Is Annisette viable?

Sunday, October 11 2009

Source: Newsday

INDEPENDENT Senator Michael Annisette’s inflamed speech to the Senate last week Thursday raises serious questions as to his impartiality in that office, and on his suitability to continue in such an esteemed post.

“I am not afraid of you; You made a mistake to mess with a dock worker,” he had stormed.

There are two issues.

Firstly, we consider that as a director of Udecott appointed by the Government he had absolutely no business taking part in that debate, in the role of a Senator who is supposedly independent. Secondly, we say he was wrong to use the parliamentary chamber to attack other people, including a politician, a businessman and even a journalist. He kept looking in the direction of the press gallery and shouting, “Where is Mr Bagoo” (Newsday reporter).

More fundamentally, was the fact that Mr Annisette in the guise of an Independent Senator, passionately defended a Government company which is embroiled in controversy over the awards of billions of dollars in contracts, while also vehemently attacking the character of other individuals.

The whole issue was, to us, a blatant conflict of interest.

If Mr Annisette felt he had to get something off his chest in his own defence, he should instead have sought to simply make his views known and then get on with the debate on hand.

In addition to the content of his speech, we also have serious concerns about Mr Annisette’s style of delivery.

Mr Annisette’s delivery was loud and some might also say, aggressive. Further, while speaking he vigorously waved his arms around with an apparently agitated body language.

It was a sight never seen before within living memory on the Independent benches.

We accept that things may get heated in the cut and thrust of partisan politics in the elected Lower House. Such partisanship may even spill over a little into the Upper House between Government and Opposition Senators. But this conduct should never be displayed by an Independent Senator.

By and large, the purpose of the Senate in a bicameral parliament is to be a restraint on the raw power of the Lower House. Further, within the Senate itself, the Independent Senators are expected to be the voice of moderation and decorum.

Up to this time, Trinidad and Tobago has been very well served indeed by the dignity of our past Independent Senators.

Sadly, Mr Annisette’s speech last week was certainly not calm, reasoned, measured and impartial.

He has failed to assuage fears of a conflict of interest in his role as an Independent Senator and as a director of Udecott (and other State boards), or that he has the right temperament to be an Independent Senator.

We say it is time for Mr Annisette to do some serious soul-searching about his future.

This man doesn't have one independent bone in his body, he is an outright PNM to the bone, PNM till he dead. What he doing as an independent senator, only Max could answer that. And we all know how good Max is at selecting people with integrity. After the Integrity Commission fiasco, we know for sure just how qualified Max is at selecting people to serve the country. Max and Annisette are both creatures of the PNM and should both be forced to resign ASAP!!

CLICO $20m PNM GIFT

How cash-squeezed insurance giant bankrolled 2007 elections Camini Marajh Investigative Desk Sunday, June 21st 2009

