Taken from Trinidad Guardian April 1st 2007,
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news1.html BY KAYODE JAMES
Despite efforts to frame a new constitution that would recognise the post, Prime Minister Patrick Manning now believes that the population is not “sophisticated enough” to facilitate an executive president.
Speaking during the National Association for the Empowerment of African People’s International Conference on the Constitution at La Joya in St Joseph, yesterday morning, Manning said T&T had not yet arrived at “the end of the line” that would necessitate the administration of an executive president.
“I do not believe that T&T has as yet become sophisticated enough...to take the executive presidency to its classic form, to its logical conclusion.”
That decision, Manning said, would have to be made sometime in the future, and would be based on measures included in the next iteration of the constitution.
“It is another interim step that we will have to put in place, leaving the decisions in the future to subsequent governments and subsequent populations to decide how fast we go and how far we go at any particular point in time.”
Manning also rejected the notion of restricting the term of office of a president, saying that the system was better applied to countries with much larger populations.
“If you seek to restrict the term of office of a president here, you could eliminate from office someone who is extremely good and replace such a person with mediocrity.”
Manning added though, that the power of the president should be limited.
Citing the August,1995, house arrest of Speaker Occah Seapaul, Manning said he was concerned by the number and nature of questions posed by then acting President Emmanuel Carter.
“I began to realise that if he did not want to declare a state of emergency, he did not have to, and nobody could do anything about it.”
“The President, as it stands, is subject to no law...The President is in a position to frustrate the will of the elected authorities if he so wishes.
“In T&T, not only is (such interference) possible, it is very likely. On that ground and that ground alone, the constitution needs reviewing.”
Manning said during a conversation with an unnamed Chief of Defence staff, he was informed that the nation’s armed forces would obey the orders of the President, rather than the Prime Minister, if the two gave conflicting instructions.
He similarly questioned the objectivity of independent senators, saying he would dismiss the posts entirely if given the chance.
“I (would) have no difficulty putting constitutional arrangements in place that don’t recognise independent senators. They’re not really independent. It just is not so.”
Manning also gave a vote of no confidence to the issue of proportional representation, which he believes could work in the Opposition party’s favour by giving more power to the country’s largest ethnic group.
“The politicians who have the upper hand in that matter—and at this time they form the Opposition—will find it too attractive a proposition not to use.”
Manning was also concerned that the system could increase racial tension along political lines.
“As the two major races are so closely-matched in terms of numbers, and especially as one has slightly more numbers than the next, if you bring a system of proportional representation in place, what do you think will happen?
“It will accentuate ethnic voting in T&T, and you have to decide if that is what you’re trying to do.”
Manning emphasised the potential for political mischief in the ongoing discourse surrounding constitution reform.
“There is plenty room in this matter for misunderstanding; there is plenty room in this matter for misrepresentation; and there is plenty room in this matter for those who come to the table with other than clean hands and a pure heart to create as much mischief as they wish.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since this is Aprils fools, allyuh think this man was being serious?[/i]---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independents scoff at Manning’s jibes Again from Trinidad Guardian, April 1st 2007
BY KAYODE JAMES
SEVERAL independent senators are dismissing as unenlightened Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s comments regarding abolition of the independent senatorial position.
Manning questioned the independence of independent senators, and said yesterday he would not hesitate to end the position if given the opportunity.
“I (would) have no difficulty putting constitutional arrangements in place that don’t recognise independent senators.
“They’re not really independent. It just is not so.”
Senator Dr Eastlyn McKenzie disagreed with the sentiment, and said the senators had been similarly accused of bias in the past.
“We’ve heard from the UNC that the independent senators are pro-PNM, and now we’re hearing that we’re pro-UNC. I guess it goes with the turf.
“I don’t think we’re so thin-skinned to take on the Prime Minister.”
McKenzie said she never felt any of her colleagues were biased towards or against any political party.
“Everyone is entitled to their own views. When I go in there I couldn’t care less who is on the other side. I go there looking at the issues, and I say what I have to say according to my own conscience.”
Senator Mary King expressed similar sentiments.
“All unenlightened governments act on the basis that if you disagree with them, as an independent senator or otherwise, then you are against them.
“And in their partisan logic, since you oppose them, you are the Opposition, and you are no longer independent.
“The Government—and particularly PMs—find it difficult to appreciate that independent senators have no whip, and do not abide by any collective view on any subject.
“So the PM can be forgiven for his in-the-box thinking. His view of a new constitution echoes this limitation in luminary thought.”
King said she was accused, recently, of being in cahoots with the Congress of the People, after appearing on a television talk show with COP leader Winston Dookeran.
Also in disagreement was Senator Prof Kenneth Ramchand, who believes that the place of the independent senators should be part of a wider discourse on the future of the Senate.
“I don’t think it can be decided that the provision in the constitution for independent senators should be abolished on the basis that someone has a perception that some independent senators are not independent.
“To remove the provision in the constitution for independent senators, we have to ask what functions it was intended that independent senators should serve; consider whether those functions are still necessary, and decide whether a better way of carrying out those functions has been proposed.
“No one in a democracy would want to set themselves against a rational and democratic decision.”
Ramchand lamented the dearth of discussion regarding the future of the Senate as a whole, and said independent senators could not be discussed without discussing the entire institution, its composition, powers, and method of appointment.
Ramchand said, also, existing measures could be taken against independent senators perceived to be biased.
“If an independent senator does not behave as a person of independent mind, and if the President forms the opinion that that senator is biased in the performance of his duties, the President has unchallengeable discretionary power under the constitution to remove any independent senator.”
Senator Dana Seetahal questioned whether Manning attended the Senate often enough to be able to form such a sweeping opinion.
She said while the Prime Minister was entitled to his opinion, she found the statement to be without merit.
“The independent senators have been thorns in the side of every government and every government’s desire to pass legislation as they want to,” she said, noting the frequency with which independent senators held different positions on the big issues.
“That, to my mind, is one indication that they are independent.”
Seetahal also dismissed Manning’s claims that independent senators must remain independent of the President.
“The Constitution says no such thing.
“The Constitution says that the President may appoint independent senators in his discretion, just as the Prime Minister appoints senators at his own discretion.
“If the independent senators espouse views of the President, it would not be inconsistent with the Constitution.”
