Dr Keith Rowley Thread.

[weary1969]

I have no problem wit u complainin bout yuh gov't but how come is only when u and dem fall out dey is d worse ting. Rowley is a clown in dis circus season

[asylumseeker]

So y did he not tell d imps while he was in cabinet. Rowleyyyyyyyyyyyy u hit your head not Patos.

I think the record will show that Rowley didn't suddenly 'go public'.

[asylumseeker]

He actually doing better than the opposition.

If someone from the opposition could do the same as him and challenge the opposition to do better....dat wud be surreal.

Subhas Panday shaking his hand following his contribuition in Parliament (photo in yesterday's press) was sort of "surreal" as well.

[dcs]

So y did he not tell d imps while he was in cabinet. Rowleyyyyyyyyyyyy u hit your head not Patos.

I think the record will show that Rowley didn't suddenly 'go public'.

ent...the man challenged manning for leadership knowing the fallout.  he was doing all his opposing internally until they decide to throw him out so now he doing it in the parliament.

[weary1969]

Challengin 4 leadership very different bout complain bout govt implementation schedule. When he was Min of Hou he met every deadline. Nonesense when b4 asylumseeker did he go public bout a problem bout d way d gov't was performin?

[asylumseeker]

Challengin 4 leadership very different bout complain bout govt implementation schedule. When he was Min of Hou he met every deadline. Nonesense when b4 asylumseeker did he go public bout a problem bout d way d gov't was performin?

Leh me offer this: it is premature - and likely inaccurate - to characterise the mode Rowley is in as a 'leadership challenge'. A few steps and ingredients are missing for that fully to be the case.

As to the second contention: prior to Rowley's present remonstrations in Parliament (the public aspect) ... he no doubt engaged the Cabinet in-house (the private element) ... the issue is not whether he has previously gone public, but whether (as you put it) ... he told the imps while he was in Cabinet.

Given the genesis of these developments, one can say (fairly at that) Rowley has been 'responsible' in that regard. In fact, he's been clear to draw a line in the sand (with the stalk of his balisier) regarding his overriding allegiance to party rather than persona.

Leh me ask yuh this: What's your take on the significance of the bipartisan table thumping that was occurring during Rowley's comments? Don't you think it's suggestive of "something"?

[weary1969]

I blieve dcs refered 2 d challenge in d 90's

Yes he called dem 2gether and dey referred him 2 d PM

As 4 d bipartisan tumpin go have 2 take your word 4 it as me doh watch dem on tv does read what happen in d papers

My problem is y nowall of a sudden u have a problem wit implementation. I wuk in d Public Service implementation is worse than watchin oil paint dry. If he said b4 we need 2 implement our plans faster then I would say u recognize that a problem exists. What he is Paul on d road 2 Damascus he now c d light

[dcs]

But how you would know what problems he brought up in-house prior to everything going public?

He didn't have a reason to go public before but they squeeze him out of the decision making process so all he has is parliament.

I was also surprised it had people on BOTH sides supporting what he was saying...the articles from today said it was from both sides except for Manning and Impsbert.

Look at Manning response  lol  laughable      Manning asking about some missing $10 million dollars and Rowley was not even asked about it before Manning brought it up in parliament...I don't even think Rowley had control over the supposed missing $$  The government cud brush off the opposition but Rowley can attempt to keep them honest knowing how they think and well aware of their short comings from an insiders perspective....if that can get us better results we will all be better off for it.  The man also sticking to his guns that Manning will not keep him out of the PNM....at least until the next election.

[weary1969]

I agree let him stay in d PNM let him continue 2 sound bitter because it is always dat these politicians does get 2020 vision when dey fll out wit dey leader. Y he abstain in d vote he shoulda vote against extending d time. I either u in gov't or you in opposition but Rowley want both

[dcs]

I either u in gov't or you in opposition but Rowley want both

which means he is more honest.  This is actually how our parliamentarians should conduct themselves instead of towing party lines

[asylumseeker]

I either u in gov't or you in opposition but Rowley want both

which means he is more honest.  This is actually how our parliamentarians should conduct themselves instead of towing party lines

Yep. A suggestion implicit in comments made to another poster (whom omarldinho seems to think he's spotted in otherworldly and occasional form on the forum) ... Personally, I've placed him on the endangered species list until he resurfaces ...

ppl are conditioned a certain way ... sometimes we confuse integrity with rabble-rousing for troublemakers 501

[weary1969]

Well this d Westminister system it doh wuk so. U really feel Rowley honest I will keep sayin it when tings ws goin good he did not have a problem bout implementation etc. In d UK Blair and Brown did not get along but they knew how 2 coexist because dey are in d same party and dey in govt. In this banana republic u fall out wit d leader now d leader is d worse ting.