Above:A cheque for $5 million, made out to the People's National Movement, dated June 29, 2007, and signed by then CL Financial chairman Lawrence Duprey, as well as three other signatories, was endorsed less than a month before the November 5, 2007, election by Rose Janierre, assistant party secretary, and Linus Rogers, PNM elections officer. Well what do you know? It seems there is some serious "back scratching" going on behind closed doors. Great is the PNM! Lawrence Duprey's CL Financial Group provided scarcely imaginable largesse to the ruling People's National Movement (PNM) party in the last general election at a time when it was already on the ropes-short on cash and highly leveraged. The by-then cash-poor conglomerate bankrolled the 2007 election campaign of the Patrick Manning-led PNM party to the tune of some $20 million, according to sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. And while much of CL's money went through a somewhat circuitous route to sundry suppliers of goods and services: from the printing of fliers and tee shirts to tent and maxi-taxi rentals, the bulk of it was applied to direct billings from advertising agencies for media activity, said sources. Some of it however, was paid directly into the party's coffers. One such payment was made directly to the People's National Movement from the group's insurance subsidiary, Clico, on June 28, 2007, for the generous sum of $5 million. The $5 million cheque, drawn from a Republic Bank-held account at Independence Square in Port of Spain, was endorsed less than a month before the November 5, 2007, vote by Rose Janierre, assistant party secretary and Linus Rogers, PNM elections officer. Look how mark bussin on ah Sunday so...what d NLCB go say!?! The $5 million Clico payout to the PNM's war chest was made at a time when the country's No1 insurance company had already been red-flagged with solvency issues, a statutory fund deficit of close to a billion dollars and what financial observers warned were dangerously excessive levels of inter-party transactions within the group. If the Manning government had any concerns about the holding company using the country's largest insurer as a lucrative little money machine, it not only kept its own counsel but it lined up at the feeding trough. Manning and the PNM truly do care after all! In the middle of this interplay of politics and business stood Andre Monteil, the then group financial director of Duprey's $100 billion business behemoth, his No1 lieutenant, party treasurer of the incumbent PNM government and the PNM face of the corporate animal known as CL Financial. Entrepreneurial titan Duprey was the other public face of CL Financial and despite his protestations of being a-political, he was viewed by many as a United National Congress or Basdeo Panday sympathiser. How shocking! Look at the names getting called up... Some say the group's fortunes rose and fell on the political connections of these two public faces of CL Financial. Whatever the truth, Duprey's CL Financial group spread a lot of wealth around the PNM in the last decade. And the point man who distributed a lot of that CL money around the ruling party was Duprey's right hand man, Andre Monteil, who, until recently, was numbered among the party's most formidable power brokers. Monteil was also the corporate chieftain who operated within the context of loopholes that allowed the CL Group to conduct business as usual in the seemingly opaque world of deficient legislation and well outside the good governance expectations of the Central Bank. In his January 30, 2009, containment effort to rescue the floundering financial giant, Governor Ewart Williams complained that the Central Bank had been "stymied" by inadequate legislation from going after the rogue insurance company. Governor Williams said that for the last five years the Central Bank was forced to watch helplessly from the sidelines as the country's No1 insurer sailed ever closer to the edge. He cited several areas of concern, including: - Excessive related-party transactions which carry significant contagion risks. - An aggressive high interest rate resource mobilisation strategy to finance equally high-risk investments, many of which are in illiquid assets (including real estate both here and abroad). - A very high leveraging of the Group's assets, which constrains the potential amount of cash that could be raised from asset sales. The Governor said that the Central Bank had consistently "focused on these deficiencies" but was stymied by the "inadequacies in the legislative framework which do not give the Central Bank the authority to demand the necessary changes". He also noted that it was a matter of public record that all was not well at Clico and that the financial crisis which forced an initial $1 billion taxpayer bailout on January 30 was long in coming. Clico's solvency problems have in fact been on the public radar for close to two decades. In 1997, a report from the then Supervisor of Insurance raised concern about Clico's inability to satisfy its statutory fund requirements for the years 1992, 1993 and 1995 and the insurer's insistence in the face of a deficit on paying dividends. The years under question were during the first Manning administration 1991-1995. In fact, Prime Minister Manning was the Finance Minister in 2007 when his party received huge sums of money from the CL Financial Group. Sources say CL was the single largest financier to the PNM's 2007 re-election campaign. A former executive at the brokerage firm of CMMB, one of the distressed finance companies owned by the CL Financial Group, told the Sunday Express that in 2007 Monteil complained that CMMB was the only board he sat on that didn't give the PNM money. In 2007, Monteil was chairman of the Home Mortgage Bank (HMB), Clico Investment Bank (CIB), the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and the Education Facilities Co Ltd. He was also a member on the board of directors of the CCN Group, parent company of the Trinidad Express Newspapers, Home Construction Ltd (HCL) and Angostura Holdings Ltd. A CCN spokesman said yesterday that the media group made no donation to the PNM 2007 campaign or to any other party for that matter. Monteil was a co-signatory to the $2.5 million cash payment to the party in the 1995 election at a time when he sat in the Group Financial Director's chair. He later became party treasurer following the death of Anthony Jacelon in April 2005. And while Duprey may have signed off on some overly generous financing for the PNM and friends of the ruling party, sources close to him say it got him no favours. In fact, Duprey allies contend that his testimony about providing scholarship and other financial gifts to the Pandays in the Panday corruption trial had the effect of setting him in the gun sights of the then Attorney General John Jeremie. The Anti-Corruption Investigations Bureau (ACIB), a premier white-collar police unit operating under the wing of the Attorney General's office, raided Duprey's private Maraval residence and his corporate offices in what the courts later ruled were illegal searches. And as reported in an exclusive Sunday Express series detailing the sharp exchange of correspondence between Jeremie, in his first tenure at Cabildo Chambers and the then Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson, now a High Court judge, Jeremie, in 2006 attempted to pressure Henderson into bringing criminal charges against Duprey and Panday, the then Opposition Leader. Well look at bacchanal now! The cat get pulled out of the bag, kicking and screaming! If this is not enough reason to jail every man jack in the PNM, I really don't know what is!

