Tuesday February 9th, 2010
- Last update:12 hours 42 min ago
Panday, Manning agree on new constitution
Published: 4 Nov 2009
Prime Minister Patrick Manning and Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday have agreed to work towards agreeing on a new constitution in this term and are also at one on the idea that there should be an executive president for T&T.
The Opposition will submit its constitutional reform proposals to Government after the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in T&T. Further, the Opposition has agreed to study six pieces of anti-crime legislation, including wiretapping proposals and ones to outlaw gangs, to see if it will support Government to pass the special majority bills. The developments emanated from a one-hour meeting between Manning and Panday at the Diplomatic Centre at St Ann's which Manning said was “very fruitful.” Also attending were Attorney General John Jeremie and UNC vice-chairman Vasant Bharath. Standing alongside Panday and addressing reporters after the meeting, Manning said the constitutional issues and Government’s latest working document on the issue comprised the bulk of the leaders’ discussions. Manning said: “We agreed to work towards agreeing on a new constitution. “As I had to tell the Opposition Leader, I don’t know how long I will last in politics again and the way things are going he may very well last longer than I do.
"But whatever, it appears both of us would like a new constitution and we agreed to work towards that achievement in this term.” Manning said Panday put several proposals on the table. These will be submitted in writing in order to be studied. The Opposition gave the commitment to study the proposals. Both parties agreed to meet again after this was done. Manning said most of the legislation requires a special majority and includes legislation to regularise the Special Anti Crime Unit of TT. Panday said constitutional reform would require a constitutional majority for passage, necessitating Government/Opposition co-operation and yesterday’s exercise was an attempt to have constitutional reform. He noted the current Constitution was 48 years old. Panday said: “We’ll try to advance the process of constitutional reform. There are fundamental differences between us—the basic one being Proportional Representation, but the idea is to go the population and explain. “I’m sure Government will put forward its view and we will also and in the end the population will prevail.” At a subsequent news conference, Panday said both leaders agreed there should be an executive president, but there were fundamental differences on the election of this office.
The Opposition proposed:
• That the executive president be elected by the people on the one-man-one-vote basis;
• that the president choose his Cabinet from the best people, not necessarily from the Parliament;
• that the president’s duty would be to come to the Parliament with a plan of action and seek funding for this; and,
• a uni-cameral Parliament, comprising a House of 90 to 100 people elected on proportional representation basis.
Panday/Manning Summit:
Panday/Manning Summit: -
Very interesting.
It is now left for us to wait and see how this works out.
We have to follow them every step of the way, seeking information and clarification to ensure that their moves are beneficial to the progress of this nation and its people.
Mr. Panday has been speaking about "proportional representation" and I would like him to elaborate so that we can all understand exactly what it is, how it will be put in operation and the benefits that would come from it; and any potential fall-outs. This is a new concept to T&T and before our people can decide whether to sign on to it, or not, we must all fully understand it.
Gardenia
PROPOTIONAL REPRESENTATION
PROPOTIONAL REPRESENTATION NOT NEW -
Proportional representation as a concept has long been put forward by Panday. Indians have long been under represented in the Governance of our Country. For instance a UNC constituency was twice that of some especially Tobago. Tobago with smaller numbers have had and equal say in deciding the governance of T&T especially in a close race. So as I read some reports that suggest that Pandays statement about COP being under represented is recent, is untrue. This was said as far back as ONR who suffered a similar fate. Indo based parties also suffered that fate historically. There has been constant lobbying to change the boundaries to make it more equitable.
Fairplay, thanks for the
Fairplay, thanks for the introduction into Proportional Representation in T&T. It helps. I have read of other countries having this type of governance, and I wondered how T&T would be defining its pertinence to our nation, and attempting to introduce same.
Gardenia
Today I decided to look at
Today I decided to look at the Express before reading the Guardian's reporting on this meeting of the PM and the Leader of the Opposition. The Express has much more information.
I noted with interest after previous conflicting versions as to who requested the meeting, the PM in a dramatic revelation and u-turn confessed to be the initiator of the meeting. Another flip-flop? If you can't trust people with little things, can you trust them with bigger issues?
