TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
16 cycles wrote:it illegal for the PM to take a vacation?
16 cycles wrote:it illegal for leader of opposition to take a vacation?
UML, Dr. Rowley is Opposition Leader, his travel is no more at taxpayers expense than if a clerk II decided to go Tobago 15 times in one year.UML wrote:Again I ask, what were the reasons for 15 trips in one year at taxpayers expense?!!!
Habit7 wrote:UML, Dr. Rowley is Opposition Leader, his travel is no more at taxpayers expense than if a clerk II decided to go Tobago 15 times in one year.UML wrote:Again I ask, what were the reasons for 15 trips in one year at taxpayers expense?!!!
Wow, are you allowed to operate a vehicle?
toyota2nr wrote:So you're saying none of those trips were on parliament business?
UML wrote:Moonilal: PNM sold out to one financier
Gail Alexander
Published:
Thursday, October 30, 2014
UNC deputy leader Dr Roodal Moonilal has challenged PNM leader Dr Keith Rowley to say who paid for his overseas trips this year, claiming there were 15 trips and he has information on that. He made the call yesterday after PNM general secretary Ashton Ford said the UNC must be asked when it was having internal elections and if it held executive meetings, instead of calling for the PNM to say who paid for its convention at the Hyatt.
Ford responded after Moonilal said the PNM, as an alternative government, should, in the interest of transparency, say who paid for the Hyatt for its convention last weekend. Moonilal claimed the Government was aware a prominent businessman did so and wanted five ministerial appointments in return. This drew several PNM protestations, including Ford’s, but PNMites declined to say who paid for the Hyatt venue.
Yesterday UNC chairman Kadijah Ameen said the PNM should see to its own lingering issues after its May internal election, instead of “hounding” the UNC about internal polls, since the UNC’s executive, constituency and women’s arm elections were held on time. She said the only UNC election outstanding was for party leader and currently there was no challenge to Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s leadership.
There could be no rush to that election, she said, as the UNC’s constitutional reform process had to be completed first because its proposals were critical to positioning UNC for the present political climate Moonilal claimed: “I will like Dr Rowley to say who paid for his 15 trips overseas this year, which he has not denied, and if he won’t say, I am prepared to say who has been paying.
“My information is he has sold out the Opposition which is now controlled by a single financier who is demanding more than his pound of flesh. “This is why PNM meetings for the big guns of the party won’t be held at Balisier House.”
He added: “I found PNM chairman Franklin Khan’s view that the Hyatt was best for their meeting, as it was an ‘intellectual one,’ quite shocking and insulting to the memory of PNM founder Dr Eric Williams and former leader Patrick Manning, who held many intellectual symposia at PNM’s Balisier House and the Chaguaramas Convention Centre.” Moonilal said the PNM’s action showed it viewed Balisier House as “for the plebs.”
He added: “They will also be putting their members in the hot Queen’s Park Savannah for the next convention leg but they think the air-conditioned Hyatt is for intellectuals.”
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-10- ... -financier
so is the Balisier House for "unintellects"?
look ting dey bussin dey own files!!!
now the PNM sheep can FINALLY see what they are seen as by their party...no wonder when in govt they doh fix pnm areas
AG RESPONDS TO DR ROWLEY'S ELECTION DATE COMMENTS:
It is important that I correct the reckless and irresponsible statements made by Opposition Leader Dr. Keith Rowley regarding the provisions in Constitution that govern the General Elections process.
Speaking at the annual PNM Convention last night, Dr. Rowley declared that the current five (5) year term of People’s Partnership government ends on 17 June 2015 and that the subsequent ninety-day provision for calling elections can only be used in cases of emergencies.
Rowley demonstrates an astonishing and disturbing failure to grasp the basic rules of the Constitution. It is yet another display of his constant disregard for the law. That a Prime Ministerial aspirant could so easily misrepresent the Constitution for selfish political gain is troublesome.
The Constitution is quite clear on the timelines for calling a General Election. Section 68(2) states that Parliament, stands dissolved five years after its first sitting, which in this case is on 17th June 2015. General elections must be held within 90 days thereafter.
This means that the next General Elections can and must be held at any time prior to 17th September 2015.
This 90-day provision has nothing to with ‘emergencies’ as erroneously claimed by the Opposition Leader. This period was designed to allow the Prime Minister a degree of political flexibility in setting the date. It also permits the EBC and political parties time to put the necessary administrative arrangements in place to facilitate the election.
This provision has been a part of our elections process since Independence and was retained in our Republican Constitution.
Dr. Rowley appears to suffer from political amnesia as he conveniently ignores the fact that almost every single past Prime Minister has utilized this 90-day provision to call general elections including Dr. Eric Williams and George Chambers (1981, 1986) to Basdeo Panday (2000) and Patrick Manning (2007).
If Dr. Rowley applies his flawed logic to his own election as a Member of Parliament, the following questions arise: 1. Did he also question the nature of the ‘emergencies’ in the General Elections of 2000 and 2007, both of which occurred within the 90-day period and in which he was twice elected as an MP? 2. If indeed there were no such ‘emergencies’, does this mean that his own election as a Member of Parliament was null, void and unconstitutional, twice?