[asylumseeker]

Express editorial

A rush to judgment
Friday, October 3rd 2008
 
House Speaker Barry Sinanan, by now, must be ruing his decision to open the way for the Prime Minister to have unlimited speaking time at last Tuesday's parliamentary session. Mr Manning, after all, used the extra time not to speak on any matter of national importance but to continue his political attack against his former deputy, Dr Keith Rowley, and malign Siparia MP, Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Mr Manning is entitled to attack any politician he likes but what he is not entitled to do is to abuse the precious privilege he was granted as Prime Minister simply to score points against a former PNM colleague now turned rival, the Prime Minister's angst going back as far as 1996 when Dr Rowley battled against him for the party's political leadership.

Driven by what seems to be a desire to get Dr Rowley at all costs and to poison the political waters of Mrs Persad-Bissessar, Mr Manning not only disgraced himself in the Parliament but, unwittingly, hung himself out to dry. Having seen Dr Rowley not only beat back but overturn allegations against him raised via the Integrity Commission, Mr Manning - congenitally unable to accept the courts' ruling as vindication of one of his former deputies - now sought to wound him by loaded innuendo.

On the basis of a $10,000,000 financial discrepancy, which he claimed to have discovered with regard to the Cleaver Heights Housing Project on the very day of the particular House sitting, Mr Manning, using his extended parliamentary time, all but pointed a finger at Dr Rowley because, according to him, he had been unable to find answers to the resulting question raised in his mind. But whom did he ask before his own questionable rush to anti-Rowley judgment? Certainly not the then-chairman of the Housing Development Corporation or its then-manager in the persons of Messrs Andre Monteil and Noel Garcia, respectively. Because if he did, wouldn't' their replies have influenced his House disposition?

Secondly, how are the serving members of the Integrity Commission now to view their tenancy in the face of the Prime Minister's admission to having monitored for years a supposed relationship between Mrs Persad-Bissessar and one of their own, the relationship leading to Mrs Persad-Bissessar having confidential information - enough, it seems, to have caused any number of worthy citizens to refuse appointments to State boards?

Absurd? Farcical? Jokey, at the very least? But if you use any of these adjectives to describe the Prime Minister's extended political posturing you would have missed the point which is that either increasingly unbridled power or a pernicious yearning for it has wrecked both the man's sense of propriety and his connection with reality. For Trinidad and Tobago what else does that spell but more trouble? As such, Mr Manning's allegations cannot be allowed to rest but must be pursued to the very end with the chips being allowed to fall freely wherever they may.

Guardian editorial
October 3, 2008

Parliament must enlighten

Why engage the Parliament in such an unsubstantiated allegation and, more than that, why trade on a privileged position in the chamber to insinuate in such a manner—surely no one was fooled by his pretence of not making an allegation—without presenting the evidence?

+++

It is too often the case that what should be an engaging, enlightening and uplifting debate in the House of Representatives on fundamental issues, such as the national budget, degenerates into personal attacks.

These attacks are sometimes against people not able to defend themselves with such freedom as the parliamentarians enjoy against mauvais langue and partisan party politics.   

The end result is blissful ignorance of the issues involved in the debate by the national community and the continuing slide in the credibility of the Parliament.

It is clear that both sides in the verbal duel between the Prime Minister and his former colleague, Dr Keith Rowley, must share some of the blame for the fact that much of the debate got side-tracked.

On Tuesday night, what Prime Minister Patrick Manning had to “reveal,” using what he described as documentary evidence, amounted in the instance of his contentions against his former colleague of 20 years, no more than weak circumstantial evidence of alleged corruption.

If the Prime Minister really thinks he has evidence of one of his ministers feeding at the public trough, why did he not place the matter in the hands of the investigating authorities to pursue?

Why engage the Parliament in such an unsubstantiated allegation and, more than that, why trade on a privileged position in the chamber to insinuate in such a manner—surely no one was fooled by his pretence of not making an allegation—without presenting the evidence?

Moreover, it stretches credibility for the Prime Minister to come months, perhaps even years, after an event involving, as he claims, $10 million of public funds gone missing, to “discover” it in a document that one has to assume was always available to him.

This discovery is also an indictment of the scrutiny by Cabinet before approval is granted for the expenditure of large sums of taxpayers’ dollars.

How could Cabinet have allowed such a simple arithmetical error, as indicated by the Prime Minister, to get by it? 

Is it that the Cabinet gives the green light to any document that comes before it without the appropriate scrutiny?

The Prime Minister is therefore demonstrating the shortcomings of his own administration more than supporting the possibility of alleged corruption by a former member of the Cabinet.

How many other instances of discrepancy and possible outright corruption have got past the Cabinet? That is a question that requires an answer from Mr Manning.

In the instance of the Prime Minister’s allegations against UNC MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar and her alleged links to a member of the Integrity Commission, here again is an instance of the potential commission of a crime as it is illegal for a member of the commission to engage in the business of the institution with others outside.

Armed with such information, as he claims he has, why has the Prime Minister not put the information in the hands of the police for further investigation? Why has he kept it to use as political ammunition against his opponents?   