The present 1976 Republican constitution has been in force for about 33 years, apart from some amendments, not the 48 years as Panday is reported as saying. Whose inaccuracy is this?
There are so many issues facing the country, I can't understand why these two leaders want to re-write the present constitution in a wholesale fashion. If any section or sections are shown to be defective, let us know and show us exactly how they could be improved in order to deal with issues like corruption, squandermania, crime, etc.
If wire tapping can be used to help fight crime, that's fine. If it means amending a section of the constitution, let us see the proposal. But does such enabling legislation require such a step? What would be important in any such legislation is a guaranteed protection of the privacy of law abiding citizens from abuse. Wire tapping should only be authorised by some one in the Judiciary, like a judge and only with strict guidelines and where it would facilitate preventing or solving a crime and in other circumstances requiring such actions.
Constitution reform is an issue that should be decided by a referundum. If not it should be made an electoral issue in the next general election at which each contesting political party would outline its position in its manifesto.
If constitution reform is still to proceed during this palliamentary term, constituents must insist on their respective MPs taking into consideration their views and wishes and these should be reflected in their MPs' contributions in the debate in parliament. And when it comes to the vote, each MP should be allowed a free vote in keeping with the express wishes and mandate given by their respective constituents.
This is too important a matter to be left to the whims and fancies of two political leaders of questionable legitimacy.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALSO
MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALSO QUESTION NEWSPAPERS -
Maybe you should also question the accuracy of the news papers. This newspaper actively supported COP projecting that they would win 25 seats and the elections. Newspapers contribute and support political parties. The Express is and was linked to Ken Gordon who resurfaces from time to time as a political player and is the long time adversary of Panday.
Prince I'm an avid reader of
Prince I'm an avid reader of the Express also, and they do have better reporting as far as details on articles, I agree with you. Last week when the Guardian reported that the CoP apologised to the dead kidnappers families without much details to support their headline, the Express actually had much more detail to support its headline which it also ran.
Yes, ah trini too, I believe
Yes, ah trini too, I believe the Guardian has to buck up if it is not to fall from first place to third place among the dailies.
They also have to upgrade their website which is far too slow to access and frequently inaccessible for whatever reason. The Express and Newsday to a lesser extent do not seem to suffer from these problems.
It is quite frustrating to do a substantial blog and as you about to preview or post to see it just vanish especially in the evening hours.
I appreciate the opportunity the website offers us to discuss issues but I would imagine the feedback must help the Editors to prepare their editorials and afford their wider readership some additional benefit from our observations and inputs.
But I do hope they would have their IT or technical dep't see what improvements can be made, and of course pay some attention to the research and writing skills of their journalists and correspondents to raise their level of professionalism.
I AGREE - That
I AGREE -
That there website is slow maybe it is because it is the best. Ever tried posting on the Express website. Compared to the Express site it is chalk and cheese.
Each believes he is smarter
Each believes he is smarter than the other. One wants proportional representation because his ethnic group is in the majority and the other wants first-past-the-pole type voting, because his ethnic group is spread across more constituencies.
They are both the same. Same motive and same method of manipulating. They both want power.
He may last longer than me!!!!! It's sad that we have to make this choice.
We need new blood and genuine people with term limits who will not become corrupted.
We the people demand to be
We the people demand to be meaningfully consulted first on constitutional reform.
The Executive Presidency model seems to be an acceptable one only if he/she is elected directly through a Presidential election and NOT SELECTED by an electoral College such as we have at the moment. An Electoral College consisting of all the members of both Houses of Parliament, as obtains now, gives the Executive Presidency on a platter to the winner of the General Election.
This can be dangerous. Automatically, separation of powers is compromised, since that President will now control both the Legislature and the Executive. Added to this, if the new Justice Ministry is also under direct control by the Executive, (read President) then this has the potential to lead to tyranny of the electoral majority and the eventual erosion of our democracy.
The Guyana model is similar to what Mr Panday's team seems to be proposing and we have already seen how this can lead to the entrenchment of a government just so long as the party or coalition of parties win the general election.
A safe constitutional model, in my humble layman's opinion, therefore, appears to be one stuctured along the lines of the United States Constitution where there is almost complete Separation of Powers. In that model, except for the Vice President, no member of the Executive can 'interfere' in the Judiciary or Legislature: no overlapping of the 'Powers'.
