person vulnerable to a recall,” Ramlogan said.
He said a run-off poll is not new as it exists in many countries with stable democracies, adding that there were public consultations with the population on this specific proposal.
Senior Counsel Martin Daly on Wednesday questioned whether discussions were held with the public on the run-off proposal.
“The fact that Mr Daly may not have been consulted and the fact that he did not attend the public consultations is not my problem or the Government’s fault, because they were free consultations and anybody could have attended,” Ramlogan said.
Oh...so....it was there....just people didnt attend the session to know. So...a member of the commission should have been there and known about it right?
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/STOP--THE--DEBATE-270420141.html?m=y&smobile=y&clmob=y&c=n
A member of the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) yesterday called for a postponement of Monday’s debate on the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2014 and has taken issue with certain statements by Attorney General Anand Ramlogan.
In a strongly worded statement to the Express, author, activist and retired University of the West Indies (UWI) lecturer Dr Merle Hodge described Government’s proposal for the controversial run-off ballot as “anti-democratic” and a contradiction of “the principle of proportional representation”.
On a point of accuracy, Hodge said the right of recall “did not crop up belatedly in the follow-up consultations as claimed by the AG” on yesterday’s Morning Edition on TV6.
“Recall was there from the beginning. It featured in the PP’s [People’s Partnership] manifesto (Page 15), in the main consultations around the country, and in the CRC’s report (Page 23).”
The run-off proposal, however, the most controversial aspect of the
bill, did not feature in the People’s Partnership manifesto, in the main consultations around the country or in the CRC’s report, she said.
Hodge said the run-off ballot was a mechanism and not a principle, and the CRC agreed, in the first instance, to a set of principles.
“Not every detail regarding how to implement these principles would have been worked out by members of the CRC, nor would these details have come necessarily from members of the public who participated in the consultation process,” she said. “But the CRC signed off on the whole package—principles, as well as implementation methodology. Therefore, we have to take responsibility.
“That, for me, does not mean defending tooth and nail an idea that, on deeper thought, turns out to be anti-democratic and a source of worry to citizens. I can see now that the run-off mechanism directly contradicts the principle of proportional representation which is a central recommendation of the CRC (Chapter 5 of the CRC’s report).”
Hodge said ongoing public discussion on the bill proves time is needed for more and deeper scrutiny of Government’s proposals.
“As a member of the CRC, I bear no responsibility for the timetable that has been set for taking this bill
to Parliament,” she said. “As a citizen, I register here my dismay at what seems like an episode of legislative railroading set to happen next week. The country needs a decent period for discussion on the bill and for the return of parliamentarians who are predictably absent, this being a customary time of vacation.”
Hodge said the fact there were consultations could not be used to defend the specific provisions in the bill.
“The consultations were sessions of listening to the views of citizens. That was a forum for the gathering of ideas, for hearing as many voices as possible in the time available, not for the thrashing out of any specific idea. There was absolutely no focused public discussion, in that forum, on the items selected for inclusion in the Constitution Amendment Bill, 2014. This needs to happen. I add my voice, as a citizen, to the call for postponement of the parliamentary debate.”
She said while the CRC’s report contains proposals that were “constructive and far-reaching in their potential to improve governance”, these were all located at the upper regions of the governance structure such as Parliament, prime minister, president and judiciary.
“Once again, the ordinary citizen has not been properly served in the constitution reform process. I have already made known to my colleagues on the CRC my disappointment at our failure to propose anything that increases the direct input of ordinary citizens into decision-making. We have proposed no structures or
mechanisms to achieve this. The only permanent structure that people have for channelling their views upwards to the political leadership, in the hope of influencing their decisions and their behaviour, is the media.
“Popular participation in the democratic process has not been expanded one jot beyond periodically staining the tip of one of our fingers. ‘More power to the people’? I don’t think so,” she said.
She said as a member of the CRC, she took full responsibility for “the whole package (not just this selective bill) to which I gave my consent”, but added she has now benefited from the analyses presented by intelligent and aware citizens.
The simple fact remains that you cannot trust this Prime Minister or Attorney General to even bathe your goat..... ::)...far less of anything pertaining to matters of the constitution.
-
The fact is that they are always trying to sneak something in under cover of night, without proper time for notice and comment by the public, or proper parliamentary debate as necessary. Same thing happened with the Anti-Gang Law, with Section 34 and I'm sure a couple other pieces of legislation which now escapes me. Each time the proposed change to the law either directly benefited the PP or their supporters, or resulted in a greater harm to the public at-large.
-
I wont be surprised if one or two of the COP MP's do not support this bill because of the proposal of the recall vote. This bill will kill COP and ILP future progression. In my opinion the COP leader Prakesh Ramadar sold out his party by heading the creation of this bill. Expect one or maybe two of the PP members from the COP party to vote against this bill in the spirit of their party survival. A lot of bacchanal to happen in the near future
-
I wont be surprised if one or two of the COP MP's do not support this bill because of the proposal of the recall vote. This bill will kill COP and ILP future progression. In my opinion the COP leader Prakesh Ramadar sold out his party by heading the creation of this bill. Expect one or maybe two of the PP members from the COP party to vote against this bill in the spirit of their party survival. A lot of bacchanal to happen in the near future
Douglas and Seepersad-Bachan maybe. Prakash battling for survival here...his OWN survival.
-
I wont be surprised if one or two of the COP MP's do not support this bill because of the proposal of the recall vote. This bill will kill COP and ILP future progression. In my opinion the COP leader Prakesh Ramadar sold out his party by heading the creation of this bill. Expect one or maybe two of the PP members from the COP party to vote against this bill in the spirit of their party survival. A lot of bacchanal to happen in the near future
Them eat ah food COP peeps. They know they dead this will just organize d funeral.
-
‘We weren’t paid to be silent on dishonesty’, says Constitution Reform commissioner
By Sheila Rampersad (Express)
Hodge defends against AG’s attack
Dr Merle Hodge yesterday fired a fierce blow at Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, asking if Constitution Reform commissioners were “handsomely paid” to be silent on dishonesty, and describing his criticisms of her as “convoluted gossip”.
“Were we ‘handsomely paid’, Mr AG, for us to be silent on this kind of dishonesty?” Hodge questioned in a statement entitled Government Dishonesty About Run-Off Proposal. “Very unfortunate comment, Mr AG, for it suggests that your Government pays professionals not for their work, but to buy their acquiescence. You must know that you will never be able to buy everybody.”
Hodge was one of five commissioners on the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC), chaired by Legal Affairs Minister Prakash Ramadhar. In a statement on Thursday on Government’s Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014, she called for a postponement of tomorrow’s parliamentary debate and said the contentious run-off proposal was not in the People’s Partnership manifesto, the main consultations around the country or in the commission’s final report.
Ramlogan responded the next day. He said he found her position strange since the commissioners were “handsomely paid” and linked her position on the bill to the defeat of the Winston Dookeran faction by the Ramadhar faction in the Congress of the People’s (COP) internal election.
In her second statement in three days, Hodge reiterated the run-off provision did not arise during consultations.
“The run-off provision did not come from the people, and it was never revealed to the people before Monday, August 4, 2014, one week before it was to be debated in the Parliament,” she said. “It is therefore dishonest to claim that the people were consulted on this provision, especially as the Government is turning a deaf ear to what the people are saying about it during the week.”
Hodge clarified how and when the run-off proposal arose.
“Up until Friday, August 8, 2014, at 10.17 a.m., the purported ‘addendum’ which contains the run-off proposal was an internal document, tagged ‘Private and confidential. NOT FOR CIRCULATION’. That document did not then bear the title ‘Addendum to the Constitution Reform Report’.
“It had grown out of a meeting held on April 30, 2014, at which the CRC discussed and agreed to some proposals selected from the report to be taken to Parliament. The run-off proposal was not there because it was not in the report.
“Further discussions were held at a meeting on July 9, 2014. Myself and another commissioner were absent from that meeting. I had other longstanding commitments for the July-August period.
“Notes from that meeting were circulated on July 13 for review and comment. That was my first introduction to the run-off idea.
“I did not warm to the idea of thousands of votes being cancelled, and I pointed to this as part of my feedback. I did not see the red flags at the time for the idea was developed with cogent arguments supported by concrete evidence (Sections 46-57). I don’t know where the run-off idea came from, but I have never had any reason not to trust the expertise and the good intentions of the CRC member who was our resource person in constitutional matters (Dr Hamid Ghany). Again, I gave my consent to the document, and again, I take responsibility for all of its contents.
“This confidential document, addressed exclusively to the Prime Minister in mid-July 2014, is the one that became, on the morning of Friday, August 8, the ‘Addendum to the Constitution Reform Report’. It was never published and disseminated as the report was.”
Hodge said since the Government’s strategy includes “trying to make me a liar by putting out this ‘addendum’ story”, she has had to reluctantly forget honour and breach confidentiality in order to clear her name.
“My concern with the run-off proposal is not so much where it first appeared; at this point, I don’t care. My concern is how the population has reacted to it. Many people are offended and alarmed by this particular item, and a democratic Government would take heed, rather than respond with bad-john defiance to a week of widespread objection.”
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/zQJG21_coFU
-
How does establishing term limits to the office of the prime minister increase the resources of power available to the citizens via the Executive? It simply does not. The prime minister is an individual. The Executive is an institution. And it really does not matter how long the tenure of any individual in the executive role may be if the power of the Executive remains unchanged and unlimited. So when dealing with Constitution reform we must focus on what is important!
-
‘We weren’t paid to be silent on dishonesty’, says Constitution Reform commissioner
By Sheila Rampersad (Express)
Hodge defends against AG’s attack
Dr Merle Hodge yesterday fired a fierce blow at Attorney General Anand Ramlogan, asking if Constitution Reform commissioners were “handsomely paid” to be silent on dishonesty, and describing his criticisms of her as “convoluted gossip”.
