Monday, September 17, 2012

Letter: Rowley has some explaining to do

Since raising their hands in support of the government's move to repeal section 34 of the Justice Act, every PNM member of parliament has been clamouring for the government to resign, claiming the government went back on its word not to proclaim the Act before certain things were in place.

It is a good thing I kept the copy book where I wrote down what the government and the opposition said when the Act was passed in 2011, because the PNM's position now seems different to what it was then.

According to my copybook notes from November 18th 2012, Mr Imbert was the one who advised Minister Volney that the Act had to be implemented piecemeal. Mr Imbert's exact words were "So, we are talking three/four years down the road before this Bill can be fully implemented, and the Minister knows that. He could get up in this Parliament and say it is not so. He would not be here in this Parliament when this system is fully implemented."

According to my grammar book, "fully" is an adverb that means "completely" or "to everyone's satisfaction". So, if someone tells me something cannot or would not be fully implemented before next week, it can only mean and imply that that something could or would be partly implemented before next week. 

Notice what I have in my copybook: Mr Imbert used the words "fully implemented" twice in quick succession. And at the time, he was fully reinforcing what he thought was a glaring oversight by Minister Volney. With that fully in mind, Mr Imbert and all his PNM colleagues then went on to vote yes for the Justice Act. 

In other words, they fully agreed to the full consequences of their deliberate and collective action.

There's another titbit which fully reinforces that the PNM fully understood what the Parliament and the Government did and undid is quite in order. 

I'm seeing some other copybook notes detailing what Mr Manning said on December 9th 2012, when the Justice Act came back to Parliament from the Senate with the Section 34 amendment. 

Mr Manning said "Mr. Speaker, as I make reference to sovereignty, it is important in the context of this Bill, because it is the sovereignty of Trinidad and Tobago that allows us to take what measures we consider appropriate in any and all aspects of national development including, Mr. Speaker, the security of our citizens, and including the way that we will treat with prisoners and persons who have run afoul of the law."

And Ms Gopee-Scoon promptly endorsed by saying, "That is right, on track."

Mr Manning is no ordinary member of parliament. He was leader for 24 years and Prime Minister for about 13 years. He also had the benefit of spiritual counselling at public expense to guide him. Sadly, his health has deteriorated. I wish him all the best. But, his present condition cannot lessen how what he said on November 9th 2012 negatively impacts on the PNM's post-debate stance, because not a single PNM member objected to him saying it when he said it.

In light of the notes contained in my copybook, the PNM must now fully explain why it is taking issue with its own fully-stated positions. My call for them to do that is a fully rhetorical exercise, since the PNM's nature is to be so full of itself that it feels people would be fooled by its constant smoke and mirrors. Knowing the PNM, they will never give a full explanation.

The Government has given a full explanation why certain parts of the Justice Act were put into effect before others. It is to the Government's credit it rushed to plug the loophole the instant it was discovered.

Heston Corbie | 69 Prizgar Lands, Laventille

No comments:

Jai & Sero

Jai & Sero

Our family at home in Toronto 2008

Our family at home in Toronto 2008
Amit, Heather, Fuzz, Aj, Jiv, Shiva, Rampa, Sero, Jai