Manning’s unbridled ego trip

The Editor: I send you for publication a copy of a letter I have addressed to the Editor of The Parliamentarian, the journal published by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. But first, the public must bear in mind that the need for a new Parliament building has never been established by any proper, objective and professional analysis.

What is on record is that:
A House Committee of Parliament decided that the entire Red House be dedicated exclusively to Parliament. The only dissenting voice on that Committee was Patrick Manning, who while Prime Minister had previously expressed his desire to occupy the Red House. Parliament currently utilises only 40 percent of the Red House, thus it will have two and a half times its present space in the Red House, since all other government offices have been moved elsewhere. The architectural advisers have expressed no difficulty about modifying the Red House for the exclusive use of Parliament. My understanding is that they are not in favour of the changed use of the Red House. Only Patrick Manning and his close sycophants have advanced the idea that Parliament needs a new building.

Manning has refused to discuss the matter with the public, even equating the eviction of Parliament with putting a few benches and concrete pavers in the Brian Lara Promenade. While Manning thus betrays a certain quality of intellect for all to see, Saith now claims that this position demonstrates strong leadership; ie: a strong government rides roughshod over public opinion. Moving of Parliament is such a monumental decision, it should not be undertaken without public participation, such as an open public forum where all views are heard. Architects should be free to advance their views without fear of exclusion from future government projects. Parliament staff should be allowed to share their knowledge and information with the public, without the restraints of public service regulations. They, after all, comprise the nation’s only source of “expert advice.” Mary King should also be free to articulate her opinion.

The media should be given a guided tour of present Parliament facilities for public enlightenment. Speaker Sinanan too could tell us what he thinks, even if he cannot tell Manning to his face. Citizens should see their nation’s history preserved for posterity, and not cast aside as if life began with Manning. Unless the public is consulted in a meaningful way, citizens must understand that the possible $500 million cost for relocating Parliament to a new building, is in reality the price tag for Manning’s monumental ego trip. Manning’s rape of a century of our heritage would never be forgiven by future generations. In the midst of the unchecked crime epidemic with an ineffective police service; the increased kidnappings with very few indictments; the slaughter of people on the roads with hardly a policeman around; the deaths of babies from hospital bacteria with futile and inconclusive investigations; the debilitating ruination of our schools and children with only despair in sight; with all these crises confronting our people, why is Manning obsessed with the trappings of office, rather than his election promises of good government?
Are citizens prepared to foot the bill for Manning’s obscene and unbounded ego?

Michael J Williams
Maracas Valley

Mr Andrew Imlach
Editor
The Parliamentarian
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
Suite 700, Westminster House 7 Millbank, London SWIP 3JA
UK

Dear Mr Imlach:
The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is currently witnessing what I believe must be a unique experience for any Common-wealth nation. Through The Parliamentarian I seek to enquire whether any other member has had a similar experience, and would welcome comments, either directly or through your journal.

The question: Has any Commonwealth Prime Minister ever evicted Parliament from it’s building in order to install in its place the Prime Minister’s office? For more than a hundred years, the Red House has housed the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, and its colonial predecessor the Legislative Council. In its ornate parliamentary chamber, the bloodless battles were fought for our independence and our democracy, as this chamber witnessed the evolution of our nation from crown colony, to internal self-government, to full independence, and now to Republic status. In 1992, the then Prime Minister Mr Patrick Manning expressed his intention to locate his office in the same building as Parliament. Members of the public thought it inappropriate that the Prime Minister should be seen to be poaching on the premises of Parliament. Government, after all, is elected for five years at a time.

Earlier this year the Manning government took the position that government was the landlord, that Parliament was merely its tenant, and therefore the government was entitled to locate Parliament wherever it wished. With no public consultation, nor any published professional advice, government decided that the Red House was too small for Parliament, and that it would build a new Parliament building. No mention was made then of the alternative use contemplated for the massive Red House, which occupies a complete block overlooking Woodford Square, sometimes equated with Hyde Park.  Standing in the centre of our capital city, the Red House is the most prominent, prestigious, beautiful, and elegant edifice in Port-of- Spain. It once housed the Supreme Court and several other government offices; but on the decision of a Parliament House Committee that the Red House be dedicated exclusively for Parliament, these offices were all vacated. Little by little, it became evident that the Prime Minister’s earlier ambition to sit in the Red House had not waned, and that he intended to put his office in the Red House after Parliament was relocated.
“If he could not share the Red House with Parliament, then the Parliament must vacate.” But constructing a new Parliament is of course a Herculean undertaking in the best of circumstances. But doing it in the heart of the city, requiring the demolition or modification of several substantial structures, would probably take five or ten years.

However, while the government in February was shedding tears for the discomforts of MPs, just eight months later in October, the Prime Minister decided that he needs the Red House immediately, and that Parliament must vacate post-haste and find temporary accommodation elsewhere.
The comfort and convenience of MPs is now of secondary importance, as is the dislocation of Parliamentary staff who must shudder at the thought of moving the nation’s Parliament twice in a decade. I look forward to your comments and advice.

Michael J Williams
Former Senate President