“Were we ‘handsomely paid’, Mr AG, for us to be silent on this kind of dishonesty?” Hodge questioned in a statement entitled Government Dishonesty About Run-Off Proposal. “Very unfortunate comment, Mr AG, for it suggests that your Government pays professionals not for their work, but to buy their acquiescence. You must know that you will never be able to buy everybody.”
...
Talk done!
-
2 terms for PM and out. No run off!
-
Rally round ‘Soul of the Nation’ (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Rally-round-Soul-of-the-Nation-270840131.html)
By Joel Julien joel.julien@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Aug 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM ECT (T&T Express)
Gypsy - Soul Of The Nation (1999)
https://www.youtube.com/v/R_6M6INQGpg
“Somebody thiefing the soul of meh nation
Somebody gone with the love that we had
Somebody thiefing the soul of meh nation
Somebody driving this country mad
And we, yes, you and me
We have to stop this conspiracy
Ah telling you, we, yes you and me
We have to stop this conspiracy”.
So sang calypsonian Winston “Gypsy” Peters in his 1999 song “Soul of the Nation”.
Ironically, this song was yesterday used as a rallying cry by opponents to the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2014 brought by the People’s Partnership of which Peters is a member.
Debate on the controversial bill which proposes a term limit for the office of the Prime Minister, a recall provision and a run-off poll in elections for the House of Representatives began at Tower D of the Waterfront Complex in Port of Spain yesterday.
The Lower House sitting started around 10.30 a.m. Citizens were kept abreast of the Parliament’s proceedings via a large screen television located on the Waterfront near the Femmes du Chalet.
On this end of the Waterfront the majority of those opposed to the government’s constitutional amendments, in particular the run-off provision, gathered.
A microphone and speakers were also set up in that area. Music was supplied. When Peters’ song “Soul of the Nation” was played those nearby sang along, clapped and raised clenched fists.
“Ah telling you, we, yes you and me, we have to stop this conspiracy,” one dreadlocked man sang with his eyes closed.
National flags were waved. Those hoping to show their patriotism could have bought a flag from a nearby vendor. Several did. Reggae icon Bob Marley’s classic “Get up, Stand up” was also used as a rallying cry.
“Get up stand up, stand up for your rights!” a woman shouted.
One woman who claimed to be a worker with the Community-Based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme (CEPEP) said she was defying her boss’ orders by being present with those opposed to the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2014.
She claimed she got a call from her boss in the morning telling her as part of her job function she would have to be present outside the Parliament wearing a yellow jersey.
She would be paid $50 for it, the woman claimed.
“I couldn’t do that. I is a PNM (People’s National Movement). And I not supporting that bill,” she professed.
A white paper was passed along the crowd calling for those present to sign a petition calling for the debate on the bill to be halted until proper consultation was done. Somewhere along the lines the paper got lost.
Many of those present claimed they were outside the Parliament to lend support to Dr Merle Hodge, a member of the Constitution Review Commission.
In front the entrance to the Parliament was a sea of yellow.
Closer to that end of the Waterfront were those in support of the bill.
The mood there was more sombre.
“We are here to support the government. The constitution needs to be amended but people are just afraid of change,” a woman told the Express.
-
No
2 terms for PM and out. No run off!
Allyuh is joke we- feeding into one of the biggest political distractions to take away from the corrup ministers thT falling down one at ah time NEXT fire Finance Minister
NO TERM for mismanagement incompetence and for anyone voting like H chupidness and supporting blindly because ah race band them fromVOTING. Loo
I would like to believe that change sometimes comes about in order to improve upon what is currently in existence . I am not oppose to challenging the status quo simply because that is the way it has been does not always make it the right way. If. Change could reduce flaws and foster efficiency then why not?
Now having said this, I put forth a challenge that structural changes is merely cosmetic and could be ineffective if the same human practice continues. Therefore I am proposing that there be some constitutional. Hangers implemented for which ever party that is victorious in an election .
Prior to appointing elected officials to ministries or individuals to a public office:
Said individuals must possess and have demonstrated expertise , competences in the area to which they will be appointed
Said individuals if they do possess degrees must substantiate that these are indeed legitimate
SId individuals must be without any matters pending in any court of law or free from any unethical practices that may contradict with public office
Said individuals must have a strategic plan and or shared vision to be shared with the public prior to being elected
Parties must ensure that nominations criteria in leu but not limited to people who has a desire to serve but to do so with the best of the public interest and not with a partisan political view
any said individual with a racial prejudicial and or discriminatory bias should be barred from public office
Yes changes to structure may have some impact but in mu opinion elected parties government ought to carefully examine the manner in which ministers are given appointments.
-
"Errol Mc Leod holds the office of President General of OWTU for 21 years, and now advocates succession planning, term limits, and making way for younger people. Then he takes up residence in the safe seat of Pointe-a-Pierre blocking another "young" person, having had a stint before in the safe seat of Oropouche." - Clarence Rambharat
I have the same opinion as this man after listening to Mc Leod contribution in Parliament yesterday
-
I wont be surprised if one or two of the COP MP's do not support this bill because of the proposal of the recall vote. This bill will kill COP and ILP future progression. In my opinion the COP leader Prakesh Ramadar sold out his party by heading the creation of this bill. Expect one or maybe two of the PP members from the COP party to vote against this bill in the spirit of their party survival. A lot of bacchanal to happen in the near future
Douglas and Seepersad-Bachan maybe. Prakash battling for survival here...his OWN survival.
Wha? Douglas gave a nice humble little speech about why it is important to stop the debate and seek more consultation from the public and in the end he voted for the bill
-
I wont be surprised if one or two of the COP MP's do not support this bill because of the proposal of the recall vote. This bill will kill COP and ILP future progression. In my opinion the COP leader Prakesh Ramadar sold out his party by heading the creation of this bill. Expect one or maybe two of the PP members from the COP party to vote against this bill in the spirit of their party survival. A lot of bacchanal to happen in the near future
Douglas and Seepersad-Bachan maybe. Prakash battling for survival here...his OWN survival.
Wha? Douglas gave a nice humble little speech about why it is important to stop the debate and seek more consultation from the public and in the end he voted for the bill
I heard that he abstained. Did I hear wrong?
-
this constitutional ting has not strengthen democracy but has disenfranchise a people whose votes will not count. It is also a recipe for a coup d'état waiting to happen.
-
I wont be surprised if one or two of the COP MP's do not support this bill because of the proposal of the recall vote. This bill will kill COP and ILP future progression. In my opinion the COP leader Prakesh Ramadar sold out his party by heading the creation of this bill. Expect one or maybe two of the PP members from the COP party to vote against this bill in the spirit of their party survival. A lot of bacchanal to happen in the near future
Douglas and Seepersad-Bachan maybe. Prakash battling for survival here...his OWN survival.
Wha? Douglas gave a nice humble little speech about why it is important to stop the debate and seek more consultation from the public and in the end he voted for the bill
I heard that he abstained. Did I hear wrong?
Nah dat was Rodger Samuel. Ah man who don't have de balls to make his decision public at least for the sake of his constituents
-
I would like to believe that change sometimes comes about in order to improve upon what is currently in existence . I am not oppose to challenging the status quo simply because that is the way it has been does not always make it the right way. If. Change could reduce flaws and foster efficiency then why not?
Now having said this, I put forth a challenge that structural changes is merely cosmetic and could be ineffective if the same human practice continues. Therefore I am proposing that there be some constitutional. Hangers implemented for which ever party that is victorious in an election .
Prior to appointing elected officials to ministries or individuals to a public office:
Said individuals must possess and have demonstrated expertise , competences in the area to which they will be appointed
Said individuals if they do possess degrees must substantiate that these are indeed legitimate
SId individuals must be without any matters pending in any court of law or free from any unethical practices that may contradict with public office
Said individuals must have a strategic plan and or shared vision to be shared with the public prior to being elected
Parties must ensure that nominations criteria in leu but not limited to people who has a desire to serve but to do so with the best of the public interest and not with a partisan political view
any said individual with a racial prejudicial and or discriminatory bias should be barred from public office
Yes changes to structure may have some impact but in mu opinion elected parties government ought to carefully examine the manner in which ministers are given appointments.
you see that world you livin in padnah..it's a dangerous one
-
let me bring this up again... for those who say the man didn't have an agenda
Equitable Governance?
By anand - Posted on 22 November 2009
A sad consequence of the racial-based nature of our politics is the exclusion of the “other” major race from governance. “They” simply have no say in how the nation’s resources are distributed, and do not enjoy any of the influence that comes with high public office. They never seem to “fit the bill” for such appointments which are supposedly made on merit. This glaring absence at the top explains why people identified with political jargon such as “alienated,” “marginalised,” “ostracised” and “tolerated.” Political discrimination in our system carries a racial connotation and perception if the victim is of the “other” tribe.
Hard data to substantiate racial imbalances that can justify inferences of discrimination is very difficult to obtain, as racial statistics are not really kept. Richard Thomas has taken the trouble to compile some statistics about the ethnic composition of the upper echelons of state-owned companies, and it paints a frightening picture that shows that things have actually got worse when one compares the relevant data on this issue in the 1980 report prepared by the Centre for Ethnic Studies, UWI. I present this table as evidence of the political discrimination that is retarding the growth and development of our dear country.
Airports Authority: Out of 11, 2 (1 Ramesh Lutchmedial, director; and 2 Rosalind Chinnia-Ramadeen, deputy general manager, (Operations, Crown Point). Caribbean Airlines: Out of 8, 1 (1 Dr Shafeek Sultan-Khan, director). DFL Caribbean: Out of 13, 3 (1 Rodney Prasad, director; 2 Stephen Singh, director; and 3 Gilian Golah, senior manager (Corporate Executive Operations) and company secretary. E-TECK: Out of 12, 2 (1 Nesha Kochhar, vice-President (Property Management); and 2 Henry Kumar, general manager (ICT Project Implementation); maybe a 3rd (Eugene Tiah, director).
