In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tors are re­ject­ing the “an­ti-gov­ern­ment” la­bel at­trib­uted to them by the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC), with one Sen­a­tor urg­ing them to stop us­ing in­tim­i­da­tion to in­flu­ence out­comes.

In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor An­tho­ny Vieira, SC, told Guardian Me­dia, “If the gov­ern­ment wants sup­port from the in­de­pen­dent bench, that’s easy—just give us co­gent, com­pelling and per­sua­sive ar­gu­ments. Some­how, I think that might work bet­ter than try­ing to de­mean and be­lit­tle us or via veiled threats and at­tempts at in­tim­i­da­tion.”

The UNC has fierce­ly crit­i­cised the In­de­pen­dent Sen­ate bench, ques­tion­ing their im­par­tial­i­ty and sug­gest­ing that the Pres­i­dent—known for her close ties to the Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM)—strate­gi­cal­ly ap­point­ed them to un­der­mine the Op­po­si­tion.

Ahead of to­day’s vote on the Prime Min­is­ter’s Pen­sion (Amend­ment) Bill, the rul­ing par­ty has urged the in­de­pen­dent bench to sup­port the leg­is­la­tion.

The par­ty’s Pub­lic Re­la­tions Of­fi­cer (PRO), Dr Kirk Meighoo, cit­ed the re­cent Chil­dren’s Life Fund de­bate, where dur­ing three com­mit­tee stage votes, the in­de­pen­dent bench sided with the Op­po­si­tion—forc­ing the Sen­ate Pres­i­dent to use his cast­ing vote to break a 15–15 tie.

Vieira, the longest-serv­ing In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor in the Up­per House, ques­tioned whether the gov­ern­ment ex­pect­ed si­lence in the face of ap­par­ent flaws in the Bill.

“Sup­port doesn’t mean be­ing blind to flaws in the draft­ing. Any­one fol­low­ing the de­bate and what oc­curred at Com­mit­tee Stage will see that each mem­ber on the in­de­pen­dent bench—in his or her own way, draw­ing from his or her area of ex­per­tise—sought to im­prove the leg­is­la­tion, not to tor­pe­do or de­rail it,” Vieira said.

He added, “For my­self, I saw as­pects of the leg­is­la­tion that were po­ten­tial­ly chal­lenge­able in court, and I sought to strength­en the leg­is­la­tion. Sen­a­tor De­sirée Mur­ray and I, sep­a­rate­ly and in­de­pen­dent­ly, pro­posed amend­ments to the Bill that would ex­pand cov­er­age for vul­ner­a­ble chil­dren. We al­so recog­nised the need for clear­er lan­guage re­gard­ing the med­ical ill­ness­es and con­di­tions iden­ti­fied in the Third Sched­ule.”

Vieira asked, “Should the fact that two peo­ple look­ing at the same thing ar­rive at a sim­i­lar con­clu­sion be in­ter­pret­ed as a cau­cus, or that these were eas­i­ly iden­ti­fi­able and re­me­di­a­ble mat­ters? Should we—and oth­ers—have re­mained silent and let ap­par­ent flaws in the Bill get a bligh, lest the bench be ac­cused of be­ing an­ti-gov­ern­ment or act­ing in col­lu­sion?”

He point­ed out that every In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor who spoke on the Bill had ex­pressed sup­port for it.

Mean­while, re­turn­ing In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor De­oroop Teemal told Guardian Me­dia he be­lieves it is now nat­ur­al to feel pres­sured by the gov­ern­ment, giv­en its re­cent as­ser­tions.

“I think it’s ex­pect­ed that there will be some de­gree of pres­sure. But I am guid­ed by the oath that I have tak­en. I have sworn to up­hold the Con­sti­tu­tion,” he said.

Teemal not­ed that al­though there was di­vi­sion at the com­mit­tee stage dur­ing the Chil­dren’s Life Fund de­bate, no In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor vot­ed against the Bill in the end. He al­so point­ed out that the gov­ern­ment suc­cess­ful­ly passed the leg­is­la­tion to re­peal the Trinidad and To­ba­go Rev­enue Au­thor­i­ty (TTRA).

He said he would at­tend to­day’s Sen­ate sit­ting with some con­cerns about the Prime Min­is­ter’s Pen­sion Bill, but al­so with an open mind.

“I will on­ly make a de­ci­sion on the Bill af­ter I hear all sides of the ar­gu­ment,” he said.

In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor Court­ney Mc­Nish added that the as­sump­tion that the will of the peo­ple is al­ways sat­is­fied through a leg­isla­tive pro­pos­al is a fal­la­cy.

“As an in­de­pen­dent thinker, I have an oblig­a­tion to ap­ply a con­science test be­fore cast­ing my vote. I took an oath to do that and I al­ways will—re­gard­less of what any politi­cian or po­lit­i­cal ac­tivist says or thinks.”

Sen­a­tor Dr Mar­lene Attzs al­so told Guardian Me­dia, “If this is a pre-emp­tive at­tempt to cast doubt or sow mis­trust, it’s both un­for­tu­nate and mis­placed.”

Dr Attzs, who has not yet tak­en her seat in the Sen­ate due to a pro­fes­sion­al com­mit­ment that pre­dates her ap­point­ment—ap­proved by both the Pres­i­dent and Sen­ate Pres­i­dent—em­pha­sised that her ap­point­ment was con­sti­tu­tion­al.

“My ap­point­ment was made in full ac­cor­dance with the Con­sti­tu­tion—not as part of any imag­ined sub­terfuge. Any sug­ges­tion to the con­trary could be in­ter­pret­ed as po­lit­i­cal mis­chief aimed at ob­fus­ca­tion and dis­tract­ing the pub­lic,” she said.

Dr Attzs added that when she does con­tribute in Par­lia­ment, it will be a “prin­ci­pled, pro­fes­sion­al con­tri­bu­tion ground­ed in what, based on avail­able in­for­ma­tion, is in the best in­ter­est of the peo­ple of Trinidad and To­ba­go.”