The hubris syndrome

Selwyn Ryan Sunday, June 14th 2009

For reasons of space, last week's column (Sunday Express, June 7), The Root of the Problem, ended without my indicating what I saw to be the root of our contemporary discontents. My view was that the basic problem was not the absence of due diligence on the part of the President, misbehaviour on the part of the Attorney General, the Minister of Finance or some other minister, the Chairman of UDECOTT etc, but 'maximum leadership' which has seriously undermined the integrity of some of the key institutions in our political system. The leader is not, however, the singular cause of our problem. We, the Prime Minister included, have all become trapped in a political system in which institutions are separated in theory but have become fused in practice. Things fall apart because the centre has become too strong. Absent mindedly, we are slouching towards dictatorship, even if the symptoms are of the soft and benign variety. In retrospect, Ken Valley was correct, but we have all contributed towards the making of the "coup" that has quietly taken place. We have empowered a hubristic leader. Some of the characteristics of this hubris syndrome are analysed in a brilliant book by Dr David Owen, In Sickness-and in Power. Owen is a neurologist who gave up his practice to become an MP for the British Labour Party and the leader of the breakaway Social Democratic Party. One of Owen's basic complaints is that political analysts too often ignore the impact which the mental unbalance of leaders have on how political institutions function. Owen's generalisations are based on a study of political leaders over the past 100 years. One of the central concepts of the book is hubris. The Greeks used the term to define behaviour that is characterised by vaingloriousness and "excess". The hubristic person is one who achieves greatness and glory but who thereupon behaves in a way that suggests that he believes he is a child of God, God himself, or a secular instrument of History, and is thus invincible, indestructible, or irreplaceable. Greek Gods do not favour "heroes" who are presumptuous, and have them self-destruct. The instrument of this fate in Greek mythology is nemesis, the goddess of retribution. Owen regards hubris as an "occupational hazard" of all leaders. The "hubris syndrome" is, however, not an illness as such and is difficult to diagnose, but those who are perceptive can recognise it in leaders when they get up close. According to Owen, hubris is more commonly found in heads of government, whether democratic or not, than is often realised. The leader may not even be aware of his affliction and invariably considers himself to be as great as his flatterers tell him/her he/she is. He becomes delusionary and an addict to power with which he becomes intoxicated. As Lord Melody said in his calypso about Jonah and the stolen bake, "power fly up in the old man head". The key question to determine is whether the leader's behaviour is driven by factors "outside" of him or from factors "within", and if neither, how are the factors dialectically linked. Of concern too, is whether the affliction goes into remission when the leader loses office or is constructively "bereaved", or whether he remains consumed by an incurable political tabanca that might lead him to contemplate suicide as a "Greek necessity". Owen's case studies suggest that the origins of the syndrome are often mixed. Some of the behaviours suggest that the environment in which the leader operates is the major predisposing factor. The key external factors would be "overwhelming success in achieving and holding power, a political context in which there is minimal constraint on the leader's exercise of personal authority, and the length of time he stays in power". Incidence of the God syndrome is greater when the leader remains in power for a long period and when there is no credible opposition to him. Some leaders, however, have personalities and belief systems which facilitate the acquisition of the syndrome. They feel that they have been selected or called to serve as an instrument of the divine, and are contemptuous of those who do not recognise their heroic mission. When they look in the mirror, they can virtually see the halos dancing over their brows. According to Owen, Bush, Thatcher, and Blair all believed that they were called by God and History. As Blair himself explained, "if you have faith about these things (religion), then you realise that judgement is made by other people. If you believe in God, it's made by God himself". Accountability is not to the electorate, but to God or a prophetic personage who serves as medium and intermediary. If, however, he is already convinced of his own goodness, that accountability is not constraining, as it would be to the believer aware of his own capacity to sin. The belief in God becomes a spur to hubris rather than a constraint on it. Stubbornness, arrogance and self righteousness come to typify behaviour. Leaders who have dysfunctional personalities, and who also overstay their welcome in their pursuit of legacy agendas, are dangerous, perhaps without intending to be so. The dangers which they pose are obvious in despotic or totalitarian societies, but they also exist in democratic societies which have established institutions which are informed by the assumption that men and women are not angels and are corruptible even by the smell of power. As we have seen in our own case, these institutions do not always work effectively. As we have also seen in the case of Gordon Brown, removing a hubristic leader in a mature democratic society such as we have in the UK, is difficult even when the society has prophylactics such as votes of no confidence and free and fair elections to help constrain leaders. What then are some of the characteristics of hubristic leaders? They are, inter alia, - A narcissistic propensity to see the world primarily as an arena in which they can exercise power and seek glory rather than as a place with problems that need approaching in a pragmatic manner. - A disproportionate concern with image and presentation. - A messianic manner of talking about what they are doing and a tendency to identify themselves with the state to the extent that they regard the outlook and interests of the two as identical. - A tendency to talk of themselves in the third person or using the royal "we". - Excessive confidence in their own judgement and contempt for the advice or criticism of others. - Exaggerated self-belief, bordering on a sense of omnipotence, in what they personally can achieve. - A belief that rather than being accountable to the mundane court of colleagues or public opinion, the real court to which they answer is much greater: History or God. - An unshakeable belief that in that court they will be vindicated. - A tendency to allow their "broad vision", especially their conviction about the moral rectitude of a proposed course of action, to obviate the need to consider other aspects of it, such as its practicality, cost and the possibility of unwanted outcomes: a wooden-headed refusal to change course: - A consequent type of incompetence in carrying out a policy, which could be called hubristic incompetence. -To be continued Source: Trinidad Express To sum it up...Manning is displaying the classic qualities of a budding dictator.