FCB: Out of 25, 6 (1 Govind Maharaj, director; 2 Inez B Sinanan, director; 3 Ramcharan Kalicharan, chief executive officer (CMMB); 4 Lionel Seunarine, asst GM (Commercial Banking); 5 Shiva Manraj, financial controller (Finance and Planning); and 6 Harjoon Heeralal, corporate manager (Group Corp Planning) Namdevco: Out of 6, 1 (1 Cintra Persad, director) National Flour Mills: Out of 7, 2 (1 Ganesh Sahadeo, chairman; and 2 Ross Alexander, director). National Gas Company: Out of 16, 4 (1 Lisle Ramyad, director; 2 Winston Lalla, director; 3 Rebecca Ramdhanie, vice-president (Finance and Information Management Group); and 4 Prakash Saith, president (National Energy Corporation)
These statistics provide irrefutable evidence about the exclusion of Indo-Trinis from state corporations. The figures are probably no different in the foreign service, security service and public service in general. The reverse is probably true when the UNC was in power. The pendulum swung from one corner to the next. Can we ever realise that elusive dream of equality and meritocracy? Something for the reformers of our constitution to think about.
By Anand Ramlogan
-
MEP me eh know what world yuh talking about. I simply am commenting on the state of affairs as reported in the Daily news of TNT . Have we reached the stage where public opinions are censored? Or do we have so called sympathizers who are in here to refute and support whatever is dictated to the masses?
-
Well I was expecting better from Douglas......thought he would have shown the spine he claimed to have during the COP elections. Shamefully he's my MP.
It could be worse. My MP could have been Rodger Samuel. Disgraceful especially for a man of his stature.
So now it goes to the senate and all that is needed is for one senator on the Independent bench to vote with the government and it passes. It have a few Independent government senators so this still has a good chance of being a reality. Although I heard that in the event of a 15-15 tie...the Senate President would then have to cast a deciding vote and that vote must be to maintain the status quo..or no. Not sure how true...my research continuing.
Then it left up to the President to proclaim (I think?). Given that this is an amendment to an existing law....is full proclamation needed?
In any case....now is a good time to see what powers we think he has. No word on him yet for his perspective as a former legal practitioner on this amendment...or the manner which it was done.
In the event that this does become law...the very least I hope would happen is that those COP MP's that voted for it get spit out like the loathsome self seekers they are.
-
These statistics provide irrefutable evidence about the exclusion of Indo-Trinis from state corporations. The figures are probably no different in the foreign service, security service and public service in general. The reverse is probably true when the UNC was in power. The pendulum swung from one corner to the next. Can we ever realise that elusive dream of equality and meritocracy? Something for the reformers of our constitution to think about.
By Anand Ramlogan
Oh ok. Once he knows.
-
Former PM Basdeo Panday posted this on his FB wall on August 9th. Leh we see if it will become reality eh
Kamla/s crap
Kamla and the PP are going to pull some of the thickest wool over the eyes of the people, and before they know it they will find themselves like naked sheep in the constitutional bamboo. Have you seen through her guise?
Is it possible that the Prime Minister has introduced this nonsensical proposal of “a run-off” as a red herring? I think so. She is getting the nation to concentrate so completely on this inane proposal to such an extent that they have forgotten the real issues of meaningful constitutional reform. After the population has bawled and screamed in protest she will then pull off one of her usual condescending tricks by announcing that in response to the people’s request she is withdrawing this proposal and passing the rest of the other meaningless proposals. And you will be silent and satisfied that this was constitutional reform.
Not bad, eh!
Oh, by the way! Have you thought of this scenario? Three parties are contesting in a particular constituency; PNM, UNC and ILP. The PNM and UNC get 40% each of the votes cast, and the ILP gets the other 20%. Since no Party has got 50% there is a run-off. In the run-off the PNM and the UNC get 50% each. What happens? Just a thought!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKZAMxRaOL4
"How fortunate it is for leaders that men do not think. "
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/lKZAMxRaOL4
"How fortunate it is for leaders that men do not think. "
Most of those idiots don't understand what the bill does and that the bill was presented now as a successful distraction from the Life Sports Programme issue that has been exposing how much corruption government ministers have been involved in.
The 3 main things that the Constitutional Amendment Bill is meant to do:-
1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This deprives the T&T public and Ruling Party electorate of the widest choice of leaders if they think a particular PM has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is a better choice as leader than any of their colleagues. Why deprive the electorate of the choice if they are pleased with a PM's performance and want them in power for more than two terms?
2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is flawed as it needs more votes than is used to elect an MP plus it is only effective after the MP has served 3 years. What use is that if an MP is performing ineffectively and the constituents want to remove them after 6 months to a year of non-performance?
3. The 2nd Elections Run-off.
Apart from being extra costly and time consuming to the economy of the country is just a way of allowing one of the bigger parties to steal and buy votes from one of the smaller parties when they could not get the required number of votes to win the election outright. This re-run as well as denying the choice of many of the voters for one of the smaller parties can lead to corruption by one of the bigger parties passing money and trying to buy votes from the smaller parties. It will also mean that smaller parties will never be able to grow and become a large major party leading to a dictatorship led by the party with the most bribery money.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A referendum should be given to the T&T public on all the items on the bill before the bill was even considered in the lower house. Items 1. & 2. of the bill are clearly red-herrings and item 3. is really the item that the government is most interested in bringing into effect to accommodate their intentions of buying the elections as they now realize that they are not going to win the elections outright based on their current track record.
With this in mind the Bill should be stopped by members of the upper house or the T&T President should refuse to sign the bill into law because it has clearly been rushed thru the lower and upper houses in an unconstitutional manner without proper public consultation on the items being tampered with.
-
Lawd it just shows how ignorant some of the masses are- blind support - people are ill informed and the sweaty mod hooted and howled and bowed down to caesar,
Ah wonder how many are implants from Guyana?
-
Lawd it just shows how ignorant some of the masses are- blind support - people are ill informed and the sweaty mod hooted and howled and bowed down to caesar,
Ah wonder how many are implants from Guyana?
They are URP/CEPEP contractors they aaaemble at the constiuency office and bus to town. If they eh come they eh go get pay or worse loose they wuk. So do not expect them to understand the issues. Their only issue is that they need to get pay.
-
DR. ROWLEY ON GOVT PLANS TO STEAL THE ELECTIONS
https://www.youtube.com/v/54mTRu7z0RA
And who does Mr Rambachan think he is fooling with his statement that the UNC has always maintained respect for the law? These UNC ministers really do take the T&T public for fools!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKZAMxRaOL4
"How fortunate it is for leaders that men do not think. "
I dunno if to :rotfl: or :'(
-
PREACH bredda, preach! I take issue with the commission not holding consultations in some constituencies. This is why so much of the public was confused when the bill was introduced to Parliament two weeks ago. Also the run-off proposal part of the bill was never part of public consultations and was only inserted into the bill right before it was introduced to Parliament. So this bill has been passed in Parliament and has a good chance of passing in the Senate and we call this democracy. I echo the concerns of the writer of the article below. The real problem with this amendment is the parliamentary process that allowed its passage.
I was confirmed in this view when, after the vote, it occurred to me that I had just witnessed 23 persons take the first step in changing our Constitution on an absolutely fundamental electoral procedure—the way we elect our representatives—without first consulting us the electorate of over one million persons. (It is a matter of fact, not conjecture, that the proposal to have “run-off voting” was not discussed at any of the consultations held by Constitution Review Commission.)
How could 23 persons change how we elect our representatives, without consulting us? Well, the Attorney General has explained that he consulted international constitutional experts and they advised him that under our existing Constitution, a simple majority was all that is required for passage of the Bill. And this view has been expressed also by the head of the Elections and Boundaries Commission among other eminent persons in Trinidad.
What this means therefore is that so long as there is a quorum in the House, the Government can pass any piece of legislation to change how our electoral system works! What an alarming thought! And, if we don’t like it, too bad for us because under our “democracy” the Government has a majority and therefore has the authority! Indeed the political leader of the Congress of the People, a coalition partner, was very proud to proclaim that the passage of the Bill “improves” democracy in our country!
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/letters/Senate-to-the-rescue-again-271466471.html
-
I find allyuh lapsing. Anyhow..the stories in a nutshell:
There are calls for the senate president to recuse himself. Details here (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/TIMOTHY-IN-TIGHT-SPOT-271475421.html). This is due to an email he allegedly sent asking for it to go to the Joint Select Committee. Arguments to the issue are here (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Dumas-I-received-the-e-mailits-real-271474981.html), and here (from a body I really pleasantly suprised to hear from), the Law Association (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/BILL--BACKLASH-271546741.html) .
The EBC claims it was "not consulted" (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/EBC-claims-it-was-not-consulted-about-changes-271546471.html). Interesting.
And I dont know how many of you may recall I mentioned the "the Senate President would then have to cast a deciding vote and that vote must be to maintain the status quo..or no. Not sure how true...my research continuing."
According to the Parliament Glossary (http://www.ttparliament.org/about.php?mid=42#C)
casting vote. The deciding vote accorded to the Speaker/President of the Senate (or, in committee, to the chairman) in the event of a tie. The Speaker/President of the Senate or chairman may vote only in order to avoid a deadlock, and traditionally votes so as to maintain the status quo.
My concern is the "traditionally". It could be argued he not obligated to. In any case...if the imbroglio continues...would he preside? If he doesn't..who would? This is one long winded piece of comess.