Questions might also be raised about how the Prime Minister came upon the information about the alleged link between Mrs Persad-Bissessar and someone associated with the Integrity Commission. Is it that the country’s intelligence services were instructed to monitor the private activities of an Opposition MP and her association with the Integrity Commission, an institution that is supposed to be free of the taint of partisan politics?

Would it not have been the preferred course of action for the Prime Minister to pass on his suspicions to the chairman of the Integrity Commission for him to order the investigations required?

 

[asylumseeker]

The road ahead for Dr Rowley
Wednesday, October 1st 2008
 
If he were a different man, of lesser mettle, Diego Martin West MP, Dr Keith Rowley would even now be running for cover. It is true that, in his address during the Budget debate on Monday, Dr Rowley spoke about moving towards retirement but we doubt that he is going to allow Prime Minister Patrick Manning to summarily pelt him out of politics.

We expect, however, that Mr Manning is going to have a very good try and may even now be pulling the strings to have Dr Rowley thrown out of the PNM for, if not consorting with the enemy, then at least for refusing to toe the party's line which is that all continues to be very well and good under the party that the late Dr Eric Williams founded.

Indeed, it was not by accident that Dr Rowley invoked Dr Williams in that, politician that he is, his address was aimed as much, and perhaps even more, to the PNM's members and supporters as it was to the wider community. What Dr Rowley did on Monday was to follow up on the strategy he has been hinting at ever since he was dismissed from Mr Manning's Cabinet, that being to cast himself as something of a martyr, striving to protect and preserve the essential soul of the PNM.

We suspect that Mr Manning is going to do his best to stymie this man whom he has had in his craw ever since he had the effrontery to challenge his leadership in the PNM's internal elections of 1996. Dr Rowley lost but who would say that his star has fallen between then and now, even with the challenge posed by the Integrity Commission's investigation which he was not only able to meet but turn against the Commissioners themselves.

For all that, Dr Rowley faces formidable opposition not the least being the political reality that the PNM has never sacrificed its leader, which is one of the reasons why, in the Woodford Square rally held in the context of the UNC's ill-conceived and ill-fated vote of no confidence against him, Mr Manning took good care to equate the fall of the leader with the fall of the party.

In mainland China, which has at least a construction outpost here, there has long been a saying that a man is blessed to be living in interesting times. More and more, these are proving to be very interesting political times in Trinidad and Tobago with all sides watching to see whether PNM hegemony will continue to hold. Mr Manning, as Trinidad and Tobago's Prime Minister and as Political Leader of the ruling party, is holding some very powerful cards, maybe even an ace or two. Dr Rowley's best bet, then, may well be to set out to change the rules of the ongoing game.
 

[zuluwarrior]

PNM officials fear Manning, Rowley rift getting wider

Ria Taitt Political Editor


Sunday, October 5th 2008
 
 
 
legacy first: Dr Keith Rowley

High-level sources in the People's National Movement say they are deeply concerned about the internecine warfare being waged between the two leading figures in the party- Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley.

Sources yesterday expressed fears that it is doing tremendous damage to the party. And there are growing calls for rapprochement between the two. Sources who have been in touch with political leader Manning indicated that he is amenable to discussions with Rowley.

The Budget debate in the House of Representatives this week saw the widening of the gulf between the two men, and what the party faithful want to see is not a widening, but a narrowing of that gap.

Asked whether he would be prepared to meet with Manning, Rowley said yesterday: "I am inconsequential. My concern is what legacy my children will inherit from my adventure into politics. If they (he) want to address that, we could talk."

"I have given up my career (at the university where he was tenured) for the PNM, to pick up the mantle when everyone was NAR. I fought for the PNM in the THA election in 1981, in the heart of the DAC. And I owe a duty to my children to ensure that they can walk proudly in this country, with their heads held high," he said.

Both Rowley and Manning have on numerous occasions expressed their deep commitment to the PNM and the centrality of its role to the political development of the country.

In the context of the PNM, there was never such an open display of conflict before. The earlier conflict situations, variously between Eric Williams and Patrick Solomon, ANR Williams and Karl Hudson-Phillip never attained the public dimension as this current dispute.

The apparent tension between Manning and Rowley had its origin in Rowley's challenge for the political leadership of the PNM in 1996, when Manning prevailed. Since then, the two men have had an uneasy truce.
 

Ria Taitt Political Editor


Sunday, October 5th 2008
 
 
 
legacy first: Dr Keith Rowley

High-level sources in the People's National Movement say they are deeply concerned about the internecine warfare being waged between the two leading figures in the party- Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley.

Sources yesterday expressed fears that it is doing tremendous damage to the party. And there are growing calls for rapprochement between the two. Sources who have been in touch with political leader Manning indicated that he is amenable to discussions with Rowley.

The Budget debate in the House of Representatives this week saw the widening of the gulf between the two men, and what the party faithful want to see is not a widening, but a narrowing of that gap.

Asked whether he would be prepared to meet with Manning, Rowley said yesterday: "I am inconsequential. My concern is what legacy my children will inherit from my adventure into politics. If they (he) want to address that, we could talk."