The root of the problem

Selwyn Ryan

Sunday, June 7th 2009

Institutions are the sites within which conflicts in society are negotiated and resolved. Often, however, the problems require more than the proverbial nine days of the policy cycle for resolution. The key economic, political and social institutions which regulate our behaviour as citizens are now overloaded, and in danger of collapsing.

The Presidency, the Prime Ministership, the Cabinet, Parliament, the Judiciary, the bureaucracy, the statutary agencies, and the police are all undergoing stress tests, and might not long survive in ways that are recognisable. The country is in deep trouble and we all need to do some serious stocktaking and thinking outside conventional political boxes.

It cannot be business as usual. One does not want to be melodramatic, but our politicians are leading us down paths that can result in institutional failure. Little wonder that few people trust many of them to do what is right. One is reminded of the sharp that controls three card games.

One can illustrate the process of decomposition by reference to the offices of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions which have recently come on stage. Under the 1962 independence constitution, the Attorney General was the official who had the power to institute criminal proceedings.

The Attorney General was, however, a member of Cabinet and like any other minister, was answerable to and dismissible by the Prime Minister. Observers felt that responsibility for criminal proceedings should lie with a public official who was not directly responsible to the Prime Minister since it was important to ensure that justice was not only done but also seen to be done.

The Wooding Constitution Commission advised that the functions performed by the Attorney General should be split between two separate ministries. Responsibility for advising the Government should be performed by a politically appointed Minister of Legal Affairs and that the functions of a Director of Public Prosecutions should continue to be performed by the Attorney General.

The latter would, however, also perform other advisory functions such as legal adviser to the President, the Service Commissions, the Election and Boundaries Commission, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and such other officials as Parliament may prescribe.

Unfortunately, Dr Williams did not accept Wooding's proposed division and left the AG's office with responsibility for advising the Government in respect of civil proceedings for and against the state, and the Director of Public Prosecutions in charge of criminal proceedings.

Quite apart from what was said in the 1976 Constitution, the two office holders have over the years chosen to interpret the provisions of the Constitution in accordance with their own political agendas and their dispositions towards the use of power.

Both claimed to have powers that were exclusive to them. In the extant case, Jeremie claims that the Republican Constitution makes the AG responsible for the administration of legal affairs, and that this responsibility entitled him to enquire about ongoing anti-corruption investigations.

As a "strong" Attorney General he was merely doing what he was authorised to do by the Constitution to ensure that actions which needed to be taken in the public interest were in fact being taken.

What he was doing was asking the DPP to advise him what was being done in respect of matters which the state had spent a great deal of money to investigate since he was accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate.

The DPP felt that the actual terms of the constitution supported his interpretation of the division of responsibility, and that his view was supported by the High Court per Justice Bereaux. The latter ruled that "it could never have been the intention to permit the Office of DPP to be subject to any form of direction on the part of the Attorney General".

Jeremie countered that "certain constitutional powers are subject to "[his]" section 76 powers. The power is mine, he argued. One question of course is that no one knows what was in the minds of the persons who framed the constitution. These are invented when necessary to argue and clinch a case.

