the parliamentary debates · the parliamentary debates official report in the first session of the...

THE

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO WHICH OPENED ON JUNE 18, 2010

SESSION 2010—2011 VOLUME 4

SENATE

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The Senate met at 1.30 p.m.

PRAYERS

[MR. PRESIDENT in the Chair]

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Mr. President: Hon Senators, I have granted leave of absence to Sen. The

Hon. Vasant Bharath, Sen. Kevin Ramnarine and Sen. Prof. Patrick Watson, who

are all out of the country.

SENATORS’ APPOINTMENT

Mr. President: Hon. Senators, I have received the following correspondence

from His Excellency the President, Professor George Maxwell Richards, T.C.,

C.M.T., Ph.D.:

“THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

By His Excellency Professor GEORGE MAXWELL

RICHARDS, T.C., C.M.T., Ph.D., President and

Commander-in-Chief of the Republic of

Trinidad and Tobago.

/s/ G. Richards

President.

TO: MS. SALISHA KHAN

WHEREAS Senator Vasant Bharath is incapable of performing his duties as

a Senator by reason of his absence from Trinidad and Tobago:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as

aforesaid, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 40(2)(c) and

section 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do

hereby appoint you, SALISHA KHAN, to be temporarily a member of the

Senate, with immediate effect from and continuing during the absence from

Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator Vasant Bharath.

2

Senators’ Appointment Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [MR. PRESIDENT]

Given under my Hand and the Seal of the

President of the Republic of Trinidad and

Tobago at the Office of the President, St.

Ann’s, this 15th day of February, 2011.”






/s/ G. Richards

President.

TO: DR. VIDHYA GYAN TOTA-MAHARAJ

WHEREAS Senator Kevin Christian Ramnarine is incapable of performing his

duties as a Parliamentary Secretary by reason of his absence from Trinidad and

Tobago:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as aforesaid, in

exercise of the power vested in me by section 40(2)(c) and section 44 of the

Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do hereby appoint you,

VIDHYA GYAN TOTA-MAHARAJ, to be temporarily a member of the Senate, with

effect from 15th February, 2011 and continuing during the absence from Trinidad

and Tobago of the said Senator Kevin Christian Ramnarine.


President of the Republic of Trinidad and

Tobago at the Office of the President, St.

Ann’s, this 11th day of February, 2011.”






/s/ G. Richards

President.

TO: MR. RABINDRA MOONAN

WHEREAS Senator Patrick Watson is incapable of performing his duties as

a Senator by reason of his absence from Trinidad and Tobago:

3

Senators’ Appointment Tuesday, February 15, 2011

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE MAXWELL RICHARDS, President as

aforesaid, acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the

Opposition, in exercise of the power vested in me by section 40(2)(c) and

section 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, do

hereby appoint you, RABINDRA MOONAN, to be temporarily a member of the

Senate, with effect from 14th February, 2011 and continuing during the

absence from Trinidad and Tobago of the said Senator Patrick Watson.


President of the Republic of Trinidad

and Tobago at the Office of the

President, St. Ann’s, this 14th day of

February, 2011.”

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

The following Senators took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance as

required by law:

Salisha Khan, Dr. Vidhya Gyan Tota-Maharaj and Rabindra Moonan.

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS BILL

Bill to give legal effect to electronic documents, electronic records, electronic

signatures and electronic transactions, brought from the House of

Representatives [The Minister of Public Administration]; read the first time.

Motion made, That the next stage be taken at a sitting of the Senate on March

01, 2011. [Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam]

Question put and agreed to.

DATA PROTECTION BILL

Bill to provide for the protection of personal privacy and information brought

from the House of Representatives [The Minister of State in the Ministry of

National Security]; read the first time.

Motion made, That the next stage be taken at a sitting of the Senate on March

01, 2011. [Hon. S. Panday]


4

Papers Laid Tuesday, February 15, 2011

PAPERS LAID

1. Report of the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation for the period October

2005 to September 2006. [The Minister of State in the Ministry of National

Security (Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday)]


2006 to September 2007. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday]


2007 to September 2008. [Sen. The Hon. S. Panday]

4. Report of the Princes Town Regional Corporation for the period 2009 to 2010.

[Sen. The Hon. S. Panday]

5. Financial Obligations (Financing of Terrorism) Regulations, 2011. [The

Minister of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Brig. John Sandy)]

6. Financial Intelligence Unit of Trinidad and Tobago Regulations, 2011. [The

Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran)]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. President: Sen. Beckles-Robinson.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Mr. President, I am not sure if I am correct here but I

am seeing that this is due on March 03, 2011. Am I correct?

Mr. President: Oh, I see.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: I think it might have been an error that they—oh,

written.

Mr. President: Sen. Deyalsingh.

Tunapuna to Maracas Tunnel

(Details of)

20. Sen. Terrence Deyalsingh asked the hon. Minister of Works and Transport:

With respect to the project to construct a tunnel from Tunapuna to Maracas as

mentioned by the Minister of Finance during the 2010/2011 budget debate,

could the Minister:

a. provide a status update on this project;

b. indicate what are the expected costs associated with its construction;

c. advise whether feasibility studies have been done;

5

Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday, February 15, 2011

d. provide the expected start and end dates;

e. outline the anticipated impact on the existing traffic conditions as opposed

to the implementation of a rapid rail system?

The Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security (Sen. The Hon.

Subhas Panday): Thank you very much. Mr. President, what appeared to be a

slight mix-up, is that the questions from Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson were

written questions and they were answered. They have been circulated.

Mr. President: My Order Paper said it is due on March 08, 2011.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: But that is another question which was due—

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: No. The questions which were due on the Order

Paper for today’s date are written questions and have been circulated.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Yes, that is indeed correct.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Mr. President, after this Government answers

Question No. 20 today, I wish to inform this honourable Senate, that there will be

no questions on the Order Paper to be answered. [Desk thumping] This

Government would have answered every single question raised by the other side

and, after today, the slate will be cleared. [Desk thumping] This Government is a

working Government.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Hon. Senator, there are two questions that qualify

for March 08, 2011, so that is indeed not correct.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: [Inaudible] the questions that qualify for today;

but the point is, when the PNM was in office they spent a year [Desk thumping]

and never answered questions. They took six months, seven months, and

questions were never answered. Questions were spent, but what I am saying, all

the questions which were due for today have been answered by this Government.

[Desk thumping]

Mr. President, I move on now to the answer to Question No. 20.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. President, the project entailing the construction of the tunnel from

Tunapuna to Maracas as mentioned by the Minister of Finance during the

2010/2011 Budget debate, is one which is being implemented by the National

Infrastructure Development Company. Cabinet by Minute No. 592, second

session, dated August 26, 2010, agreed inter alia, that one of the projects to be

6

Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. S. PANDAY]

continued as part of the national network of highways programme being

undertaken by the National Infrastructure Development Company Limited

(NIDCO) would be the construction of the first class road tunnel from the East-

West Corridor in the vicinity of Curepe to Tunapuna. At present, the terms of

references are being developed by NIDCO for the undertaking of a feasibility study

for the project.

Mr. President, the Government had identified a number of growth poles. One

was the south-western peninsula and in an order of priority the Government

decided to embark upon the projector the growth poles in the south-western

peninsula. This Government would have been happy to commence work on this

project, but, Mr. President, we have been stymied by the lack of funds which have

resulted PNM’s gross nepotism, inefficiency, incompetence and corruption. That is

the reason from this project has not been advanced as we would have liked.

Mr. President, when we came into office, this Government, as I said, would

have liked to use funds to build that highway, when we came into office we found

that the national debt was in the vicinity of $62 billion, that is moneys that we

have to pay. So, therefore, when we are attempting to embark upon these

infrastructural works, first of all, we have to think about the situation where the

PNM has left us in this state of indebtedness.

Mr. President, as this says, with respect to external loans, it started at $8.3

billion and, in 2009, ended at $9.27 billion. Had we had those funds, had there

been no wastage, had there been no corruption, we would have been advanced on

this project.

Mr. President, not only have they done this but there were a lot of moneys

being spent on guarantees and Letters of Comfort. For example, the Airports

Authority: $1.32 billion in guarantees. If we did not have to find money to pay for

that, we would have started this a long time ago. Port Authority: $911 million in

guarantees; PTSC: $466 million in guarantees; Regional Authorities: $176 million

in guarantees and WASA: $3.98 billion in guarantees.

So, Mr. President, I would like to let Sen. Deyalsingh know that we want to

develop this country; it is our intention to develop that area as a growth pole but

we have to have our priorities right. When we entered into government, we found

that the debt to GDP ratio was around 60 per cent meaning that every dollar we

earn, we have to pay 60 cents in paying for debt and interest rate. Hence the

reason we would like to start this project but we need, as a responsible

7

Oral Answers to Questions Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Government, to put our priorities right and to ensure that we do not create a

burden for our second and third generations. In this regard, the details in respect

of questions (b), (d) and (e) are not available at this time.

Thank you very much.

Sen. Deyalsingh: As part of a responsible Government, when the budget was

being developed for September, surely the state of the economy should have been

known, why was this project still mentioned as a key project in the September

budget?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Well, you are very new to the House because if

you had been here for some time, hon. Senator, you would have known that a

budget is an intention to do things. Thank you.

Sen. Deyalsingh: The last part of the answer, the answer meandered here and

there, could you just repeat the last part, please; it was not very clear.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: I am sorry that when you ask questions, of course,

you should be listening to the answer but I will oblige. If you want, I will read the

whole answer over, if you so desire. If you were not listening to the question

which you asked, I am willing to read the whole answer back to you. In this

regard, details in respect of question (b), (d) and (e) are not available at this time.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following questions were asked by Sen. Pennelope Beckles:

Visitors to Tobago

(Details of)

22. Could the hon. Minister of Tourism provide the Senate with a detailed

annual breakdown of visitor arrivals from the top twenty (20) countries to Tobago

over the last five (5) years?

Visitors to Trinidad

(Details of)


annual breakdown of visitor arrivals from the top twenty (20) countries to

Trinidad over the last five (5) years?

Vide end of sitting for written replies.

8

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES (AMDT.) BILL

Order for second reading read.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran): Thank you Mr.

President. Mr. President, I beg to move,

That a Bill to amend the Statutory Authorities Act, Chap. 24:01, be now read

a second time.

Mr. President, the Bill before us attempts to achieve three broader public

policy purposes. Firstly, it attempts to rectify an inequity in the system with

respect to the payment of one month’s salary to public servants and others.

Secondly, it recognizes the need for compassion in the laws of the country; and,

thirdly, it reflects the evolution in law with respect to the definition of “next of

kin.” These public policy purposes are the heart of People’s Partnership’s

thinking and philosophy, and this, although a relevantly simple Bill, does reflect

our continuing commitment to ensure that equity, compassion and the evolution

of law remain part of the moving agenda of this Parliament.

Mr. President, specifically, the Statutory Authorities Act, Chap. 24:01 is to be

amended to provide one month’s salary to be paid to the next of kin of deceased

public officers who are employees of the authorities falling under the jurisdiction

of the Statutory Authorities Act.

Under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, Chap: 23:01, it is provided in

section 32 and I quote:

“Whenever a public officer dies the Minister shall order that a month’s salary

of the officer, from the date of his death, shall be paid to his widow or to his

children or other next of kin.”

1.55p.m.

Hon. Senators would note that the intent and purpose of this provision is a

simple one, that is, to reflect a compassion of those who have departed, that their

next of kin, or their spouse, or their widow, may indeed have some compensation

that already exists under the Civil Service Act. It is, therefore, the intention of this

amendment to reflect this right to all members who fall under the Statutory

Authorities Act. So, it is a very simple amendment to allow equity of treatment

between the laws that govern the Civil Service Act and the laws that govern the

Statutory Authorities Act. This right was not afforded to those who are covered

under the Statutory Authorities Act, and the purpose of this Bill is simply to

remedy this gap.

9


The proposed amendment, will, therefore, reflect a benefit to a number of

organizations and a number of persons who fall under the jurisdiction of those

organizations that are not now covered. These organizations, for the record are:

the Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Committee, the Cocoa and Coffee Industry

Board, the Agricultural Society of Trinidad and Tobago, the Zoological Society of

Trinidad and Tobago, the National Lotteries Control Board, St. Michael’s School

for Boys, St. Mary’s Children’s Home, St. Jude’s School for Girls, the Borough of

Point Fortin, the Borough of Arima, the City of San Fernando and the City of Port

of Spain. These jurisdictions will now be covered by this simple amendment that

has been long in coming. I am advised that this matter was indeed raised as far

back as 2000, and it has for one reason or the other not been brought to the

Parliament. It is our job in the People’s Partnership to remedy the ills of the past

and that is why we are here today.

Mr. President, in so doing, the amendment before us attempts also to move in

accordance with the evolution of the law, as it defines the issue of next of kin.

Therefore, we have taken the opportunity to amend that definition, and in this

draft amendment before us in this Bill, we shall now ensure that the rights of

common law cohabitants, as well as dependants will now fall under this Act

within the category of “next of kin”. So, there is, really a recognition of the

evolution of law in this matter. That has already been reflected in other pieces of

legislation that have come to the Parliament previously.

Those pieces of legislation are reflected in the Cohabitational Relationships

Act, Chap. 45:55, in which bona fide cohabitational relationships between

unmarried cohabitants were recognized and where provision was made to confer

upon cohabitants, rights regarding property, maintenance and other matters.

Secondly, in the Administration of Estates Act, Chap. 9:01, in which

cohabitants being persons of the opposite sex who, while not married,

continuously cohabitated for a period of five years in a bona fide domestic

relationship, are recognized.

Thirdly, in the Status of Children Act, Chap. 46:07, in which it is provided

that a child born out of wedlock enjoys the same status, rights and privileges and

obligations of a child born in wedlock.

This evolution of law, as I said, has already been reflected in legislation, and

what we are doing now is simply extending it to the members of the statutory

authorities which I have mentioned, who will now fall under the jurisdiction of

this legislation.

10

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [HON. W. DOOKERAN]

In that sense also, it is a very, very simple Bill and correcting something that

ought to have been corrected. In light of the principles exposed in the foregoing

pieces of legislation, it was therefore determined that the current Act to reflect the

Civil Service Act, will not be sufficient and that we need to use this opportunity to

change the outlook and to remove this contradiction. Hopefully, in due course, as

we consider amendments for the Civil Service Act, which is now under review,

we will also incorporate that interpretation of the definition in the Civil Service

Act as it now exists.

The new proposed amendment to the Statutory Authorities Act therefore,

reflects the new approach and confers rights upon spouses or cohabitants as the

case may be and recognizes that “child” includes children born in and out of

wedlock and in respect of whom an adoption order has been made, and it provides

that such persons will be entitled to this one month’s salary, which is simply a

recognition of some compassion at this particular point in one’s life, who may be

under great personal distress and financial need.

Mr. President, this Bill is very simple, in terms of its immediate objective. It is

a reflection of a continuing desire to try and get our legislation in order to reflect

the issues I have mentioned earlier. And it brings in a new network of individuals,

enumerated under the statutory authorities that I have mentioned, which will now

have this very simple and this very honourable response by the State in the case of

the death of someone who has been working. There is very little else to argue the

case, and I so beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. President. As

the hon. Minister of Finance indicated, it is not a very difficult amendment. It is

not a very complex amendment and, certainly the Opposition supports this

amendment. I noted that the Minister of Finance indicated that there are basically

three issues that this particular Bill seeks to deal with and he referred to an inept

inequity, need for compassion and to treat with the issue of the definition of the

“next of kin”.

When this Act was passed many years ago the issue of one month’s salary was

considered, I would like the Government to consider whether 30 years hence, the

issue of one month should not now be reviewed. As I said, there is no objection to

this legislation. I am just saying, when a person dies and this one month’s salary

is given to all these persons and now you are including other categories of

persons, we know that, depending on the situation, if the person has made a will,

then it would be much easier to go and apply for a grant of probate, which, as you

11


know very well, Mr. President, can be had within a reasonable time. If no will has

been left and one has to apply for letters of administration, depending on the

complexity of the situation, as it relates to children of the marriage, as it relates to

whether the person may have been married and may have been living with

someone else, whether there has been outstanding debt issues, whether there are

matters that may go to court to challenge any issues relating to the estate, it means

that that beneficiary for which this Act is intended to assist, can really be in some

financial problems for quite a long time.

Now, we know that there is also the issue of applying for public assistance,

social welfare and all the other rights that one may be entitled to, under, or from

the Ministry of Social Development. But, again that can take a very, very long

time and you can have a situation where, as I think most of us know, a lot of

spouses, children or dependants can find themselves in a situation where they are

just simply out of pocket and really have to go cap in hand and depend on a lot of

other persons, because when someone dies, as we know, most of the time, or in

some instances, people just do not prepare for some of those whom they have left

behind.

As I said, I commend the Minister for dealing with this inequity. The question

arises, having regard to the time that has passed since the initial Act some, as I

said, many decades ago, whether, as a Parliament, as a Government, we should

not look at reviewing the situation of just a month’s salary.

We all know that, after the funeral and many other things that have passed—

and if we look at the time frame, sometimes when you get that month’s salary, by

the time you have paid all your expenses and, of course, if you have children to

send to school and you have a lot of other things, sometimes you find yourself, as

a spouse or as a dependant or as a next of kin, in a situation where you are

shocked, sometimes, at the number of bills that you have to pay when the person

dies. All I am asking is whether or not that is something—as you indicated, you

are reviewing the Civil Service Act and I know that the Minister of Public

Administration is looking at public service reform and this, therefore, is a matter

that can be given the appropriate consideration.

Mr. President, last week, we would have received the report of the Statutory

Authorities Service Commission, and that report, of course, very timely and is

fairly recent, in that it covers the period October 2009—2010, so it actually deals

with some of the issues that have been raised by the hon. Minister of Finance, in

relation to some of the challenges that the commission faces in dealing with some

of these issues as they seek to do the reform of the public service.

12

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. BECKLES-ROBINSON]

2.10 p.m.

Three areas were drawn to my attention in looking at this report which, as I

said, was laid in a very timely fashion. One has to do with the issue of the

appointment of officers, and page 7 of the report talks about the recruitment of

officers. There are some issues that my colleague, Sen. Deyalsingh, would raise as

they relate to the whole issue of temporary appointments, and whether or not

those persons on contract appointments, whether their next of kin would benefit

from this Act if they depart, as we would say, in an untimely fashion.

But what I am interested in is what the Statutory Authorities Service

Commission is saying, and I am using the opportunity as we are discussing this

amendment to the Statutory Authorities Act, because the hon. Minister listed all

the various bodies that are affected by this particular piece of legislation. And

actually, Minister, the Statutory Authorities Act at page 3, also goes through the

following statutory authorities and it gives the whole number. So one of the areas

that I am looking at, as I said, based on what you listed was the issue of the

Municipal Police Service.

This might be something of interest to both the Minister of National Security

and the Minister of State in the Ministry of National Security. Now they are

saying that the recruitment exercise for police constable is a tedious one. It takes

approximately one year to arrive at the selection and they then undergo a six-

month period of training at the police academy before they are eligible for

permanent appointment. Of course, after that one year and six months, it takes

another period of time before they can actually become eligible for that permanent

appointment.

Now I raise this because this is one of the concerns of the Statutory

Authorities Service Commission, and they are saying that while they seek to assist

the Ministry of National Security—because what they actually do is some of those

officers from the municipal corporations apply to become police constables, and

they are saying that the Statutory Authorities Service Commission actually is a

sort of an incubator for a lot of persons going across to the police service.

But of course if it takes about two years, one wonders what happens. And then

if those persons successfully go across to the police service, the situation that you

have then, you always more or less have a shortage of officers in the municipal

corporations. So I know you might not be talking today, as well as you might, but

I just thought that that was a very interesting situation.

13


Now I raise that because as we seek to deal with the issue —I was of the view

that there was a shortage of police officers. I remember when I chaired one of the

joint select committees at that time, the Chairman of the Police Service

Commission said there was a shortage; I am now seeing that the present

Commissioner of Police is saying that there really is no shortage. I am not in a

position to address that. But the fact is that I raised this issue because it is here in

the Statutory Authorities Service Commission report. Now another area that was

raised in the report which I do not quite understand, and I do not know if the

Minister of Public Administration is speaking today, but in that report at page 15,

a list of various posts is given and that is, applications, shortlisted, suitable and

employed.

Coming back to this whole issue of dealing with persons who have been

properly appointed, people who are in acting positions and I am sure you know

that when you have to then give this one month’s salary, the issue of classifying

you, and deciding what salary the person is entitled to would depend on whether

or not that situation has been properly sorted out. Minister, in case you do not

have this, I will pass it, because I know you may not be clear on what I am saying.

