Independent senators reject UNC’s anti-government label

In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tors are push­ing back against the an­ti-gov­ern­ment la­bel at­trib­uted to them by the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC), with one sen­a­tor ask­ing that they re­frain from us­ing in­tim­i­da­tion to get their way.

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 strong­ly crit­i­cised the In­de­pen­dent Sen­ate bench, ques­tion­ing their im­par­tial­i­ty and sug­gest­ing that the Pres­i­dent, known for her close ties to the PNM, strate­gi­cal­ly ap­point­ed them to un­der­mine the gov­ern­ment.

The rul­ing par­ty urged the In­de­pen­dent bench to vote with them to­day when the Prime Min­is­ter’s Pen­sion Amend­ment Bill goes to the Sen­ate.

The par­ty’s PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo ref­er­enced the de­bate on the Chil­dren’s Life Fund where on three oc­ca­sions at the com­mit­tee stage, the in­de­pen­dent bench vot­ed with the Op­po­si­tion forc­ing the Sen­ate Pres­i­dent to use his cast­ing vote to break the 15-15 tie.

But sen­a­tor, who is the longest serv­ing In­de­pen­dent bencher in the Up­per House, ques­tioned if the gov­ern­ment is say­ing they should have re­mained silent in the face of ap­par­ent flaws to 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 re the med­ical ill­ness­es and con­di­tions iden­ti­fied in the third sched­ule.”

The In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor 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 antigov­ern­ment or as act­ing in col­lu­sion?”

Viera said every In­de­pen­dent sen­a­tor who spoke on the Bill said they were in sup­port of the leg­is­la­tion.

An­oth­er re­turn­ing In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor, De­oroop Teemal, said it is now nat­ur­al to feel pres­sured by the gov­ern­ment fol­low­ing its 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.

Sen­a­tor Teemal said that even though there was di­vi­sion at the com­mit­tee stage of the Chil­dren’s Life Fund de­bate, fol­low­ing that no In­de­pen­dent sen­a­tor vot­ed against it. Like­wise, he said the gov­ern­ment was al­so able to pass the bill to re­peal the Trinidad and To­ba­go Rev­enue Au­thor­i­ty (TTRA).

He said he will be go­ing to the Up­per House to­day with some con­cerns about the Prime Min­is­ter’s Pen­sion Bill and he will raise them. How­ev­er, Teemal said he is al­so go­ing with an open mind and will on­ly make a de­ci­sion on the Bill when he hears all sides of the ar­gu­ment.

In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor Court­ney Mc­Nish said the as­sump­tion that the will of the peo­ple is al­ways sat­is­fied in 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 ac­tivists say or think,” he said.

Sen­a­tor Dr Mar­lene Attzs said: “If this is a pre­emp­tive at­tempt to cast doubt or sow mis­trust, it’s both un­for­tu­nate and mis­placed.”

Dr Attzs, who has not yet had her day in the Sen­ate as she has been on leave ap­proved by the Pres­i­dent and Sen­ate Pres­i­dent, a pro­fes­sion­al com­mit­ment which pre­dat­ed her ap­point­ment as a sen­a­tor, said: “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 when she does speak 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.”