Manning’s $500 million 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. 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:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Only Patrick Manning and his close sycophants have advanced the idea that Parliament needs a new building.
(5) 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. And 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 — why is Manning engrossed 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