PM wants to know who shut down the city

Prime Minister Patrick Manning said yesterday he has asked National Security Minister Howard Chin Lee, for a report on Monday’s traffic gridlock because he says, he doesn’t understand why there was a need to shut down streets in the city.

Everyone, including Members of Parliament and guests to the ceremonial opening of Parliament, was blocked out from the streets around the Parliament as a result of the security arrangements for the Abu Bakr inquiry. The chaotic traffic situation resulted in the late arrival of many persons to the Red House, with the President addressing a half-empty Chamber. Yesterday Manning commented on the situation: “I have raised that question with the Minister of National Security and he would let me know exactly what happened, and why. I had no reason to believe that there was any special reason for any particular lockdown on that day...I was not aware of any special need for that. I just couldn’t understand why such unusual arrangements were put in place,” he stated.

On the question of the prayer said by Rev Cyril Paul at the opening of Parliament, Manning reiterated that the prayer was inappropriate. Told that both the President and Rev Paul were talking about deficiencies they perceived in the functioning of Parliament and of MPs not pursuing the people’s interest, Manning said that as far as he was aware, Rev Paul was saying a prayer, and was not required to make a statement.  “There is a difference between a prayer and a statement,” Manning said. But whether you pray, or whether you say it, weren’t the comments critical either way?  “Which is exactly the point I was trying to make — that a prayer is not the appropriate place (mechanism) to do that,” the Prime Minister responded. He added: “Constantly I make the point that if politicians today are not held in the regard in which they would like to be held...then they have nobody to blame but themselves. And one of the things I try to do is to insist that certain standards are maintained within the Parliament itself...If MPs on our side say things with which I do not agree, or if I disagree with their attitude, or the manner in which they say something, I talk to them quietly afterwards. We don’t go on the front page (of the newspapers) with that.” While the PNM “does  its part” to try to uphold standards in Parliament, the Prime Minister said he could not speak for “others.”

Manning was also questioned on the plan to develop Caroni Limited which was presented by private investors to Dr Lenny Saith and Sen John Rahael. The PM said that “so far” it was “nothing more than a PR exercise” with Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj emerging at the forefront of what appeared to be “merely a strategy to create a political issue where none exists. And he (Maharaj) is trying to eke out political space in anticipation of the formation of a new political party,” Manning asserted, adding that there had been nothing “concrete” in the plan presented by this group. On Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday’s pledge that the UNC’s policy of non-cooperation would continue, Manning said Panday and the UNC would continue to pay the political price for such “irresponsibility” as they “pussyfooted” on the issue of crime. On the Opposition leader’s insistence that constitution reform had to be put on the table before anything else was addressed, Manning said the PNM did not need the UNC to tell it that constitution reform was necessary. Pointing to the party’s election manifesto, the Prime Minister said the PNM had been pursuing an agenda of constitution reform. But, “We do not propose to rush into it,” he said, emphasising Government commitment to proceed on the basis of the widest possible consultation with the national community.

On Panday’s criticisms of President Max Richards for not delivering the “traditional” throne speech outlining Government’s legislative agenda, Manning said Panday’s posture was “one step away from saying that we should have retained the monarchy.” He said since Trinidad and Tobago became a Republic the country had slowly moved away from the motion of a “throne speech” and had replaced it with a statement by the President “who in his own deliberate judgement in addressing the Parliament chooses a topic of national interest.” Stating that the President (in this statement to Parliament) expressed a point of view that he feels would redound to the benefit of the country’s governance, Manning insisted that Richards’ speech was “entirely in order.”