"I have given up my career (at the university where he was tenured) for the PNM, to pick up the mantle when everyone was NAR. I fought for the PNM in the THA election in 1981, in the heart of the DAC. And I owe a duty to my children to ensure that they can walk proudly in this country, with their heads held high," he said.

Both Rowley and Manning have on numerous occasions expressed their deep commitment to the PNM and the centrality of its role to the political development of the country.

In the context of the PNM, there was never such an open display of conflict before. The earlier conflict situations, variously between Eric Williams and Patrick Solomon, ANR Williams and Karl Hudson-Phillip never attained the public dimension as this current dispute.

The apparent tension between Manning and Rowley had its origin in Rowley's challenge for the political leadership of the PNM in 1996, when Manning prevailed. Since then, the two men have had an uneasy truce.
 

[weary1969]

What dey expect he criticise d govt in he budget speech did they expect Manning 2 say thanks Kiethos. Rowley have 4 more budget 2 criticise b4 d next election b4 he replace as MP. If ings so badddddd ind PNM then he should resign but is d easiest money in TNT is a MP. Dey hardly wuk and get pay y give dat up

[johnny_ringo]

I remember a funny story about these 2 lovebirds from a while back-
In some speech that Patos give he describes Rowley (if i remember correctly) as his guard dog/ watch dog..he was the rotwilder of the PNM.
Anyways , some time after somebody take out an add in the newspaper for "DOG 4 SALE."
Say they selling a rot, described as loyal (but may turn on owner), nice black coat etc and they give the old PM house address & phone number...lol
I heard they had a lot of inquires about the dog..lol

[zuluwarrior]

 

  

When Prime Minister Patrick Manning fired back at Diego Martin West MP Keith Rowley on Tuesday, for the sound political tongue-lashing which Rowley had given him the day before in Parliament, the sacked PNM minister was not the only casualty.

By asking Rowley to account for the $10 million that had mysteriously disappeared from the Cleaver Heights housing project—a joint venture between HDC and NHIC—when he was Minister of Housing (and of which Rowley denied knowledge), Manning automatically thrust Emile Elias, executive chairman of NHIC, into the spotlight with his allegations.

Elias, in a bid to save his “good name,” which he felt was being sullied as the PM hastily sought ammunition to counter the attack from his “close and personal friend” Rowley, vowed he would not remain silent, as he has “no cocoa in the sun.”

He is contending that no $10 million is missing, and that there was, in fact, a typographical error in the HDC letter which allegedly stated the project had cost $143.4 million. Elias said his contract was based on a quotation of $133 million, and he had documents to prove it.

Insisting that there is no discrepancy, Elias is calling for a forensic investigation into Manning’s allegations.

On Friday, reporter Shaliza Hassanali got straight to the point with Elias in an interview surrounding the controversy.

 

NHIC executive chairman, Emile Elias

Q : Was there a typographical error in the letter read by Prime Minister Patrick Manning in Parliament on Tuesday, which stated that there was a discrepancy of $10 million within the Cleaver Heights housing development in Arima?

A: There is one letter signed by Noel Garcia, in which there was a typographical error.

The body of the letter shows that it is referring to our quotation to do the work for a total of $133.449 million. But in typing the letter, they had a typographical error in the first line.

Not only was it a typographical error, but the HDC told Minister Emily Gaynor Dick-Forde that it was a typographical error on Tuesday, when they were fishing for some kind of retaliatory information against Dr Rowley.

When was the typographical error discovered?

Minister Dick-Forde was told of the typographical error by officials of the HDC after lunch on Tuesday. I have the evidence that she was told that. And I challenge her to come out and deny it and then I will produce the evidence.

And all the professional quantity surveyors’ valuation and payments to us are based on our contract of $133 million. So there is no money missing. If the typographical error had been $20, $30, $40 or $50 million, it didn’t make any difference.

We are only paid according to the actual numbers of houses we built at an agreed price and the land at which was an agreed price. So if a letter says $143, or even had it said $153 or $203 million, it would make no difference.

And she was told that. She left HDC with that one letter which had a typo with one line and goes to Parliament on Tuesday and sat next to Mr Manning. Did she tell Mr Manning that she was advised that it was a typographical error, and that no money is missing.

If she did tell him so and he lied to the Parliament, then both of them become liars. You see, Minister Dick-Forde has boasted to the country in Parliament that she is a Christian with a capital C. The question is: is she a liar with a capital L?

Did Mr Manning know about the lie? Because subsequent to Tuesday, the HDC has produced all the certificates and payments to show that everything is in perfect shape.

Are you still challenging Manning and Dick-Forde to step outside Parliament to say that the discrepancy exists?

Yes! Let them step outside Parliament and repeat those allegations if they big and bad... and I will deal with them.

Are you calling the PM and Dick-Forde liars?

Elias: I have no cocoa in the sun

Whether he (Manning) knew that the HDC told her that it was a typo, we don’t know that. He must now tell the country if his minister lied to him. Or, did she tell him that they are saying it was a typo, and he still proceeded to tell the Parliament that money missing when he knew it wasn’t missing.