Now let me give you a simple example. Port of Spain City Corporation:

applicants for police corporal 20, shortlisted 20, suitable 15, and then nine

employed. Another one: St. Jude’s School for Girls: handyman/chauffeur, 21

applications and then they have shortlisted, nil, suitable, nil, employed, nil. At

Point Fortin Borough, they have police corporal, applications 16, shortlisted 10,

suitable nine, and employed one.

Now when you read the Statutory Authorities Service Commission report,

there really is not an explanation for it, but to me I think this is a very important

part of the public service reform and the whole explanation. Because they speak

about challenges in terms of human resources; they talk about the fact that they do

not think enough priority has been placed in relation to the Service Commission. I

am very interested in this particular thing because where you have the

applications, the shortlist and the suitable, you have a number of persons; where

you have employed, you either have one or in some instances you have dash. I

will pass it across so you could probably have a look at it.

Now, Mr. President, the hon. Minister of Finance talked about the fact that the

Government, in dealing with this piece of legislation, is remedying some of the

ills of the past and it is reflecting compassion and it is also dealing with some of

the issues in relation to the people that depart. But I want to make the point that

you cannot only remedy ills of the past, there are some ills of the present which

14


the Government needs to remedy, which are equally important. And I say that

because if you treat with an issue relating to an inept inequity in the Civil Service

Act, and as the Minister said this inept inequity is in relation to public servants

and others, it also is that the Government is showing compassion as it relates to

the public servants and dealing with [Desk thumping] laws of the country. I am

saying that your compassion that you are showing for the ills of the past, for the

public servants, that same compassion needs to be shown for the public servants

of the present. [Desk thumping]

You see, Mr. President, one is seeing every day an intensity in the public

servants marching, and whilst I think every public servant who is listening to this

debate, and has concerns about their family members, their spouses, their next of

kin, especially those from the statutory authorities who know today or tomorrow

if they were to depart this life, that this Parliament has made provisions and has

dealt with an inequity that has existed a long time ago, the point is that there are

those at present who cannot pay their bills, who cannot buy food, who cannot

send their children to school and who know that the Government’s present

position is still zero, zero, one per cent. I just want to urge the Government to

make every effort to settle those negotiations with the public servants.

2.20 p.m.

Whilst there is a lot of credit in dealing with ills of the past and dealing with

inequities, inequities can be of the past and they can be of the present and we are

seeing that whilst we talk about officers in the Act, and whilst we know the Civil

Service Act has already dealt with all the categories for which the Act has

mentioned, the Civil Service Act, and this Act has now specified a new category

of persons, I want to say that when we talk about compassion for those who have

departed and for their beneficiaries, at present the impression that is being created

by this Government is that there is no compassion for the public servants and for

the police service. [Crosstalk]

Hon. Senator: “Who does say so?”

Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson: Well, hon. Minister, I know that you are very—

and I know even if you were not going to speak, I see you taking notes, so I know

you would respond to me. I saw a quotation here in the Express that disturbed me,

because I do not know that the Minister of National Security is one who will call

officers “lazy ones” and “slackers,” all right. Now if this Government is talking

about compassion, I do not know that if you refer to police officers as “lazy ones”

and “slackers”, that that is going to motivate them and I do not know that is any

compassion.

15


You see, Mr. President, at the end of the day, the country is in a crisis. When

police officers do not go to the Prime Minister’s residence, when they do not go to

the Attorney General’s home for the purposes of doing their duty and ensuring

that our persons who are at the highest echelons in our society are protected, we

know that our country is in crisis. We call on the Government—this same piece of

legislation that is here to ensure that you protect the ills of the past, I ask them to

protect the ills of the present, because if we do not do that everything is going to

continue to be in chaos.

We have a situation where no prisoners are going to court; there is a situation

where prosecutors are prosecuting in the courts of Trinidad and Tobago, and there

is a situation where people are going to the courts and they are paying for police

officers to go to fetes and now you are having fetes and it is almost a free-for-all

where there are no police officers. Mr. President, all I can do is ask that the

Minister of Finance, who has piloted this Bill and is clearly in a position to know

exactly what the state of the Treasury is and to know the challenges that the

Government faces, to sit down and to have a meeting with all the relevant parties,

so that all efforts could be made for Trinidad and Tobago to get back to normal.

We have a situation where over the last couple days on every talk show,

Trinidadians and Tobagonians seem to want to take the law in their hands to

justify this whole concept of vigilante. It is a debate now that is going to be very

emotional because when anyone comes into our homes and kills a wife, a

husband, a child, a grandmother, it is an emotional situation and people therefore

attempt to take the law in their own hands, especially if, when they call the police,

the police have not come out to duty, they are not there in the station, they are not

willing and people wait for hours, the chances are that what happened a couple

days ago where a whole village went and decided, “Listen, we are going to take

the law in our own hands;” if we do not remedy some of the situations, that is

going to become a situation in Trinidad and Tobago which none of us, not one of

us sitting here in the Parliament, would like.

So I urge the Government again, as you deal with this very important piece of

legislation and as we deal with this inequity, please let us find a way to deal with the

issues relating to the police officers. It is fine, that it is—and it may be very easy for

people to say that those who are staying away from work are unpatriotic, and as the

Newsday said that—or was it the Guardian?—reports, “a handful of delinquents”;

“Deputy Cop blasts troublesome officers.” You know, Mr. President, even if it is a

handful it is the impact that it is having on the society today; it is the impact.

16


When people read the newspapers and they look at the front page of the

Newsday and they see “police sick-out affects President”, “President”, “Prime

Minister”, “Attorney General”, they probably wonder what is really going on in

Trinidad and Tobago, that something like that could happen; it is total chaos.

I really hope that somebody—as a matter of fact, I was hoping that somebody

would have made a statement today, that could probably cool this situation and we

could get a sense to the public that something is being done by the Government to

alleviate the fears of the public and so that they know that the police and the Ministry

of National Security is in control of things. I said some time ago that it appears as

though something is totally wrong and I can only hope that the Minister who is

taking copious notes from what I have said, that he would respond and that

statement that I made some time ago seems to be even more applicable today, it

really appears as though the inmates continue to run the asylum. Thank you,

Mr. President.

Sen. Dr. James Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. President. I would also like to

thank the Minister of Finance for introducing and explaining what this Bill is

about. When I saw it at first, I was wondering why was this necessary, and why one

month’s salary, why not two months, why not three months, why not just a grant. I

think it was just explained or clarified that the reason is that, this is an entitlement

which exists or pertains to civil servants in another Act, so that what we are looking at

here really is equity and compassion, as you indicated. However, Mr. President, I still

think that I would like to query why we are paying one month’s salary.

My concern stems from the fact that if you have someone who has been

working for the State for a number of years and that person dies, that we should

consider rather than one month’s salary, a flat grant of maybe $5,000, $8,000; the

reason being that, if you are working for the State at the lower level and you have

a low salary—and we are talking about compassion and we want to take into

consideration that the immediate needs might be burial perhaps or to pay off some bills

and so on—the person at the lower level is actually going to get a much smaller

amount than someone, let us say, at a much higher level.

Therefore my suggestion—while I agree that we should bring this into line

with what exists elsewhere—is that rather than pegging the payment to one month’s

salary we should look at a reasonable grant, and I do have a figure in mind, I would

suggest something like $8,000 for anyone whether it is a civil servant or someone in the

statutory authorities. Therefore, what we need to do is to perhaps, go back and look at

the Civil Service Act and amend that to bring it in line with what we are doing

today. So that is one concern that I have.

17


The other concern that I have, Mr. President, has to do with the definition of

“cohabitant”. I noticed that it says that it means a person of the opposite sex, who,

while not married and so on. I think that is very antiquated, Mr. President, in this

day and age, very, very antiquated. I think it should be left up to the person who is

receiving the grant, the employee, the person who has worked for the State, to

either determine, or if it is not pre-determined, to just simply leave it as a

“cohabitant” and to excise “of the opposite sex.” We do have a number of people

today who are living together, not married, and if we were to leave this in and

other persons who may be entitled do not exist, then the parties that would have

been living with that employee, would not be entitled to the grant.

2.30 p.m.

We have been party to a number of discussions in the OAS. For instance, I

was looking at the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, and

a similar declaration that was passed unanimously in the OAS. I think that we need

to bring our thinking and our provisions in line with what is happening in the

modern world. I would strongly suggest when we get to the committee stage that

we excise the reference where it says “a person of the opposite sex”, and simply

leave in the other parts of the provision.

Mr. President, I thank you very much. [Desk thumping]

The Minister of Public Utilities (Sen. The Hon. Emmanuel George): Mr.

President, thank you very much. This Bill that we are debating today seeks to

amend the Statutory Authorities Act, Chap. 24:01, simply to allow the Minister to

grant one month’s salary to the family of a deceased employee of a statutory

authority in accordance with the policies set out in the Bill.

My discourse here today will seek to outline the mischief—to use a term that

those on the opposite side like to use, in particular, Sen. Al-Rawi—that this Bill

seeks to address, and the mischief has several parts. Before I go on to those, I

want to refer to Sen. Beckles-Robinson’s reference that one month’s salary upon

death is insufficient—this is what she is suggesting—and in doing this

amendment we should consider making a change to increase the figure. While I

have no difficulty with that—I sense that many Senators here have no difficulty

with it—I would simply want to say to her that this amendment ought to have

been done a long time ago. In fact, the Civil Service Act in section 32 that refers

to this matter was, in effect as far back as 1950, and the previous government was

in power for many years and, in particular, until May 24, 2010. So they had ample

opportunity to deal with this issue.

18

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. E. GEORGE]

Sen. Beckles-Robinson also referred to the issue of the police having serious

industrial problems at this time to the point where they are taking sick-out action.

She suggests that the Government move speedily to resolve the problems not only

of the police, but also of the PSA. I want to remind Sen. Beckles-Robinson who

suddenly seems to know exactly what is required, that the marching of the PSA

took place—or there was marching by the PSA last year around this time and well

into April and May when the election took place, and I did not hear her voice

raised to encourage her government to solve the problem. I want to know where

all of this concern suddenly comes from.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: It was always there.

Sen. The Hon. E. George: The Bill before us seeks to provide a similar

benefit to officers of a statutory authority, as is received by members of the civil

service. In that regard, section 32 of the Civil Service Act, Chap. 23:01 stipulates

as follows:

Whenever a public officer dies the Minister shall order that a month’s salary



By this amendment, we should be able to address a long outstanding lacuna in the

law that speaks to the terms and benefits available to officers of a statutory

authority, and bring them in line with officers of the civil service.

Mr. President, the amendment seeks to address a second mischief and that

mischief was presented by the issue of the definition of “widow” of the deceased.

In that regard, it is most instructive to quote sections 33(1) and (2) of the Civil

Service Act, Chap. 23:01. Section 33(1) says:

“On the death of any person to whom any sum or sums of money may then be

due on account of salary or pension chargeable on the revenue of the State; the

Minister may, by warrant under his hand, on his being satisfied of the

expediency in such case of dispensing with the production of Probate or

Letters of Administration, cause such sum or sums to be paid to such person

or persons as he may consider entitled thereto, without requiring the

production of Probate or Letters of Administration.”

Section 33(2) says:

“Any payment made in the pursuance of this section shall be valid against all

persons whatsoever, and all persons acting under the provisions hereof shall

be absolutely discharged from all liability in respect of moneys duly paid by

them under this section.”

19


A reading of the amendment that is proposed will reveal that because of the

problems that have arisen over the years as a result of societal changes having to

do with family, marriage and common-law relationships in particular, it has

become necessary to word section 29, which is the amendment we are considering

today, of the Statutory Authorities Act to take cognizance of these changes, and

hence we have the amendment speaking to: When an officer dies the Minister

shall order an amount equal to one month’s salary of the officer, as at the date of

his death, be paid to the officer’s spouse. Then it proceeds to say where he has no

spouse, that the sum be paid to a cohabitant, and where he has no cohabitant that

it be paid to his children, and then it proceeds to define spouse, cohabitant and

children and so on. So the amendment seeks to address that problem that was

presented in the Civil Service Act where the Civil Service Act speaks about

“widow” and so on.

Mr. President, the death of a loved one whilst still in employment always

presents difficulties for the family who cannot sometimes access bank accounts

and money bequeathed to spouses and children. The proposed grant of one

month’s salary to the deceased officer’s spouse or next of kin would certainly

assist in getting the spouse back upon his or her feet sooner than he or she would

be in the absence of such a grant.

The sudden death of a breadwinner most often presents difficulties for

dependants like grieving spouse and young children, and those difficulties have to

do with picking up the pieces after the breadwinner is gone.

On the issue of compassion, I want to point out to his honourable Senate that

though this grant is a small one and, particularly, for those at the lower rungs of

the employment ladder in the statutory authorities, that grant might be small in

terms of when it is related to the cost of funeral arrangements and so on but, if

granted quickly, it is likely to meet an important and immediate need, and that

might enable the dependant to bury the deceased with dignity in a situation where

they may otherwise be begging around for assistance.

Mr. President, I should mention here that there is a considerable level of

poverty in this country. In my Ministry, that is coming home to us on a daily basis

through two programmes that are conducted by the Ministry of Public Utilities.

One is conducted under what is called the NSDP, and under that programme

persons who are experiencing financial difficulties and who are disadvantaged

financially are provided with a facility where the ministry will wire their homes

for them or install plumbing in their homes at no cost to them once we have

assessed that they are eligible.

20

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. E. GEORGE]

The other programme is the Utilities Assistance Programme (UAP), where the

Ministry pays a portion of the WASA bill or the T&TEC bill that person has to bear.

So under those two programmes, the Ministry assists those persons in Trinidad

and Tobago who fall under the poverty line, so to speak, and there are many such

persons, and this amendment would more than likely help people who fall into

this category.

On this note, I should point out that this Government is about caring and

bringing relief to those who are distressed and suffering in the society. [Desk

thumping] Often, small gestures of humanity like this one—and we admit that it

is small—would go a long way toward helping those persons, and, in fact, its

benefits far outweigh what it costs and will go much further than the small sum

might indicate. In fact, in terms of the size, it will far outweigh what it brings to

the person when compared to the quantum of the relief.

In this case, the payment of one month’s salary upon the death of an officer to

his spouse is small compared to the major significance of the sympathy and the

support that it conveys. In that regard, one should point out that the modernization

and the changes in our society have resulted in a breakdown and dilution of the

family and community bonds that hitherto existed.

In former times, one found that the family and the community would provide

the support, the bond and the necessary assistance to families in times of distress

and crisis. While the Government cannot step in and completely fill this gap, this

amendment shows a high degree of social responsibility and caring by the

Government, and its recognition of the challenges faced by significant sections of

the community. In that regard, this is what one would refer to as proactive

government that recognizes a potential crisis and steps in to deal with it.

2.45 p.m.

This initiative on the part of the Government to come to Parliament with this

proposal did not depend on any trade union representation or threats, nor did it

come from any suggestion from the Opposition, nor from any approaches made to

the Government by non-government organizations, it comes simply, Mr.

President, from a government that understands that it exists to serve the people. It

is precisely the People's National Movement’s failure to focus on serving the

people after spending such a long time in office that has led to them being voted

out on May 24, 2010.

The people, through their decision on that day to install the People’s

Partnership in government instead, demonstrated that humane government is not

manifested in the concrete and steel of tall buildings or the egoism of hosting high

21


level summits while neglecting the pain and suffering of the people. Rather,

humane government is manifested in government at all times paying attention to

the pain and suffering and the needs of the people that it has to govern.

Finally, Mr. President, the issue of fairness comes into play here. By

introducing this amendment to the Statutory Authorities Act, the Government puts

officers of the statutory authorities on a similar footing as their comrades in the

civil service. All will accept that this is fair and that this must be done, but took

too long to be done. Checks will reveal that the civil servant had this facility as far

back as 1950, if not before, and that in respect of the statutory authorities, it

should have been available to officers of those authorities since 1966―better late

than never, Mr. President.

Before I close, Mr. President, I think there is one wrinkle in this proposal and

it has to do with the speed with which this one month’s salary can be delivered to

the beneficiary, and it would suggest that steps be taken to put in place measures

that will lead to the speedy assessment of the situation of the beneficiary, or who

is the beneficiary, so that the sums can be paid as quickly as possible and bring

the benefit that is intended to the dependant as quickly as it can be brought.

With that, Mr. President, I thank you very much.

[Desk thumping]

Sen. Terrence Deyalsingh: Thank you, Mr. President. Before I start my

contribution let me first congratulate Sen. Danny Maharaj on his most fortuitous

seat in the Senate being placed between Sen. Lyndira Oudit and Sen. Salisha

Khan.

Mr. President, I thank the Minister of Finance, Hon. Winston Dookeran, for

piloting this amendment. He did an excellent job, he was objective, non-

combative, and Sen. George’s contribution again was going excellently but the

default position or the reflex position of this Government to continually blame the

PNM―Could I? I did not interrupt you Sen. George ―[Interruption]―to

continually cast the People’s National Movement in an unfavourable light is

stretching the truth a bit. Yes, this should have been done a long time ago but

what the hon. Sen. George needs to be reminded of is that the PNM was not in

power continuously, there was the NAR government and there was the UNC

government for seven years, so if there was a lapse, if there was fault to be

apportioned, let us apportion it correctly. That is all I am asking. This consistent,

recurring blaming of the PNM―we were not in power continually, there were

other governments in office including the UNC government from, I believe 1995,

so we are all culpable. I just wanted to put that on the record.

22

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. DEYALSINGH]

Mr. President, this Bill, an Act to amend the Statutory Authorities Act is

needed. I just want to share a little personal experience. Recently I had the

misfortune of helping arrange a funeral―a cremation, a very simple cremation

and that cremation cost, I think in the vicinity of $17,000 and it was not a high-

end cremation, but a very simple basic one. So I concur with people like Sen. Dr.

Armstrong and Sen. Beckles-Robinson who were talking about the rationale for

one month, that maybe in light of modern living expenses it needs to be revisited.

Mr. President, I took the opportunity to look at the Statutory Authorities Act,

which is a sort of parent Act of 107 pages, and section 13 of the Statutory

Authorities Act talks about terms and conditions of employment, and when Sen.

Beckles-Robinson was making her contribution, she did refer to the fact that I

would be coming to deal with the issue of some definitions and, hopefully, the

Minister of Finance, Hon. Winston Dookeran, could probably address this in his

winding up.

The term “officer”―and I ran this past some people who are actually

employed in some of these bodies and even one of their legal officers and it is

giving some trouble; there are some grey areas, so hopefully we can address it

together. If someone dies in an acting post which is superior to theirs, what

happens? That one month, are they paid at their lower post or at their higher

post? That is just one. The Statutory Authorities Act gives you a probation period

of two years, if you pass away in that two-year period, what happens again? Just

asking. The Statutory Authorities Act speaks about abolition of office, so if your

office is abolished and you unfortunately pass away in that period, what is the

position? The parent Act speaks about secondment to the public service, so you

could have somebody in a statutory authority, like the St. Michael’s Home for

Boys, he or she can be seconded to the public service, what happens then? These

are just some of the grey areas that I came across when looking at the parent Act.

Section 50(a)(iv) of the parent Act makes provision for retirement due to

medical reasons. So if somebody employed with a statutory authority, has to retire

or resign, whatever term we use, for medical reasons and then dies, what

happens? Section 15(b) of the parent Act talks about temporary office, so if

somebody is temp, has a temporary position and that person dies, what is the

position again? Section 50(c) of the parent Act, speaks about a contract officer,

so if you have a contract officer, again, what is the position? I am just raising

these things so we could debate it and have some measure of comfort to people

actually employed in the statutory authorities.

23


One of the issues, one of the sister Acts that the hon. Minister did not

mention―he mentioned the Cohabitational Relationships Act and the

Administration of Estates Act to take care of common-law marriages, but with the

issue of children, especially what we might call illegitimate children, I think we

also have to be cognizant of getting the status of children regularized under the

Status of Children Act. I do not think the hon. Minister mentioned that Act. So

that is one act that needs to be looked at if we are to fully comprehend the

implications of this little amendment. I have no problem with the amendment; I

am just raising these issues for clarification.

Mr. President, we are speaking about this Act which raises the whole issue of

industrial relations, human resource management and so on and we need to

address the whole issue of industrial relations as it affects the industrial relations

mood in the country.

2.55 p.m.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson alluded to the police negotiations. And it begs the

question, the $1,000 offered to the police last year, you know, how does that fit in

with the current negotiations? Because I even saw a headline in one of the

newspapers, stating that that particular police association is asking for the

Government to take back their $1,000 and to treat their negotiations above board.