What we have here is a classic"clash of powers" and also a "clash of power brokers." The powers given to both overlap, and what we in fact have is a case of a mutual power grab that is rationalised in two competing versions of what constitutes the public good. Jeremie believes that crime and corruption were critical issues, and a responsible AG had to act. "In the midst of a crime wave, the political directorate cannot tell the people of Trinidad and Tobago that an acquittal was due to a learning exercise. Perhaps, it is time for less talk and greater action in the public interest".

Henderson cited other imperatives, viz, the right of the individual to the protection of the law until evidence is adduced that prosecution is warranted. He therefore refused to prosecute Panday and Duprey at the instance of the AG when his investigations were incomplete and he was still uncertain as to whether charges could be properly laid.

Henderson advised Jeremie that he was not "subject to his directions," and that his continued efforts to have him initiate charges against persons were highly improper, "and should they continue, could imperil the successful prosecution of a charge initiated in the matters under investigation".

Henderson warned Jeremie that it was important to ensure that decisions to prosecute were not politically driven. The fact that one had spent large sums of money to investigate a matter should not dictate whether charges should be laid against citizens.

Henderson feared that Jeremie, acting at the behest of the Prime Minister, wanted to lay charges against Panday and Duprey which would have been politically disabling for the former. Keith Rowley has also claimed that the AG was after him as well for reasons which have to do with political competition.

The question as to how the power should be best shared between the two officials was addressed by the Ellis Clarke draft constitution and the Round Table exercise which considered that draft. Clarke proposed that the AG should have general superintendence of the DPP.

The proposal which is currently on the table for public consideration after much debate is that the DPP shall exercise his powers in consultation with and with the prior approval of the AG in matters directly involving official state secrets, terrorism, and state to state relations.

The DPP must also consult with the AG if the latter requests such consultation Similarly, the AG must consult with the DPP if the latter requests such a consultation. In sum, neither official can operate in splendid isolation. Both share responsibility for some aspects of the administration of the law.

The document, however, makes clear what was not so clear in the 1976 constitution, viz that the DPP is under no obligation or duty to accept any direction given or proposal made by the AG following the consultations which he has had with him. It also provides that subject to what was said above in respect of official secrets and state to state relations (etc) "the DPP shall exercise his powers and discharge his functions under the constitution independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority, and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of interference."

Source: Trinidad Express

See article above for continuation...

PNM Dirty Laundry in Senate Uproar

Opposition Senator causes stir in Senate
Sunday 27th January, 2008
Source: Trinidad Guardian

By Yvonne Baboolal

Author and popular letter writer, Mohammed Faisal Rahman, now an Opposition Senator, caused a stir in the Senate last Tuesday when he made his contribution to the Supplementary Appropriation Bill, prompting at least one Government Senator to say no to a request to extend his speaking time.

Rahman made several statements that kept Government Senators wide awake way past the 4.30 pm tea break, one of which was that it was a common practice for former PNM ministers to often ride free on the national airline, BWIA.

“I used to be in the travel business and airline personnel told me BWIA used to be packed with government ministers, not from this regime, from the past, from first class right down.

“BWIA too often had to carry non-revenue seats. Mr President can I ask for your help Sir?” Rahman asked, forced to break his contribution because of the chorus of protests that rose from the Government benches. (Now we see why BWIA was always running at a loss under the PNM.)

When the noises from the other side abated, the bearded Rahman reminded the Government that the reasons it gave for wanting to shut down the national airline was that it was saddled with inefficiencies and cost overruns.

Next, he moved on to attack Government’s 2020 Vision and its emphasis on the construction of mega buildings in the city, in particular.

“Vision 2020 seems to be an altered skyline. I see the buildings all stacked up there and it looks like a little piece of New York.

“But the Government should be building schools, houses, hospitals and police stations to bring social benefits to the people. (Well done Mr. Rahaman. Apparently the 299,813 PNMites don't have much of a brain, so they are unable to realise that they can't eat sky-scrapers and that they are being treated like 3rd class citizens.)

“Government is supposed to be providing security, food, clothing and shelter...I am giving you some discomfort, am I?” he paused again to ask a Government Senator who had fired a salvo at him.

Continuing, Rahman then blamed Prime Minister Patrick Manning for the high cost of goods in the country.

“Manning didn’t float the dollar. He submerged it like a submarine and handed control of the currency of the nation to the banking sector.