Are you going to give the PM a time frame to clear the air on the typographical error?

I have demanded a forensic investigation; they have not responded.

If the PM fails to call for a forensic investigation, what is your next step?

If they don’t respond, they will be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

Will you make your documents public?

I am waiting for them to step out and deny that they knew the HDC had assured them that it was a typographical error in one letter and there was no money missing.

The Prime Minister stood up in Parliament and said: ‘Try as I might, I can’t find out anything.’

Try with whom? Why he didn’t call Andre Monteil, chairman of the HDC, or Noel Garcia, managing director, to find out if all was well. But he didn’t want to do that...

Do you intend to send your files to the Integrity Commission?

I don’t need to do that to prove...There is no discrepancy. The HDC has already told them there is no discrepancy. The HDC accounts for public money. I gave a quotation and I am being paid in accordance with that quotation.

Have you contacted Mr Garcia about the allegations made?

Not yet.

Do you intend to call him?

No. He and his staff have behaved honourably and properly. They have paid us exactly in accordance with our quotation. My contract is very clear.

Are you still calling on the PM for a forensic investigation.

Of course; because he (Manning) said he wants to send it to a commission of enquiry. But the commission of enquiry already said they had no investigative powers.

I am demanding a forensic investigation to clear my name and those working at the HDC.

Do you think there will really be a forensic investigation?

I issued a press release on Wednesday. I demanded a forensic audit into this allegation. I also asked for a forensic investigation into Udecott.

I wanted to know about the Sunway quarry, whether the quarry’s terms of agreement were the same offered to locals. I asked for an investigation into the Shanghai company which is responsible for construction of the Social Development Tower.

I asked for an investigation as to what was Manning’s role in the award of these contracts, if any. A forensic investigation means to look at: what financial relationship, if any, that may exist between Calder Hart and these contractors.

What is your next step?

To smile and wait, because I have no cocoa in the sun. I sleep soundly at nights.

Do you think the PM, then, trying to stain your name?

Absolutely! Not only now; they have been doing it for quite a long time. I would have a lot to say at the commission of enquiry into the behaviour of Jerry Narace, Colm Imbert and Patrick Manning.

Are you a close friend of Dr Rowley?

I am a close and personal friend. I have great admiration for his integrity and his intelligence. I consider him an asset to this country.

Based on your friendship with Dr Rowley, do you think the Government is trying to bring you down?

Of course! That is so obvious to the whole country. They don’t even disguise it anymore.

What is your relationship with the Government?

They are extremely hostile to me because of my friendship with Dr Rowley. You see, Manning is obsessed with trying to get rid of Dr Rowley, because he knows Dr Rowley is the man in the PNM who is seen as the logical successor to Manning.

I don’t think Manning can live with that.

Do you think Dr Rowley will eventually back down from the PNM?

I don’t know what he will do. You would have to ask him that. I know the country is yearning for new leadership.

If it is proven that the PM was only trying to make mischief, what would be your next course of action?

Unless he comes out of the Parliament and say something, I can’t deal with him. If he stays in the Parliament and misleads the country he will be judged by the court of public opinion.

Do you think this is just the start of things to come for you and Dr Rowley?

I have no idea what they want to do. I have nothing to worry about.

How long have you been a thorn in the Government’s side?

Since after December 2, 2005. I am going to tell the commission of enquiry that.

So, exactly why have you been a thorn in the Government’s side?

I don’t want to explain just yet.

Has work stopped on the Cleaver Heights project?

No. Work is progressing normally.The project is a great success.

Is the project within budget?

Well, since we started the job, the Government has asked for a number of changes in scope. They want all the utilities underground. They have agreed on the increases in scope.

So far, the increases are in excess of $21 million of improvements, basically lifting the standards with the underground utilities. If we are to follow Mariano Browne’s definition of within budget...

If you have an increased scope of work then you would not have gone with the budget. You are doing more work. The final cost of that project is likely to be at least $20 or $30 million more, as originally envisaged, because of increases in the scope of work.

How far has the project reached?

We are just a few months away from completion. By early next year we would be finished. Many people are living there. We were praised for being pioneer in that project.

Is it true that the land the project is being built on belongs to NH International?

Yes. We own the land. We offered the HDC an opportunity to joint venture with us. The agreement was that we would supply the land and build the project and they would hand over to their beneficiaries.

Was any portion of the land leased or sold to HDC?

The whole project was sold to the HDC as a joint venture. The HDC acts as an intermediary. They don’t end up buying or owning anything.

Were you offered equity in this project?

There is no equity in the sense that we own the land and we design the project and build, and when we hand it over to them they distribute it. It is not a long-term partnership. It’s a joint venture to develop a parcel of land.

  
 
©2005-2006 Trinidad Publishing Company Limited
Designed by: Randall Rajkumar-Maharaj · Updated daily by: Sheahan Farrell
 
  
 
      
  
 

 
  

[zuluwarrior]

Elias: Fire Dick-Forde now
 
   
 
 Bobie-lee Dixon and Asha Javeed

A $10 million typographical error.