-
I find allyuh lapsing. Anyhow..the stories in a nutshell:
There are calls for the senate president to recuse himself. Details here (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/TIMOTHY-IN-TIGHT-SPOT-271475421.html). This is due to an email he allegedly sent asking for it to go to the Joint Select Committee. Arguments to the issue are here (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Dumas-I-received-the-e-mailits-real-271474981.html), and here (from a body I really pleasantly suprised to hear from), the Law Association (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/BILL--BACKLASH-271546741.html) .
The EBC claims it was "not consulted" (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/EBC-claims-it-was-not-consulted-about-changes-271546471.html). Interesting.
And I dont know how many of you may recall I mentioned the "the Senate President would then have to cast a deciding vote and that vote must be to maintain the status quo..or no. Not sure how true...my research continuing."
According to the Parliament Glossary (http://www.ttparliament.org/about.php?mid=42#C)
casting vote. The deciding vote accorded to the Speaker/President of the Senate (or, in committee, to the chairman) in the event of a tie. The Speaker/President of the Senate or chairman may vote only in order to avoid a deadlock, and traditionally votes so as to maintain the status quo.
My concern is the "traditionally". It could be argued he not obligated to. In any case...if the imbroglio continues...would he preside? If he doesn't..who would? This is one long winded piece of comess.
No lapsing over here boss. ah following all the bacchanal that could have been avoided if the commission cared to give us widespread public consultation on the final draft of the bill
https://www.youtube.com/v/AQoYkIiekQg&index=51&list=UUUsrWNkuJquTnUtgJJlP8bw
-
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/WE--WONT-STOP--BILL-271621561.html
WE WON’T STOP BILL
Govt says Law Association is entitled to give its view, but it is going ahead with Senate debate
By Anna Ramdass anna.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Aug 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM ECT
Story Updated: Aug 18, 2014 at 4:13 AM ECT
There will be no backing down on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014. In fact, the People’s Partnership Government led by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar herself will hit the ground from today in a bid to educate the people and clear the fears and doubts with respect to the run-off provision of the Bill.
The United National Congress (UNC) will be holding a public meeting tonight in Gasparillo and according to Acting Attorney General and Housing Minister Dr Roodal Moonilal, the Government will show the people how the Bill seeks to strengthen to the democracy and will listen to the feedback.
The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago, led by Seenath Jairam SC, on Saturday called for the debate in the Senate to be stopped and for the people to be consulted on its provisions. However, speaking to the Express by phone yesterday, Moonilal said that as of now, there is no debate in the Senate on the Bill thereby allowing further discussions on its provisions.
The Bill was laid in the Parliament on August 4 by the Prime minister.
It proposes fixed terms for a prime minister, the right of recall of an MP and the most controversial aspect—a run-off vote—where a second poll will be held in a constituency between the two top parties, in the event candidates do not obtain more than 50 per cent of the vote.
The Bill was passed on the House of Representatives on August 12 with Government’s simple majority.
COP Ministers Winston Dookeran and Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan voted against the Bill whilst Social Integration Minister Rodger Samuel, a COP member, abstained. The debate on the Bill in the Senate is carded to take place on August 26 where the vote of at least one independent senator is needed for its passage.
Questioned on whether Government will heed the Law Association’s call for the debate to be stopped, Moonilal said there was ample time for further discussion. “Members of the Law Association are free to engage in discussions themselves and to advance any other recommendation they have,” said Moonilal.
Moonilal said Government faces the challenge of treating with the misinformation being put into the public domain about the Bill but remains committed to its policy objectives. “I think the PNM has engendered a lot of hysteria and emotion on this matter,” said Moonilal “The run-off provision is extremely democratic, it gives people the right not to one but to two votes...taken from majority principle and not the principle of plurality, it is putting an end to electoral apartheid,” said Moonilal.
“I think there are elements in the society that are in mortal fear of majority rule,” he added. Moonilal said he attended a function in his own Oropouche East constituency on Saturday and people came up to him to confirm that he supports the Bill and that it will go forward.
Moonilal said the PNM was the main culprit fuelling controversy on the Bill.
“We intend to dispel the doubt and the myths associated with this matter beginning from tomorrow (today) in Gasparillo,” said Moonilal.
He said the People’s Partnership was very clear on its manifesto promise—fixed term limits and right of recall. He said the run-off provision was a corollary to the recall measure.
“We will stand to deliver our promises because if we don’t, the very people who are asking us to debate and postpone and so on they will come and say we haven’t implemented our promises,” he said.
Asked whether consideration will be given to withdrawing the Bill at this time, Moonilal responded, “That matter cannot arise.”
On another note, Moonilal said he and Leader of Government Business in the Senate Ganga Singh will today meet with Senate President Timothy Hamel-Smith to discuss concerns raised by former head of the public service Reginald Dumas. Dumas called for Hamel-Smith to recuse himself from presiding over the debate of the Bill in the Senate as he received an email purportedly sent by Hamel-Smith to some people advising them to endorse having the Bill sent to the Parliament’s Joint Select Committee (JSC).
Dumas said it would be improper for Hamel-Smith to preside having taken a position on the issue. With respect to the debate of the Bill in the Senate, Moonilal said he believes that the independent senators will properly analyse the Bill. “The independent senators are not politicians, they are not concerned with the political landscape and politics, they are concerned with the merit of the Bill and policy, so I’m sure they will exercise best judgement,” said Moonilal.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PNM-Ramesh-to-appeal-in-court-271621311.html
PNM, Ramesh to appeal in court
By Anna Ramdass
Story Created: Aug 17, 2014 at 11:32 PM ECT
Story Updated: Aug 17, 2014 at 11:32 PM ECT
The People’s National Movement (PNM) will mount a legal challenge against the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014, former Senator Fitzgerald Hinds said yesterday. He was speaking on behalf of the Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley at the Diego Martin Central 25th annual conference at the St Michael’s Parish Hall, Diego Martin, yesterday.
Hinds also expressed shock that the Law Association took a position on the Bill and called on the Government to halt the debate and return to consultations with the people. According to Hinds, the run-off provision of the Bill was a tactic of the Government to remain in power.
He said Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and the United National Congress (UNC) realised that they have to change the game after the PNM delivered “licks like rain” at the Tobago House of Assembly (THA) Election, the Local Government elections and the St Joseph by-election.
Hinds said the people of this country are fed up with this Government, “the people cannot wait to see the back of them so she knows what’s coming down the tube, so she has to change that,” said Hinds.
Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj had also indicated that he intends to go to court to have the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 declared unconstitutional.
And...didnt know about this....this is all the info I have. No idea as to where..who arranged it or whatever but oh boy....
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Constituents-burn-Lincoln-Douglas-bobolee-271621171.html
Constituents burn Lincoln Douglas ‘bobolee’
Story Created: Aug 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM ECT
Story Updated: Aug 17, 2014 at 11:30 PM ECT
“Burn Douglas Burn!” This was the chant of a large group of constituents from the Lopinot/Bon Air West community yesterday afternoon as they assaulted an effigy of their Member of Parliament (MP) Dr Lincoln Douglas who voted in support of the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill (2014).
Residents of the area called for Douglas to resign from his position as MP for the role he played in passing the controversial bill, saying he did not vote with the interest of his constituents in mind. Douglas is a member of the Congress of the People (COP) and he expressed concern about the Bill during his contribution to the debate.
The COP had met August 10 and voted for a delay on debate in the House of Representatives. Members had asked for it to be sent to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar said MPs could vote according to conscience.
When the vote was taken the following day at the end of the debate, Douglas voted in favour of the bill which was passed in the House of Representatives. To demonstrate their displeasure with this decision, yesterday constituents of Douglas—beat, kicked, punched, threw and even burnt an effigy of the MP.
“We came out here in defence of our nation. This Bill is going to take away our right to democracy, it is going to take away right for freedom and we need the Government and our MP to understand when we say no we mean no. We don’t mean you say no, then talk against the bill in Parliament, and then when the time comes you vote for it,” explained a female protestor.
The group promised that this protest was not a one-off action and that it would be repeated in the immediate future, saying that they will join other groups outside of Parliament and throughout the country as they protest the Bill.
-
Residents of the area called for Douglas to resign from his position as MP for the role he played in passing the controversial bill, saying he did not vote with the interest of his constituents in mind. Douglas is a member of the Congress of the People (COP) and he expressed concern about the Bill during his contribution to the debate.
;D Dey kill dis man in Lopinot http://www.tv6tnt.com/sevenpm-news/-Protest-in-Lopinot-3111----271619971.html
-
Government to begin Constitution Amendment Bill education drive tonight
by NEWSPOWER on AUGUST 18, 2014 · LEAVE A COMMENT
Prime Minister, Kamla lier Persad Bissessar
Prime Minister, Kamla lier Persad Bissessar
The People’s Partnership Government says it will not back down on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014. The Kamla Persad-Bissessar led government has indicated that
the leader herself will hit the ground, beginning today in an effort to educate the country’s people and clear the fears and doubts as it relates to the run-off
provision of the Bill.
Tonight will also see a public meeting being held by Persad Bissessar’s UNC party in Gasparillo, The Attorney General, Anand Ramlogan along with Housing Minister,
Roodal Moonilal have assured that the government will show the people how the Bill seeks to strengthen to the democracy.
The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago, led by Seenath Jairam SC, on Saturday called for the debate in the Senate to be stopped and for the people to be consulted
on its provisions.
The Bill was laid in the Parliament on August 4 by the Prime Minister.
It proposes fixed terms for a prime minister, the right of recall of an MP and the most controversial aspect—a run-off vote—where a second poll will be held in a
constituency between the two top parties, in the event candidates do not obtain more than 50 per cent of the vote.