These negotiations with the police, Mr. President, are having a very

deleterious effect on the justice system, where cases cannot be heard. It is going to

put more pressure and more strain on an already overburdened justice system,

especially the criminal justice system. So I am just putting that out, that we need

to look at these things in a little more holistic manner.

As we are on the topic of HR, I just want to briefly raise—the hon. Attorney

General as is his wont is not here again. There is very serious debate brewing in

Trinidad and Tobago over the process of hiring that the Government seems to be

following. It is not my intention to rehash the Reshmi Ramnarine affair. She is

irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

What is of concern is the process of hiring. And I say this in relation to the

Bill we debated last week, the Financial Intelligence Unit of Trinidad and Tobago

(Amdt.) Bill. As far as I am concerned, and the hon. Minister of Finance is here,

that department falls under your Ministry, I believe. We debated that Bill.

Sen. Panday: 35(1)

24


Mr. President: Yes, Senator, we are getting get a little wayward, if we could

bring it a little in line with the Bill.

[Desk thumping]

Sen. T. Deyalsingh: But if we are going to have good industrial relations then

we need to follow proper recruitment and selection process, and I am humbly

submitting that the Attorney General is not the correct person to hire the head of

the FIU. That is it.

If we are talking about the compassion in HR, I would like to know where was

the compassion when 107 persons were fired from the Sport Company of Trinidad

and Tobago? If we are speaking about compassion, if we are speaking about

treating people equitably, I want to know how it is a Minister of Government

could arbitrarily decide to impose a 2,000 per cent duty on mas costumes, and

literally wipeout an industry? That is HR; that is IR. You have people employed in

those industries. [Interruption]

Sen. Abdulah: Mr. President, 35(1) again, I thought that you ruled and the

hon. Member is really not relevant.

Mr. President: Hon. Senator, I notice you attached the word “equitable”, and

therefore concluded that you were within the ambit, because you were referring to

equity. On the other hand, the context in which equity was raised by the Hon.

Senator, on this side, related to the Bill at hand and, therefore, we would like you

to restrain yourself and keep within the ambit of debate on this Bill. Thank you.

[Desk thumping]

Sen. T. Deyalsingh: As usual, Mr. President, I am guided by your wisdom.

So we will leave that out for now. I would like to comment further on one of Sen.

Dr. Armstrong’s points. And I think that Sen. Dookeran, I believe, spoke about

evolution of law, where we now recognize cohabitation and so on—Minister

Dookeran, sorry. Sen. Armstrong raised a very serious issue; it is one which I was

loathe to raise myself, but having done so, I would like to suggest that as Trinidad

and Tobago further develops, some time in the future, we are going to have to

grapple with the issue of same sex unions. Maybe not for this Parliament. But as

the law progresses, as societal values change, that is something that a future

Parliament cannot escape from. Again, we are just throwing this out.

So Mr. President, in conclusion, we have no problem with this amendment but I

have raised some issues for the Hon. Minister of Finance to clarify as they refer to an

officer, people on leave, people who are sick, contract workers and so on. So I look

forward to your wrapping up and your further clarification. Mr. President, I thank you.

25


Sen. Corinne Baptiste-Mc Knight: I thank you, Mr. President, and I wish to

congratulate the Government for bringing this bit of equity to us. [Desk thumping]

Hang on, hang on, it coming. [Laughter]

I wish to state that in the spirit of equity, I very much support my colleague on

the Independent Bench, Sen. Dr. Armstrong, because yesterday was Valentine’s

Day and a lot of same-sex people got roses from same-sex people in this Trinidad

and Tobago.

It is an issue as we have just been told, with which we have to start grappling.

And the fashion in which to do it, is not to have an explicit exclusion. You might

have got away with it if you had just done your usual cut and paste from 23:1, 32

to 24:01, 29, you might have got away with it, because some of us just might not

have been that diligent. But as it stands, you are entrenching in a day and age

when the laws and recognition of fact are moving in a direction which you seem

to be bucking.

Now, I have another problem which has not been raised and it is this: There

are single officers who are orphans, who have opted not to produce children out

of wedlock and have not been married. Such an officer dies, according to this

equitable bit of legislation, there will definitely be some burdens in terms of

burial, at least. According to this legislation, who gets this month’s salary?

I realize that the same problem arises in the legislation from which this came

but I also suspect that over the years—because from what I have been told, it is

some 60 years this legislation has been enforced—it is just possible some

arrangements have been put in place to cover such arrangements, and I would like

to know how this would be reflected in terms of officers in the statutory

authorities.

I recognize that it might not be reasonable to expect the quantum to be

changed now, but I am sure in your announced intention to care this will be dealt

with at some future stage. I would like us to have another thought for the same-

sex partners and for those who have no next of kin.

Sen. Panday: Hon. Senator, can you give way? How do you reconcile that

with section 52 in the book of Leviticus?

Sen. C. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Section 52 in what?

Sen. Panday: The book of Leviticus.

Sen. C. Baptiste-Mc Knight: In what?

Sen. Panday: In the Book of Leviticus.

26


Sen. C. Baptiste-Mc Knight: Who? [Crosstalk] Let me tell you something.

Leviticus is a Christian something that existed long ago. We are here today and if

you want to go back to Leviticus, now, there are many, many occasions on which

I would take you, not only to Leviticus, but to the Ark. [Interruption] Back to the

Ark! So, you are playing fast and loose; you are getting into infelicitous

language. Do not do that with me, my thing is the English language.

Mr. President, I thank you. [Desk thumping]

3.05 p.m.

The Minister of Public Administration (Sen. The Hon. Rudrawatee Nan

Gosine-Ramgoolam): Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to contribute to

this very simple Bill.

First, let me congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing this Bill, very

simple but very meaningful, to this Senate so that we could do a few amendments

in the interest of some of our public officers. Before I do so, I want to respond to

some of my colleagues on the other side, and first with Sen. Beckles-Robinson, a

lady whom I really respect dearly. The Senator referred to the Statutory

Authorities Service Commission Report, October 2009 to September 2010 and

referred to pages 7, 8 and 15. I would go through those before we move on.

The Senator spoke to the issue of the commission indicating its challenges in

the recruitment exercise for police constables; it is a long and tedious one. She

went on to indicate that it takes approximately one year to arrive at the selection

of persons who then undergo a six-month period of training at the Police

Academy before being eligible for permanent appointment.

Mr. President, I read this report. I knew what the thing was about because

when it was tabled I had to read it before but I needed the report to really read the

words so that we could hear them. I was shocked then as I am shocked now to see

in a report that it takes a year for selection. Now, there is a difference between

recruitment and selection. That falls under the ambit of the HR planning function.

To recruit is to look for the persons, so you advertise, people respond to the

advertisement or you may have walk-ins, people coming in and say, “you have a

job” or “I see you have a poster”. Is it each one tell one?

I would really like to know, first of all, what method did they use?—because I

am coming to selection. So the recruitment and selection are two separate

activities. Recruit first and then you select but they dovetail into each other. So

you advertise in the newspapers for, let us say, police constables and let us

27


assume that is what the commission did. You indicate in the advertisement on the

newspapers that applicants have until January 31 or February 28 to apply, the

latter being the closing date. As we receive the applications, you have officers in

the office who would engage in a spreadsheet, identify all the applicants, their

qualifications, their experiences, “blah, blah, blah”.

By the time the closing date has arrived, if there were 48 applicants, I would

expect that on the last day, if they had two more applicants on the closing day

they would have already inputted 46 applications on the spreadsheet, so on that

last day when they input the last two, they could sit in a room the next day—and I

am coming to work processes—and on that last day they could sit and organize

and I would give them a whole week. Take a whole week and determine, based on

their job description and job specification as identified in the advertisement, they

would say, “well, 27 persons qualified that we could consider,” so you shortlist

them.

Mr. President, that should not take more than a week, max. That is only one

week, because I am getting into activity-based management now and process, and

that is the problem in the public service. Next, the selection process—if you are

going to interview all 27, then you write them; I think it would take a day to get

all the letters out because it would be a template, just different names, and

schedules for your interviews, and send them out. Let us say it takes two weeks.

These days we call people via the telephone; we text them; we email them. The

service commissions do that. They call prospective candidates and say, “come up

for an interview next week Wednesday at 11.00 a.m.”. So let us say it is two

weeks.

After the interview they collect, they collate and they analyze their data before

leaving the interviewing panel and that is what the selection is all about. The

selection process begins when your recruitment process ends. So from the time

you start to shortlist, the selection process begins. Heaven be blessed, it is either

the recruitment exercise—recruitment is only advertising. We either know our

work or we do not know our work. Recruitment and selection are not

synonymous. Any HR text would tell you that. This is why I query this report. It is

either the people do not know what they write here—because I would like to ask

them.

Mr. President, recruitment is advertising. Looking for people! That is not

even selection. So it is a whole year they took to advertise, to wait on walk-ins, to

wait on each one tell one, to wait on putting up a poster that we have a vacancy.

Let us get this thing right once and for all. [Desk thumping] So it is either the

28

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. R. NAN GOSINE-RAMGOOLAM]

people writing this report do not know what they are talking about and we need to

get on it, and I think Sen. Beckles-Robinson spoke to the issue of addressing the

public service.

Here I am reading in a report tabled in this Parliament that the recruitment

exercise for the police constable is a long and tedious one. You know what

recruitment is? I am pretty sure Sen. Deyalsingh knows about recruitment and

selection. I think I heard him on HR and I respect his knowledge, and let him say I

am wrong. We are not going to tolerate this. [Desk thumping] This is not good

enough and I had the same concern as the Senator.

Let us move along. So it takes a year to arrive at the selection. I would like the

commission to tell us what this is all about because my Ministry would like to go

in there to assist—take six months to train, becoming eligible. Moving along in

that very paragraph. “During this long process manpower losses”—well it cannot

be—“occur which shorten the odds that an optimum number of candidates make it

to the appointment stage”; probably I need to understand that. It is worth

mentioning here that the educational requirements may be three O levels, they are

below that required of the police constable, okay, and this notwithstanding a

significant number may include recruits of the municipal corporation who tend to

move over to the police service.

You know something, the good thing that you know, probably this is a

training ground for police officers, and therefore the positive thing in all this is

that the organization knows that after a couple of years these persons are going to

move on and out. Where is your HR planning strategy? What are the HR people in

the commissions doing? I am pretty sure that you have all of the statistical

software for we now use technology and computers in the ministries. At what rate

are people leaving the organization? Who are these people? What positions are

leaving? What is the trend analysis? I am not going to be fooled by a set of

words, Mr. President. We need to get into serious issues here.

Sen. Panday: Hon. Senator, could you give way? Could you kindly indicate

what year that report is from?

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: This is October 2009 to

September 2010.

Sen. Panday: That is before you came into—

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: Yes, certainly! I am pretty sure

if we go with the report before you we would see the same thing. We have a nice

way of writing the same thing in many different ways.

29


Notwithstanding a significant a number of recruits, therefore, the opportunity

in this is that we know it is one of the training grounds for police recruits into the

so-called police service. Given that, what is our strategy to ensure—because three

O levels, a lot of students pass O levels with three subjects. I am pretty sure if we

get into the statistics with CXC we would find that we have more than enough

entry level recruits, so we are not going to buy this at all. “This represents a

significant loss to the municipal corporations”—and they went on and on.

Mr. President, when I was doing my first degree in economics and statistics—

oh, our dear Minister of Finance was my statistics lecturer in Year I. [Desk

thumping] The Minister of Finance reminded us that we must read the book How

to lie with statistics. [Laughter and interruption] Cannot remember that.

The goodly Senator raised another very important point. The Statutory

Authorities Service Commission spoke to advertisements, so that is recruitment,

that is an example of recruitment, advertising for jobs. Public Health Inspector IV,

not inspectors “eh”, so I try to understand the Queen’s language: One—five

applications, well I assume if you are going to apply for Public Health Inspector IV

you may have a PHI I, PHI II, PHI III and one sees a series of progression. I am

subject to correction—“five applicants, shortlisted two, suitable one, employed

one”; nothing is wrong with that, because that seems to be an internal recruitment

selection issue within the organization. It was not an entry level. Public Health

Visitor I—“application, one, shortlisted none; suitable none”—where is my little

piece of paper?

Now, Mr. President, our problem starts from the time we advertise a job. That

is going to determine whether we would get applicants to start with. So to make a

pronouncement on this, while I think I know HR to stand on a soapbox and talk, I

would need to see what the advertisement looked like. Did it really capture the

people they wanted to capture? What was the process? Because they had one

applicant and none shortlisted, I assumed there that one applicant was not

qualified, and therefore I would go back to see their recruitment and what did they

advertise for.

3.20 p.m.

What is the net? What net did they cast, to catch whom? And therefore, these

statistics that you see here mean nothing to us until we get behind the scene. So

let us not be fooled by these figures. However, a quick addition through my

memory and looking at the figures, I saw overall with all the positions, there were

approximately 419 or 420 applicants throughout for all the positions: shortlisted,

30


229, which is approximately 54 per cent, which is not bad, very good. Suitable

candidates out of all of them—I am looking at it collectively—about—61 and number

employed, 23. When you look at the ratio of applicants to those shortlisted, to those

suitable—and I am looking at it collectively—with employed—it does not look that

bad.

Mr. President, we really need to get into this issue and do some work. I know

we have work to do in the public service. So, I hope that I have satisfied Sen.

Beckles in some way and I guess we have work to do.

I now move to current public service issues, compensation, “ah ha”. Let us not mix

up this Bill—I think Sen. Beckles-Robinson again, who mentioned the issue of looking

at the quantum of the money, as one salary, as opposed to the issue of the amount and

thought that it was a little. But before I get there I think that Sen. Beckles-Robinson

spoke to the issue of a non-compassionate Government as a result of the current

negotiation with public officers. Those are two separate issues.

The current issue with the public service is a negotiation issue, a contractual

obligation on the part of the Government and on the part of labour, based on an

agreement to be renewed every three years and based on negotiation to come up

with what your compensation package is going to be like. This is separate and

apart from treating with an issue where we are going to level the playing field,

and I am going to come to that later.

So, an organization in terms of compensation and treating with the issue of

salaries and other associated issues, is based on the ability of an organization to

pay. I cannot be working for $5,000 and paying somebody $5,010. Therefore it is

the ability of an individual, an organization, or a nation to pay. Government is the

largest employer in the country. Government has one pie of one size. Every year

the size varies—[Interruption]

My dear, Sen. Hinds, would you stop eating into my time—[Crosstalk] right.

It is one size. All governments had different sizes of pies over time, we have a

size this year, and probably next year the size might be bigger or smaller. But the

point we are making is, the point is, that given the size of the pie any responsible

government must take the entire national community into consideration.

Compensation for different sectors of the economy is but one aspect that we have

to address. And we have to ensure, that while we negotiate we want, for those of

us who dabble in statistics a little bit, we want the best fit line. Of course, we are

going to have some outliers. But at the end of the day—am I correct Minister of

Finance, through you, Mr. President?— the Minister of Finance is looking for the

best fit line where we may not be very happy, but we will all be a bit comfortable

31


and life will be easy. And let us not mix emotions with negotiations. Negotiations

are mandatory every three years.

The issue at hand is the Bill, the Statutory Authorities Service Commission

Bill (SASC), the Bill to review the Act. We are not going to mix those two, period.

So it is trying to bring in the affective domain, the feeling aspect to get us all

worked up emotionally, you understand, so that we can pass things and people

will believe us. The negotiation aspect should not be mixed up with the issue at

hand in this House here right now.

I said again, Mr. President, the negotiation of any organization or any government

is based on the ability of the nation or the organization to pay. And any responsible

government would have to ensure that every sector of that pie is distributed in such a

way that will bring some relief and comfort to every individual and every citizen in our

society. [Desk thumping] So we are not going to mix up this business at all. Let us treat

with our three-year negotiation and let us treat with our salary.

Now some of our Senators, including our Independent Senators asked why

one month’s salary? That is another matter. And while I think it needs review, the issue

at hand is to level the playing field. It is nothing new. And as I come to the actual issue

at hand we will recognize that certain public officers get one month salary. It has been

in the books. And for some reason or the other employees under the Statutory

Authorities Service Commission (SASC) were not given the same kind of facility.

Therefore the first thing we have to look at is levelling the playing field. After we level

the playing field we can now decide, “hey”, 30 years ago it was one month’s salary, I

wonder if that is really enough? [Desk thumping] I wonder if that is really enough.

And certainly it is an issue to be taken into consideration. But let us not mix up

the matter at hand here. Too often we get into all sorts of extraneous activities to

cloud the real issue that we have at hand debating in this Parliament. [Desk

thumping]

Definition of “cohabitant”; I think two Independent Senators raised this issue. This

is a sensitive issue. I think the Senators were concerned as “cohabitant means a person

of the opposite sex, who while not married to the officer, continuously cohabited in a

bona fide domestic relationship with the officer for a period of not less than”, whatever,

whether, and they said “opposite sex”. So I think that is the issue our hon. Senators

were referring to. Well, as you know, this is an issue that has two dimensions,

cultural and legislative.

It is a cultural issue that is evolving—well, it is an issue that has been

evolving over time. It is a very sensitive issue. It is an issue that is addressing the

attention of the world; in our books—I am subject to correction—by the legal

32


experts. I think it is illegal currently in our books, and therefore, the cart cannot

go behind the horse. [Desk thumping] Let us get it right, the cart cannot go, you

know in front of the horse, sorry, Mr. President [Laughter] [Desk thumping] the

cart cannot go in front of the horse. Yes, thank you. Yes, we have to ensure, that

the horse goes in front, that we treat with the issue. Sexual orientation is another

issue that is now on the stage; it is being discussed; it is being dissected; it is

being stripped.

3.30 p.m.

The society is now becoming more aware of it. Many in the society are not

aware, and with time and awareness, there probably would be acceptance,

tolerance, whatever, which would lead to the legislative changes. But as long as

the legislation indicates otherwise, how are you going to leave out the words?

Somebody needs to tell me. Then we would be breaking the law to fix something.

It is a cultural issue and that calls for a national intervention. So, for me, that issue

really does not arise here at this point in time. Make sure you are not putting the

cart before the horse.

Sen. Deyalsingh brought out some issues; “if you are acting”. Of course, if

you are acting you would be paid on your substantive post. “Office abolished”.

Well, I do not know, in all my life in the public service working for at least 36

years, Sen. Deyalsingh, that an officer could be operating in a post that has been

abolished. I really do not know. Somebody is not doing their work. I need to find

out if that ever existed. “Medical reasons”; this legislation is for officers—Sen.

Deyalsingh said an officer who would have left for medical reasons and

subsequently died. Probably I went on medical grounds; I retired and went on

medical grounds, but this legislation is for officers in service. The language is

clear. It is for officers in service. If I would have gone on grounds of public

policy, compulsory retirement, voluntary retirement, I am out of the service. How

am I going to be counted? Next: “Contract officers”. I do not think—I may be

subject to correction, but I do not think that it applies to contracts.

Sen. Al-Rawi: Thank you, hon. Minister for giving way, and may I

compliment you on the fire with which you have delivered this afternoon.

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: I “eh finish”. [Laughter]

Sen. Al-Rawi: I certainly appreciate it. I was just wondering on your last

point, if there could be a clarification with respect to the police service, for

example, where an officer may have three years’ accumulated vacation and be

legitimately on vacation. Would that hold true for your last point?

33


Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: Yes, certainly. An officer on

leave is on duty. You are on the books as an officer. You could be recalled

immediately. Public officers can be on leave but because of the exigencies of the

service you can be called upon at any time to serve. So you are on the job. Some

of us figure that teachers are on holiday. Yes, the children are on holidays, not the

teachers. The exigencies of the service demand that the Government can call you

out. It is something that we need to know. Probably it is something that we have

all forgotten, and this is why, during the vacation, whenever teachers and other

officers, particularly teachers, if you have to leave the country, you have to inform

the Government. You have to fill out the form. That is the reason.

So with those few words, I now turn to the real issue at hand [Desk thumping]

This is a simple Bill, you know. I do not know why we make this thing so

complicated. It is a measure designed to bring small comfort to the spouses and/or

surviving families of public officers who served in statutory authorities and who

passed away; very simple. God bless their souls. It is extending this facility to the

statutory authorities’ employees and “extending” means that it exists. This is not a

new kid on the block; this is an old “fella”. It is just that other persons were not

getting it too.

It must be noted that this comfort already exists for employees in the public

service. I think Sen. Baptiste-Mc Knight indicated—or someone—it is about 30

years in the books. It was my Senator here—“he vex I call Sen. Mc Knight.”