According to our Constitution, emergency sittings of Parliament can occur on a needs basis, during this 90-provision after Parliament has dissolved, but it does not affect the actual date of the impending General Election.
In his usual haste to exert unnecessary political pressure on the government to call elections, Dr. Rowley again traps himself in yet another embarrassing and humiliating intellectual quagmire from which it is becoming increasingly difficult to extricate himself.
Dr. Rowley’s inability to understand and interpret even the basic structures of the Constitution, acts as a truly powerful and frightening reminder that he is simply not fit to lead in any capacity.
MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL November 17th, 2014
AG: He’s misleading the people
By JULIEN NEAVES Monday, November 17 2014
ATTORNEY General Anand Ramlogan has fired back at PNM Political Leader and Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley, describing Rowley’s statements about Government and the President’s $28,000 housing allowance, as “misleading” and “reckless”.
“This is a reckless attempt by Dr Rowley to mislead the nation on the scope and ambit of the Government’s legal power over this important office,” he said. He also said it may be time for the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) to break its silence on the matter.
Ramlogan, in an emailed release, responded to comments by Rowley at the PNM’s convention yesterday in which he, “insinuated Government was somehow responsible for the payment of the housing allowance that has attracted so much attention and disquiet.”
He noted that Rowley criticised his statement that the office of the Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) was an independent one over which the Government had no influence in such matters.
Rowley also said that while the AG was telling the country that the “CPO is independent and the Government is helpless” this was not the case with five per cent edict during Public Service negotiations.
Ramlogan explained that the jurisdiction of the CPO is limited by law and the CPO is the head of the Personnel Department which, by section 14 of the Civil Service Act, has responsibility for addressing remuneration, grievances and classification of offices. He noted the Government, through the relevant Minister, has influence over the CPO in relation to these specific matters and this is confirmed by section 15 which states that “in the exercise of its duties and functions under sections 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 (1), the Personnel Department shall be subject to the direction of the Minister of Finance”.
“Thus, Dr Rowley’s bold rhetorical question about the Government’s directive to the CPO on settling wage negotiations misses the mark completely, if not deliberately. That is not the issue here. The President is not a civil servant. This is expressly stated in the section 3 (4) (b) of the Constitution,” he said
He explained that the terms and conditions of the Office of the President is a matter for the SRC which is an independent constitutional body and is not subject to the direction and control of any other person or entity. The CPO, by convention, functions as the Secretary to the SRC, he noted.
“It is in this context and in these circumstances that I condemn the foolish suggestion made by Dr Rowley that the CPO was somehow acting under the influence of the Government. When the CPO wrote that letter, she was clearly functioning in her capacity as secretary to the SRC as the terms and conditions of the President cannot and do not otherwise concern her,” he said. Ramlogan pointed out that “perhaps the time has come for the Chairman of the SRC Edwards Collier to break his silence on this matter in the public interest and provide the necessary clarification regarding its role (if any) in this matter”.
“His silence is causing unnecessary consternation and disquiet and has the potential to bring the office of the CPO and the President into disrepute. He therefore has a duty to clear the air on this matter. It is unfortunate that Dr Rowley, in his usual rush to score cheap political points failed to properly analyse the law on this matter and misrepresented the facts,” Ramlogan added.
http://www.newsday.co.tt/politics/0,203037.html
AG questions Rowley’s silence on housing $$
Kalifa Clyne
Published:
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Attorney General Anand Ramlogan yesterday challenged Opposition Leader Dr Keith Rowley to give details of the House Committee parliamentary meeting which Rowley claimed discussed the $28,000 housing allowance being paid to President Anthony Carmona.
Ramlogan, who spoke to the media at his office yesterday, also called on Rowley to provide the minutes of the meeting and explain to the public why he had remained silent on the issue until now. “Did he want to let the matter die a natural death? Did he not see anything wrong with it?” Ramlogan asked.
He added: “You claim your party knew about and raised this for consideration by the Government. “It is clearly a blatant falsehood. If this matter was raised, one would expect it to be documented and that Rowley himself would have spoken out on it, as he is obliged to in the public interest, and bring it to the nation’s attention. Instead we learned about it through the media.”
Ramlogan said Rowley was operating under a very reckless political modus operandi. He added: “It is reminiscent of what he claims to have done when he revealed the so-called, fake e-mails. He kept it for six months. He was looking for something to say at the PNM convention because he had precious little else to say of note.”
Ramlogan said Rowley needed to give details as to when the housing allowance was raised before the House Committee. “I want him to produce the minutes of the House Committee to prove it was raised and I want him to say the date it was raised,” he added.
He asked: “I want him to tell us, if it was raised and not addressed to his satisfaction, what did he do, as someone who aspires to leadership of this nation? What did he do to bring the matter to the nation’s attention, to say something was wrong and therefore we should deal with it? “I ask this question to Dr Rowley: If the media didn’t break this story, would you have remained silent?”