Incidentally, members of the President's own political party are free to vote against him in Congress or Senate. This is an important check and balance to any Executive which may have notions of tyranny.
More fundamental than the above is the extent to which we the people have a say in constitutional reform. Meaningful consultation with we the people is absolutely and completely vitally important.
Democracy must not be brokered only by these, or any two or three, leaders. We the people demand to be involved directly and meaningfully in any process of constitutional reform.
Any other way appears to be 'dealmaking' personified.
ajfyzabadbutlertown
Too Much Talk talk
Too Much Talk talk talk............
Everything is talk talk talk and no positive action .What all yuh really spliting hairs about. The majority of we dont want this present cluless govt and the gang of OJT's .
So hear what ..it real simple... just join forces and vote de man out.
What about that big dis we get with de real cost of the flag .This is de kind ah "spit" ah cannot take. Dem feel we still in de 60's or what ?
Oh gosh man ... is just another smoke screen,red herring and more talk talk talk
jp
Well said , Amirjairam . It
Well said , Amirjairam . It seems to me that Manning & Panday are acting as though they owns T&T , jointly - therefore , they can meet whenever they want to and make decisions which affects the citizens of the country without consulting them . The two of them are entertaining each other , while crime continues destroy "Sweet T&T ,unabated .
ATW-Barbados .
Amirjairam, Your first
Amirjairam,
Your first sentence is the most IMPORTANT and NOBLE contribution today and readers must take note.
THIS LACK OF CONSULTATION IS A TRAVESTY!
I quote fom the above article: "But whatever, it appears BOTH OF US would like a new constitution and we agreed to work towards that achievement in this term.”
WHO THE #?*& IS BOTH OF US?
WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND TO BE MEANINGFULLY CONSULTED FIRST ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM!
WHO THE #?*& IS BOTH OF
WHO THE #?*& IS BOTH OF US?......They both made from the same cloth, with the same colors, soak them in water and they run all over the place. Panday fired Maharaj for reporting corruption, and dido for Manning and Rowley.
THE MEETING DID NOT JUST
THE MEETING DID NOT JUST HAPPEN -
AMIRJAIRAM
PNM, UNC and COP have had many public meetings discussing constitutional reform. COP presented a paper. UNC presented its differences. There was the constitutional Reform Committee that held wide scale consultation. The NGO's had meetings and presented their views. Party’s held Congresses where they presented their views to their parties. The views expressed a after the meeting are not new and have been in the public domain for years. There were drafts by Clarke and work by Ryan all has been widely published. They both agree on an Executive President but they disagree on the method. Manning wants the Electoral College to decide and Panday wants one man one vote as in the United States. Nothing is new. It is incorrect to say that they alone will decide or that there has not been wide scale consultation. They cannot decide by themselves the constitution does not allow it. Their parties also have a say. The bills have to be debated in Parliament and voted upon; the Independents also have a role to play. In the final analysis the country has the right to recall at the next election and can change it again if they so desire. THEY CANNOT DECIDE ON THEIR OWN. If they want they can recommend.
Eh heh! So where is WE THE
Eh heh!
So where is WE THE PEOPLE in all of this? Were you consulted?
TRINIS ARE VERY LAID BACK
TRINIS ARE VERY LAID BACK -
We sit on our behinds and do not get involved, there were many constitutional meetings and they were poorly attended. Hamid Ghany is again on the road with another set. When something happens we say we were never consulted. I am no better than the most as I have not attended any. I have tried to read and listen to the views of all the parties though. All three have extensively presented their views whether one agrees or not is another issue..
It is a different thing to
It is a different thing to request a mandate from the people to go ahead even with the initial steps towards constitutional reform than to go to the people with a draft constituional document and say "Let's fix this, as best we could"!
90 to 100 people in
90 to 100 people in Parliament to represent 1.2 million citizens? Madness!