The language and intent of this Bill is very, very clear and straightforward.

When an employee dies, the Minister of Finance shall order that an amount equal

to one month’s salary be paid first to the officer’s spouse; first in line. In the

absence of a spouse, it is made to the employee’s cohabitant. When you have

neither spouse nor cohabitant, payment is made to the surviving children of the

employee. In the absence of children, the payment may be made to the parents of

the employee. Fair enough.

“Child” in the context of this Bill is defined as, and I quote:

“‘Child’ means a child born to the officer whether or not born in wedlock or a

child in respect of whom an adoption order has been made under the Adoption

of Children Act and includes one who has attained the age of 18 years and

children shall be construed accordingly.”

That is in the Adoption of Children Act. So by using this definition, it is the

intention of Government to avoid the ambiguity contained in section 32 of the

Civil Service Act, which reads—and I think the Minister read it and I will

probably repeat it and I quote:

34


“Whenever a public officer dies the Minister shall order that a month’s salary



So with this revised definition, a deceased officer’s family can access this

payment without a grant of probate or letters of administration, and God alone

knows how long that takes. I guess, Mr. President, you are in the legal fraternity,

you know about that; how much “hell people have to catch” before they could go

through that whole process. So with this, we want some instant comfort to

families.

This measure is one of a matrix of initiatives being taken by this Government,

the People’s Partnership Government—I want to emphasize that word. It is the

People’s Partnership Government—we have to institutionalize that name—aimed

at reaching out to those officers who day by day serve the public—Trinidad and

Tobago—unstintingly and without fanfare. Our public officers do their duties

diligently, without all the fanfare. They serve us every day and they serve the

society every day. They are the silent workers of this country and you have a

sector of our public officers who receive this benefit and you have another small

sector of the very public officers who do not, and when we talk about inequity in

the system, all we are trying to do is level the playing field for our public officers.

It should be noted that this amendment was proposed, for those of us who did

not know, since December of 2004—

Sen. Panday: I cannot believe that.

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam:—and was to be introduced in

the Finance Act of 2005.

Sen. Panday: I cannot believe that!

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: You cannot believe that. Well, I

am telling you, go and do your research.

Sen. George: Who was the government?

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: I do not know. I am not getting

there. [Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: Ask where is the police today!

Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: This was not done, neither was

it done in the Finance Act of 2006, 2007, 2008, and we move along. It dropped

off the radar. It went!

Sen. Karim: “It like the seagull.” [Interruption]

35


Sen. The Hon. R. Nan Gosine-Ramgoolam: I recall in the ’90s—1992—

when I was very fortunate to be part of the public service reform agenda—very

fortunate—I recall even the vision of the Ministry of Education, all other

ministries, and government’s policy document then: “Caring Government”; we

care for our people. But so many years have passed and it is the little things that

add up to the very big things that make people happy. That one little act, if we had

stuck to it and given those persons who work in statutory authorities, we would

not have been here today. The persons would have been happy.

Do you know what bothers me most of all? Check from 2004 to now the

number of persons who worked in those departments under the Statutory

Authorities Service Commission; think about those who have passed away since

2004. They sat there, very quietly, and as I said, those officers work unstintingly,

without any fanfare. So they went quietly; did not get anything. Therefore, we

really need to have a heart and treat with this issue expeditiously.

In summary, this Bill really attempts to level the playing field among officers

working for the Government, where employees of the State attached to the

statutory authorities would enjoy the same benefit as those officers in the wider

public service. Again, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance for taking

immediate steps, from the time this issue was brought to his attention and to bring

this amendment to this Senate at this time and hope that all hon. Members on this

side, on that side and on the very high side, will see it fit to support this

legislation. Let us not mix it up with negotiations; let us not mix it up with the

amount, the quantum. Those are issues for another time. While very, very

important, we can treat with them.

So with those few words, it is the people’s legislation; it is good legislation and

I now commend it to the Senate.

Thank you very much. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Helen Drayton: Mr. President, I will be very brief—two minutes. I think

it is necessary that I put on record one or two matters, especially in light of what

has just been said. Let me commend the Minister for bringing the piece of

legislation to level the playing field and let me commend Sen. Nan Gosine-

Ramgoolam for her sterling contribution. [Desk thumping]

I wish to make a couple observations. You mentioned the matter of cohabitant

relationships and you said that it was cultural; you said it was legislative; you said

it was evolving. We do have a law which seems to have evolved beyond this that

you, the Government, have just sought to amend. The Cohabitational

36

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. DRAYTON]

Relationships Act, 45:55 in its definition—and let me get all the words clearly—

refers to a “relationship between cohabitants, who not being married to each other

are living or have lived together as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic

basis.” It says nothing about opposite sex and it would have been much better had

you simply left the law and obeyed the law that is there. Because we understand

that it is an evolving process, we understand the sensitivity, and when you speak

of compassion, especially when you make reference to public servants who are

giving yoeman service, they ought to be treated with not only compassion, but

respect in death, and ought not to be discriminated against for any reason

whatsoever. You cannot say you are a Government of all the people, but not those

who are in a same-sex relationship, it just does not go hand in hand.

3.45 p.m.

May I take the opportunity in as much as Leviticus was mentioned, let me say

that yes, it is Christian, and I will not even suggest that our Constitution is far

superior. I will say it is more progressive, because the Constitution specifically

says: “the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of

the law; the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life;” and

this one is very important for the Government, “the right of the individual to

equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of its functions.”

With that, Mr. President, I thank you.

Mr. President: Sen. King

The Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring and

Gender Affairs (Sen. The Hon. Mary King): Thank you very much, Mr.

President. I would just like to bring to the debate some issues which affect us as a

country, given that we are striving towards developed nation status and given that

we are planning for social reconstruction. You are aware that this Bill is bringing

some equity to those who are not already covered under the Statutory Authorities

Act. So yes, we do believe in equal opportunity for all and that is why this Bill is

before us today.

As we are striving to be a developed nation, I think I would like to discuss

some of the conditions which exist in some parts of the developed world, and then

look towards how we can actually get there given the position that we are in

today. And as a planner, I think my role is also to ensure we have social

development. So let us look at some of the conditions in some parts of the

developed world, so that we can begin to think about where we have to go as a

country.

37


So when we look at the United States there is a survivor pension. The pension

is 100 per cent of the deceased’s primary insurance amount at the full retirement

age. This pension is paid to a widower, 75 per cent if the marriage is at least 10

years, and if the surviving spouse is any age, caring for a child younger than 16.

The primary insurance amount is derived from the deceased’s covered lifetime

earnings and is the basis for determining benefits for the survivors. Now this

pension ceases if the survivor actually remarries before the age of 60. There is

also a death benefit, a lump sum of £255, is paid to the surviving spouse. There is

an orphan’s pension; each child receives 75 per cent of the deceased’s pension

and the maximum for any one household is a 150 per cent of that amount. So we

have to do a lot of work.

We just picked a few countries to look at, and coming to where we have to go.

In Canada there is no distinction between public and private sector pensions; the

data indicates there are universal pension benefits and they are income tested. So

if there is a certain level of income in the family, in the household, then it would

be graduated accordingly. We also have the spouse and widow, in their definition,

include legally married persons, common-law partnerships and same-sex partners.

So we have in that country the universal pension up to Canadian $1,000 per

month. We have a surviving spouse under 35—if the spouse is under 35 they do

not get the disability, and they are not eligible for pension under the Canadian

pension scheme. There is a death benefit of six months of earnings, and these

earnings are related to the retirement pension that would have been paid had the

person survived.

New Zealand, where we go to when we are looking at some of our own

laws—and we have begun to in the last few years, go to New Zealand, which is

seen as a rapidly developing and now considered a developed country—we have a

widow’s benefit of up to $191 New Zealand every single week, paid to a single

mother without children, whose partner has died, and if there are children, $263

per month. There is also a funeral grant, also based on an income test. In that

country there is also the benefit adjustment, meaning that these benefits are

adjusted according to changes in the consumer price index, which is what we have

been asking for, for our private sector to actually get involved and be at that level

of development.

Another country that we examined is social security in Australia, also means

tested, depending on the income of the family: up to Australian $46 is paid every

two weeks; there is also a rent assistance of up to Australian $100 per month;

there is a bereavement payment of a lump sum paid to the surviving partner, a

38

Statutory Authorities (Amdt.) Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. M. KING]

carer or parent of a young child and adjusted to the financial circumstances within

the household. And again, benefit adjustment; benefits are adjusted twice a year

reflecting changes in the consumer price index.

And let us just finish by looking at the United Kingdom where our

Constitution and where a lot of our laws originated, and it is also considered quite

a developed country in today’s world. Widowed parents allowance of £97 per

week, a bereavement allowance, a bereavement payment of a lump sum of £2000

paid immediately to the surviving spouse and a benefit adjustment also indexed to

the consumer price index.

So as a planner, I think we have a lot to do going forward and looking at the

social restructuring of Trinidad and Tobago. We are striving to be a developed

nation and therefore, we have to be more proactive in ensuring that our social

benefits are relatively equal to that of the developed world.

Now, we as a country have got to examine how these countries actually are

able to pay these benefits, and we have found that the preferred system for

employees is that the employee is actually contributing towards a pension plan, a

retirement plan, and obviously the death benefits accruing from such a retirement

plan. And therefore, they have contributory pension schemes in these countries

where the worker pays approximately 5 per cent of their salary and the employer

pays 10 per cent of their salary. This money is properly invested, in real

investment, not in money markets but in real investments depending on the age of

the person employed, whether in equities or a mixture of equities and money

markets, so that when that person reaches the retirement age, there is actually a

substantial sum which will accrue to the retiree, if he does not die, and to the

beneficiaries of that person, should he or she die.

So the debate has to start in this country with all employees not just private

sector, but all employees getting involved in a contributory pension plans, so that

we can ensure that we have in place a proper and equitable social system with

proper benefits, when people retire or when the worker actually succumbs, for

both the spouse and the dependants.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. President, before us today, we had a lot of discussions on same-sex

unions, and the country that we get our Constitution from—in yesterday’s Daily

Express, February 14, 2011, Valentine’s Day we read, “Same-sex unions closer to

being called marriages”. So the United Kingdom has started the debate among its

public and, of course, eventually after the debate, recommendations will be made

and decisions will be taken by their Cabinet.

39


There are actually, yes, some persons who would be anti-this and they have

named some of the religions which are definitely totally against this, but surely

the debate will decide and the referendum, if one is taken, will decide in which

way the country moves. Therefore, as the person responsible for gender affairs in

this country, the debate must start, we must ensure that that debate is taken

throughout our country, and when the recommendations come in they will be

taken to the Cabinet for decisions. [Interruption]

Sen. Drayton: Can I ask for clarification? That being the case, we spoke

about the evolutionary process, why did the Government seek to take the

legislation two or three steps back, when it already has legislation that defines

what a cohabitant relationship is? The Government in addressing the matter,

where you have just mentioned the UK and many other countries are seeking to

take steps towards addressing that very sensitive matter, this Government has

sought to bring a piece of legislation that takes it back in time. We already have

legislation governing cohabitant relationship.

Sen. The Hon. M. King: I think we would like a definitive debate and

recommendations going forward , so that within our laws there will be either yes

or no to same sexes being able to have marriages and, therefore, the beneficiaries,

where that allows.

So with those few words, Mr. President, I thank you very much. [Desk

thumping]

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Winston Dookeran): Thank you, Mr.

President. I think when it is all said and done, I am pleased that this honourable

Senate has agreed to support this amendment in totality. But in so doing, a

number of public issues have been raised, and I think it is incumbent upon us to

add to what my colleagues, the Minister of Public Administration, the Minister of

Public Utilities and the Minister of Planning, Economic and Social Restructuring

and Gender Affairs said in this debate.

We have had a very measured response from Sen. Dr. James Armstrong and

indeed from the Leader of the Opposition Bench, Sen. Beckles-Robinson. Her

response while measured, was a little seductive [Laughter] in trying to entice me

into a national debate—[Interruption]

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: I am trying to seduce you.

Hon. W. Dookeran:—that I do not believe I will be tempted to do in this

honourable Senate. [Interruption]

Sen. Panday: She is in a Valentine mood.

40


Hon. W. Dookeran: Let me enumerate what I consider to be the key issues

that have been raised, and I think one that clearly has a voice of sympathy to all

Trinidad and Tobago has to do with whether or not a one-month salary is

adequate.

Let me point out, Mr. President, that that is not the totality of support that is

available to citizens and public officers. In our system, there is also the national

insurance death benefit, which can be accessed by its own criteria. In our system,

there is also support from the Ministry of the People and Social Development that can

be accessed. So to suggest that one Month’s salary is all that is available in the current

situation is not to look at the total picture. Clearly, we cannot create an inequity by

removing an equity, and what we are trying to do here is to level the playing field

between the civil service regulations and the regulations pertaining to the

statutory authorities. What we are actually doing is establishing the minimum

position of support upon death, that the society and public purse will make

available to others.

There may be need, as the Minister of Public Utilities said, to keep reviewing

this situation and, obviously, we will have to do so, but this legislation before us

simply enumerates the statutory requirements of the State for officers who are

employed under the statutory authorities to be equally treated to the officers who

were employed under the civil service regulations. That is what we intend to do

and, therefore, it is not really a question of dealing with the totality of the support

upon death for the society as a whole, and the public service in particular.

Mr. President, some issues were raised with respect to the administration of

this exercise—I wish to point out to Sen. Deyalsingh—and let me refer to section

2 which states very clearly the definition of an officer:

“…a person who is appointed to hold or to act in a pensionable office in the

service of a statutory authority and whose remuneration is paid on a monthly

basis;”

Therefore, once appointed, regardless of probation, an officer would be eligible

for the benefit proposed. The term pensionable officer precludes contract officers

from accessing the benefits as contract officers are not pensionable posts.

(2) An officer transferred from the civil service on secondment will still be a civil

servant and entitled under section 32 of the civil service Act to a similar

payment; and

(3) A civil servant who is transferred to a statutory authority will be appointed in

the meaning of the word appointed within the meaning of section 22.

41


I believe the Minister of Public Administration went beyond that in explaining

how this will actually work. There is indeed careful thought to ensure that the

matters will be dealt with administratively under the issues of equity.

Mr. President, I believe Sen. Helen Drayton raised an issue with respect to the

current provision moving backwards. May I point out to the Senator that the

definition of cohabitant within the Cohabitational Relationships Act states as

follows:

“’cohabitant’ means—

(a) in relation to a man, a woman who is living or who has lived with a man

as his wife in a cohabitational relationship; and

(b) in relation to a woman, a man who is living with or has lived with a

woman as her husband in a cohabitational relationship;”

The laws in this country as exist at this time have not legalized the issue of same-

sex marriages. That is a matter that this Parliament may want to at some time

adjudicate upon. But we cannot in issuing one piece of legislation contradict

legislation in other Bills, or else there will be total inconsistency on this matter.

So while the debate is perhaps relevant, and perhaps relevant more now than it

was five years ago, it clearly does not find place in this particular provision that

we are now adopting. It is indeed consistent with the legislation that I referred to

when I presented the Bill.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Hon. Minister, could I ask a question?

Hon. W. Dookeran: Yes.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: I was wondering why this legislation does not

simply refer to the definition in the Cohabitational Relationships Act, because

now that you gave a definition here, people are going to think that there is some

difference between what you have here and what you have in the other Act. So in

passing the legislation, why did they not simply say relate—[Interruption] to the

Cohabitational Relationships Act? Because once you put a definition here—just

for consideration maybe you can ask, so there will be no issue as to whether there

is a difference between what you have here and what is in the Cohabitational

Relationships Act, which is a totally different issue from the issue of same-sex

relationships.

Hon. W. Dookeran: Well, I am glad to admit that indeed it is a different

issue, and it is a question of legal drafting. As to whether there is need to make

such a reference or there is not a need, I would not be able to answer whether

42


there is such a need. But clearly, the definition in this Act is consistent with the

definition in the other Act to which Sen. Helen Drayton made reference. I just

wanted to correct that misconception.

Mr. President, it is interesting that Sen. Beckles-Robinson raised the issue of

the current ills of the society, and as I reflect on that and what Sen. Deyalsingh

said: why blame the government of the PNM? It is a matter of fact that the PNM

has been the government in Trinidad and Tobago, for what I am told, 38 of the 49

years of Independence. Let us not lose the fact of that and, more importantly,

prior to this year, has been in office for eight years, therefore, you cannot escape

the need to be accountable for your 38 years in government and the last eight

years. [Desk thumping] By trying to silence the Government for holding you

accountable for your time, is in fact, contrary to the need of this country to have

accountability of governments, and we stand accountable now and in the future.

[Desk thumping]

Using the present ills of the society is a very easy way to build a political

platform, the hon. Senator would understand that, but the test of building a

political platform is not on preying on the ills of the society, but on inspiring the

society to an expectation for a better tomorrow. [Desk thumping] That is the

difference between those who are in Opposition and wish to prey on the ills of the

society, and those of us who now have the responsibility to use this opportunity to

build an inspiration for a better tomorrow and this Bill is about a better tomorrow.

[Desk thumping] That, Sen. Deyalsingh, is why we all have to be accountable and

you cannot escape the accountability that resides in your hands.

The people have cast their verdict in the past and have said in no uncertain

terms that they want to be inspired for a better tomorrow, and they have now

embarked on that better tomorrow by placing the People’s Partnership

Government in office in Trinidad and Tobago. [Desk thumping]

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

4.10 p.m.

Mr. President, I said that Sen. Beckles-Robinson was a bit seductive in her

contribution. In addition to trying to seduce a debate on the PSA negotiation, she

raised a very interesting point with respect to national security and, preying on the

frustrations of our citizens today, mentioned that it is a crisis that the protective

services have allegedly withdrawn their protective services for people in high

office in this country.

43


And I wondered when the hon. Senator was making that point, was she

implying that she was condoning that kind of action. And I wondered because we

cannot prey on the frustrations of our society. In fact, Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds,

whenever he is here, is but an expression of the frustration of this society. We

cannot always prey on that. We have to take responsible positions even if we are

in Opposition and therefore it is important for us to be responsible and not, in any

way, condone such kind of action. It has to be corrected and will be corrected but

collectively we cannot even appear to be condoning that action and that is why I

said that I was a little concerned about that attempted condoning of that action.

Mr. President, I think those are the main points that have been raised by the

Members here today and we recognize that this is not the end of our support to

those who are in distress on death. This is but the equalization of opportunities for

all those in the public service and the statutory bodies. Clearly—and I believe

Sen. The Hon. Mary King talked about the experiences elsewhere—and before

now, I had indicated to this honourable House that we need to build a sustainable

social security system, and that process, we have already embarked upon in doing

the groundwork. It will take some time. But we are doing the groundwork that is

required for building a sustainable social security system along the lines of other

models.

Such a social security system, of course, will involve a more elaborate pension

programme. And we have suggested that we will, in fact, expand the pension

programme to include, not only the public service, but those who are employed in

the country outside of the public service.

So, there is work to be done and much of this work we could have started a

long time ago but as fate had had it, we have to start the work that should have

been done by that government when they were in office. Be that as it is, this is our

responsibility.

So, Mr. President, I believe those are the main issues that have been raised.

There was a suggestion across the floor by Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds that we must

share the pie, and he is right. We are committed in sharing this pie but we cannot

share a pie that we have not created. That is the difference in ideology between

those on that side and our side. We are prepared to create a bigger pie so that we

can have a better share in that pie. [Desk thumping] But they have always used the

pie and made it smaller and then talked about sharing the pie. And he, without

realizing it, is expressing his own frustration of his inability to increase the pie

and is now talking about sharing the pie. But I want to assure you, Mr. President,

that one of the underlying premises of our development strategy is, what we call,

44


inclusive development. Therefore, we shall share the pie equally as we move

along, and we are doing so.

I could mention that we have introduced the issue of an insurance based death

penalty in our discussions with the negotiating body.

Hon. Senator: Death benefit.

Hon. W. Dookeran: Sorry, my apology, death benefit. My serious apology. I

am probably anticipating the debate on another Bill. But we have been looking at

an insurance based death benefit in terms of our negotiations at this point in time.

So I want to assure the honourable House, Sen. Dr. James Armstrong and those

who have spoken, that this is but the beginning. I appreciate the measured

response, the urgency to move forward faster than we are moving and we shall try

to do that in the public interest of Trinidad and Tobago, and to discharge what

clearly is our duty and responsibility to build a different tomorrow from the one

we have inherited.

Let us leave the one that we have inherited for history to speak about. Let us,

therefore, build that tomorrow so that the future can see the foundations that we

are laying for equity, for compassion, as well as for the evolution of the law.