That was how chairman of NH International Emile Elias described the $10 million which reportedly disappeared from the Cleaver Heights Housing development in Arima.

Elias, in a fighting mood at a press conference yesterday, produced detailed documents which showed that the “error” was made by the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) of which former chairman Noel Garcia was aware.

Elias said he billed HDC $134,129,000 for the 408-unit project but when the document was delivered by the HDC there was a recorded sum of $143,449,000.

At the time, he believed this money was “contingency money for overuns.”

Further, the package of information—given to Prime Minister Patrick Manning by Minister of Housing ,Planning and Environment, Emily Gaynor Dick-Forde—that implicated former minister Keith Rowley in the disappearance/discrepancy, proved to be a mathematical error.

In his budget presentation, Manning made the allegation and asked Rowley to account for the money.

Elias said that he doesn't intend to be collateral damage in any way with whatever Manning has with anyone.

Reports earlier this week suggested that employees at the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) informed Dick-Forde that the $10 million claim was erroneous. Rowley had subsequently criticised Dick-Forde for allowing Manning to accuse him in relation to the discrepancy.

Elias charged that if Manning was acting on information provided by Dick-Forde, then she was guilty of misleading the Parliment.

“Fire Ms Dick-Forde now. Send her back to where she came from,” he stated.

Further, he challenged Manning’s authority to make such claims outside of his Parliamentary priviledge.

“Do not call my name in foolishness. Patrick Manning, if he is such a badjohn, let him step outside of Parliment and repeat those allegations because the court of public opinion has already convicted him of lying,” he stated.

The payments were based on the $134,129,000 estimate from the original joint venture agreement between the then National Housing Authority (NHA) and Elias’s NH International (Caribbean) Limited.

Elias maintained that: “All of this information is in the HDC and has always been available to the Minister of Housing. The documents clearly show NHIC's monthly payment claim which is $134.1 million and all payments each month are based on that figure. There has never been any missing money of any kind. The PM and the Minister of Housing knew that.”
 




 
 

[zuluwarrior]

Gronlund-Nunez defends Dick-Forde
 
     
 

 
 Minister in the Ministry of Planning, Housing and the Environment, Tina Gronlund-Nunez, has sought to defend the competence of her line Minister, Emily Gaynor Dick-Forde, against public statements of no confidence from NH International executive chairman Emile Elias following an alleged discrepancy of $10 million in a local housing project.

“I saw the headline, I saw the first paragraph (of a newspaper report) where Mr Elias indicated, I cannot make a comment on that,” Gronlund-Nunez said.

“Well, when Mr Elias becomes the prime minister he can determine such things (whether Dick-Forde should be fired), at this point in time I really cannot make a statement.”

 Gronlund-Nunez was responding to calls from Elias to fire Dick-Forde after Prime Minister Patrick Manning was provided with documents from her that showed a $10 million discrepancy in a joint contract awarded to Elias NH International for the Cleaver Heights Development project in Arima under then housing minister Dr Keith Rowley.

In his contribution to the debate on the 2008-2009 Budget on September 30, Manning called on Rowley to answer the question: “Where the money gone?”

At a recent news conference, Elias said that both Manning and Dick-Forde knew that there was what he called “no missing money, no overpayment.”

According to Gronlund-Nunez, her ministry was following routine procedure and maintaining the progress of its various housing projects.

“Well, you see, I cannot make a statement so I cannot say whether it was a typo or not,” She said.

“No (there was no formal investigation before the announcement was made in parliament), well, I mean of course, in every housing development there is always a constant review of how well it is being done etc. so I mean if something like this has come to light, well yes, then flags will go up, to say an actual investigation, no, I mean all developments are being engaged and how well, because remember that this a programme that is on going we are looking to do things better than how it was done before, which is for all developments.”

Gronlund-Nunez agreed to be interviewed yesterday afternoon at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Port-of-Spain. She was among the attendees of the official launch of the national socio-economic database by the Central Statistical Office.

She added that she was unaware of the time frame for the investigation that was being conducted to account for the$10 million discrepancy.

“As time goes by we try to see where something has gone wrong, we try to avoid it, in future, as to say an official investigation, an official investigation on who, or about who?” she asked.

“It is just really making sure that at the end of the day to get the best product.” (KM)
 
Gronlund-Nunez defends Dick-Forde
 
 talk yuh talk all i wont to know if it was a type o or not and if the MANNING would make an apology to Rowley .   

[Jah Gol]

This Tina Gronlund-Nunez sounds so unprepared an unimpressive in this article.

[weary1969]

Well said Jay she eh ready false ripe 2 d max

[zuluwarrior]

Ministers silent on Rowley rebuttal
 
   
Home
News
Business
Sports
 
Editorial
Commentary
 
Features
Entertainment
Daily Cartoons
 
Sports Arena 
Womanwise
Business Guardian
 
Letters
Death Notices
 
Advertising
Classified Ads
Jobs in T&T
Contact Us
 
Archives
Privacy Policy
 
 
 

 
 Gail Alexander

Both Works Minister Colm Imbert and Housing Minister Emily Dick- Forde yesterday ducked questions on statements made on Monday against Prime Minister Patrick Manning by former Minister Keith Rowley.

