No more honey from Barry

The Opposition has branded Barry Sinanan the most bias Speaker in the history of this country. But it is this Speaker who has provided what is formally known as the Office of the Opposition Leader with facilities, infinitely superior to anything enjoyed by previous Opposition Leaders. The rent paid by the Parliament for the new Opposition office at 11 Charles Street is $46,575.00 a month, while the rent which was paid by Chepstow House, the old place was $11,500. The floor space of the new office which takes up two floors — 5th and 6th — is 5,703 square feet while the floor space at the previous building was just 2,552 square feet. The Parliament also pays for eight carpark spaces in the current facility while in the old accommodation the Opposition Leader had to park on Frederick Street (with a tacit agreement from the police that they would not wreck his vehicle). Furthermore, in outfitting the new structure, the Speaker approved the Clerk of the House expending $101,785,000 for new furniture, $63,000 for computer equipment, $151,000 for renovating the building so that, among other things, the Leader of the Opposition could be afforded a private bathroom, with shower. This is in stark contrast to what obtained at Chepstow House where the Opposition Leader had to take a key, walk down a hall to use a bathroom that was shared by all the tenants of the building, which included a boutique and hair dressing salon. A state of the art telephone system was also installed at the current facility at a cost of $16,000. At the new accommodation also has offices for the two House leaders — Chief Whip Ganga Singh and Senate Minority leader Wade Mark as well as two extra offices for members of the Opposition who might wish to use its facilities intermittently.

All this could not have been done without the blessing and the deliberate support of the Speaker, who has direct control of the faciliities for all members of Parliament, including the Opposition Leader’s office, and without the Cabinet which gave the final okay, based on the recommendation of the Speaker. And because most of this expenditure was not budgeted for, the Speaker had to divert funds from other sources — such as the Red House Restoration project. Out of an allocation of $175,000 for furniture for the entire Parliament, $101,785,000 was spent on the purchase of the new furniture at the Office of the Opposition Leader. “The Leader of the Opposition deserves proper accommodation. And when you look at Chepstow House, that was a dump, a total disgrace to the office of the Leader of the Opposition,” Speaker Sinanan said. To the comment that he wasn’t being appreciated for his efforts, Sinanan said he didn’t do it for any kudos or praise. “My participation in that exercise was not to be thanked or not to be attacked. Once I know in my heart that I have done what is right, that is all that matters,” he told Sunday Newsday on Friday. In fact, Mr Panday has jokingly acknowledged the quality of his new facilities in a private parley with reporters, offering this quip: “Ah ‘fraid to let Manning see this office, he might want to come and occupy it.” Conceding that much of the expenditure was unbudgeted, Sinanan said that from the very onset he took the position that “if we had to pinch and scrape to do it” the Opposition Leader — “as did all members of Parliament” — had to be given his due.

In dealing with the Opposition inside of the Parliament Sinanan said he has also been sympathetic. “Even since this allegations by the Opposition, I began to question myself,” he said, adding that he had begun to eliminate reasons. He had come to the conclusion that it was not the discharge of his duties that was the bone of contention and the root of the unwarranted attacks. “You must ask yourself this: Never before in the history of the Parliament has there been this relentless attack on both presiding officers (in the Parliament). And I keep asking myself why...It cannot be bias...And I am more or less coming to the conclusion that it is because I am of East Indian descent. And the funny part of the thing is I do not see myself as Indian. I see myself as Trinidadian and I wish the whole country would see themselves in that light.” Sinanan is criticised by many people in the society, for being too soft. Many people think that his diffidence has encouraged rather than diluted the UNC assault and that without any retaliation from him, the Opposition is viewing him as a low fence which Opposition members feel they can scale with impunity. “My approach to this whole session of Parliament was simply this: You are dealing with human beings. I can understand the feelings of members of the Opposition of not being in Government...They were brought down by allegations of corruption from some of their own members, including the Attorney General...It is a difficult time for people, being in Government, having that power, now they are out of it. Some people can adjust to that in an easier way...Take the PNM, the PNM was in goverance for 30 years when it was almost wiped out.”  “In 1995 it happened again. They settled in quicker than this current Opposition...I have given the Opposition an extended honeymoon...I know I have been criticised for not been firmer...But I allowed for this settling period...But those who know me, know that (for me) there comes a time where patience ceases to be a virtue...” he stated. He noted that while Parliament was no tea party (to quote the Leader of the Opposition, Basdeo Panday), at the same time it was certainly not a fish market. “It is high time that members settle in and do the country’s business and their constituents business...No honeymoon lasts forever.”