On the issue of equity and compassion, there was some suggestion that we

were not as compassionate as we appeared to be by this paltry offering in the

public service. But let me point out, it is this Government which started the road

to compassion by introducing the Children’s Life Fund in Trinidad and Tobago.

[Desk thumping] It is this Government which against a trying financial situation

introduced the minimum pension for our people of $3000. [Desk thumping] And

these are new measures to support the old measures in the National Insurance

Scheme and the old measures in the Ministry of Social Development. We are

building on the inadequacies of the last government by creating a new standard

against which this country can develop. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: I just want to ask for your interpretation of this and I

hope you are not going to view this as any attempt to seduce you, as you have said

earlier. Section 66 of the Constitution says:

“In sections 63, 64 and 65 Money Bill means a public Bill which, in the

opinion of the Speaker, contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the

following matters, namely:…”

And paragraph (c) says:

‘(c) the grant of money to the State or any other authority or person, or the

variation or revocation of any such grant;’”

45


Now just for my own education because I have been looking at the section, would

you say this is a money Bill or is it, as properly stated, an amendment to the

Statutory Authorities Act.

Hon. W. Dookeran: In terms of the parliamentary definition of “money bill,”

I would get advice on that but it is a money Bill, from my point of view, because

we have to spend more money to discharge the obligations that we have put here.

But we will get advice on the parliamentary definition of a money bill.

So, Mr. President, when all is said and done, it is very clear that the previous

administration had said much more than they have done. [Desk thumping] We

hope to change that tradition and do much more than we have said. We are,

therefore, committed to small and big action. We are always committed to taking

that action within the context of the compassionate policy we have talked about,

within the context of building a true equity in the society and within the context of

responding to the changing values in the society as reflected in our law. That is

the basis upon which we are acting and every particular measure that comes

before this honourable House is aimed at achieving those goals as we move

forward.

Mr. President, I am very happy to have listened to the hon. Senators who have

spoken on this Bill and I thank them for their contribution and I beg to move.

4.20 p.m.


Bill accordingly read a second time.

Bill committed to a committee of the whole Senate.

Mr. President: I am wondering, before going into committee, whether

perhaps, it is an appropriate time to take the tea break, rather than find that the

committee stage gets broken up. So on that basis—[Interruption] 10 minutes? All

right, sure.

Senate in committee.

Mr. Chairman: We move back into the full Senate.

Senate resumed.

Mr. President: Hon. Senators, I have given time to the Leader of

Government Business to consider whether this is a money Bill, rather than find

46


ourselves taken into committee for no good reason. On that basis, we are going to

take the tea break now and we will return at five o’clock. The Senate is now

suspended until 5.00 p.m.

4.23 p.m.: Sitting suspended.

5.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed.

Mr. President: Hon. Senators, when we were last here, we were in

committee. And we would now resume the session of the committee.

Senate in committee.

Clause 1.

Question proposed, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

Sen. Al-Rawi: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. Before we broke, if I may, there

was a burning question on the Table, which I think I would be very grateful to

have an answer to. Is this a money Bill, and if so, what is the process to be

followed? In my own view, from my reading of section 63 of the Constitution, it

falls within that category. So, just for your clarification, please.

Sen. Panday: I have obtained advice and have decided to proceed. Thank

you.

Sen. Al-Rawi: I am sorry to be—

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: But is it a money Bill?

Sen. Panday: My advice is that it is not a money Bill.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Okay.


Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.

Question proposed, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Mr. Chairman, just to ask the Leader of Government

Business, the issue that I raised with the hon. Minister of Finance, which is 29(4),

the definition, where I had suggested whether it might not be better to use that

definition—

Sen. Panday: Yes, we have been advised that we continue with this definition

to assist the paymaster, so that there would be no cross-referencing, hence the

reason for going with this definition. It is user-friendly drafting.


47


Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to, That the Bill be reported to the Senate.

Senate resumed.

Bill reported, without amendment, read the third time and passed.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

(BAIL AND KIDNAPPING) BILL

Order for second reading read.

The Minister of National Security (Sen. The Hon. Brig. John Sandy):

Thank you Mr. President. I beg to move,

That a Bill to amend the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60 and the Kidnapping Act, Chap.

11:26, be now read a second time

Mr. President, hon. Senators, before you today is a rather short Bill entitled

the Miscellaneous Provisions (Bail and Kidnapping) Bill 2010, which the

Government has brought to amend the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60 and the Kidnapping

Act, Chap. 11:26. However, the brevity of the Bill by no means ought to diminish

its significance.

This legislation is a part of the Government’s anti-crime legislative initiative

to reduce criminality in our land. It follows legislation to increase the penalties

regarding firearms offences and will work together with other anti-crime Bills

such as the Anti-Gang Bill and Bail (Amdt.) Bill.

In 2005, the international kidnapping figures put Trinidad and Tobago second

only to Colombia for its rate of abductions. The alarming figures were grave

cause for concern, both locally and internationally—[Interruption]

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: What year did you quote?

Sen. The Hon. Brig. Sandy: 2005.

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Okay, sorry.

Sen. The Hon. Brig. Sandy:—with several travel advisory warnings being

posted to visitors who wished to come to our shores, thereby affecting our

economy by negatively impacting on our tourism industry and our foreign

investment.

The kidnapping figures are not as grim as they were then. The Trinidad and

Tobago Police Service Crime and Problem Analysis (CAPA) branch has indicated

that, for the year 2005, there were 222 kidnappings, 58 kidnappings for ransom

reported to the police. For the year 2009, there had been

48

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. BRIG. J. SANDY]

147 kidnappings and eight kidnappings for ransom reported. Last year, 2010,

there were 112 kidnappings and seven kidnappings for ransom reported.

The numbers have certainly reduced, but this Government must continue to

take affirmative and preventive action to ensure that these numbers continue to

diminish significantly. To this end, we seek to introduce today the Miscellaneous

Provisions (Bail and Kidnapping) Bill, 2010. As mentioned previously, the Bill

seeks to make an amendment to the Bail Act and to the Kidnapping Act by

increasing the amount of time a person can be held with no evidence for the

charge of kidnapping and by changing their existing penalty for the offence of

kidnapping, respectively.

Mr. President and hon. Senators, please allow me to take you through the

three clauses that comprise this Bill. Clause 1 is self-explanatory and is simply the

short title of the Bill which, as I have said, is to be called the Miscellaneous

Provisions (Bail and Kidnapping) Bill, 2010.

5.10 p.m.

Clause 2 seeks to amend section 5(A)(2) of the Bail Act by deleting the word

“sixty” and substituting the words “one hundred and twenty”. When amended the

section would read as follows:

Notwithstanding subsection (1), where the person charged with the offence of

kidnapping for ransom, is not brought to trial within 120 days of the charge,

that person will be entitled to make an application to a Judge in chambers for

bail.

Mr. President, currently a person charged with the offence of kidnapping for

ransom is denied bail for a period of up to 60 days once his trial has not yet

started. If that 60-day period has elapsed, and the accused’s trial has not yet

begun, he is entitled to make an application to a judge in chambers for bail. What

this amendment seeks to do, is to increase that period of 60 days to 120 days. This

is not to say, Mr. President, that bail will be automatic once the 120-day period

has expired. All it will mean is that when the new period of 120 days has elapsed,

and if the trial of the accused has not yet begun, he will as before be entitled to

apply to a judge in chambers for bail. It will be left to the Judiciary to determine

whether or not to deny bail.

Mr. President, this Government recognizes that it cannot deprive an individual

charged with a criminal offence of the right to obtain reasonable bail without just

cause; this is an entrenched right in our Constitution. However, Mr. President, we

49

Bail And Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011

also recognize that the victims and their families have a right to life, liberty,

security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived

thereof except by due process of law.

Accordingly, this Government believes that a balance must be struck in a

situation where a citizen has been accused of this heinous crime of kidnapping for

ransom of another citizen. In this vein, it has become evident that the 60-day

period that the Act had set initially is too short. In December 2005, when the Bill

was debated in the Senate, difficulties with that 60-day period were identified in

terms of being able to bring an accused to trial in what is considered to be a short

space of time. While significant improvements have been made with the

administration of justice, and being able to bring an individual to trial, magistrates

lists are still quite long, unfortunately the lack of prosecutors at the courts and the

heavy workload that existing prosecutors face, also add to the issue of beginning a

hearing within a 60-day time period.

We consider, therefore, that 120 days is a more practicable time period within

which an accused, charged with kidnapping for ransom can be brought to trial

before the courts. The additional 60 days by no means ought to imply that the

individual will not be getting an expeditious hearing, this is not the interpretation

or implication to be derived from this amendment at all. But the additional time

serves to ensure that the judicial and prosecutorial arms of the State get their

house in order, so to speak, so that when the trial of the accused does begin, it

begins in earnest.

Mr. President, while the kidnapping figures have reduced significantly

somewhat over the years, this Government strives to do better and reduce those

figures even further. While the proposed amendment to the legislation will not

completely eradicate the offence of kidnapping, we believe it will provide a

challenge to offenders who continually disregard the law and intimidate our

innocent citizenry for their own illegal gains. It would further serve as a measure

to reduce the number of repeat offenders who are released on bail for the offence

only to return to their life of crime.

Mr. President, experience has taught us that these criminals, when they are

given bail, they come out and in an attempt to get funds to pay that same bail,

they commit similar crimes. It is in that respect that we have come here today, Mr.

President, to have this Act amended.

Mr. President, hon. Members, I go now to the final clause of the Bill. Clause 3

seeks to amend section 3 of the Kidnapping Act by removing the existing penalty

50


of a maximum of 25 years imprisonment upon conviction for a kidnapping

offence, and substituting a new penalty of natural life imprisonment. With the

passage of the amendment section 3(1) of the Act will read as follows:

“A person who for ransom, reward or for any similar consideration unlawfully

leads, takes, entices away, abducts, seizes or detains any person without his

consent or with his consent obtained by fraud or by duress, and without lawful

excuse such that the person hereinafter in this Act referred to as the

“kidnapped person”, is held, confined, restricted, imprisoned or prevented

from returning to his normal place of abode or sent or taken out of Trinidad

and Tobago, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for not less

than the remainder of his natural life.”

This section, Mr. President, essentially serves to institute a life sentence on any

individual found guilty of the offence of kidnapping.

Mr. President, this Government deems this offence to be extremely serious,

the physical and mental trauma are life threatening. We have heard the

testimonies of victims being hog-tied and terrorized, often in forested areas

throughout Trinidad and kept in squalid, dehumanizing conditions, being left in

darkness to fend for themselves against the elements and against nature. The

victims oftentimes include women and innocent children, but, Mr. President, only

recently one brave female Trinidadian put pen to paper and shared her

experiences having been a victim of kidnapping, and having read some of it

myself, it tells you what the victim experiences, and it is nothing that anyone in

this honourable Senate would want to endure or experience.

Mr. President, the psychological effects are even more damaging as victims

are often forced to relive their trauma and suffer much insecurity. Victims are

often broken by this experience and have to readjust to life with their families

while suffering acute emotional stress. Such emotional stress is a latent factor

among victims of kidnapping, and usually manifests itself through depression,

post traumatic stress disorder, anger and anxiety. Family members and loved ones

also relive the trauma of having to negotiate for the release of their relative, and I

am sure imagining that they will never see their loved one again. And children

have to cope with a parent’s sudden absence and subsequent return, if fortunate,

of a parent who is no longer the same.

And, Mr. President, we have heard of instances where kidnapped victims upon

their rescue, are totally different from the persons that were known before,

because of the traumatic experience that they would have gone through. And

simple things like a book falling on the floor and making a thud, they would be in

51


awe, and they need to be constantly monitored, constantly taken for psychiatric

and psychological treatment, all because of what they would have experienced.

Spouses will tell you that depending on what that victim experienced, that their wives

no longer want them to touch them, so that emotion extends itself into the family life

that once existed, and because of the experience of the kidnapping it is now gone,

sometimes gone forever.

5.20 p.m.

It is the pain of a spouse even in terms of a husband not being able to hold his

wife or hug his wife, because when that happens everything comes back and of course,

because of the memories it causes families to tear apart, and we need to put a stop to

that, Mr. President. The effects of kidnapping upon a victim and his family are

therefore serious enough to warrant a more severe penalty. This Government strongly

believes that life imprisonment is proportional punishment for the commission of this

heinous offence.

Kidnapping for ransom is not only heinous, it sometimes involves the death of

the kidnapped person, as has happened on a number of occasions. Kidnapping is

hateful and goes against the very core values of our society and culture. It must be

stamped out. This Government wants to assure you however, Mr. President, that

these amendments, particularly the increased penalty to life imprisonment, are not seen

as the end or be all with regard to ridding this country of the crime of kidnapping. No,

in fact, it recognizes this increased penalty as insufficient, hence the reason this

Government intends, and has begun, to address the societal ills in our country, for

example, by the launch of our mentoring programme to guide our youth along their

path to becoming positive contributors to Trinidad and Tobago. In this regard,

Mr. President, I must herald the expected visit and participation of former

Secretary of State of the United States, General Colin Powell and Mrs. Powell,

[Desk thumping] who themselves are world renowned in the area of mentoring and

volunteerism, and I think we are fortunate to have someone of his calibre come to

Trinidad to launch our programme for us.

I would like to make an appeal, Mr. President, to our successful male figures

in Trinidad and Tobago, because while the response to our mentoring programme

has been satisfactory, you would find that in most instances, the females have

come to the fore and the males are lacking. [Crosstalk] Some of our armchair

luminaries who sit and have all the answers, I am inviting them. Mr. President, I want

to make the point, I will not allow any of these people to demonize, John Sandy, as

Minister of National Security, because this is what they are trying to do.[Desk

thumping]

52


This is not about John Sandy, it is not about UNC, it is not about PNM, it is not

about COP, it not about NJAC, it is about Trinidad and Tobago. We all have a stake

in this. Mr. President, I took this challenge because I know that I can make a

difference, and I am asking all of my brothers and sisters in Trinidad and Tobago,

who know they could make a difference to come forward, let us do this thing

together. We are all Trinidadians and this is our country, we must make it safe.

We are asking all those who have come from challenged communities and have

made it, to go back into those communities and show those youngsters that they

can make it too, because if we do not, we can do all the law enforcement and all

the suppression we can, if we do not take care of our society we will not be

successful.

I am asking all fathers to come up to the plate, and all fathers bring your sons

and come, I want all of them to come. If there is a son next door with no father,

bring him too because we need to save our generation, we need to save our young

men from the gangs and from the crime. We need to eradicate our gangs and if

there is no membership into the gangs, the gangs will have to fold and this is my

resolve, Mr. President.

We believe, however, that we must begin with legislation and that our

legislation must reflect our ultimate goals and as such this increased penalty will

send an immediate message to persons who commit and intend to commit this

offensive crime, that we would attack and attack fiercely, anyone who commits

this crime. We are asking that our communities themselves rise up and change the

thinking of our young people, reinstill values and virtues. We have our

community patriotism programme where we are asking the elders in the

community to nurture the youngsters and let them have some kind of pride in their

community.

As I said on the last occasion, when I speak about this I always speak about

Colts from Belmont. When Colts would come to the Savannah to play Malvern a

few decades ago, the whole of Belmont would come down with them, and that is

the kind of community spirit we want to engender. We are asking them to

compete in sports and culture and put down your guns and violence. That is what

we want to nurture to build communities and in so doing eventually rebuild

Trinidad and Tobago to what it used to be years ago.

Mr. President, we are going into schools in collaboration with the principals to

try and nurture our youngsters. They themselves will identify those who they feel

need the guidance and those are the youngsters that we would pay much attention

to and target.

53


Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit a children’s mas’ band in the Petit

Valley area and the Zebapique Productions and, Mr. President, the gesture was

noble from the band leader. He started with a small band with a few children and

then he said to himself that he wanted to spread this discipline from his band and

he went into the Morvant/Laventille area, into the schools there and asked the

teachers to allow him to use some of their children in the band to build their sense

of belonging to the Trinidad and Tobago culture. He told the teachers they must

be the best students, so they strived to that and if they did anything out of the

ordinary they would not qualify for the band. It was such a noble gesture, that we

at the Ministry of National Security asked to partner with him, so that we could

assist in bringing other schools into that band so that they could participate in the

culture of Trinidad and Tobago free of charge. One of the conditions is that their

parents come along with them and this has been happening; quite unfortunately

again, mothers, very few fathers. We are asking again for fathers to come forward

to the plate.

Mr. President, hon. Senators, we have all resolved to serve this blessed

republic nation of ours and to serve our people. This naturally involves delivering

to our citizens cohesive and practical legislation that will support and protect them

and their interest. In that respect, Mr. President, I wish to publicly commend our

hard-working police officers, who continue to live their motto, to protect and

serve with pride, while some of their colleagues choose to stay away from

performing their duties, which according to law are part of essential services.

While I understand and appreciate the concerns of all officers in the police

service, I urge them to allow their sense of duty to prevail. I wish to commend as

well members of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force who came to the fore

and willingly contributed to the national security effort by filling the void left by

some of the absent policemen and police women.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. President, accordingly, I take this opportunity to advise this honourable

Senate and by extension the people of Trinidad and Tobago, that the People’s

Partnership Government will never allow the security of this nation to be

compromised. [Desk thumping] We give the assurance, especially during the

Carnival period that, if necessary, contingency plans already discussed and

formulated will be executed to ensure the safety and security of not only our

citizens of Trinidad and Tobago, but our visitors as well. [Desk thumping] I have

54


been meeting with the leaders, heads of divisions in my Ministry, and we will be

meeting again tomorrow to finalize plans to ensure that we have a safe Carnival

2011. I still urge my brothers and sisters in the police service to continue

protecting and serving with pride.

Mr. President, we are not the first nation to enact legislation which has a

period of detection before a person becomes eligible for bail. In fact, the United

States of America and Jamaica have legislation which, under certain

circumstances, a person is not even eligible for bail. In the United States of

America, conspiracy to kidnap is one of them; in Jamaica, the fact that a person is

charged with an offence which is likely to yield imprisonment is another.

Trinidad and Tobago will also not be the first to enact legislation which

punishes the act of kidnapping for ransom with life imprisonment. Canada, the

United States of America and Jamaica have provisions in their respective

legislation that punish the commission of this crime with life imprisonment.

This enactment is an essential one, and it serves to send a clear message to

kidnappers that their actions will be severely penalized and serves to reinforce to

the law-abiding citizens of Trinidad and Tobago that we will not stand by and let

them be victimized or traumatized.

I am sure that hon. Senators on the other side recognize this important need,

and will join the Government in passing this decisive piece of legislation. In this

regard, I thank you most sincerely in anticipation of your support.

Mr. President, I beg to move. [Desk thumping]

Question proposed.

Sen. Fitzgerald Hinds: Mr. President, thank you very much for the

opportunity to participate in this debate to amend the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60 and the

Kidnapping Act, Chap. 11:26. Mr. President, I can speak with more than a regular

degree of certainty in respect of the latter of those two Acts. I made a contribution

to the debate that introduced it to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago, and I am

privileged to be here to deal with an amendment to it.

Mr. President, when I looked at the amendments that we have been called to

this pristine place to debate today, I must tell you frankly, I am unimpressed. I

recall my feelings when we debated the establishment of this legislation a couple

years ago, and I was actually excited about it, because we had a problem. Those

who were kidnapping our citizens and visitors and demanding huge amounts in

ransom had begun to get on top of us; that is to say, the society. We had a

problem, and the society had to respond to it.

55


I was part of the government at the time and the government responded to the

society and brought that legislation in this Parliament. Those were the heady days.

Mr. President, as pointed out by Sen. The Hon. Brig John Sandy, the hon.

Minister, who piloted these amendments today, we had kidnappings for ransom

running at 60 and 65 cases per year. It had become something of an industry.

They were demanding huge amounts, in some cases $3 million and $4 million and

wound up taking $80,000, and $120,000 as the ransom. I was pained when I saw

our security forces, including the police, trying to respond to that by making

ransom money available. Sometimes the kidnappers would get the ransom and get

away. We looked at the situation and saw there was a problem, and we began to

train our officers at home and abroad.

We introduced the Special Anti-Crime Unit of Trinidad and Tobago (SAUTT)

which played a central role in dealing with this matter and the Security

Intelligence Agency (SIA) played an integral part in this and the Police Service

Anti-Kidnapping Unit also played an integral part in this.

