Parliamentary Digest

WHEN Kamla Persad-Bissessar is removed as Opposition Leader, she can trace her demise partly to last Friday’s session of the Lower House.

The session started off with Speaker Barry Sinanan scolding Persad-Bissessar, who was not present at the start of the sitting. “Honourable Members, within recent times I have noticed that certain members are giving premature publicity to various matters related to the business of the House,” Sinanan said.

“While this may not necessarily be a breach of privilege or contempt of the House, it is certainly an act of impropriety.” He added that presenting a petition to the public before it came to the House could be treated as a breach of privilege — an act which Persad-Bissessar had committed that very week on Indian Arrival Day.

Princes Town MP Subhas Panday, who was acting as Chief Whip, then unblushingly presented the petition on behalf of the still-absent Persad-Bissessar, which called on the Cabinet to re-name the Trinity Cross. And, a few seconds after Subhas finished speaking, Persad-Bissessar walked into the chamber — having thus avoided being the focus of attention while being publicly scolded. Then, ten minutes into the session, Prime Minister Patrick Manning rose to announce that the Trinity Cross would be re-named.

So Persad-Bissessar’s petition was automatically cast aside, thus making her look foolish on two counts: one, because her petition had nakedly political motives; and, two, because her presenting it made it seem as though she had been ignorant about the announcement Manning was going to make.

To add insult to Persad-Bissessar’s injury, Manning’s speech was excellent: interweaving history, ethical principles, and political philosophy. The main thrust was the need to manage diversity, and that re-naming the Trinity Cross was a step forward in this regard. Since this was exactly what the Opposition had been asking for, Persad-Bissessar’s move at the end of Manning’s speech was completely wrong-footed: she rose to object to the composition of the committee appointed to examine the re-naming. The PNM MPs immediately shouted her down, since responses to Ministerial statements are not allowed. But Persad-Bissessar appeared anxious to establish her leadership credentials.

This was shown even in the fact that she decided to respond to the main item on the afternoon’s agenda — the Finance (Supplementation and Variation of Appropriation) Bill, 2006, which Junior Finance Minister Conrad Enill presented to Parliament so the Government could get an extra $4 billion till the next Budget in September. Persad-Bissessar speaks far more often in Parliament than former Opposition Leader (and still UNC boss) Basdeo Panday ever had. And, whereas during Panday’s tenure Persad-Bissessar would handle legal topics, now she speaks mostly on fiscal matters.

This may be partly because she just completed her MBA at the Arthur Lok Jack School of Business, but it may also be part of the shaft-Dookeran project. And, on the previous sittings where Persad-Bissessar has spoken, Dookeran has elected to keep his seat.

However, this approach backfired on Persad-Bissessar that afternoon. She took the PNM regime to task for its profligacy, saying it had spent out the $34 billion budget within eight months. “Now, with the largest Budget ever, the Government wants more money for expenditure.”

She said that the Constitution referred to social justice for all, asking, “It’s all good and well to boast about the rate of growth, GDP growth, but is that reaching down to the ordinary man, is that being earned for the ordinary man in Trinidad and Tobago?”

She went to assert that the PNM had spent all this money with nothing to show for it — no new

roads, schools, unimproved health care, and so on.

“But the most glaring failure of this Government is really in the area of national security,” she said. As the Government has spent more on national security, she argued, crime had increased.

The response of Works Minister Colm Imbert to Persad-Bissessar was unusually harsh. Imbert is usually cutting in his rebuttals, but on this occasion he also raised his voice and used virtually every phrase with the word “nonsense” in the English language to describe her contribution: “arrant nonsense”, “nonsensical diatribe” and plain “nonsense”. Imbert’s argument was that the country had additional revenue which had to be appropriated by the Government or be lost. “It’s a fundamental point that people keep missing,” Imbert said.

And so he turned around Persad-Bissessar’s contribution, listing the various projects and initiatives the Government had underway and asserting that Persad-Bissessar was in essence saying that these programmes should not be funded. “Is that what the Member is saying?” Imbert exclaimed after each point.

As Imbert spoke, Persad-Bissessar repeatedly threw milky comments — like “You are a clown” and “You are ridiculous” — which only served to make her appear even more anxious. Imbert’s approach may not have passed muster in a real debate but, as a political strategy, he came out on top that evening. And, if Kamla can’t handle Imbert, then many people will doubt her ability to handle tougher opponents.