- See more at: http://news.power102fm.com/?p=23367#sthash.qNfgH8ql.dpuf
-
Now...the elephant in the room just buss a fart (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PM-No-Indian-takeover-271774231.html)
PM: No Indian takeover
By Anna Ramdass
Story Created: Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56 PM ECT
Story Updated: Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56 PM ECT
The controversial run-off provision of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 will not allow Indians to take over the country, says Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
Speaking at the United National Congress (UNC) Monday night forum at the Gasparillo Secondary School last night, Persad-Bissessar said the run-off mechanism would not divide the country into a system of tribal voting but instead will unite the people.
Persad-Bissessar pointed out that this country’s population comprises of 35.4 per cent East Indian, 34.2 per cent Africans, 22.8 per cent Mixed, 6.2 per cent Undeclared and 1.4 per cent are the others (Chinese, White, Syrian, Lebanese etc).
“Since more than 51 per cent of votes is required to elect a majority, an MP would require more than the ethnic vote to win the seat,” said Persad-Bissessar.
She said: “If every single Indian voted for the UNC or the Partnership they could never get the majority required.”
She said no one ethnic group on its own can win the required more than 50 per cent of the vote.
“They would have to unite with other groups. That is what the run-off really signifies. Majority rule with a mandate of unification instead of division,” said Persad-Bissessar.
She said Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley’s lack of support and fear of a run-off suggests that he believes he cannot unite people nor can he win the majority of the votes of the people.
Persad-Bissessar said some of the fears expressed about the run-off system suggest that another election would be undemocratic and would impose a restriction on the freedom of choice of the voter.
She said the individual’s right of choice to vote for a party or candidate of their choice is not restricted in any form or fashion and will remain unfettered.
Instead, she said, the right of choice of the individual is in fact broadened by permitting the voter a second opportunity to vote in any instance where the electorate is unable to decide on a majority winner in any constituency.
Persad-Bissessar said voters would have the opportunity to vote expanded, and not restricted, as they will have the chance to vote for a second time and may wish to change their minds or keep their original choice.
She said persons who did not vote on election day might decide to vote when the run-off election is held and who knows how that person would vote.
The Bill, which was passed in the House of Representatives on August 12 is scheduled to be debated in the Senate on August 26.
Now this would be a valid argument if the proposal was for an Executive President like what Manning was proposing. However...each constituency isnt comprised like that. There are several constituencies that can be considered to be base constituencies...certain parties KNOW that regardless of what...they getting those.
The real drama starts with the marginal seats. For the last election...there were 9 seats that were considered "marginal"...ie....winner by a margin of less than 2000 votes (which I vaguely remember is what most analysts use as the metric.). The danger in it is further compounded by the fact that the previous government would retain office unless a clear majority attained (ie 21 + seats).
So...supposing. Now we only supposing. 16 Seats PNM...16 Seats PP....the others waiting to run off...or facing challenges to the result otherwise. The current government would retain until somebody reaches 21. Which is potentially what could or would happen....and given how early the tricks and tactics started.....underhandedness would be the order by next election.
So why try to bulldoze this through with little to no consultation and try to portray deceit as a virtue?
-
Some nice articles here.
Sunity Maraj (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/A-Beautiful-Thing-271543471.html). Some gems here too.
Push a people too hard and they might just wake up. Like an ant nest stirred by government boots, public opinion has come alive with a bristling energy, creating collateral opportunity out of the Prime Minister’s indecent haste in rushing her Constitution (Amendment) Bill through the House.
A people impassioned is a beautiful thing.
To see the dross of cynicism slip and to glimpse the spark of hopeful longing is at once wondrous and heart-breaking.
In this context, the PM’s bill should be reviewed for its appropriateness and relevance to the nation as object of our desire. It should also be examined for logic and use of language. Under the Kamla Theory of Mathematics, one from 10 leaves 11 and a minority from a minority makes a majority, magically transforming less votes into more democracy. In the background, disciples of Goebbels plot how to run off with the vote by sowing confusion about “run-offs” within a political party where everyone supports the same ideology, platform and manifesto, and “run-offs” between opposing parties which give third party voters the Hobson’s choice of either voting for a party they do not support or not voting at all.
Add to that the neat sleight of hand, where elected representation in proportion to votes is neatly switched with the offer of selected representation in proportion to votes in the Senate. But don’t think too much about that as yet, because it’s apparently another vaps idea still in development.
Raffique Shah (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Real-people-power-271543131.html)
The PM’s contempt for the masses did not stop there. In sending the Bill to the Senate, she suddenly finds time, a full month, to allow senators to study its provisions. The MPs did not need that—they are bright, seedless raisins. But those dull senators, especially the independents, need time to do their homework.
The PM really takes us for fools. Check and see how many Government senators are vacationing abroad. Check out who is courting the independents from whom she needs at least one vote in order for the Bill to become law. She will most likely get more than one. But she and her accomplices need time to work on them, to ensure they deliver when it matters most.
In the interim, she parades around the country with a blimp-size ego, comparing her tampering with the Constitution with historical milestones such as the abolition of slavery, Nelson Mandela’s fight against apartheid in South Africa and other landmark achievements. If you think I’m lying or exaggerating, check out her speech at an Emancipation dinner she hosted last Thursday.
Michael Harris (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Further-reflections-on-run-off-proposal-271618901.html)
What is very important to note is that as a result of such racial polarisation in our politics it has been exceedingly difficult (and it may in fact be impossible) for us to build for ourselves structures of good governance or to achieve good government. The reasons for this are not difficult to determine. In the first place since the parties come to us and solicit our support on the basis of ethnic or racial solidarity, and we, in fact, give our support on that basis, then we cannot demand of them; and they have little incentive to deliver good performance when they are in government.
Moreover, when a party wins office based upon the support of one race, or one ethnic grouping, as opposed to the other race or ethnic grouping, that party has neither incentive nor interest in making government policies which assist that other race or group. And in any case no government can be effective if it is mistrusted by half the population. But it is not to be supposed that even as the majority of the population went along with this politics of racial polarisation that it escaped their attention and understanding that it was precisely this type of politics which kept them locked in prisons of crapaud politics, indifferent public service, rampant political corruption and their own utter impotence to do anything to challenge the political authorities.
-
Now...the elephant in the room just buss a fart (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/PM-No-Indian-takeover-271774231.html)
PM: No Indian takeover
By Anna Ramdass
Story Created: Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56 PM ECT
Story Updated: Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56 PM ECT
The controversial run-off provision of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 will not allow Indians to take over the country, says Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
Speaking at the United National Congress (UNC) Monday night forum at the Gasparillo Secondary School last night, Persad-Bissessar said the run-off mechanism would not divide the country into a system of tribal voting but instead will unite the people.
Persad-Bissessar pointed out that this country’s population comprises of 35.4 per cent East Indian, 34.2 per cent Africans, 22.8 per cent Mixed, 6.2 per cent Undeclared and 1.4 per cent are the others (Chinese, White, Syrian, Lebanese etc).
“Since more than 51 per cent of votes is required to elect a majority, an MP would require more than the ethnic vote to win the seat,” said Persad-Bissessar.
She said: “If every single Indian voted for the UNC or the Partnership they could never get the majority required.”
She said no one ethnic group on its own can win the required more than 50 per cent of the vote.
“They would have to unite with other groups. That is what the run-off really signifies. Majority rule with a mandate of unification instead of division,” said Persad-Bissessar.
She said Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley’s lack of support and fear of a run-off suggests that he believes he cannot unite people nor can he win the majority of the votes of the people.
Persad-Bissessar said some of the fears expressed about the run-off system suggest that another election would be undemocratic and would impose a restriction on the freedom of choice of the voter.
She said the individual’s right of choice to vote for a party or candidate of their choice is not restricted in any form or fashion and will remain unfettered.
Instead, she said, the right of choice of the individual is in fact broadened by permitting the voter a second opportunity to vote in any instance where the electorate is unable to decide on a majority winner in any constituency.
Persad-Bissessar said voters would have the opportunity to vote expanded, and not restricted, as they will have the chance to vote for a second time and may wish to change their minds or keep their original choice.
She said persons who did not vote on election day might decide to vote when the run-off election is held and who knows how that person would vote.
The Bill, which was passed in the House of Representatives on August 12 is scheduled to be debated in the Senate on August 26.
Now this would be a valid argument if the proposal was for an Executive President like what Manning was proposing. However...each constituency isnt comprised like that. There are several constituencies that can be considered to be base constituencies...certain parties KNOW that regardless of what...they getting those.
The real drama starts with the marginal seats. For the last election...there were 9 seats that were considered "marginal"...ie....winner by a margin of less than 2000 votes (which I vaguely remember is what most analysts use as the metric.). The danger in it is further compounded by the fact that the previous government would retain office unless a clear majority attained (ie 21 + seats).
So...supposing. Now we only supposing. 16 Seats PNM...16 Seats PP....the others waiting to run off...or facing challenges to the result otherwise. The current government would retain until somebody reaches 21. Which is potentially what could or would happen....and given how early the tricks and tactics started.....underhandedness would be the order by next election.
So why try to bulldoze this through with little to no consultation and try to portray deceit as a virtue?
Excellent points :beermug:
-
A man now show me a scenario. Take for example st Joseph where four parties contest. PNM-32%...UNC-31%..ILP-7%....Independent: 30%. How many run off ballots would we have?
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/CBahef6qnfQ
-
Unfortunately our PM is proving herself to be racial by playing the race card on this elections run-off argument.
She already showed her way of thinking by encouraging Sat Maharaj with his racist rhetoric and now this.
Sad that she has disgraced herself in this way as our first female PM.