“The sovereignty of a nation hinges on its control of its currency and when you give it to the banks they determine what goods cost. Over the years the banks continued to devaluate the dollar and profit by this. “The dollar has been steadily losing its purchasing power. One dollar is now worth 16 cents,” Rahman informed the Senate.

He said all of this was linked to crime. “Necessity can make a priest, maulana or pundit a criminal. But how can you be concerned for the poor when you are living in a $48 million palace?” he asked rhetorically. (Well all Manning care about is being a King and the PNMites, as I said earlier, fail to realise that they can't live on sky-scrapers and palaces won't do them any good either.)

At this, a Government Senator shot up, Standing Orders in hand, and pointed Senate President Danny Montano to a rule that spoke about the relevancy of a speaker’s contribution.

Montano agreed that Rahman had certainly sailed way off course and asked him to try and bring his contribution nearer to the subject at hand.

Rahman, noting he was not telling the Government these things because he was on “the other side” but because he was a citizen of the country, then digressed to disclose that he had once been a supporter of the PNM for years. “I was a PNM boy,” he said.

He also took the opportunity to chastise Manning for once referring to himself as the father of the nation, declaring, “There has been and will always be only one father of the nation, Dr Eric Williams.”

When his speaking time ended shortly after and a request to extend it by 15 minutes was put to the vote, one Government Senator (Couldn't handle the heat eh?) said a loud no.

Grateful that it was only one person, Rahman said, “I thank the majority on the other side for allowing me to speak, at their expense.”

Well it seems to me that Mr. Rahaman is really a fine choice by the UNC-A. Bravo on your stellar contribution to the Upper House.

Speaker blanks Ramesh on PM issue

I know I've said this before but you know when it's nice they say do it twice so I really want to know.
Why does Manning need so much security if crime is under control? Somebody tell mih why? WHY?
Why is it OK for Manning to use state funds to hire private security to protect himself but it's not OK for the UNC-A to use their own money to hire security to protect citizens who are at risk?
Another thing, does Manning not trust his own police force? Why does he have to hire private security when there are all these special branches of the police force? Apparently the TTPS is not good enough to safeguard Patrick Manning's life but they are just fine for protecting 1.3 million at risk citizens. See article below.

Source: Trinidad Guardian 190108

Lack of confidence

• Maharaj says by hiring additional private security, the Prime Minister has demonstrated a lack of confidence in the Police Service.

By Shaliza Hassanali

Speaker Barendra Sinanan yesterday turned down Tabaquite MP Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj’s request to discuss the increase in Prime Minister Patrick Manning’s security detail while citizens remained unprotected. (Well that's what the PNM is paying him for. He is just another puppet in the PNM muppet show.)

Maharaj said while the PNM Government—“within the last 24 hours”—gave Manning additional security, which included contracted private security guards, citizens were losing their lives as they remained without police protection. (When will everybody realise that Patrick Manning doesn't care?)

Sinanan told the House of Representatives that he could not allow the Opposition Chief Whip’s motion because it did not qualify under the Standing Orders. (A matter of public importance such as this and you mean this man won't allow it. He always brings up some Standing Order at his convenience to knock down any motion by the opposition dealing with the very important issue of crime just so the PNM will not look bad.)

Maharaj raised the matter, stating that while the PM had received private security guards, in addition to regular police and defence personnel of the State to protect his life at his residence, office and public places, people throughout the nation were without police protection.

“The Government does not provide police presence in communities to prevent the people from being murdered and from having serious crimes committed against them daily,” Maharaj said. (Keep voting the PNM back in and see how much people will live to see the year 2020.)

He said the Constitution required that the Government provide the people with such security and treat them equally. (The only part of the constitution that the PNM cares about is that part about changing it to make Manning an executive president/ultimate dictator and making T&T into a dictatorship.)

“The Prime Minister has demonstrated a lack of confidence in the Police Service to adequately protect his life,” Maharaj said.

Sinanan said it was not a question of whether he would allow the motion.

“It’s whether he (Manning) would answer it. This motion does not qualify under the Standing Orders.”

Barry probably have his own private security too, so he really doesn't mind if Patrick decide to hire some private security for himself.

Manning gets private guards

So let me get this straight. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj of the UNC-A hires private security for residents of Macaulay who have been hit by an upsurge of crime in recent times and statements coming out of the PNM call it vigilantism. If that is vigilantism then why the hell did Patrick Manning, the "great" leader of the PNM, hire private security for himself? Is he promoting vigilantism in this country? Or is it OK for him to have private security but not OK for poor people to have security?