The Opposition’s latest beef with Sinanan is over the issue of questions to ministers and the Speaker’s amendment to a question filed by Caroni Central MP Hamza Rafeeq. Under the Standing Orders the Speaker is empowered to make changes or to rule a question to be out of order if it is deemed, in his opinion, to be an abuse of the right to ask questions or if it infringes on the standing orders. Rafeeq submitted a question which asked the Minister of Health to (a) state the number of persons employed with the NWRHA whose salaries were over $150,000.00 a year for which ministerial approval was not obtained and (b) to give details. The approved (and amended) question began by asking (a) whether there were persons employed with the NHWHA whose salaries were over $150,000 for which ministerial approval was not obtained and (b) If so, to give details. It was felt that the UNC MP’s original question began with an assumption. Also, in making the change, it was felt that the amendments ensured that Rafeeq would have obtained the very same information he was seeking through his original submission. Furthermore, the change is also done to avoid a charge that questions were being duplicated because Rafeeq on 22/11/02 had received an answer to a question which had asked the Health Minister to state the number of persons employed with the NWRHA, the list of their names, qualifications and salaries and the procedure for recruitment. Sinanan stated that the practice of editing questions was old and consistently done by all Speakers. He said sometimes questions were badly phrased, sometimes there was bad grammar, sometimes questions were  too vague and needed to be more specific and sometimes they just did not comply with the rules.

On the charge by Nariva MP Harry Partap that he (Sinanan) was seeking to cover up information on the employment of the Prime Minister’s sister, Pansetta Gayle, Sinanan stated: “If I see Pansetta Gayle I would not know who she is. I don’t even know that the Prime Minister had a sister called Pansetta Gayle.” He added: “I know the Prime Minister has a sister who is a doctor but even if I see her I would even know that her.” Partap on February 4, 2003 had received a reply to a question asking the Minister of Labour for the list of names of persons who applied for the position of Director, Information Technology in the Ministry of Labour. He also received a reply to a question asking for the names of persons on the interview panel and the details of the salary and other benefits payable to the holder of this contract post. It was then that the information on Gayle was first released. Partap has since submitted a question asking for the names and qualifications of all those applied for the job. The Office of the Speaker felt that the idea of approve information revealing the qualifications and names of anybody who applies for a job in the public service was an abuse of the process. It also felt that the question did not fall under the cognisance of the Minister. Sinanan also pointed out that it was the acceptable practice of MPs, whenever they were uncertain about questions, to call the Office. But now (UNC) MPs were going straight to the platform. “I don’t believe that the issue has to do with these questions...If you were to check the number of questions filed and the number approved, you would be amazed,” Sinanan stated. Sinanan said he was certain in his heart and his conscience that he had discharged his duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and with impartality. “;Ever since these allegations by the Opposition, I began to question myself and without a doubt I have been extremely fair to the Opposition,” he commented. Sinanan said he has never reached a point where he feels like throwing in the towel. He knew the job wouldn’t be easy when he accepted it. And he has sought advice from his Commonwealth counterparts and also from the Clerks of the House in Trinidad and Tobago in many matters. He is high in praise for the staff at the Parliament, describing them as dedicated, knowledgeable and hard-working. “;Politicians ought to take an example from the people who work here,”  he said, adding: “It is time (for MPs) to settle down. The country expects it and I am certainly not going to disappoint this country.”