Minister Joseph, the then Minister of National Security, who was responsible

for dispensing the policy of the government through the Ministry of National

Security and responsible as well, working along with the accounting officer, the

Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of National Security, Mrs. Jennifer Boucaud-

Blake, as she then was, providing the necessary resources. We spent a tremendous

amount of your money, taxpayers’ money and designed the legislation. So, we

took an economic approach; we took a legislative approach; and we improved our

human resources—Mr. James Philbert, Mr. Raymond Craig and Mr. Piggott who

retired recently—who they pushed out of the job recently, then Deputy

Commissioner of Police. The same Mr. James Philbert—let me repeat—who they

pushed out of office two weeks before his due time, to humiliate him. I remember

the long hours we spent analysing the issues and responding to them in the way

we did, and the upshot was, Mr. President, we moved from 51 kidnappings for

ransom in the year 2005, and by the year 2006 it went down to three. We won!

[Desk thumping]

Mr. President, I took you through that historical analysis, excursion almost, in

order to demonstrate that there was a problem. The Minister came here today and

very much like the Carnival costumes that his colleague, Minister Peters is

complaining about—very skimpily—not the Minshall and the Mc Farlane type—

he was very skimpy and in bikini style gave us very little statistics. He has not

demonstrated today the reason for this. [Desk thumping] We are here to amend

this and he has not demonstrated what the problem is. [Desk thumping]

56

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. HINDS]

He told us that last year there were seven kidnappings. Of course, we would

admit that one kidnapping is one too many. When we came to the Parliament with

the kidnapping legislation and did all the things and spent a tremendous amount

of public money, money that they criticized—I want to remind you that during

those years the government of Trinidad and Tobago, the PNM government, saw

the wisdom in directing the largest chunk of the national budget to national

security, because we understood that security does not come cheap. [Desk

thumping] It takes cash to care, as one Jamaican leader had previously said. So

we spent a tremendous amount of money and they came week after week, month

after month, and budget debate after budget debate and criticized it. At least, I

was able to demonstrate that there was a problem and it required a solution, and

we provided the solution and we conquered it effectively.

What is the problem today? The Minister could tell us none. What we know

is that we are here to debate an amendment to this legislation seeking to extend

the time that a person could be held in custody by the police, well not by the

police, but held in custody without bail before being charged to 120 days. In our

legislation, the existing legislation, it is 60 days and they have increased it to 120

days. Well, what?

Sen. Abdulah: Would the Senator give way? Did you just say a person

without charge? Is it not reference to a person who has been charged?

Sen. F. Hinds: I am sorry, let me correct that.

Sen. Abdulah: Please do.

Sen. F. Hinds: Thank you very much. But once the person is charged, and

they have not begun the proceedings, they can remain for 60 days under the

existing legislation without bail and now this Government—

Sen. Panday: Would you kindly give way?

Sen. F. Hinds: Just now.

Sen. Panday: I think [Inaudible]

Sen. F. Hinds: That is what I said. You see, Mr. President, you would recall

earlier today that this Government came here to amend the Statutory Authorities

Act, and they did not know the difference between a normal Bill and a money

Bill. They do not know! I feel sorry for them and I feel worse for this country. As

I told you before, I feel like a passenger on a plane where they are in the cockpit,

and we are about 200 miles away from the next airport and they just do not know

what to pull, what lever to touch and what meter to read. They do not have a clue!

We are in trouble!

57


Mr. President, we are here to make that amendment and, secondly, to increase

the term of imprisonment for persons convicted from 25 years to natural life. Mr.

President, the question of a natural life sentence is under the review of the courts

as we speak. There are prisoners, for example, who were sentenced to death and

whose sentences were commuted to life imprisonment—they are called lifers—

some of them went to the court to ask the court whether a sentence of natural life

meant that they must die in prison, or whether it meant 25 years or something

else. As far as I am aware, that matter is under review. Natural life might, for the

time being, have no real meaning.

The Minister had an opportunity and he spoke, and I might say rather

eloquently, but he did not demonstrate satisfactorily to us what is the problem.

Therefore, if there is no real problem, I am submitting this is all about PR. This is

all about PR. What is the problem?

He said last year there were seven kidnappings for ransom. He did not tell us

how many they detected; he did not tell us how many persons were charged;

whether we had convictions so far; what is the state of affairs; whether those

persons charged are now outside on bail or still in custody; whether they are

known for monitoring them through the SIA or any other agency; and whether

they are involved in repeat offences of the same type. Nothing! So what is the

problem? I still ask.

I would have thought that if you are coming here to amend this legislation you

would have told us these things. In the absence of that, we are obliged to consider

that this is just another outpouring of public relations to win public acclaim. That

is all I think it is.

5.45 p.m.

It was in the budget presentation sometime ago, their Minister of Works and

Transport told us that we would get a tunnel from Tunapuna to Maracas, and

today the Minister in the Ministry of National Security told us there will be no

such tunnel―PR! Recently, we were told there will be no more Reshmi

Ramnarine, and as we speak there is another one, Susan Francois, appointed by

the Attorney General and the Cabinet against the laws and the regulations of

Trinidad and Tobago for the employment of a public officer. It is all PR, and of

course they cannot be trusted.

Mr. President, I would have thought―you heard the Minister of National

Security congratulating the police; this is the very Minister of National Security

who is reported in the Express of Monday February 14, 2011, a story by Akile

58


Simon at page 3, only yesterday, the same Senator, the Hon. Brig. John Sandy,

who made lofty pronouncements in this House here today is reported as saying,

and he has not denied it, and I am quoting:

“Sandy described the officers who stayed off the job as the ‘lazy ones’ and the

‘slackers’ within the service who often did little in the fight against crime.”

How does he know that?

Sen. Brig. Sandy: What is the date of that?

Sen. F. Hinds: Yesterday.

Sen. Brig. Sandy: Impossible!

Sen. Beckles-Robinson: Well that is what I was reading from, that is why I

said they misquoted you.

[Crosstalk]

Well, that is a matter you have to take up with the newspaper, I am not the

editor, you know. And you are always put in a position where you have to plead

innocence―I mean―I am sorry, but I am quoting it.

Sen. Panday: But he never made those statements.

Sen. Brig. Sandy: To whom did I make those statements yesterday, Sir?

Sen. F. Hinds: Listen, listen, Mr. President, I am in a state of flux as I speak.

You see that gentleman, I have said a thousand times―you see that Minister of

National Security, I know him, I love him, I respect him, I have confidence in

him. But you see the company he is in, I have trouble, I have difficulty, because it

is the very Minister somebody put a piece of paper in his hand sometime ago―is

“all yuh” who set him up. He came here today making lofty pronouncements

about his love for country. He said, “this is not about John Sandy”; he said, “this

is not about UNC; this is not about PNM”; he left out the COP, maybe it is a good

thing. “This is about country”―[Interruption]―Mr. President, I crave your

protection.

Hon. Senator: He said the COP.

Mr. President: Senators, unless you want to make an announcement relative

to what the Senator said we will let him proceed with his debate.

Sen. F. Hinds: I am most obliged for your protection. I really, really need it,

Mr. President. He said “this is not about John Sandy, this is about Trinidad and

Tobago.” Well if it is about Trinidad and Tobago, my big brother and friend, you

owe it to this country to tell this country the facts and the truth about the

59


appointment of Reshmi Ramnarine, for the good and the good governance of

Trinidad and Tobago, you owe it to this country! You owe it to this country and

until you do that, I have some trepidation, I have some reserve in respect of your

pronouncements in this House. It is not about the UNC. You do not have to protect

the Prime Minister, you do not have to protect the Attorney General, you said

that, this is about Trinidad and Tobago!

Sen. Maharaj: Mr. President, a point of order, 35(1).

Mr. President: I will allow the Senator to continue but you were getting close

to referring to the Senator’s conduct and I will ask you not to go in that direction.

Sen. F. Hinds: Well, I was describing his conduct in this House today when

he made lofty pronouncements, Mr. President. But may I continue? May I

continue? And I want to have him understand that several members of the

Trinidad and Tobago Police Service―an organization that I was a part of and

proudly so―they are expressing to me, they are on the talk shows expressing pain

and humiliation and embarrassment at the way the Minister spoke of them and the

commissioner as well. There was a headline—I do not know where it came

from―where it says the Deputy Commissioner―this is the Guardian of Monday

February 14, 2011, yesterday again, where is says the “Deputy CoP blasts

‘troublesome’ officers as: a handful of delinquents”, reminiscent of when a former

UNC Leader and Prime Minister described the teachers of this country as

“criminals”. This has a very―[Interruption]

Sen. Panday: Point of order, Mr. President, he is misleading the Senate.

Sen. F. Hinds: Mr. President, is that the conduct that we are going to have in

this House? I am on my legs.

Mr. President: He is raising―can I hear what point of order you have?

Sen. Panday: He is misleading the Senate, Mr. President.

Mr. President: I am not in a position to determine whether Sen. Hinds is

misleading the Senate or not, I am not privy to the facts, but if you can point me

to them, then I will be better enabled to rule.

Sen. Panday: My understanding was―my recollection of it is: he said any

teachers who abandoned their children in school is a criminal, this one is saying

teachers were criminals.

[Desk thumping]

Mr. President: What I would ask Sen. Hinds is, let us get on with the debate,

let us refrain from that and proceed.

60

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Sen. F. Hinds: Yes, I can assure you that is what I am doing because, Mr.

President, if this kidnapping legislation, even with these very superfluous

amendments, amendments that do not take us anywhere, okay,―for this to

succeed they must rely on the very Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, the very

SIA that they have dismantled and demoralized and destroyed and exposed for the

whole nation including the criminal fraternity to see and to know. For this to

succeed, they have to rely on the very Special Anti-Crime Unit of Trinidad and

Tobago, whose leader they humiliated on the allegation that he was spying against

the Prime Minister―dismantled it. They have to rely on these entities if these

amendments and the parent legislation have to succeed, because it is the police

and those agencies that must work to arrest and to apprehend the perpetrators of

these and other crimes.

The Minister spoke about mentoring programme―fine, nice idea. He is a very

good gentleman, fine. I remembered him saying some time ago that he met a

young man who he was told had killed a number of people in the Laventille area

and he embraced him and he found that all the young man needed was a little

love. I understand. But now he is coming to put a life sentence in place. That is

why I am telling you the company they are keeping, that is where I have a

problem―Jekyll and Hyde we are seeing here now. I am sorry, Mr. President. I

am sorry.

Mentoring programme, the Attorney General, the Minister in the Ministry of

National Security and even the Minister of National Security, they are now

boasting that they are going into communities and speaking to the young

miscreants and speaking to the criminals and providing mentoring and trying to

make good citizens out of them. I just asked them a simple question, what is

different between that and when elements of the previous administration had

called the same elements together to speak to them, en bloc? No difference! But

they criticized that. They made noise over that, right, and he told us that they are

bringing Mr. Colin Powell here to launch their monitoring programme. Again, in

1995, I remember they brought Andrew Young, an outstanding black personality

from the United States to Trinidad, the UNC brought him and they went up into

John John, along with a former high-flying minister of that government called Mr.

Sadiq Baksh and they painted the Cocrico and the Scarlet Ibis on the water tanks,

made a lot of PR, a lot of fanfare and the people in there saw it, you know.

5.55 p.m.

And they started to tell us this thing is pure PR. It is not public relations you

know, it is more like Puncheon Rum. And the people saw all of that. And now

61


they are going to—I remember in trying to deal with crime, it is their current

Minister of Works told us about Guiliani, former Mayor Guiliani, out of New

York, and a “fella” called Kerik, Bernard Kerik. That is the company they keep.

Sen. Panday: And Calder Hart too.

Sen. F. Hinds: Mr. President, there is no doubt in your mind that we have

been a very responsible Opposition in this House and in the other place. [Desk

thumping] We have given critical support to the Government. We have told them

through our leader, he told them rather sincerely and straightforwardly, once you

bring measures that are in the public’s interest and for the benefit of the people of

Trinidad and Tobago, you are assured of our support. We told them that.

So again I ask the question, what is all this fanfare about? You are moving it

from 25 years to natural life, and you are doubling the time from 60 days to 120

days, to solve what? You know, I was expecting to hear we have 70 such issues,

so many are in the court. The “fellas” and they came out after the 60 days and

then they started kidnapping again; things like that. So we have nothing on which

to really base this.

I heard in Minister as well say loftily, Mr. President—he admitted that the

problem, the scourge of kidnapping for ransom had gone down substantially to

the point where there were seven reported cases last year; seven. Right. He said in

that context that this Government continues to do all that it can. I would like to

ask the Minister and I will sit, and give him way, to answer me, what specifically

has this Government done to deal with the problem of kidnapping since it came to

office?

I am prepared to sit now and give way for him to answer that. What

specifically has Government done to improve the platform in dealing with

kidnapping, after you dismantled SAUTT, wrecked the Special Anti-crime Unit

and demoralized every police officer? [Crosstalk] That good for somewhere down

in Barrackpore, that is platform talk you know. But that “aint” taking you no

place. And the surveys as reflected in the last weekend newspapers will tell you

that. PR could take you so far and no further. [Desk thumping] So you can afford

to stay there and talk platform talk.

62


And talking about Sunday newspapers, Mr. President, Anika Gumbs-

Sandiford, writing in the Sunday Guardian February 13, 2011, begins a certain

article by saying:

“A senior government official—a senator—is to be questioned by police in a

fraud conspiracy—”

Sen. Panday: On a point of order, 35(1).

Mr. President: I think that in addition to 35(1) you are now bringing into

question the conduct of a Senator in this House. So I will ask you to refrain from

that.

Sen. F. Hinds: Well, Mr. President, what should happen is that the

Government should stand and tell us that this is not true.

Mr. President: We will leave that for the Government, but can you proceed

with your debate, they will have a turn to reply. It is a matter of debate.

Sen. F. Hinds: You see they have boasted that this Government is trying to

fix crime and solve crime in the national community but from the report it looks

as though that Government is a crime. [Desk thumping]

So how could you fix it, if you are part of the problem? And if the Minister of

National Security and his Minister in the Ministry of National Security and the

Minister of Health, and the Minister of Public Administration and the Cabinet

could sit with someone who is under investigation by the police for serious

offences, then we have a problem with crime.

Sen. Panday: Mr. President, point of order. Point of order. 35(5).

Mr. President: Senator, I am going to ask you to refrain from commenting

on, bringing into question the conduct of the Senators on this side.

Sen. F. Hinds: I am guided, Mr. President.

Mr. President: Thank you.

Sen. F. Hinds: Let me comment on the conduct of another person. Mr.

President, there was a lot of talk about the police coming from the Minister. I

asked the question while he was speaking, where are the police officers in

Trinidad and Tobago today? This is not the first time that there are negotiations

taking place between the police who are supposed to carry out this law and to give

effect to it. This is not the first time in the history of this country that there are

63


negotiations with the police. But for some reason under this Government, the

thing has gotten to the point where today, as I was walking into this august

Chamber, I saw men and women in green, soldiers, guarding this Parliament; and

not the usual state of affairs with police officers. Where are the police? I went to

court this morning, as I am sure my leaned friend did. Prisoners could not come to

court today. Some of them charged for kidnapping, perhaps could not be brought

to court today because the police are afflicted with what they call, a “blue flu”.

Well I think it is a yellow flu; the problem is the yellow UNC. The administration,

at least the criminal justice system today, almost ground to a halt, again, for a

second day, and likely to happen again tomorrow.

So, Mr. President, I do not know who will protect us if the police are not

around? I understand their problem. I understand their problem, but you see, they

were given $1,000 by the Government of the UNC. They were given $1,000 just

so, hush money, as soon as they came into Government about eight months ago,

to keep them quiet. Well clearly it has not worked. The police are on the move

again, suffering from the “blue flu”, according to them, because they are fully

aware that that $1,000 payment does not affect their gratuity accumulation for the

future. They know that! Another exercise in PR. And now they are calling for a

40 per cent increase, and the Prime Minister is saying the $1,000 we gave you,

outside of the negotiation process, eh, just so, according to Chalkdust. That

represents 17 per cent! That is what the Prime Minister is saying.

So now the police officers are beginning to understand what the Minister of

Works meant when he said charming, but deceitful.

Sen. Panday: Mr. President, 35(5), he is imputing improper motives to the

Prime Minister.

Mr. President: Senator, the comment relating to charming and whatever else

is outside the bounds of what I would permit. But beyond that, I keep having to

remind myself what is the Bill that is being debated at the moment, and we seem

to be straying into other quarters.

6.05 p.m.

Sen. F. Hinds: I am obliged. Mr. President, we are discussing an amendment

to the Kidnapping Act. Very simple! It is the members of the Trinidad and

Tobago Police Service that are largely responsible for preventing crime and

detecting crime in this country. In order for the sentence of 25 years or life to

become relevant or applicable somebody has to arrest the kidnapper. They have to

64


investigate the matter; they have to arrest them; they have to charge them, they

have to be successfully prosecuted in the court and then they would begin the

sentence that we are amending here today. It is all interconnected, Mr. President.

So while I understand the questions you ask yourself, I have asked myself

those questions too, but I found them rather easy to grapple—have not had

difficulty. Now that I have been as effusive as I have just been, I am sure that you

too, Mr. President, understand full well what we are speaking about. [Desk

thumping]

So, Mr. President, I am speaking now about the Commissioner of Police, the

head of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, one Mr. Dwayne Gibbs, who I

must commend. A few days ago, he had reason to tell the citizens of this country

that they ought not to practise vigilantism and to take the law in their own hands,

and he is the subject of a lot of criticism in the newspaper and on the talk shows,

but I understood full well and support what he had said.

The citizens out there may not know that in the question of law, provocation

or self-defence, there is what is known as a cooling-off period and once the judge,

or the jury, or the magistrate contemplates that there was sufficient time for

cooling off but you went and acted beyond that, you would have a problem. What

he was saying to them is, for an example, if you lent someone $1,000 and they did

not repay you, you cannot go with a knife or gun and stick them up and put your

hand in their pocket and take out the $1,000. That is robbery and you would be

locked up for it.

I remember as we were discussing this, a few years ago the police and the

Director of Public Prosecutions had to grapple with a situation where a fellow had

claimed that his house was burgled several times; he bought a three line; he put

three holes and made a trap—a gadget by his window, I think in Point Fortin. A

young girl, I think she was about 13 years, made an attempt to go into his house in

his absence and the trap sprung and the report said that she lost her hand, and

there was upheaval in our society. I was one of those who felt that the DPP should

have prosecuted that man and I was going against the tide because everybody else

felt he was a victim of burglary and that he should not have been prosecuted.

In the event, Mr. Mark Mohammed who was then the DPP did not prosecute

him. My rationale was very simple. He was not protecting himself. His life was

not in danger. He was not even present. He would have contemplated in advance

that, “if someone came to steal my TV” valued at say, $2,500 at the time—he put,

65


in my opinion, the value of the TV beyond the value of a human life, and on that

basis, I thought that it was a little excessive. I thought that we must commend Mr.

Gibbs for telling the population what the law is, much to the chagrin, of course, of

some people.

Mr. President, as we review the amendments before us, I am very troubled at

our success in keeping the crime of kidnapping for ransom down to the low that it

is now at. I am very worried about that, because the policemen are demoralized,

they are not coming to work and they are dissatisfied, disaffected. The criminal

justice system, as I told you earlier is under serious threat, stumbling to a halt as

well, yesterday, today and it therefore means that there would be less arrests. I

also want to say that the DNA legislation as it now exists was supposed to have

played an important part as well in the resolution of crime detection—scientific

method. When a man is kidnapped very often in the process, in the scuffle, in the

fight, elements or samples can be had from the crime scene; whether it is hair,

whether it is some blood or other things. So, I would have suggested to the

Minister, if I had an opportunity, that he pay some attention to improving that

legislation if he felt it necessary.

In fact there is a provision in the DNA legislation that allows the State to take

involuntary samples from certain classes of persons inside of the prison and to

see—because for a very long time the Forensic Science Centre and the crime

scene investigators in Trinidad and Tobago, who the public paid money to train in

those techniques, whenever they went on a crime scene they were amassing

samples, evidence from it and storing it in the DNA database. There are samples

sitting there which could be matched with persons who would have committed

those crimes. And I would have thought if the Government had energy and

wanted to do something they would have focused on things like that rather than

waste our time with this amendment, particularly not having demonstrated any

serious rationale for it.

Hon. Senator: It is coming in two weeks.

Sen. F. Hinds: It is coming in two weeks? I am afraid to believe anything

that you say. [Laughter] Who would have believed that this Government would

have chosen and sent Consul General to a country in the Caribbean, Jamaica, and

the Jamaican government found he was not suitable enough—

Sen. Panday: Standing Order 35(1), Mr. President.

Mr. President: I agree! Can we stick to the debate at hand?