-
Rowley: Runoff Bill splits the vote (http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,199281.html)
By JULIEN NEAVES Tuesday, August 19 2014 (T&T Newsday)
OPPOSITION Leader Dr Keith Rowley has described the Constitution (Amendment) Bill as the embodiment of “don’t split the vote,” and is advising the Independent Bench to consider that the bill, which will be laid today in the Senate and debated on August 26, was not supported by the entire Cabinet.
“I would say to all the Independents...just take a look. Any prime minister that cannot get the Cabinet to agree to a measure, such a measure has no place in the Parliament. They couldn’t even get the Cabinet to agree to it. So I’m waiting to see how the Independents can agree to it,” he said.
He was speaking with the media following the public consultation “Towards Tobago’s Autonomy” held at the University of the West Indies Teaching and Learning Centre, St Augustine.
The Constitution (Amendment) Bill was passed in the Lower House at about 4 am on August 12 and the vote was 23 Government MPs voting for, 14 against and one abstention, Congress of the People MP Rodger Samuel. Those voting against comprised 11 PNM Opposition MPs, Chaguanas West MP and Independent Liberal Party Chairman Jack Warner and, breaking rank, COP MPs Winston Dookeran and Carolyn-Seepersad-Bachan.
On August 26, the Government only needs one of the nine independent Senators to vote with them for the bill to be passed in the Senate. The bill contains three provisions: right of recall for MPs, two-term limits for prime ministers and a runoff election if a candidate does not receive more than 50 percent of the votes in a constituency. The run-off provision is the most contested with the Opposition and other public figures expressing concerns that it could remove third parties from the race.
Speaking on Sunday, Rowley was asked to comment on the Law Association calling for debate to be stopped and the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) reporting that they had not been informed about it.
He replied: “None of this should be surprising to anybody. This bill has been the product of a little cabal around the Prime Minister. It was clear to us that there were many people in the Cabinet who were unaware of it, and we not even clear how it got to the Parliament. So what the EBC said we (the Opposition) pretty much knew that. It is the work of a strategic committee of the cabal, and it is not about Trinidad and Tobago.”
He continued: “We’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - it’s the UNC campaign strategy to try and hold on to government by winning the collection. They come up with a scheme to screen out vote splitters. It’s the embodiment of ‘don’t split the vote’.”
The PNM last night held its second public meeting on the bill at Skiffle Bunch panyard, San Fernando.
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
-
Split votes favour the PNM. They won't vote against their interest.
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
More brainless rhetoric.
What about democratic change for the better is better than undemocratic change for the worse?
Here are the points that anyone considering what is good and democratic for T&T and would minimize more opportunities for elections corruption would have considered:-
1. These run-off proposals were not in the original bill placed before Ministers to debate nor was the proposal discussed with or sanctioned by the general T&T public before being placed in the Bill, so these changes being pushed thru are totally undemocratic.
2. You don’t seem to have considered the corruption and instability issues that these proposed elections run-offs will cause in marginal seats as the run-offs can in theory lead to a party that placed 2nd in the original election eventually winning with even less votes than they got in the original elections.
3. These run-offs in theory can result in a prolonged number of run-offs in marginal seats if the run-offs elections don’t result in any party winning by 50% or more of the votes. This is thus a recipe for the party with the most money to contest a number of run-off elections eventually winning the seat.
This is undemocratic as it will lead to the party with most amount of financial clout and also with access to taxpayers funds to eventually win the run-off elections in the marginal seats. It will encourage corruption.
4. While prolonged run-offs elections take place in marginal seats, a rejected government which would otherwise have lost the elections will still be in power and will still have access to the country's treasury/ T&T taxpayers’ money.
Anyone who backs these run-offs elections after considering the points above has no care for democracy and the future stability of T&T and is more interested in which party is in power than in T&T remaining a democracy.
And btw the other issues that this Constitutional Amendment Bill deals with are red -herring issues:
1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This proposal deprives the Party in power and the T&T public of their democratic choice for who they view as the best leader for their party and the country respectively from the widest choice of qualified candidates.
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
So why deprive the electorate of the best choice for leader and PM in cases where they are happy with the performance of that leader and the ruling party?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.
2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is fluff as it apparently needs a higher percentage of votes than is used to elect an MP to recall him/her plus recall is only effective after the MP has served 3 years.
What use is it if you have to wait 3 years to recall an MP who is not performing when the constituents want to recall them after 6 months to a year of non-performance? This recall as proposed is Red-herring fluff.
Unless an MP can be recalled after 6 months to a year for non-performance this recall amendment as proposed by the government is a red-herring item that is of little use in reality.
-
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
We agree to disagree on this one. Maybe we should have referendum!
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
More brainless rhetoric.
What about democratic change for the better is better than undemocratic change for the worse?
Here are the points that anyone considering what is good and democratic for T&T and would minimize more opportunities for elections corruption would have considered:-
1. These run-off proposals were not in the original bill placed before Ministers to debate nor was the proposal discussed with or sanctioned by the general T&T public before being placed in the Bill, so these changes being pushed thru are totally undemocratic.
2. You don’t seem to have considered the corruption and instability issues that these proposed elections run-offs will cause in marginal seats as the run-offs can in theory lead to a party that placed 2nd in the original election eventually winning with even less votes than they got in the original elections.
3. These run-offs in theory can result in a prolonged number of run-offs in marginal seats if the run-offs elections don’t result in any party winning by 50% or more of the votes. This is thus a recipe for the party with the most money to contest a number of run-off elections eventually winning the seat.
This is undemocratic as it will lead to the party with most amount of financial clout and also with access to taxpayers funds to eventually win the run-off elections in the marginal seats. It will encourage corruption.
4. While prolonged run-offs elections take place in marginal seats, a rejected government which would otherwise have lost the elections will still be in power and will still have access to the country's treasury/ T&T taxpayers’ money.
Anyone who backs these run-offs elections after considering the points above has no care for democracy and the future stability of T&T and is more interested in which party is in power than in T&T remaining a democracy.
And btw the other issues that this Constitutional Amendment Bill deals with are red -herring issues:
1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This proposal deprives the Party in power and the T&T public of their democratic choice for who they view as the best leader for their party and the country respectively from the widest choice of qualified candidates.
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
So why deprive the electorate of the best choice for leader and PM in cases where they are happy with the performance of that leader and the ruling party?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.
2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is fluff as it apparently needs a higher percentage of votes than is used to elect an MP to recall him/her plus recall is only effective after the MP has served 3 years.
What use is it if you have to wait 3 years to recall an MP who is not performing when the constituents want to recall them after 6 months to a year of non-performance? This recall as proposed is Red-herring fluff.
Unless an MP can be recalled after 6 months to a year for non-performance this recall amendment as proposed by the government is a red-herring item that is of little use in reality.
You obviously have your head so far stuck up your ass that you probably type this with yuh toes.
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
More brainless rhetoric.
What about democratic change for the better is better than undemocratic change for the worse?
Here are the points that anyone considering what is good and democratic for T&T and would minimize more opportunities for elections corruption would have considered:-
1. These run-off proposals were not in the original bill placed before Ministers to debate nor was the proposal discussed with or sanctioned by the general T&T public before being placed in the Bill, so these changes being pushed thru are totally undemocratic.
2. You don’t seem to have considered the corruption and instability issues that these proposed elections run-offs will cause in marginal seats as the run-offs can in theory lead to a party that placed 2nd in the original election eventually winning with even less votes than they got in the original elections.
3. These run-offs in theory can result in a prolonged number of run-offs in marginal seats if the run-offs elections don’t result in any party winning by 50% or more of the votes. This is thus a recipe for the party with the most money to contest a number of run-off elections eventually winning the seat.
This is undemocratic as it will lead to the party with most amount of financial clout and also with access to taxpayers funds to eventually win the run-off elections in the marginal seats. It will encourage corruption.
4. While prolonged run-offs elections take place in marginal seats, a rejected government which would otherwise have lost the elections will still be in power and will still have access to the country's treasury/ T&T taxpayers’ money.
Anyone who backs these run-offs elections after considering the points above has no care for democracy and the future stability of T&T and is more interested in which party is in power than in T&T remaining a democracy.
And btw the other issues that this Constitutional Amendment Bill deals with are red -herring issues:
1. Limiting the PM to serving two terms in office.
This proposal deprives the Party in power and the T&T public of their democratic choice for who they view as the best leader for their party and the country respectively from the widest choice of qualified candidates.
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
So why deprive the electorate of the best choice for leader and PM in cases where they are happy with the performance of that leader and the ruling party?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.
2. Power of recall of MPs.
As presented in the bill this power of recall is fluff as it apparently needs a higher percentage of votes than is used to elect an MP to recall him/her plus recall is only effective after the MP has served 3 years.
What use is it if you have to wait 3 years to recall an MP who is not performing when the constituents want to recall them after 6 months to a year of non-performance? This recall as proposed is Red-herring fluff.
Unless an MP can be recalled after 6 months to a year for non-performance this recall amendment as proposed by the government is a red-herring item that is of little use in reality.
You obviously have your head so far stuck up your ass that you probably type this with yuh toes.
Is that the best you can do? Why not logically argue against any of the points that I raised?
Maybe its because you can't so instead all you can resort to is trying to throw a person insult to distract from the fact that you can't refute the facts I have pointed out above in regards to these proposed run-off elections being highly undemocratic and encouraging elections corruption and political instability.
I did not even mention the point that it is also unfair to the other younger upcoming political parties in trying to force their voters to differ their votes to one of the two more established larger political parties.
The run-off option in the bill is clearly anti-democratic and yet this government has the cheek to talk about giving power to the people. Why don't they follow their own party's constitution and call internal leadership elections as they promised to their party members when the PM was elected?
You obviously have little love or care for T&T's future as a stable democracy if you have read the facts I have pointed out above and can't refute any of them but yet you still agree with our dictatorship government trying to push thru this highly undemocratic Constitutional Amendment Bill.