From his action in hiring private security, Manning has showed us two things.

1. He has no faith in the protective services of Trinidad and Tobago, who are in charge of protecting the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
2. He only cares about the safety of himself and his family and no one else.

When last was the Prime Minister, Patrick Manning, held up at gun-point? When last was their an attempted kidnapping on any one of his immediate family?
Another thing, why is it not called vigilantism when the rich people from places like West Moorings, Valsayn, Goodwood Park and Lange Park hire private security? Is it because they are rich that it's not vigilantism? So I guess this means that poor people shouldn't be given protection then, according to what's being spewed by the PNM.
I say it's high time we get rid of this nasty regime going by the name of the PNM. They don't care about poor people and they only business with filling their pockets.
When you read the article below you will also notice that sources could not even state whether there was a tendering process or not. More corruption again!

Source: T&T Newsday

By NALINEE SEELAL Thursday, January 17 2008

SEVENTY-FIVE specially trained, armed guards who were previously assigned to the Office of the Attorney General, Legal Affairs and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), have been posted to provide security at the Prime Minister’s official residence, Diplomatic Centre, Whitehall and as personal security detail for Prime Minister Patrick Manning.

The security company which employs the guards is Executive Security Services Limited and the cost is borne by the Office of the Prime Minsiter.

The lowest ranking officer in this security company takes home a monthly salary of between $10,000 and $12,000, while the highest rank receives a salary of $25,000 monthly. (They shoulda hire me. Or wait, I forgot, I don't have a PNM party card and my hair is too straight.)

These highly paid officers, some of whom are retired policemen and former MTS guards, have virtually replaced Police Special Branch which previously carried out these duties. (Kickbacks to somebody friend or family who decided to open a security firm.)

The officers are under the direct control of former Special Branch Head, retired Assistant Commissioner of Police Mervyn Guiseppi, who previously headed a special security unit set up in 2002 to provide special security for the offices of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Legal Affairs and the DPP.

These guards are trained in policing, anti-terrorist activities and VIP security.

Sources told Newsday that shortly before Prime Minister Manning moved into the official residence at St Ann’s last December, the officers of the Executive Security Services Limited were told they were being reassigned, some to the Office of the Prime Minister, others to the official residence of the Prime Minister, another batch to the Diplomatic Centre and others to the personal security detail of the Prime Minister. By the time the Prime Minister moved into the official residence in late December, the officers were already on duty.

Newsday learned that a security firm from San Fernando East called Innovative Security Technologies Limited is now responsible for security at the office of the Attorney General, Legal Affairs and the Office of the DPP. (More kickbacks.)

Police sources said yesterday that the role of Special Branch in terms of providing security for the Prime Minister has been decreased and will decrease even further.

Disclosure of special private security around the Prime Minister, comes at a time when there has been criticism of the formation of crime watch community groups assisted by private armed guards. (Just what I was saying.)

Yesterday, Opposition Chief Whip Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj who has started using armed guards to patrol and fight crime in his Tabaquite constituency said: “The Prime Minister is concerned only about the personal security of himself and his family and is not concerned about the security of the people of Trinidad and Tobago to have police presence in their communities.

He said that the Government should let the people know about these new security measures. “The fact is that all previous Prime Ministers had the services of the police, army and Special Branch and all of these agencies and manpower were resourced by the State and the taxpayers and the people for greater accountability.”

Sources yesterday could not state whether a tendering process took place before Executive Security secured this contract and what is the value of this contract. (Like I was saying above, they can't even say if there was a tendering process or not. More PNM styled corruption!)

PNMites will eat grass!

Dookeran: Govt has lost control

Announcement on increasing water rates

Peter Christopher pchristopher@trinidadexpress.com

Monday, January 14th 2008

COUNCIL MEETING: Congress of the People's deputy Political Leader Carolyn Bachan during the party's press conference at the Vishnu Boys Hindu School in Caroni yesterday. At left is COP's Political leader, Winston Dookeran. -Photo: JERMAINE CRUICKSHANK

CONGRESS of the People leader Winston Dookeran has slammed Prime Minister Patrick Manning's announcement that water rates may soon be on the increase. (You should have had a little common sense and thought of the consequences of your actions when you didn't want to join the united opposition parties and you ended up splitting the opposition votes.)