66


Sen. F. Hinds: Yes, Sir. Now, Jamaica, Mr. President, has a serious problem

with kidnapping for ransom as well, [Laughter] Costa Rica and many other

countries, and we worked very closely with Jamaica. We had members of the

Jamaican Police Service come here to tell us about their experience; we had

people from Mexico. This kidnapping thing is very serious. [Interruption] You

have not demonstrated that.

It has gotten to the point in Mexico where they now have kidnapping or

kidnap insurance. The kidnappers in Mexico stopped kidnapping individuals per

se but started to target directors of companies and executives of companies and

demand the ransom from the companies. So they have developed in Mexico a

scheme, a system, if you would like, of kidnap insurance. Once the kidnappers

found out you were so insured they were coming for you.

We took action to prevent that, so Jamaica is important to us. Our relationship

with Jamaica is important. This is why I felt so embarrassed that the Jamaican

government had to tell the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to send back the

man.

Sen. Abdulah: Mr. President, Standing Order 35(1). Mr. President, you have

ruled on a number of occasions and have advised the Senator on a number of

occasions, we really do not want to go to 43.

Mr. President: I thought that the Senator, in fairness to him was taking back,

having once recognized that he had trodden on territory that he ought not to have

been on, and I am sure he would not do it again. [Desk thumping]

Sen. F. Hinds: Mr. President, I have to ask at this point, is it that the

Government wants to do bad, do wrong and do foolish things and do not want

anybody to speak about it? [Desk thumping]

Hon. Senator: No!

Sen. F. Hinds: This Parliament—we represent the people of Trinidad and

Tobago here and here is where we have to speak. [Desk thumping]

Mr. President: Senator, I understand that, of course, freedom of speech is

your essential basic right, but on the other hand we do have orders by which we

must abide or else we would descend into chaos here, and so we would like to

keep within the orders. [Desk thumping]

Sen. F. Hinds: Mr. President, I am so much in agreement with you.

[Laughter]

67


As a matter of fact, it simply reminded me of something that I learnt many

years ago as a brand new parliamentarian. They said, really, the Parliament is the

place where people express themselves, it is warfare in words, and had it not been

for the Parliament the people of the various jurisdictions might have gone outside

and conducted other warfare. So the Parliament is where we exchange ideas—

Hon. Senator: Within the rules.

Sen. F. Hinds:—and we express our thoughts without fear. That is what

privilege is all about. If you were not there your name would not have been

called. If you did not do foolishness nobody would call your name. The important

thing is do not do it. [Desk thumping]

What is in the dark would come to light, you cannot hide it. Look, I was

telling you about the article—not my words. They talked about a Senator, south-

based lawyer; it is getting close to—

Sen. George: Point of order, Standing Order 35(1).

Mr. President: Senator, you are again embarking on areas that—I understand

you have freedom of speech and I understand that the people’s business must be

debated here, but we do have orders and rules within which that debate must take

place. Thank you.

Sen. F. Hinds: Indeed, Mr. President. As I wind to my conclusion having

said, with a number of disturbances, [Continuous crosstalk] with a number of

disturbances, having said things that I had planned to say [Interruption] and

having pointed out, much to your satisfaction, if not to theirs, that the Minister of

National Security really did not put flesh on the bones today—he disappointed.

The Government so far has not shown any justification for this, and therefore,

we can deduce from these measures that this is all about trying to influence the

people of Trinidad and Tobago and to give the impression that they are doing so

much to deal with crime, especially since the heady days of the campaign that led

to their coming into office in this country; they made a great deal of promises;

they said a lot of things—I heard the Minister of Public Utilities tell us today

about the economy and the size of the pie. They did not know all of that before

they came into government. They criticized the last government—[Sen. George

stands] Sit down, man! Sit!

Sen. King: Point of order!

Mr. President: Senator, are you making a point of order?

68


Sen. George: Yes. This Senator and Minister of Public Utilities made no such

statement. Let him get the correct Senator who made that statement. I object!

[Desk thumping]

Mr. President: One usually would accept the word of the Senator. Having

said that he made no such statement, I think the Senate should accept it and move

forward.

Hon. Senator: Apologize!

Sen. F. Hinds: It was an error, I meant the Minister of Public Administration.

Hon. Senator: “Ooh”.

Sen. F. Hinds: Yes, I meant the Minister of Public Administration. So, Mr.

President—[Interruption]

6:20 p.m.

Sen. Panday: Thank you very much for your kind indulgence, Sir—always

expected that type of behaviour from you.

PROCEDURAL MOTION


Subhas Panday): Mr. President, in accordance with Standing Order 9(8), I beg to

move that this Senate continue to sit until the completion of the matter before this

honourable Senate. Thank you very much, Mr. President.


MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

(BAIL AND KIDNAPPING) 2010 BILL

Mr. President: Sen. Hinds, you have two minutes. I have given you some

injury time there. [Laughter]

Sen. F. Hinds: I am most grateful. [Laughter] I am very grateful, I am very

grateful to you, Mr. President, for the injury time that you have accorded to me

given the fact that they tried to injure me all afternoon, all afternoon.

So, Mr. President, as I conclude I simply want the Minister of National

Security when he is winding up this debate, to tell us in clear terms what has he

done and his Government, what have they done to improve the circumstances for

detecting the offence of kidnapping for ransom since they came to office. And I

ask that only because he told us that they were so doing. I heard no evidence of it.

So, Mr. President, with those very few words, I thank you very kindly.

69


Sen. Subhas Ramkhelawan: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving

me this opportunity to speak on this particular Bill to amend the Bail Act and the

Kidnapping Act. I start from the point of view, Mr. President, that crime is not a

partisan matter. Crime is a matter that affects all of us, all our citizens. I do recall

that it was very high on the agenda of the last administration, in particular, this

matter of kidnapping, as well relatedly the question of bail for those charged with

kidnapping and the sentencing of those convicted with kidnapping. And if I am

not mistaken, Mr. President, a Bill very similar to this would have been tabled by

the last administration in terms of increasing the levels that would have been

considered necessary for purposes of deterrence.

It is indeed commendable from whichever quarter that we have made such

gains, that kidnapping or the instances reported—instances of kidnapping for

ransom—have fallen quite considerably over the past three years or so. [Desk

thumping] This is in part due not so much to legislation, but I believe in part due

to the resources applied to combating the scourge of kidnapping, [Desk thumping]

whether it be the number of officers who would have been assigned to the

Anti-Kidnapping Squad—which I understand to have been a very significant

increase in the number of persons or the number of officers—but also in terms of

as I understand it, the equipment that would have been made available for such

purposes. That is what we have been advised. Even though I have heard first-hand

from persons who were connected with such cases that the level of equipment had

not been substantially increased even though the manpower resources were

substantially increased.

Let me say, Mr. President, that any attempt, any attempt, to create increased

deterrence for kidnappers, I will support, once that attempt is within the bounds of

reason. We used to recite very often—at least I, as a younger person—that crime

does not pay. But we are now living in a society where it is shown that crime is

paying, and if crime pays it becomes an industry in which there will be a growing

level of participants. That is indeed the case which exists in Trinidad and Tobago

today. Crime does pay.

Last week we debated the legislation, the Financial Intelligence Unit of

Trinidad and Tobago (Amdt.) Bill, and we belaboured the point in the Senate, that

for white collar criminals crime was paying, and it was as a result of that, that you

had increased activity in money laundering activities and the washing of money.

Over the past three or four years what we would have seen in the particular area

70

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. RAMKHELAWAN]

of kidnapping were very significant demands for ransom in the millions of

dollars, extensive cases in the millions of dollars. If that were the case and that

were to be shared by a few people they would have been enriched, illicitly so,

with the proceeds of the ransom.

So as a Parliament in terms of the Legislature, it is incumbent upon us to find

ways and means in terms of the orchestration of legislation that will ensure or at

the very least engender a heightened level of deterrence in this matter of

kidnapping. Therefore, let us look then at the measures that have been proposed

here.

The first seeks to increase the number of days that someone charged for

kidnapping can be held without bail. It is a doubling from 60 days to 120 days.

And the second is that if someone is convicted, that that person may have to serve

out his or her natural life for having committed the offence, kidnapping for

ransom. Let us then look at the first aspect which is the period of time that

someone can be held without bail.

I do not know that in and of itself that the legislation will prove to be a

deterrent if it is not combined with certainly a higher level of detection. And when

I say detection, I mean detection in a very comprehensive sense, that evidence can

be brought together, and evidence can be produced within a very timely frame to

show and create the levels of conviction that one would want in such an area as

kidnapping.

So the extension of time is because of defects in the Executive area. As the

hon. Minister himself had said, it is a result of delays in gathering evidence in

order to make a case for the extension of the incarceration of the person involved

without conviction. Now that is a very serious matter. It is a most serious matter

when you hold any person and you take away their rights enshrined in our

Constitution: the right of freedom, that key word freedom, and take it away for an

extended period of time and then come back to the court and say, well we want an

extension because we cannot produce the evidence to show that this person is

involved in kidnapping or we do not have sufficient evidence to proceed.

6.30 p.m.

So in itself it is an indictment of our personnel involved in detection, and in

terms of our personnel involved in prosecution. But having said that, I believe that

the approach to resolving crime at whatever level cannot be a single-pronged

71


attack; it must be at all levels. It must be at the legislative; it must be at the

Executive, or else, if they are not working in tandem, we will continue to make

laws, as we have been doing in other areas, and not be able to achieve

enforcement to a satisfactory level to get the job done.

But we, in Parliament, mindful of the weaknesses that exist in the enforcement

and the Executive areas, must do our part to seek to create a higher level of

deterrence with this heinous crime of kidnapping, and in that context, in balancing

both of these areas, I am prepared to give support to the extended period in which

someone can be held without bail, with deep reservations, but nonetheless, if we

want to achieve certain particular goals as far as crime is concerned, we are going

to have to stiffen the backbone in terms of legislation. But I ask the hon. Minister

of National Security to stiffen the backbone of enforcement and not leave it up to

just this Parliament to continue to raise the bar in terms of legislation for

deterrence and leave the bar at such a low level with regard to enforcement. We

cannot have that, because it would be an imbalanced approach to attacking the

crime levels.

I myself have a great deal of admiration for the hon. Minister of National

Security. His credentials are impeccable, up to that point in time when he took the

job as Minister of National Security.

Sen. Panday: Sting in the tail.

Sen. S. Ramkhelawan: No, no sting in the tail; I am simply saying, I have not

seen or felt or witnessed the reduction in serious crimes. The statistics are there to

show. Last year was an improvement, but an improvement not to the kinds of

level that we would want when we have somebody of the ilk of this current

Minister of National Security. He is such an improvement on what we have had in

the immediate past. [Desk thumping] But let me add, improvement only in terms

of credentials, but not necessarily in the kinds of results that we have seen so far.

[Desk thumping] So that is the first part of the equation.

The second part of this equation deals with having had the evidence and

produced the evidence, and produced a conviction that we now want to

incarcerate this person found so convicted for a period, not for 25 years but for his

natural life. Now, increasing the penalties, in my view, may help to serve as a

deterrent, but more importantly is the detection, because if you raise the bar in

terms of bail and somebody is not convicted, what you are doing in terms of

taking the rights of that person away is unnatural in terms of justice. But we

accept it, with the reservations.

72

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. RAMKHELAWAN]

As to the penalty, the stories that we have heard—and I agree with the hon.

Minister—with regard to those persons who have been kidnapped, it is almost as

bad as death. It is almost as bad as the loss of life, because the pain is of having to

live, to survive, but never to be able to get back to that same natural state of

enjoying life. I have seen a number of these persons who have been the subject of

kidnapping and it is not a pretty sight. Death may have been preferable to

kidnapping, because of the heinous treatment that was meted out to these persons.

And so, the penalty must suit the crime, and if the kidnapping is of such a

heinous nature and the treatment of that person kidnapped is of such a nature, then

we must lift the penalty and I support the penalty because of the nature of the

crime that is involved. It takes away the breath from a person, and if it does, let

the penalty suit the crime. And it must be communicated to all those who wish to

enter into this industry of kidnapping. A very clear message must be sent that

crime does not pay and crime must not pay and persons of our land must be free

to enjoy the benefits of this land, very much as we do not want persons to be

incarcerated without proper and just cause, their rights as well being taken away

from them without conviction.

But on the balance, on the scale of justice, even though we may make certain

mistakes in terms of those who might be held, I believe that the punishment for

those who have been kidnapped is far worse than the incarceration for maybe one

or two who might be held and incarcerated without bail for a period of time,

equivalent to four months.

These are the concerns that I have, Mr. President, and one has to be very

practical as far as these matters are concerned, because if we are not, we will live

in an academic and theoretical world that does not take cognizance of the

punishment that is meted out to our citizens. Why are they being kidnapped in

most cases? They are being kidnapped because they have the capacity to pay a

ransom. They are being tormented because it is felt that they have that capacity.

But that is an elemental and important part of society, a part of the society that is

capable of wealth-creation and in wealth-creation, employment-creation and

keeping this economy going.

As has happened over the past five years, from my own experiences in

relating with some of these persons, the first thing that they want to do if they

were fortunate enough to survive kidnapping, pay the ransom and be set free, they

want to leave the country; they no longer have confidence that they can go about

this country to do their business in peace and to pursue their legitimate goal of

happiness and prosperity in this land.

73


When that is taken away from citizens of our country, then you have the

makings of an ailing and even a failing society, and whatever we need to do to

stem the scourge of kidnapping, I will support, once it is within the bounds of

reason and I consider that these two amendments are within the bounds of reason

and I will give my support to this Bill in the circumstances that I have described.

I thank you, Mr. President. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Lyndira Oudit: [Desk thumping] I thank you, Mr. President, for the

opportunity to present on this Bill. It is a bit unfortunate at this time that Sen.

Hinds is not in the Chamber. I know if he is listening, he might be back shortly.

But I would like to refer to three points that I gathered from his contribution.

Sen. Panday: So many?

Sen. L. Oudit: Well, you know, he asked a very critical question. He asked,

what is the problem today? Mr. President, this Bill is not seeking to introduce a

new term of 20 days or 60 days, in the first instance, or anything like that. This is

adding to what exists already. If there was justification in 2003—Sen. Hinds

claimed that he was part and parcel of the entire thing; he was part of the original

debate. If there was valid reason for the initial 60 days, what was the reason given

then for those 60 days to be held without bail? Are those reasons not still valid?

What we have found, however, is that in 2003—which was quite a unique

year because all the statistics point to that as a significant year, when you had

double digit kidnapping figures moving into triple digits. In fact, all of your

international and national agencies and database and statistics, point to that

particular year. So he is correct that it was a significant year. So there was reason

to have 60 days without bail.

We are now asking—this present Government is asking for 60 additional

days. It has not negated the reason for the initial 60 days. We are simply asking

for 60 more days. Now, we have an improved technological system; we have

improved forensics; we have cross-border international database that is shared.

For example, in this particular House, just in the last couple of weeks we have

debated the FIU; we have debated the Proceeds of Crime Bill; the Anti-

Kidnapping Bill. We have done a number of Bills that are hinged upon

international requirements.

So we have international database which we share, that we are part and parcel

of. Why is it so unreasonable to believe that in addition to the reasons put forward

to hold someone for 60 days—all this 60 days is asking or implying is that now

74

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. OUDIT]

there are so many other variables, that before we proceed or before we release, we

would like to have a level of certainty so that we are asking for 60 additional

days. Is it so unreasonable, as Sen. Hinds would like this nation to believe, that

we cannot allow for 60 days for a State to gather as much evidence so that it

proceeds? How many of us as a nation cringe when we hear people who have,

whether it is a first time offence, kidnapping or any other serious crime—this

affects the Bail Act as well. How many of us cringe when there is simply

insufficient information or evidence on which to proceed?

Why is there insufficient evidence? One, because you have only a certain

number of days in which to hold and gather your data; and two, it is because you

really need to be able to—for example, you have lab results; we have a forensic

unit in Cumuto; we have a forensic lab, how long does it take? There are some

samples that require deeper investigation. How much time is required? Can all of

those things help us to build a case to add an extra 60 days?

Now, as the Minister indicated, this is certainly not a be-all and end-all piece

of legislation. In fact, according to the Minister, it is inadequate to deal with the

scourge of crime, but certainly, we have to take some account of what this does.

6.45 p.m.

I want to go back to one of the points that Sen. Hinds spoke of—well sort of a

point. He said that this mentoring programme by Minister Sandy—and I am

quoting his words—“it was a nice idea”. In fact, he went on to indicate that he

saw no difference between what the former Prime Minister did by gathering the

young community leaders and taking them to the Hyatt. He saw no difference

between that action and the current community approach by our Minister of

National Security to have this mentoring programme. He indicated that there was

nothing different.

You see that is the problem. What we have seen here and what this nation is

witnessing is something that is rotten to the core; it is rotten to the core, because it

involves our children, and it involves generations of children, whom I say sadly,

that we have failed. Our systems have failed generations of children because we

have been unable to deal with those young children who will kill or kidnap for

$20 or $100 and you can stand in the Parliament and say, that when your

community leaders are gathered and wined and dined at the Hyatt that, that is the

75


same thing as the mentoring programme by our Minister of National Security.

That is a shame! That is a shame simply because we have committed—I am

personally committed to the young people of this nation and I can tell you the

Government of this country is expressly committed to the young people of our

country.

That mentorship programme, any teacher in the schools—I am certain if they

were here, they would clap and applaud because every single teacher in the school

could tell you that regardless of all the laws, the discipline, all the tools, anything

you give the students, if you do not have a sense of belonging, a sense of identity,

a sort of psychological support system—and The Hon. Brig. Sandy is correct, it is

not only for the women, and it is not only from the mothers in this society, there is

a crucial need. In fact, it was the former administration that spoke about young

male underachievers, aged 18 to 25, it was not this administration, it was that

administration since then recognized the need and the lack of male mentors. And

here we have someone who ought to—I respect him—he ought to know better

because he was part and parcel of the former Ministry of National Security and he

ought to have known—but to come here and poke fun. You talk about

politicizing, you talk about bringing politics. This is not about bringing politics.

Do not poke fun when there are genuine efforts at mentorship on the part of the

Ministry of National Security. Mentoring is a crucial element, and I say hats off to

the Minister of National Security for that programme.

Sen. Hinds also spoke about kidnapping insurance in Mexico. Well, I would

like really and truly to inform Sen. Hinds, that we have kidnapping insurance in

Trinidad, it is called “protection money”, and you go to any mall and any

business, any number of families in Trinidad will tell you that they pay a fee.

They pay a fee so that they are not kidnapped, they would tell you, word on the

ground, that they will pay, and there are hundreds of business people and their

families that have been paying for years. So this is not a new concept of kidnap

insurance, this is real.

Mr. President, I would like to support the call of this Minister of National

Security who indicated that this is a very short but significant Bill. It is indeed

short and I do not believe currently, we are in any position to recognize the

significance of it. Only time will tell the significance of this, but I agree with him.

In his remarks he indicated that this additional 60 days will serve to enhance the

judicial and prosecutorial efforts on the part of the State, and these amendments as

he indicated are not the end-all and be-all. But we need to recognize societal ills

76


and we need to deal with that. And I think the Ministry is attempting very

seriously and in very significant and real ways to deal with the societal measures

and this Bill in particular is going to enhance, as he says, the judicial efforts.

This Bill has just three clauses, and very often in this House when we come,

three clauses or 34 clauses or 75 clauses, what you would understand—and it is

even more significant in a short Bill like this—is that we seek to look at the

intention behind the Bill. It is important that we understand the motive and the

intention and the guiding principle that have governed just this short Bill and it is

important that we understand this. They say harsh times call for harsh measures, I

would not say harsh, necessarily. I would not say harsh times calls for harsh

measures but I will say it calls for significant and far-reaching measures, and it is

important that we understand the difference. You do not have to be harsh in terms

of violent means, but you certainly must be significant and real.

Mr. President, we live in a society where our citizens are victims of crime but

even more so, not that they are victims of crime alone but they are victims of fear.

There is a sense of fear that pervades so many of the citizens of this country, that

people do not even leave to go to the supermarket or pharmacy at a certain hour,

because they are fearful. But it no longer even talks about nighttime, it talks about

anytime, this element of fear, and so we really need to look at when we cry out

and we say that something has to be done, that we do not look at the efforts,

however small they may be, through political lens. And I would like to say that

we have had this discussion in this House already, about the politicizing and I

have asked please, this it is not about the politicizing.

Mr. President, I refer to the Kidnapping Bill 2003; clause 4 of that Bill

establishes what is kidnapping. And I would like for the purposes of this clause—

Sen. Al- Rawi: Clause 4?