PS:
The amendments we really need to T&T's constitution are things that help us to try and lock up corrupt MPs who steal taxpayers money and also help us to trace and recover the stolen money.
Another good amendment will be only allowing government Ministers to select candidates for T&T President but allowing the T&T voting public to vote and decide which candidate is best suited as President so we don't end up with another lame duck President as we currently seem to be lumbered with.
-
This is especially undemocratic when a particular leader (PM) of the ruling party has done a great job as leader of the ruling party and country and is clearly the best choice to continue as leader when compared to their party colleagues.
We agree to disagree on this one. Maybe we should have referendum!
Maybe but is it necessary when you can simply vote out a government if you believe they have a weak leader who has proven that they are not up to the job? Did you not also read this quote from my above post?
In cases where the electorate is not impressed with the performance of the ruling party and leader they have the democratic choice to simply vote that party out of power so in the end this two-term limited is totally unnecessary in a healthy democracy.
Isn't this what happened to the PNM with Patrick Manning in charge and did they not pay the price of losing the general elections in 2010?
Well seeing that they did I think our democracy is already working very well as it is and this two term limit proposal is clearly unnecessary in addition to being anti-democratic to the rights of the electorate to choose.
Provided each political party has its own constitution with internal elections to select its best available party leader every 4 to 5 years and lives up to that constitution of allowing its members to fairly select its leader then I see no need for a limited two term for leader of the ruling party. The electorate will decide if they don't like your party leader as leader of the government as they did with the PNM in 2010 with Manning in charge.
There is no need for T&T to copy everything that the USA does as their political system is different to T&T's.
-
Split votes favour the PNM. They won't vote against their interest.
Yup, come next elections the people will have the last say
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.
All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections
-
Independent Senator Helen Drayton has warned the Government that the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill (No.
2),
2014 is a section 34 waiting to occur. Senator Drayton made the comment while contributing to the Bill’s debate on Tuesday. - See more at: http://news.power102fm.com/?p=23476#sthash.RRPZ8OCd.dpuf
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.
All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections
Fishs, if nutten eh wrong with it why is being rail roaded through Parliament?
Why was there no consultation?
Why of all the things contained in the report coming out of consultations these particular parts of the bill were plucked out, (and mind you, run off was NEVER a part of those consultations eh) and brought to Parliament? Could it be that these parts of the "reform" only need a simple majority to pass?
Let Kamla and she croonies rock so with they shyte!!! They too firetrucking stink and always on firetrucking games!!!!!!
-
I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.
All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections
Fishs, if nutten eh wrong with it why is being rail roaded through Parliament?
Why was there no consultation?
Why of all the things contained in the report coming out of consultations these particular parts of the bill were plucked out, (and mind you, run off was NEVER a part of those consultations eh) and brought to Parliament? Could it be that these parts of the "reform" only need a simple majority to pass?
Let Kamla and she croonies rock so with they shyte!!! They too firetrucking stink and always on firetrucking games!!!!!!
Another view
Who Vex Lorse – Separating news from noise
ANIL GOORAHOO Monday, August 18 2014
The late Dale Kolasingh, one of the finest journalists this country has ever produced, made a point of constantly reminding his newsroom staff that one of their first priorities in reporting was to “separate the news from the noise”. He understood clearly that in any important debate, particularly those involving politicians and moreso during election silly season, “legitimate news is almost always obfuscated and sometimes lost” in the noise of political rhetoric inspired by partisanship and self-self-interests.
With a general election mere months away and with political parties jostling for the minds and votes of the electorate, the on-going debate on Constitutional Reform has featured a lot of noise which has been readily lapped-up by our media and fed as news to an unsuspecting national audience, without the kind of analytical separation which Kolasingh insisted upon. Beginning today and continuing next week, I will make an attempt in my own humble way to provide the lacking but critically needed separation so that citizens understand the issues – each in their individual and collective contexts.
Having attended ALL of the National Consultations on Constitutional Reform and having been witness to the process, it is necessary for me to point out that almost none of the most vocal commentators against the package of reforms proposed by government in its Constitution Amendment Bill (2014) attended any of the consultations. I say this not to deny their entitlement to comment on the reforms, but merely to establish that much of the “noise” that has been published and given prominence in the public domain, may be uninformed and in ignorance of how the process evolved, what issues are involved and of how the final proposals were arrived at.
Under its Terms of Reference, the Constitution Reform Commission was mandated by Cabinet to host a series of 17 public consultations across Trinidad and Tobago (14 in Trinidad and three in Tobago) as well as a number of private stakeholder consultations. Based on those consultations the Commission was required to produce a report, inclusive of recommendations for Constitutional Reform, and present same to the Cabinet. By virtue of having produced its report dated 27 December, 2013, the Commission fulfilled its mandate and ought to have gone out of existence. However, during the course of the 17 national consultations, participants requested a second round of consultations so they could have the opportunity to consider and comment upon the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission recommended and Cabinet agreed to a second round of public consultations which was held in February, although written comments on the report were accepted until 31 March.
It is important to note that the December 2013 report recommended, among other things, that a fairer system of electing representatives to the parliament should be pursued with proportional representation being the preferred option; that there should be a two-term limit for the Prime Minister; that there should be a right of recall of MPs; that MPs ought not to hold Ministerial portfolios; and that there should be provision for national referendum on important issues. Interestingly, there was no objection to any of these recommendations during the second round of public consultations which citizens themselves requested. In fact, all of these received widespread support
Having received feedback from the population with respect to recommendations contained in its December 2013 report, the Constitution Commission prepared a post-script which included further recommendations on a methodology for achieving some of the governing principles identified in the initial report. Among the further recommendations – which were circulated among and approved by all members including Dr.Merle Hodge – was a runoff system of elections. Dr Hodge has herself admitted to the media that the justification for a system of runoff elections was well articulated in the post-script and it was upon such justification that she agreed to its inclusion.
As there was no mandate under its Terms of Reference for the Constitution Commission to produce a second or a supplementary report, the post-script to which all Commissioners agreed, was forwarded to the government for its consideration. It was the government which, rightly or wrongly, referred to the Post-script as an “Addendum” to the Report. That Merle Hodge first heard of an Addendum to the Commission’s Report when it was announced in Parliament, is really a play on words as the word “Addendum” simply substitutes for the term “Post-script”.
The Commission’s report and post-script having been forwarded to the Government, as was required, it was for the government to accept in its entirety; reject-in-its-entirety; or accept in part the recommendations contained therein. Having that discretion, the government opted – some argue hastily – to bring immediately to the parliament those recommendations which did not require a special majority to be passed.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the arguments being advanced by some that there wasn’t consultation on the amendments that were brought to the parliament.
-
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who to see?
Hodge disputes ‘addendum’ to Reform report
Sunday, August 10 2014
Merle Hodge...
Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) member Merle Hodge yesterday claimed the addendum to the Commission’s Reform report released by the Prime Minister’s Office on Friday was an internal document tagged “Private and confidential: Not for circulation,” and addressed exclusively to the Prime Minister in mid-July 2014.
Hodge claimed this document was “never published and disseminated as the Report was” and that it was only on Friday that it became the “Addendum to the Constitution Reform Report.”
“The run-off provision did not come from the people, and it was never revealed to the people before Monday, August 4, 2014, one week before it was to be debated in the Parliament,” she said in a statement to the media yesterday in which she accused Government of trying to make her a “liar” over the controversial run-off poll proposal in the Constitutional Amendment Bill.
“My concern with the run-off proposal is not so much where it first appeared; at this point I don’t care. My concern is how the population has reacted to it,” she said, noting that “many people are offended and alarmed by this particular item and a democratic government would take heed.”
Hodge, a retired university lecturer and social activist, said the document had grown out of a meeting held on April 30, 2014, at which the CRC discussed and agreed to some proposals selected from the Report, to be taken to Parliament.
“The run-off proposal was not there, because it was not in the Report,” she insisted in her statement yesterday.
She said further discussions were held at a meeting on July 9, 2014, but admitted that both herself and another commissioner were absent from that meeting. She said minutes from that meeting were circulated on July 13 for review and comment.
“That was my first introduction to the run-off idea,” she said, saying that she did not “warm to the idea of thousands of votes being cancelled, and I pointed to this as part of my feedback.”
“I did not see the red flags at the time, for the idea was developed with cogent arguments supported by concrete evidence (sections 46-57). I don’t know where the run-off idea came from, but I have never had any reason not to trust the expertise and the good intentions of the CRC member who was our resource person in constitutional matters. Again, I gave my consent to the document, and again, I take responsibility for all of its contents.”
http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,198866.html
-
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who
Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......
-
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who
Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......
Exactly!
For some reason fishs believes that long article of sound bites that he posted in Reply #71 changes that reality.
Do they honestly believe that people of T&T are that gullible?
-
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who
Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......
Exactly!
For some reason fishs believes that long article of sound bites that he posted in Reply #71 changes that reality.
Do they honestly believe that people of T&T are that gullible?
You eh see the video? They are!
-
We have SW.net members who seem confused. The part of the bill that is being mostly rejected by people in T&T was included when? and for who
Ask fishs and Anil Ghoorahoo......
Exactly!
For some reason fishs believes that long article of sound bites that he posted in Reply #71 changes that reality.
Do they honestly believe that people of T&T are that gullible?
You eh see the video? They are!
Well not the ones who regularly listen to Iwer's station: http://www.thestreet919fm.com/
-
Yup dais right. Our democracy right now lies with the vote of one independent senator
In a telephone interview yesterday, James said: “Nobody has created these pressures except themselves (People’s Partnership). They are the ones who decided to change the Constitution. A lot of people are saying the run-off provision is a violation of the freedom of the Constitution. The decision in the Senate hangs on one vote. What kind of a democracy is it? It is ridiculous as a democracy. It is a violation of democracy.”