"It is only one of the examples that the Government lost control," Dookeran said at a COP media briefing following the party's national council meeting at Vishnu Boys Hindu School in Caroni yesterday.

The Prime Minister hinted at a rate increase during the People's National Movement celebration rally in Tunapuna on Friday night. Manning said that due to an annual subsidy of $919.5 million to run WASA, a review of the current water rates is necessary. (See Page 11)

Dookeran also criticised the response of the crowd to Manning's announcement.

"I understand he made the statement to applause. It is ironic he would have the applause of his membership," Dookeran said. (Well Dooky boy, this is what I would call typical PNMite behaviour. Notice that no matter what Manning tries to shove down these PNMites throats, they will take with their mouths wide open and ask for more. This is why I say that PNMites will quicker eat grass than vote for another party. Imagine food prices already so high and these blind PNM supporters hear of an increase in water rates and cheer as though they just won the lotto. This just goes to show you the kind of support the PNM has - uneducated and semi-literate.)

COP Deputy Political leader Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan also criticised the possible increase, noting that almost "75 per cent of the nation is without a 24 hour water supply". (You should have thought about this before throwing your support behind a party that was splitting the opposition votes and doomed to fail!)

She also asked about the Government's plan to use more underground water sources when an EMA report revealed that the ground water table may be contaminated by leaks from gas stations. (I see you fail to recall the sewer water incident that happened a while aback, when WASA sent sewer water from the Caroni resevoir into people's taps. You actually thought that the PNM cares?)

Dookeran was also harsh on the Prime Minister's voicing of plans to monitor the performance of his ministers, labelling it as more evidence of "undemocratic behaviour". He said this was an "indication of the lack of confidence he has in his ministers".

Now I seriously thought Dookeran had a little more sense that that. Performance? With Manning, performance is measured by how much corruption you could get away with as a Minister in 5 years. The more you can get away with, the better your chances of getting a promotion. Case in point: Camille Robinson-Regis committed thousands of dollars in credit card fraud/misuse of state funds through a state issued credit card and instead of getting fired, she now holds a diplomatic position in Canada. I guess after Manning saw how much Government funds she could misappropriate on just a small trip to the US, he figured that he might as well put her in a foreign country permanently, that way she could misappropriate funds on a regular basis and not just in the short term.

Dhansook plans to spill more beans

Source: Trinidad Express

Richard Charan South Bureau

Thursday, January 10th 2008

Dansam Dhansook, the man who fingered two of the most powerful politicians in the ruling

PNM with claims of corruption, said yesterday he planned to report another government official to the police.

Dhansook, whose evidence against former Energy Minister Eric Williams was rejected by the court, said he would be sending a file to the Anti Corruption and Investigations Bureau (ACIB) about the official's attempt to swindle property from him.

Dhansook spoke yesterday for the first time since Port of Spain Magistrate Lucina Cardenas-Ragoonanan threw out seven corruption charges against Williams.

Cardenas-Ragoonanan said no jury would convict on the evidence. Dhansook was the State's star witness.

But yesterday, Dhansook, who is also the star witness in the ten corruption charges against former Works Minister and PNM party chairman Franklin Khan, said that the Director of Public Prosecutions should further pursue the case against Williams.

"The DPP should take a second look at the evidence in this matter," Dhansook told reporters in South Trinidad, at a location which he did not want disclosed.

He said it was Prime Minister Patrick Manning who had advised him to report his claims of corruption against the two ministers to his attorney. He said he had no regrets about what he had done, although he had lost lucrative contracts.

Dhansook, whose business - TT Geoseis Services Company Ltd -- provides oil exploration services, said his family now lived abroad, but he had no plans to leave.

"I believe Trinidad and Tobago will be a better place. People who want to get involved in corruption will think twice," he said.

Dhansook said he would be testifying in the Khan case and was willing to stand the consequences of his actions.

Dhansook, a local government councillor in the Rio Claro/Mayaro Regional Corporation, said he remained a member of the PNM and did not intend to resign. He said he was still friendly with many of PNM politicians. However, he said Manning was a dictator who had hijacked the party.

Sometimes I wonder what is this guy's point? It doesn't matter how much evidence he brings or how much times he testifies in court, the bottom line is that as long as PNM is in power and they have their party hacks in high positions in the Judiciary, justice will never be served and court decisions will never be fair. Opposing forces will always be persecuted and PNM friends and family will always get away no matter what crime they commit.