Former AG to advise Govt on allowance
Ramlogan also revealed that he had retained the services of former Attorney General Russel Martineau to provide legal advice on the housing allowance.
The Ministry of Finance referred the issue to the AG on Friday.
Ramlogan said after consulting the Solicitor General, the decision was made to seek independent legal advice. “Suggestions have been made and I am considering those suggestions. We are speaking to people to see whether they will be prepared to advise the State on the matter. “One person who has in fact agreed to advise us is former AG Russel Martineau, SC,” he added.
Ramlogan said some people under consideration had been disqualified after speaking out publicly. He said Kenneth Lalla, SC, former chairman of the Public Service Commission, was one of them.
http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2014-11- ... ce-housing
Any remorse, Dr Rowley?
SUZANNE MILLS Friday, November 21 2014
I wonder if the Opposition Leader now feels right insular for having lambasted the Government for co-sponsorship of a United Nations Security Council resolution on the fight against terrorism. Does he feel the slightest remorse?
A month or so ago Rowley pronounced that TT could ill afford to declare war on terrorists at a time when “you can stay away.” He was addressing constituents at the People’s National Movement St Ann’s East Constituency annual conference at the San Juan North Secondary School in Bourg Mulatresse, no doubt playing to his crowd.
But now that TT citizens are leaving home to jihad in Iraq and Syria, does Dr Rowley understand that no one is immune from terrorism whether you assent to a security resolution, or not. Did Abu Bakr attempt a coup because we supported the US? We don’t have to sign on a dotted line to attract ISIS. They are already here. They are everywhere.
“In any international issue, you put Trinidad and Tobago interest first,” he pontificated, which is a heck of a selfish mentality when ISIS is beheading and raping and plundering and selling women. What about our responsibility to the international community, to those children and women? What the devil did he mean when he said that little Trinidad and Tobago has to be careful to walk among the gears and not get crushed? So it’s ok for ISIS to crush the weak and the innocent?
There are times when the imaginary rule book has to be tossed out of the window, when for example you get a Hitler and a Nazi State exterminating people as if they were rats and you have to join the cause, regardless of perceived danger to yourself, danger that you actually invite by hiding behind technicalities. Didn’t we join the international boycott of South Africa during the era of Apartheid? This sponsorship is not decision by vaps; it is not action which is wild and reckless; this is decision based on moral outrage and the need to protect our national security. It is not prostration and gallerying: it is grown up foreign policy. Dr Rowley always feels he can dismiss or second guess the Prime Minister, as if she were feeble minded and out of her depth.
And try as we may we can’t separate our interests from the interests of the US, which no one can argue started this fire/backfire in Iraq when it invaded over a decade ago. But given that terrorism is a global reality, we really can’t be that insular. The more we co-operate the better off we are: we can share intelligence.
Just recently the US imposed stricter rules for citizens of countries who benefit from the visa waiver programme, as many from these countries have signed up to fight for ISIS. But the Obama administration was clever enough not to go as far as some right wingers wished it to and cancel visa waivers altogether because it recognised the advantages of sharing information and security co-operation.
And isn’t that what a “small” country wants? Security co-operation? Going our own way is more perilous, especially as ISIS is recruiting fighters via the internet. If ISIS is making the world a village, how then can countries not respond in kind? Newsday ran a story about one man taking his family to fight for the Islamic caliphate, but how many other nationals are already over there?
Apologists and diplomatic experts also had unsolicited words of wisdom for the TT Government. How do they feel now two months later after ISIS has upped its barbarity? Why must we, as they and Rowley propose, vote in support of a resolution and not co-sponsor it?
Some have argued against our involvement by comparing ISIS to the Israelis but as much as the Israelis are violent bullies and refuse to recognise the rights of the Palestinians to their own State, this is an absolute false analogy. The fighters of ISIS recently killed 300 in one go, 300 of their fellow Muslims. They are torturing captives among which are children, beating them and forcing them to watch videos of beheadings. How can we stand by and play coy? How can we put TT first? How callous can we be?
A month and countless barbarities later I wish someone could tell me why we had to consult Caricom before making a decision to co-sponsor this resolution. Europe is a community, a union, but its individual member States decide whether to go to war or not. Must we seek Caricom’s permission when we are treating not only with a global imperative but matters which affect our national security? Who is Caricom to give us the red or green light? Who is Caricom to decide whether Trinidad and Tobago should participate in leading the charge?
This is one of those occasions that you hope the PNM leader was just trying to score political points because for a man who would be PM his comments indicate he has little grasp of geo-political affairs and sees TT as small when we should aspire to being big. Since 1962, Rowley recalls, the PNM has made a clear distinction between voting for a resolution and sponsoring or co-sponsoring it. But times change and this is no longer 1962. Someone needs to tell Dr Rowley.
www.suzannemills.net
http://www.newsday.co.tt/commentary/0,203217.html
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], pugboy and 355 guests