THEY MEET IN PARLIAMENT
THEY MEET IN PARLIAMENT EVERY WEEK -
They meet in parliament every week and discuss our future. Do we understand how our constitution works? We have an election, the members of parliament are chosen, the winner forms the government and the second placed person is the Opposition. Every week the meet they discuss the laws and vote on it, if the required constitutional majority is achieved then the law passes if not it is defeated. Even if COP was in power it would be no different. Manning has a view on the constitution and Panday has another view. To just say they agree is mischievous and suggests complicity. They agree on an Executive President but that is where the similarities end. Manning wants appointment by the Electoral College and Panday by one man one vote as in the United States. UNC has been for preoperational representation even before Dookeran was the Deputy Leader. There is discussion taking place in the Constitution Reform Commission, in NGO's in Parliament. Any decision taken must include the views of the population as it will not be able to pass or the electorate can remove the government at elections. Let us say If COP is in power these self evident facts of the process will not change.
Are we going to have a say
Are we going to have a say or are these 2 fools going to speak for all of us?
Hm1 Hm! Hm! Seems like the
Hm1 Hm! Hm!
Seems like the blind leading the blind. This begs the question - what's in it for Panday - Ass. Exec. President?
Maybe he's the one that made
Maybe he's the one that made the deal with the PNM to keep them in POWER, so he could stay out of JAIL!! And he blaming the Ramjack faction as a smoke screen. Either way ah think he days done!
Would someone please tell me
Would someone please tell me what if any value can we expect from the creation of an Executive President? How would the existence of an Executive President help to solve any of the major issues that affect us today?
The Office of Executive President from what I can tell is invested with many if not all of the powers that the Prime Minister and his Executive currently enjoy. Given the rhetoric to date, there is no evidence to suggest that the creation of this post will provide us with anymore accountability or even recourse when the powers of the executive are abused. Funny, but I was always under the impression that the oath of office included some promise to uphold and defend the constitution?
The problem is not that the 1976 Constitution has failed us, but rather that our elected officials have failed the Constitution and in the case of the present Government, there has been a tendency to undermine and discredit it.
In the end, my words of caution to the present band of revisionists is to never make plans assuming that you will be the only ones to enjoy the benefits of the changes you make. Always assume the worse when it comes to matters of government and governance. And as your litmus test always ask yourself this: will you sleep comfortably knowing that your political opponents have access to the wide ranging and unbridled powers that you are proposing today?
Lastly, on Mr Panday's suggestion that an Executive President be elected on the basis of a Proportional Representative system requires much explaining. Any vote for an Executive President in a non-Federal system must be done by first-past-the-post poll on a National Scale. That is to say that the votes cannot be tallied from constituency to constituency. And, with just one victor to be decided, what possible benefit would there be to having that one person elected by PR?
UNINSPIRED
If by "we" you mean the
If by "we" you mean the present Prime Minister who regularly speaks in the royal plural "We" when he is not speaking of himself in the third person or "The Prime Minister" which his wife also uses when speaking of him (eg: "The Prime Minister has spoken"), there are several benefits to be derived from being elevated from Head of Government to Head of State, the position now held by Professor His Excellency Maxwell G Richards.
As Executive President you exercise real power, unlike a ceremonial president like Richards. As Head of State you are equal in status, at least in nomenclature, with other Heads of State like President Barack Obama, HRH Queen Elizabeth II, President Hugo Chavez to name a familiar few. As President your missus becomes First Lady (like Michele Obama) and you are addressed as "Your Excellency", Their Excellencies" as the case might be.
You will live in your own Palace like the occupants of the White House, Buckingham Palace, El Palacio de Miraflores etc and you will have your own presidential helicopter and executive jet like Airforce 1 and Airforce 2 to go globe trotting in luxury. And there are too many other benefits to mention. Eg. You have a fleet of luxury vehicles each sporting a royal emblem such as a crown in place of a number plate, never mind we are no longer a monarchy since 1976. But I guess Emperors like Kings and Queens also wear crowns.
On the other hand, if by "we" you mean us vassals, we stand to lose some our hard-earned benefits. We shall have to slave harder to pay more tithes and taxes and homage to His Lordship and Her Ladyship and will have to settle for whatever crumbs or scraps that might be flung at us from time to time while our Master and Mistress and theirs enjoy their champagne and caviar breakfasses.
I trust I have been able to explain the difference between a Head of Government and a Head of State and the benefits derived/lost as the case might be.