Rowley, in Parliament, delivered a statement accusing Manning of allegedly misleading the Parliament on September 30, when Manning made statements regarding the management of the Cleaver Woods Project at the time when Rowley was housing minister.

Manning had asked Rowley to account for $10 million allegedly missing from the project.

Rowley, denying the allegations, called on Manning to make public all documents Manning had spoken of, so that the actions of all the people involved in initiating and operating the projects—and Rowley’s own actions as minister—could be openly assessed.

Rowley said he had instructed his attorneys to seek the documents.

Imbert, leader of Government business in the Lower House, said he had no comment on Rowley’s statements. So did Dick-Forde.

Dick-Forde also ducked queries about the cost of the Cleaver Woods Housing project, the status of some of the project’s problems and if the increased cost would cause renegotiation with contractors.

She said details of the contract and contract prices were being looked at by the HDC’s chairman and deputy chairman. She said she had not received a formal report yet and could not “speak to that.”

Imbert said he did not think Manning had abused parliamentary privilege when he raised questions about the allegedly missing funds.

He reiterated statements he had made in last Saturday’s TG Public Affairs column on parliamentary privilege, saying the time had come to review penalties for abuse of privilege and to enforce the Standing Orders on the issue.

Imbert said some members had abused the situation following the “tea-cup” incident, when UNC MP Chandresh Sharma was suspended. Imbert felt suspension or expulsion was fair penalty for abuse of privilege.

 

 
 

[zuluwarrior]

Rowley moves on Manning

...seeks apology over ‘missing $10m’ claim
 
   
Home
News
Business
Sports
 
Editorial
Commentary
 
Features
Entertainment
Daily Cartoons
 
Sports Arena 
Womanwise
Business Guardian
 
Letters
Death Notices
 
Advertising
Classified Ads
Jobs in T&T
Contact Us
 
Archives
Privacy Policy
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 

Former minister and Member of Parliament for Diego Martin West Dr Keith Rowley holds up a document at yesterday’s news conference. Photo: Shirley Bahadur

Gail Alexander

Sacked minister Keith Rowley, seeking an apology from Prime Minister Patrick Manning, is moving to have Manning brought before Parliament’s Privileges Committee for Manning’s allegations about a “missing $10 million” from the Cleaver Heights housing project.

Rowley presented documents at a Red House press conference yesterday to support his argument that no money was missing from the project.

Manning’s claim about the alleged “missing $10 million” was made in Parliament during the 2009 budget debate.

The day before in debate, Rowley had criticised the Government’s handling of various issues including the Urban Development Corporation (Udecott).

Yesterday, Rowley said that based on the documents which he obtained—and which he said contradict Manning’s claim—he would approach House Speaker Barendra Sinanan immediately on the issue as a matter of privilege.

Sinanan, now overseas, was expected home by yesterday, Parliament officials confirmed.

The Opposition has in recent months attempted to have several ministers brought before the Privileges Committee for allegedly misleading the Parliament. They all apologised, heading off any such action.

Rowley said the documents which his attorneys obtained from the Housing Ministry clearly showed that no money was missing from the project and that the situation was totally at variance to what was said against him in Parliament.

Rowley accused Manning of laying “groundwork to paint him as a dishonest person” on September 30, by first speaking about the Landate issue.

Rowley said Manning had not made public the documents on which he based his allegations against him, despite calls for Manning to do so.

Rowley said there were people who viewed his position in the party and the Government as unacceptable to their agenda and made consistent attempts to damage his earned reputation

“And in this case, the Prime Minister has taken matters into his own hands to accomplish that outcome,” Rowley said.

He said there were consistent attempts to portray him in an unfavourable light since this would have implications on his political career.

Rowley said he had to have an agenda to defend himself.

“This is not a matter of politics...The country’s record must be kept clean,” Rowley said, noting Manning’s allegations.

He said this was an adjudication of his conduct and it formed part of the parliamentary record.

“So I cannot accept that if the Prime Minister doesn’t go further with his slander, the matter has ended there and I’m exonerated,” Rowley said.

“I feel I’m entitled to the protection of the Standing Orders and I intend to avail myself of this.”

Rowley’s documents

August 2003—NHA request for proposals for land/contractors (predating Rowley’s tenure as Housing Minister which started November 2003).
January 2004—Letter from NH International to NHA and December 22 letter to NH.
January 2005—Letter from NH to NHA regarding proposals sent in December 2004. Negotiations continued for 15 months, Rowley said.
No submission made to the Cabinet on the project since HDC has power to enter joint ventures.
Minutes of HDC board meeting of April 2005 re-the board’s unanimous agreement to enter the project to build 403 units for $143 million.
April 2005 letter from HDC to Rowley on a number of housing projects being done by HDC in a housing programme in joint ventures and the 17 contracting companies—including NH—seeking Rowley’s approval.
The letter from the board which Rowley signed gave approximate figures for projects, including the $143 million for the NH project.
October 2004 minutes on HDC joint venture policy.
 

