Manning’s Red House obsession, Calder Hart and Uthara Rao

THE EDITOR: Because of a letter he received from the Trinidad and Tobago Institute of Architects, Prime Minister Manning has once again placed on the national agenda his Red House obsession. Many of course have grown weary of the debate, and do not understand this preoccupation of Manning, citing as far more critical the escalation of crime and kidnapping, and the stagnant construction sector in spite of the daily forecasts of “boom” revenues. Some housing activity is noted, and not without justification many have termed this “house padding.” Before commenting on the architects’ intervention, I need to focus again on two important aspects of the Red House controversy, which have never been challenged in the debate. The first is my argument that the Parliament and its precincts are vested in the House of the Speaker and, in consequence of that, the Executive which is subordinate to Parliament is without authority to interfere with, or to move Parliament. It is an error to equate the Parliament and its precincts with any other piece of government real estate, such as the Twin Towers, the Magistrates’ Court, the Golden Grove Prison, or a Customs’ warehouse. This error has led the Manning executive to see itself in a landlord role, and Parliament as its tenant to be ejected at will.

The substantive debate, therefore, is not about the size of the Parliament chamber, or the number of offices or the multi-media facilities in Parliament. Rather it is about the supremacy of Parliament, the bulwark of our democracy and freedom; and whether Manning is acting improperly in pursuing his Red House obsession. Speaker Barry Sinanan has been silent and appears to have acquiesced in whatever the government wishes to do. The second aspect has to do with the real reason for wanting Parliament moved. Readers will recall Minister Saith’s initial shock announcement that Parliament would be moved to a new building and, in his brand of “political honesty,” he catalogued all the requirements for a new Parliament, committee rooms, members’ office, etc, which he claimed rendered the Red House inadequate.  He never mentioned the intended use for our vacated premier national building, until a media person asked a direct question: “Will the Prime Minister’s office occupy the Red House?” which brought forth the feeble reply: “That is an option.”

I now refer readers to a newspaper headline of  March 7, “Sorry Chief Justice ... but Parliament will move”. In this story the reporters quoted Manning as saying “that the driving factor behind the move to construct a new parliament building was to relocate the Office of the Prime Minister now located at Whitehall — to the Red House.” This prompted me to seek the reporter’s confirmation of that report, which he did unequivocally. We must, therefore, understand that this Red House brouhaha has nothing to do with Parliament’s accommodation, but that it springs entirely from Manning’s monster ego. Manning wants the Red House for himself. No thought had been given to a new location for the soon-to-be demolished brand new-and-hardly-used Magistrates’ Court. In typical ad hoc style, characteristic of this government, the Chief Justice was neither consulted nor advised; and Manning dreamily remarked about his Red House delusions of grandeur — “I thought everyone was on board”. Well, it is now history that only a handful of sycophants were on board with Manning, plus one architect friend of mine who understandably sees a prestigious and profitable prize ahead. Manning had left most of the nation behind, including Senator Ramchand and Suzanne Mills, whose column “No Red House for Manning” is indicative of the passionate abhorrence which citizens feel about tampering with their 100-year historic institution, for no reason but Manning’s ego.

About the architects, the unsavoury fact is that government uses its projects for patronage, and has cowed the architect community into silence, where no leading member had publicly commented on the relocation of Parliament until TTIAs recent letter. Prior to the last elections, Government had projected several major projects, most budgeted around $100 million, including hospitals, ministries, Customs & Excise, Salvatori, etc. All this huge expenditure will be controlled by Mr Calder Hart, Chairman of Udecott, on Manning’s instructions and without Central Tenders Board procedures. Calder Hart calls the shots. Calder is a friendly gentleman who clearly has talents to offer, but I must confess that it galls me, as it must thousands of other Trinis, that Manning cannot find a single Trini, either natural or naturalised, to whom he could entrust the development of TTs national infrastructure. Is this the legacy of 35 years of PNM rule, and 40 years of independence, even as Manning trumpets his 2020 delusion of first world status? Calder Hart dismisses as “colonial mentality” those citizens who would stand up to protect their Parliament, and the democracy which it embodies. He misses the irony of his own selection as a foreigner, to preside over TTs natural programme of infrastructure development, even as many Trinbagonians have difficulty entering Canada, either to work or vacation. And Manning appoints yet another foreigner, Mr Uthara Rao, to be Chairman and CEO, to dispose of our 77,000 acres of Caroni lands. Surely this reinforces the contempt which Manning holds for TT nationals and should point Calder to the source of our “colonial mentality.”

When recently presenting PNM local government candidates in Woodford Square, Manning seeks to entice the THA Chief Secretary, the mayors and regional chairmen with Senate seats, with idle talk about unlikely constitutional changes. But this mamaguy does not conceal his duplicity, that while offering the role of “Puppeteers in Parliament” to party activists, even though adorned with balisier ties, he is also embracing foreigners like Calder Hart and Uthara Rao, and together they trample over both our national dignity, and our national patrimony. To be sure, I have no problem in utilising foreign skills in our national life, but if we have no qualms about entrusting our patrimony to the hands of visiting foreigners on work permits, could TT not do better by importing a foreign-used prime minister? Lester Bird might well be tempted? TTIA President Mr Mark Raymond has since clarified that TTIA did not endorse Manning’s Red House ambitions. In his excellent Guardian dissertation “House Debate by Design,” Mark points to the Parliaments in India and in Britain, which were expanded without disturbing the original fabric. Then why not in Trinidad?

The overriding and only consensus of the architects was that the matter needed much research and discussion, that the public should obviously be involved, and the Parliament staff should have an input. I myself have suggested a colloquium where all available information would be shared with the citizens of TT for open discussion, where the Parliament Clerks and their staff would be free to discuss all the issues, and not be silenced by public service regulations. As citizens of TT, they are best placed to advise and educate the public. Indeed I question whether the Freedom of Information Act does not render redundant those regulations which prohibit public servants from commenting on public issues. My information is that since the entire Red House building is now available for Parliament, that all professional advice tendered has supported the adequacy of the Red House, and that the Parliament staff is violently opposed to vacating the Red House. PSA President Jennifer Baptiste has extracted a commitment from Manning that there will be public consultation on the matter. Were the prerogative mine, I would award Jennifer the Trinity Cross solely on the basis of her intervention to date. As PSA President this good lady is probably the only person in TT who can stop Manning, given the silence of Speaker Sinanan, and the facility with which government is able to circumvent proper procedures via Udecott and CEPEP.It has not gone unnoticed that no other Members of Parliament but Manning and Saith have publicly supported the Parliament’s ejection from the Red House. Why has the PM not acceded to the patently reasonable request of Senator Ramchand to discuss the matter? Will he follow the architects’ proposal for open discussion on the issue, or will he continue in his blundering from week to week?

cMICHAEL J WILLIAMS
Maracas