I am deeply aggrieved by
I am deeply aggrieved by this article.
Crime is so rampant and they do NOT meet to discuss ways of improving the quality of our lives. Instead they meet to discuss a constitution that ain't broke and agree to change it.
Lord protect us and save us from these two incompetent idiots !
Please people let your voices be heard and UNITE for democracy and the future of our country ! Do not let these two unethical leaders get away with this.
I am deeply aggrieved by
I am deeply aggrieved by this article.
Crime is so rampant and they do NOT meet to discuss ways of improving the quality of our lives. Instead they meet to discuss a constitution that ain't broke and agree to change it.
Lord protect us and save us from these two incompetent idiots !
Please people let your voices be heard and UNITE for democracy and the future of our country ! Do not let these two unethical leaders get away with this.
harisinghji@yahoo.com HARI
harisinghji@yahoo.com
HARI SINGH
VANCOUVER, V6R 3L3
BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA
So, the Silver Fox - Panday wants proportional representation for a change in the consititution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago - this was advocated by people like Ken Lalla, and others many decades ago but was turned down by Eric Williams - the first prime minister of Trinidad. That great man by the name of H O B Wooding advocated that some time ago. I am sure also Sir Issac Hiyatali also advocated that in the various commissions on constitutional reform but it was rejected by the historian Eric Wiiliams - a so called father of the nation. Proportional representation has been considered as being giving up power by the PNM !!
So, we now have THE Rt. Honourable Basdeo Panday, the political leader of the UNC, and official leader of the opposition wants that the President or Executive President of the Republic to be elected by proportionate representation.
So what does this mean: If three candidates were to run for election for the position of president, and the votes are tabulated as follows: John Anderson gets 50,000 votes, Lal Beharry gets 49,000 votes and Maharani Maraj gets 29,000. So who becomes president?. But John Anderson has not the majority so for him to become president he will have to get the support of Lal Beharry or Maharani Maraj or vice versa. One must have the majority of the votes cast. Real democracy and it makes one to govern because the majority favours the elected president.
Imagine - we still have the colonial spirit where our mayors are not elected directly by the electorates. The Mayor of the most progressive city in America - New York is elected directly by the electorates - He spends millions of his own dollars to get elected and to serve the people of New York City. What a difference in Chaguanas and our local governments?
How democratic it would have been had THE MAYOR OF CHAGUANAS ELECTED DIRECTLY BY THE VOTERS OF THE BOROUGH?
WE INDEED, HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO!!
PANDAY AND THE UNC MUST HAVE CHANGES THAT ALL POLITICAL OFFICE HOLDERS MUST BE DIRECTLY ELECTED BY THE VOTERS.
GOOD LUCK - BAS - YOU MUST NOT FAIL THE ELECTORATES. REAL DEMOCRACY- VOTE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE AND SO ON.
HARISINGH
VANCOUVER, CANADA
s
GET WITH THE PROGRAM
GET WITH THE PROGRAM -
Karia Colm
The meeting was called to discuss Crime and Constitution Reform. You seem to be somehow mis-informed by the article as it speaks only about constitutional reform..
The main value I see from an
The main value I see from an Executive President, and I am going to assume that 'we the people' actually get to vote for the President, is that we will have control over who is the actual head of government / state. Currently, we have very little say in who the Prime Minister is, and even less say in who the President is. The PM is chosen from the party that has the most seats and is usually the head of that party, but I don't believe there is anything mandating that. So in other words you vote for party X because you think the head of party X will be a good PM although the local representative for party X does not seek the interest of the people in your area. Wouldn't it be better to vote for the person who will best represent your area regardless of which party he is and then also vote for the person who will best govern the country?
As for actually solving the issues that we have today, simply having an Executive President will do nothing for that, but since we will (should) have more control over who's in charge we have more power in saying "Hey Mr. President, you aren't doing your job so we're gonna kick you out".
AMERICA HAS AN EXECUTIVE
AMERICA HAS AN EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT -
What we need to also focus on is how their checks and balances avoid abuse of office. The President of the United States of America can be impeached and removed from office. This is what Watergate was all about, Nixon was removed. It is irresponsible for Political Leaders to scare people and equate Executive President with automatic Dictatorship.