Persad-Bisssessar has defended the bill, saying it would deepen the democratic process. But James questioned the true motive.
“How democratic can it be if you have to depend on the vote of an independent senator? How independent can it be? If you have to broaden the democracy, the passage of the bill should not depend upon the vote of an Independent senator."
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Analyst-What-kind-of-democracy-is-this-272379971.html
-
Simple, have a referendum on the bill.
Or do we have to amend the constitution to do that ?
Finally would that satisfy everybody ? Guess not since the PP would probably win as they have historicaly garnered a higher percentage of vote than the PNM.
I am definitely not PP supporter neither do I support the PNM.
I am pulling back now and will see how this unfolds
-
54 PERCENT BACK RUNOFF
By Andre Bagoo Sunday, August 24 2014
A GOVERNMENT-commissioned Mori Caribbean poll on the question of proposals in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2014 has found that a majority of the population is in support of all three proposals for a threshold/runoff; a right of recall and term limits for prime ministers, with 54 per cent backing the runoff.
The poll, which was seen by Sunday Newsday, involved a sample of 512 adults interviewed by telephone across Trinidad and Tobago. It was conducted from August 8 to August 11, 2014, two days after Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar unveiled the bill in Parliament and just before it was debated and passed in the House of Representatives after a marathon sitting which lasted from August 11 to the early morning of August 12. The bill is due to be debated in the Senate this week.
The results of the Mori poll stated:
* 54 per cent support 50 per cent threshold/runoff;
* 70 per cent of people support a right of recall; and
* 55 per cent support term limits for prime ministers
According to Mori, interviews were conducted by telephone, recalling those who had previously been interviewed in 2014 as part of a previous research series called Listening to the People. However, the full sample has a margin of error of four percentage points. While Mori indicated a sample across the country, how the sample was selected was not indicated, nor were specific constituencies disclosed.
For each of the proposals, the respondents were asked to say whether they supported or opposed them. In relation to the runoff, respondents were asked to comment on the proposal summarised thus: “Ensuring MPs are elected with at least 50 percent support in their constituency – where this is not achieved in the first vote and runoff will take place between the top two candidates a week later.” A total of 21 percent strongly supported the proposal and 33 percent said they tended to support. A total of 28 percent indicated they opposed, with 18 percent saying they strongly opposed. Mori stated 13 percent indicted they neither supported nor opposed, with five per cent stating they did not know.
There was strong support for, “the right to recall an MP and force a by-election in the constituency, if enough local constituents demand it.” Of the respondents, 70 percent indicated support overall, with 32 percent stating they strongly supported the proposal. 38 per cent stated they tended to support the proposal. A total of 22 percent opposed this reform, with 11 percent indicating strong opposition. Mori stated six percent neither supported nor opposed the reform, while two per cent stated they did not know.
Respondents were asked to state opinions on term limits. Specifically, they were asked to comment on, “Term limits for the Prime Minister, so no individual can serve as Prime Minister for more than two terms in office (approximately a maximum of ten years)”. A total of 55 percent supported this with 26 percent in strong support. A total of 36 percent opposed, with 23 percent in strong opposition.
However, during the interviews many respondents stated initially that they did not feel informed about the proposals. Participants were asked to respond to the following statement: “How much, if anything, have you heard about the Government’s proposals to reform the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago? These were announced earlier this week by the Prime Minister and are due to be debated in Parliament next week.” In response, the majority did not feel informed. About 42 percent said they, “Have heard about the reform proposals, but do not feel informed” and 35 percent said they, “Have not heard about the reform proposals at all.” At the same time, two days after they were unveiled in Parliament, 16 percent said they, “Have heard about the reform proposals and feel informed”. Mori said seven percent indicated they did not know in response to this query.
Though the majority backed individual reforms, when questioned initially on support for “the Government’s proposals to reform the Constitution” the outcome was different. A total of 35 percent said they supported, while 29 percent said they opposed. Mori stated 11 percent indicated they neither supported nor opposed, while a large chunk, 26 percent, replied “don’t know” to the question.
Overall, when asked if the reform proposals will give more power to the people, 55 percent agreed, while 26 percent disagreed.
Asked if the reforms were designed to help the Government win the next general election — due by September 2015 — a total of 47 percent agreed with this, while 35 percent disagreed. Mori said 11 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed while 8 percent did not know.
A total of 55 percent stated the reforms will help improve the way the country is governed, while 50 percent stated the quality of life will be improved in Trinidad and Tobago. However, 28 percent had concerns with the proposals. A total of 16 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed/did not know if the proposals would improve the way the country is governed.
A total of 17 percent indicated Constitutional reform was one of the most important issues facing the country, while 86 percent identified “crime/police”, 68 percent “health/hospitals” and 64 percent “corruption in Government”. “Jobs/employment” ranked highly at 47 percent, followed by housing (34 percent), education (33 percent) and poverty/inequality (32 percent). A total of 29 percent identified “prices/inflation” as an important issue, and 27 percent similarly pinpointed “roads/traffic”.
-
Hmmmmmmm interesting...your views members
-
This sums it up nicely. .......
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/Vote-First-Debate-Later-Repeal-Now-272442421.html
-
Hmmmmmmm interesting...your views members
Not sure if this poll published in the Newsday was enough to change the title of the thread but here is what the Express published
Two days before the Constitution (Amendment) Bill goes to the Senate, a Moods survey conducted by the Market, Facts & Opinions (MFO) has shown that 85 per cent of the people interviewed would like the Government to halt the debate process to allow for more consultation.
The poll was an independent public opinion survey conducted among 459 respondents by MFO with a plus-or-minus five per cent margin of error.
Of those actually aware of the controversial bill, 54 per cent of the people polled would like more information on the proposed legislation, the poll found.
And 82 per cent would like that information before it is voted on by the Senate on Tuesday.
The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2014 was brought to Parliament by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar. On August 12, the bill was passed in the Lower House—23 members voted for the bill, 14 against, and there was one abstention. Congress of the People members of Parliament Winston Dookeran and Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan voted against the bill, and COP MP Rodger Samuel abstained when called on to vote. Persad-Bissessar broke the tradition of collective responsibility and allowed Government members to vote according to conscience.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Stop-Debate-272445271.html
-
My 2 cents
I expect this bill to pass seeing only one independent senator needs to vote for its passage. BUT now you will see REAL division in the country since so many people believe the government bypass them to quickly pass a bill that consisted of parts which were not brought for public discourse. Also a lot believe the government included the run-off proposal because he UNC party believe this will better their chance come next elections. They believe the split voters will vote UNC in a second poll. So from the day the bill is passed until next election the narrative in T&T will be the government is trying to steal the election seeing how the government has rushed this bill without public consultation on the run-off proposal
The political backlash come next elections against the government will be SEVERE and the results will show election time.. A lot of traditional PNM seats that were won by COP going right back to the PNM. BTW COP is dead now thanks to the St Augustine MP who created and supported a bill that will help in the demise of his party. The last local elections showed signs of the COP direction to the graveyard and their leader Ramadar pretty much dissolved his party into the arms of the UNC with this bill despite the fact a lot of COP supporters wanted more consultations on this bill.
Wait, notice how this bill has taken attention away from Section 34 and LifeSport scandals. A lot of issues to be dealt with in election season
The last couple days have seen more groups around the country publicly reject the continued debate on the bill. http://www.tv6tnt.com/home/featured-links/-Fitun-fights-constitutional-reform-272384371.html
-
Have a referendum. That is more decisive than just using a sample of the pop. Frigg the pollsters and them.
-
August 27th, 2014
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10645315_691673580919438_5726777923766140838_n.jpg)
-
^^ remember on that day T&T PM said she is willing to risk political suicide for the passage of an unpopular bill among Trinbagonians. This is just the beginning of a long election season
James said the Government did not consult with the population on the measure as it was seeking its own agenda. “It was merely seeking to keep an election promise without consulting the population. It will backfire on the Government,” he insisted, saying the swing voters who determine the winner of elections will vote against the Government at the appropriate time. James said what the voters in the country also would like to know is “how does this legislation help the country or improve democracy.”
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08-30/bill-will-backfire-govt—james (http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-08-30/bill-will-backfire-govt—james)
-
Yeah well the bill passed. A few amendments namely : three candidates in the first past the post run off in the second round if the third place gets at least 25%. The other amendment is the petition percentage for recall is now 20%...whereas before it was 10.
-
Yeah well the bill passed. A few amendments namely : three candidates in the first past the post run off in the second round if the third place gets at least 25%. The other amendment is the petition percentage for recall is now 20%...whereas before it was 10.
Shit and the world idd not end?
-
I am wondering was this the reason for buying all the body bags ?
-
Any thoughts of having a clause to impeaching and dismissing a government when they demonstrate gross incompetence mismanagement and when a proportionate amount of their ministers are dismissed or involved with unethical behaviour? I realize all these are contest able issues but in a constitution should there not be a clause to oversee ACCOUNTABILITY for the government's actions?
Why is it that services in communities who did not support the government are being ignored or the constituents held to ransom because of their political affinity?
Huge ant recall- recall the bs that is going on when elected officials abuse power - employ nepotism favouritism ethnocentrism regionalism and politism. Yes there ought to be a bill ah law to dismiss a government in power when all the stars are misaligned and when bandits get alleged Life Support to further their activities -
Get ah bill that sets targets goals for each ministry to meet and if those are not met then run then OUt - that is better than rub off- and all the so called senators getting fat on taxpayers money deploy their salaries into pensionable monies for those who need it-
Allyuh want real changes make changes where accountability matters- not for political gains and manipulation.
I my opinion anyways