Ok bad ass prove yuh case yuh frunting to much .


 
 

[Swima]

What dey expect he criticise d govt in he budget speech did they expect Manning 2 say thanks Kiethos. Rowley have 4 more budget 2 criticise b4 d next election b4 he replace as MP. If ings so badddddd ind PNM then he should resign but is d easiest money in TNT is a MP. Dey hardly wuk and get pay y give dat up

Why do we accept that? Is the reason we vote based on the individual who represents us or the party they represent? I guess that is another topic. Sorry, carry on.

[weary1969]

U eh hear d kaiso we like it so. I feel it is we luv it well Manning say is more than than d 10 mil so d C O I now lookin into it

[zuluwarrior]

Weary yuh miss out the best part we know we like it so

[weary1969]

I guess dat is we coping mechanism

[Sando]

PM: Rowley did not properly explain missing $10m.
By: Juhel Browne (Express).

Any expectations of an apology from Prime Minister Patrick Manning for questions he asked Diego Martin West MP Dr Keith Rowley during the 2008/2008 Budget debate, about a $10 million sum he said was "missing" out of the award of a housing contract, were dashed in the Parliament last evening.

Instead, Manning told the House of Representatives that the $10 million discrepancy he said was discovered in the Cleaver Heights housing project in Arima has now doubled to $20 million, and announced that he yesterday "directed the Attorney General to refer this project to the commission of enquiry into the construction sector and to ask the commission to give it the requisite level of priority".

Manning did so while delivering a statement on the matter during the House of Representatives sitting at the Red House, Port of Spain, last evening.

With Rowley, who had been the Minister of Housing during the award of the contract to NHIC, looking on attentively, Manning said a valuation report dated September 11, 2008, showed that land and infrastructure at a cost for the project rose from $40.8 million to $47.43 million, the housing units cost from $92,649,000 to $101.96 million with a variation of $20.319 million, while the project was 75 per cent completed.

"Mr Speaker, this project is a source of great concern to the Prime Minister and, as of now, there has been no proper explanation for the discrepancy of $10 million. In fact, the ten million figure has gone to $20 million and the project is only 75 per cent complete and, therefore, God alone knows where this will all end," Manning said.

He provided a letter from the National Housing Authority chief executive officer to NHIC that showed the contractor agreed "no variations would be entertained".

Armed with an arsenal of documents, Manning dismissed Rowley's claims that he had misled the Parliament in any way, while maintaining that he was not casting any aspersions on the Diego Martin West MP.

"If therefore, on that occasion, anybody misled the honourable House, it was not the Prime Minister," Manning said.

He said that NHIC did approach the HDC for a joint venture arrangement for the construction of 408 houses, in which NHIC would provide the land and the infrastructure at a cost of approximately $40.8 million and the housing units at an approximate cost of $92,649,000 "for a total of $133,249,000", but when the matter went to the board of the HDC the aggregate figure was given at $143 million.

"It was $10 million more than the two figures, in fact, add up to. You will also recall, Mr Speaker, that this matter came to my attention only on the very morning and that, try as we may, we could find no explanation for the discrepancy of $10 million, and under those circumstances I thought that the member for Diego Martin who was Minister of Housing at the time might be in a position to assist us and, therefore, I asked him where the money gone? Give us an explanation," Manning said.

Recalling that Rowley said in the Parliament that as Minister of Housing he "did not get involved in any details to do with any contract, evaluation, recommendation or award", Manning produced a letter he said was dated April 26, 2005, from the then chief executive officer of the National Housing Authority (NHA), now the HDC, to Rowley as Housing Minister, which showed under the Housing Act, the authority "may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into contracts to carry out" projects which included the Cleaver Heights contract to NHIC at a cost of $143.449 million.

Manning said the project did, in fact, receive the "outline approval from Rowley while he was the Housing Minister as required by law, but noted no project which requires funding from the Treasury can be executed by any Minister or agency without the approval of the Cabinet and with reference to Cleaver Heights, "this was done".

Manning also said Rowley's previous assertion that any discrepancy was a typographical error has not yet been proven and no contract was ever signed to govern the construction of the housing development.

"The project had outline approval, it never had final approval from the Town and Country Planning Division, and that contractual arrangement was entered into between the NHA/HDC and NH International on the basis of a letter of commitment. No contract was signed, Mr Speaker. In other words, under the supervision of the distinguished member for Diego Martin West as Minister, the NHA or HDC entered into a 133, 143 million dollar contract without the contract being signed. There was no signed contract. Mr Speaker, I leave you to draw your own conclusions, but all of this are the things that cause us some concern," Manning said.

[weary1969]

Wit d history of C O I we will neva know what is d real story wit d money