Sen. L. Oudit: Clause 4, yes, thank you, clause 4 of the Bill. I am referring to

the Bill that was laid. For the purpose of this country, I would like to read into the

Hansard what is defined as kidnapping. It says here:

“4.(1) A persons who, whether for ransom, reward, service or for any similar

purpose unlawfully leads, takes, decoys, inveigles or entices away,

abducts, seizes, carries off or detains any person without his consent or

with his consent obtained by fraud or duress and without lawful

excuse, to the intent that such person (hereinafter in this Act referred

77


to as the ‘kidnapped person’) is held, confined, restricted or

imprisoned or prevented from returning to his normal place of abode

or sent or taken out of Trinidad and Tobago, commits an offence and

is liable to imprisonment for twenty-five years.”

That is the piece of the legislation that draws directly and reaches in to our Bill

here today, because it is that term of 25 years. So it is extracted from this, and this

is why the second amendment is asking to look at, not 25 years but natural life.

Therefore, when we speak of kidnapping it is not only for ransom, there are many

reasons that underlie kidnapping.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. President, this particular Bill makes direct reference to other Acts, and if

you would allow me; clause 11 of the Kidnapping Bill refers to the Proceeds of

Crime Act, clause 17 refers to the Bail Act and clause 18 of this refers to the

Larceny Act. Again, we have debated in this Senate several of those—the

Proceeds of Crime Act—but in addition to that, we have done several other pieces

of legislation. It is very important that we understand that kidnapping is not a

localized issue. In fact, globally, nations and agencies, international bodies have

been trying for almost 20 years to come to terms with the scourge, not of

kidnapping per se, but what it has been associated with. Kidnapping crosses

borders and boundaries.

Mr. President, this Bill must be supported. There is no question about whether

or not 60 additional days denies the right of someone. This is a person who is

charged with kidnapping! Therefore, you are asking that 60 additional days be

given so that the State is better able to proceed. You have heard from the words of

the Minister, that sometimes the very persons who are held, when they are

released on bail, they go back out to make up the money that they paid on bail,

and there is a vicious cycle so it continues. The national community must

recognize the reason that you seek to increase the number of days held without

bail, and the downstream industry that flourishes as a result of a single act of

kidnapping. Is this Bill inappropriate or unreasonable in what it asks? Not at all!

This is not unreasonable. This is not inappropriate.

In fact, I say hats off for the foresight and the vision that this hon. Minister of

National Security [Desk thumping] has brought today. We have had Ministers of

National Security in the past and unlike the previous speaker, who said the

difference between one and the other—one was qualifications and the other one

was in delivery or performance. But I want to say here, I have sat on the

78


Opposition Bench and I have listened and I have seen where I could not believe

that we were simply creating loopholes. Anybody who goes back to my

contributions in the honourable Chamber—I have spoken of loophole after

loophole, that regardless of how many times you indicated and you pointed it out

to them, they would not plug the loopholes in legislation. I am not a lawyer and if

as a layperson, a mere teacher I was—[Interruption]

Sen. Al-Rawi: No, do not undersell yourself.

Sen. L. Oudit:—even then if I could point out that there were loopholes that

were so glaring and yet you refused year after year, Bill after Bill to plug them,

and the only reason given was that it came from the Opposition Benches, I have to

say—and I think the Opposition here cannot deny—that the modus operandi of

this particular Government and this administration has always been, since

assuming office, one of consultation. We have sat here, consulted, agreed,

compromised, this is a very consultative administration, and I do not think

anybody in the Opposition can even utter that it has been otherwise.

Mr. President, I want to identify what exactly is the link between the number

of days and the increasing life imprisonment, et cetera. You know what I think is

one of the most horrific things, I could imagine? Not the fact that one of my

loved one has been kidnapped, but the fact that I may never know if they are alive

or dead. That is for me a personal death, simply because we have had a number of

cases in this country where there are mothers and fathers walking and going to

work every day, having a child or a relative missing, kidnapped, but they cannot

even have a funeral because they do not know; they is no body, there is no

closure. Do you know what is the link I am trying to make here? The United

Nations General Assembly, August 12, 2010: “United Nations Global Plan of

Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons”. I want to lay on the record of Hansard

what exactly is termed “trafficking”. On page 5 of this document it says;

“…‘trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer,

harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or

other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of

power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of

payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over

another...for the purpose of exploitation, which includes, at a minimum, the

exploitation of the prostitution of others or…of sexual exploitation forced

labour...slavery...”

79


Mr. President, when you ask the question: where are the bodies of the

kidnapped? And you simply cannot locate them. They are not even buried. They

are not in shallow graves all over this country. You simply cannot find them.

These people vanish. Here you have what is in modern terms, possibly the largest

level of criminal activity, the idea of trafficking in humans. We are part of the

International Order of Migration. I believe it was in 2007 or 2008 that we became

a part, and so we follow, we are guided by these guidelines that ought to direct us

as a nation on how we deal with human trafficking.

Under the “Prevention of trafficking in persons”, No. 23—they have given a

list—this is the recommendation of the United Nations and it says:

“Strengthen or continue to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement,

immigration, education, social welfare, labour and other relevant officials in

the prevention of trafficking in persons, taking into account the need to

respect human rights...and encourage cooperation, where appropriate with

civil society, non-governmental organizations and other relevant

organizations; “

It urges all members of the United Nations:

“43(b) adopting legislation and other measures, as necessary, to establish criminal

offences...participating as an accomplice...and organizing…persons who

commit offences.”

So, Mr. President, we have to understand the United Nations of which we are a

member has called upon all its member states to respond. Somebody talked about

the connections; I think it was Sen. Ramkhelawan, and he is correct. Kidnapping

is not a one and done incident. Maybe a couple decades ago kidnapping might

have been as simple as kidnapping for ransom. It is no longer as simple as

kidnapping for ransom. There is interconnectedness between kidnapping, crime,

human trafficking, drugs, narcotics and human exploitation. We have to be very

cognizant that we do not bury our heads in the sand and say that this does not

affect poor little Trinidad. No! It affects! It is a very serious matter. So anything

that will enhance and, as they say, strengthen the spine of our authorities, I say

hats off and I fully endorse.

In fact, coming out of the General Assembly 2009, again, there was a report

by the United Nations on Trafficking in Persons and do you know what is sad?

Sen. Brig. Sandy spoke about men, boys and the need for mentoring, but do you

know which gender or age is most prone to being kidnapped or trafficked?

Women and children! Under their recommendations of that report of 2009, it

says:

80


“Understanding the definition of trafficking and the important elements

contained therein may prove fundamental... The definition of trafficking as

encompassed in the Palermo Protocol underscores the fact that trafficking is a

process that involves a number of interrelated actions rather than a single act

at a given point in time.”

Therefore, I suggest, that if we are to deal with this matter head-on, we need to

recognize the implications of kidnapping and what it means in the wider scope of

things, and we need to follow guidelines that have been set down. This is from

2009, and if you go back, it goes back for a number of decades. We have an

obligation, not only through the United Nations, but we simply need to strengthen

the framework, our legislative framework, bit by bit if it means, every “small bit”

will count. Again, the Minister says this is small, but this is significant. We talked

about different countries and reference was made to the US, Canada, Mexico and

Jamaica.

Mr. President, in the US there is standard precedent for denying bail, even

more than 120 days—in fact, it goes up to 180 days in some cases—and basically,

you look at two reasons, depending on the nature of the crime and depending on

whether or not that individual is a flight risk. So if a person is a flight risk, what is

used also is if a person fails to appear in court; and the other reason is if that

person is a risk to the public, and for serious crimes, especially when it is coupled

with the fact that you may flee, or you commit an offence even while you are out

on bail—[Interruption] I am being guided by counsel here. But there are a

number of cases.

In 1987, in the US v Salerno, the US Supreme Court held that the US

Constitution will permit a denial of bail if a person is charged with a serious

felony and is found after an adversary procedure to pose a threat to the safety of

others, or to the community which no condition of release could dispel.

Mr. President, in the US as well, the Bail Reform Act of 1984 permits denial

of bail if it is demonstrated or can be demonstrated that the defendant is a flight

risk, no matter what bail is set—regardless of the amount—if that person is a

flight risk. These two factors are crucial, when we have to understand that we are

not inventing the wheel; precedent has been set.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. President, the Madras High Court in India has ruled that those arrested in

narcotics drug cases can be held up to 180 days without bail. In fact, in a ruling:

81


“Justice S Tamilselvan said that the Code of Criminal Procedure, states that a

person accused of an offence for a maximum sentence…can be enlarged on

bail after 90 days if police fail to file a chargesheet within that period.

However, considering the gravity of the offence…that statutory bail period…”

—may be extended up to 180 days.

Mr. President, in Texas, the Assistant District Attorney in Travis County,

Dana Nelson, in 2008, in explaining the denying of bail for family violence

offenders and, again, in linking it to this Bill, there are a number of cases of

kidnapping, where it is done by a parent or even a step-parent or someone related

to, and we have a number of cases here. The Family Court will know; sometimes

you take a child without the mother’s consent or the father’s consent. There are

cases.

It says here:

“Effective January 01, 2008”—and this is in Texas, Mr. President—“a family

violence offender may be denied bail after violating a protective order or bond

condition in a family violence case.

In fact, it goes on to say:

“every defendant who violates a protective order is eligible to be denied bail.”

This is in Texas, Mr. President.

Someone made reference to Mexico. Sen. Hinds made reference to Mexico.

On December 22nd, last year, suspected gun-maker and dealer, Israel Espinoza,

had his release out on bail squashed. Judge Timothy Bommer denied the request

and he cited two reasons for denying his release on bail.

The first was that Espinoza, a US citizen, had travelled to Mexico but he posed

a flight risk. And the second reason that he was denied bail was he that refused to

answer questions about his mental health and his substance abuse history. That,

according to Judge Bommer, combined with the previous firearms charge and the

current charges in 2010, made Espinoza a possible danger to the community. He

also had previous convictions for possessing a loaded gun.

In that same case in Mexico, the co-conspirator, Lopez, who faced 25 years in

federal prison and over $500,000 in fines, in his own court appearance that week,

was determined as well to be a flight risk and was also denied bail.

Mr. President, it goes on. In Mississippi, if a person is charged with

committing any offence—and this is where the law comes in and all the details

and I am sure all the lawyers would have it, you would also have to the contrary, I

82


am sure, or arguments to the contrary, but precedent is set. If a person is charged

and if the court upon hearing finds probable cause that the person has committed a

felony even while on bail, then the court shall revoke bail and shall order that the

person be detained without further bail pending trial of the charge for which the

bail was revoked. And it goes on, Mr. President.

So the precedent is set. So here we have the need for significant and firm

measures. We have the political will, we have the reason, the motive. Our society,

Mr. President, has been brought to a point where our action, our day-to-day

action, the way we protect our children or loved ones, is tied to our understanding

of fear—personally, community-wise and even on a national level.

Mr. President, this Bill in front of us seeks to address, what I say, is a gross

imbalance. It is a gross imbalance which has evolved over a significant period of

time but, most especially, in the last two decades—from year 2000, coming up,

you have 2010, so in the last decade but, certainly, from the year 2002 come up,

and the statistics would show this and this is not to point fingers. In fact, our very

own former Minister of National Security had indicated—and I made reference to

it in another debate—where he himself had indicated—that kidnappings and gun-

related activities had increased significantly from 2003.

We have a responsibility, Mr. President, to facilitate and to support the efforts

of those very officers and the very courts, the judicial system, the legislative

system that are there to protect and serve. I, for one, support this Bill and I know

that the Government is fully supportive of the Minister of National Security in

what was piloted here today. And I do commend the Minister of National Security

for bringing this short, but significant—significant—piece of legislation and I ask

that we simply support and give as much support as we need to in his pursuit to

reduce crime. I thank you.

Sen. Faris Al-Rawi: Thank you, Mr. President. May I first, Mr. President,

take the opportunity to express openly, my deep condolences for the loss of Sen.

Vasant Bharath’s mother. I did not get to say that on the last occasion and I note

he is still not here and I assume that perhaps he is still abroad in mourning. May I

also please recommend a hearty welcome for our two sitting Senators opposite

me, Sen. Salisha Khan and Sen. Rabindra Moonan. I am sure that their presence is

going to bring some good and lively debate. I hope to hear them in action tonight.

Mr. President, may I also recommend a warm welcome to Sen. Vidhya Gyan

Tota-Maharaj who is not a stranger to us and I am happy to see her back with us.

83


Mr. President, on the business that is before us tonight, we are here to discuss

what has been described as essential legislation, as short clauses, breathing into a

much deeper content, a Bill possessing, in fact, only three clauses. But I wish at

the outset to state that the Opposition’s statements this evening are not for one

moment intended to state that we do not support Sen. The Hon. Brig. Sandy or

that we do not support the laudable sentiments echoed by my learned friend, Sen.

Lyndira Oudit, who I compliment on an excellently researched contribution. It

was a pleasure to hear her this evening. [Desk thumping]

Sen. The Hon. Brig. John Sandy is a man of distinction. He is a man whom we

on this side have a lot of regard for but that is not to say that our commentary on

the debate is intended to be a personalized attack on him. Never! He is correct;

men need to step up to the plate; men need to participate in societal reform. He is

correct. There is a scourge of crime in our society that must be attended to.

The issue on the table tonight, Mr. President, is whether this legislation is

placebo legislation or real medicine legislation. That is the issue tonight. No one

can stand credibly and say that kidnapping is not a serious offence because then

that would be to belie the laws of this land which recognize kidnapping as a

serious offence.

Indeed, Sen. Hinds reminded us—and I am grateful for the reminder—of the

development of the statutory codification of kidnapping as an offence. Because,

Mr. President, that is recognition that kidnapping has always been an offence in

this country and still is, in relation to kidnapping which is not for ransom, on the

common law basis.

7.20 p.m.

There are in fact several forms of kidnapping. One is statutorily regulated, and

that is kidnapping for ransom, and then there is the common law application of

the regulation of other kidnapping offences.

The statutory codification and description of kidnapping, which is set out in

section 3 of the Act itself, the parent legislation, in fact is a recognition of the

multiplicity of elements which comprise kidnapping for ransom. That is a blend

of false imprisonment, kidnapping, extortion, financial manipulation and

negotiation. So, the codification of the law, as it resulted in 2003, in the period

March 2003 to July 2003, when the Bill was debated in the Lower House, the

Senate and back in the Lower House and then assented to, that legislation was a

codification of a multiplicity of elements comprising something, at the time,

which was paramount and centre stage to the national community.

84

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. AL-RAWI]

The issue that Sen. Hinds put very properly on the table, in relation to this

Bill, was whether it is still centre stage, paramount, the need to address

kidnapping for ransom in the fashion that is being done now. That is not to state

that kidnapping for ransom is not something from which one should take one’s

eyes off. The point is, in the current socio-economic condition of Trinidad and

Tobago, are we making best use of legislative time in the prioritization of

legislation coming to this Parliament? Are we making best use of time by dealing

with this particular proposed amendment? It really is, if I were to borrow a term

from the commercial law, a ranking of priorities. The socio-economic climate has

an impact upon crime in society.

The landscape of crime in Trinidad and Tobago changed significantly in

particular, if one reflects upon our history, from 1999 when the Dole Chadee gang

was dealt with. It was then brought into a fragmented approach. There were

multiple elements being born. There were multiple elements that grew, and

disorder then lodged itself into this country. So, by 2003, the very ugly head of

kidnapping in general and kidnapping for ransom had reared its head in Trinidad

and Tobago’s social landscape; a very frightening phenomenon. Indeed, in

recognition of that position, the People’s National Movement, in piloting the

legislation then in the period March to July 2003, sought to take a multi-pronged

approach in dealing with the problem which reared its head.

Sen. Hinds’ reflection upon the history that came about in dealing with that is

very pertinent to this current debate, because this Bill proposes to deal with two

aspects, firstly, the amendment to the Kidnapping Act itself, and secondly, the

amendment to the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60, in dealing with how long someone can be

denied their constitutional rights under section 4(a), section 5(f), I think it is (ii)

(iii) of the Constitution of this country; how long a person can be denied the right

to be brought forward to access bail. It is a constitutional provision, enshrined in

the Constitution of our country, particularly as it relates to bail. Yes, it is section

5(2)(f), where one is not permitted denial of reasonable bail without just cause.

The context and the history of the 2003 development are relevant to this

debate, because we are dealing with constitutional rights. We are dealing with

sentencing approaches, and we must now look to see: is this what this country

needs at this time?

We have had open recommendation to this Government time and again, for a

publication and statement of its legislative agenda. I am going to be like a stuck

record on this point, because the hon. Leader of Government Business in this

Senate promised the nation and promised this Senate that his legislative agenda,

85


the Government’s legislative agenda, would be forthcoming with immediacy. It

has not yet come, and that is relevant to this debate, because the issue on the table

is, as I have said where is—[Interruption]

[Sen. Panday runs into Chamber and proceeds to read whilst Sen. Al-Rawi is

on his legs]

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Sure.

Sen. Panday: I have in my possession an agenda, which I intend to assist with

right now. There are a number of Bills which we have—

[Sen. Al-Rawi is still on his legs and Sen. Panday continues to read]

We have the Lands and Buildings Taxes; the Customs (Amdt.) Bill; the

Exchequer and Audit Bill; the Children Bill. We have the Civil Aviation Bill and

the Conveyancing and Mortgage Bill. We have the Registration of Land Title Bill.

We have the Land Adjudication Bill, the Land Tribunal Bill, Management and

Regulations, Security Investment Bill. [Interruption] Hold on. We have the

Bacteriological Weapons Bill, the Privileges and Immunity Bill—

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Your licence has been revoked.

Sen. Panday: The Anti-Doping Commission Bill; National Steel Symphony

Orchestra Bill; Maternity Protection Bill; and the Minimum Wages Bill, plus four

Bills from the Ministry of Justice; all to be done before the end of this year.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Mr. President, why it is disingenuous to do what the Leader

of Government Business just did is: (a), it is perhaps a better attempt than what he

did the last time—I asked this question when, many months ago, he told me: “ah

have it here” and I told him it was of no use to me 15 feet away from me, not

published in the public domain, because no matter how many things he reads out

to this honourable Senate in a supposed agenda, there is still no statement of

priority and timing and purpose. So, regrettably, it is a failed attempt to answer a

question that has been asked repeatedly of this Government and which I will not

let go of. [Desk thumping]

The difficulty in this is that it reared its head in fact earlier in today’s

proceedings, when it became readily appreciated, and I want to bet money on this,

that when the last Bill that was debated here, the Statutory Authorities (Amdt.)

Bill, goes to the Lower House, because the Leader of Government Business here

has said that it is not a money Bill, I bet money on the fact that it is going to be

said to be a money Bill. [Interruption]

Sen. Panday: No!

86


Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Anyway, the bet is out. The wager will be taken and we will

see who is right. That, relative to this Bill and relative to the point of the

legislative agenda, could have been avoided if the hon. Leader of Government

Business and the Government had bothered to contemplate what its agenda is.

And on that point, in relation to the Bill specifically, and I would accelerate on

to this point, it crosses my mind and it is in need of answer as to why we are

seeking to amend the Bail Act in the manner that we choose to do now, when the

Bail Act amendments are currently before a joint select committee? If there was a

statement of legislative agenda, and if this were real medicine, we would have

known that it is inefficient to be debating the Bail Act in two places at the same

time.

Sen. George: You are wrong again.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: The Bail Act is currently being discussed downstairs in a

joint select committee and it specifically deals in the Bill that has gone to the joint

select committee; with section 5 of the Bail Act of the 2008 amendments that

were passed relative to the Bail Act. The Bail Act was amended six times

recently. [Interruption]

Sen. Panday: Seven.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Six times recently; pay attention. The point is that section 5

of the Bail Act is being discussed in joint select committee right now, but the

embarrassment to be had and the audacity in trying to explain the position

becomes a paltry attempt at recovery, when one appreciates that the very Bail

(Amdt.) Bill, which crosses with this current Bill, also says and proposes that

there be legislation such that one can approach the court within five days of being

charged for any offence in Part III, or Part II, forgive me, I do not have the Bill in

front of me, of Schedule I to the Bail Act. [Interruption]

Sen. Panday: You do not understand.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: And that is specifically set out at the end of the Schedule to

include kidnapping and kidnapping for ransom. It cannot possibly be, if I were to

possibly entertain crosstalk of the type that is coming now, that I do not

understand. Dare I say that this Government does not understand that it cannot

fool the people and that it is my obligation, as a watchdog of democracy and

efficiency in this Parliament, to point out the inadequacies of the approaches

being taken today.

87


There were many points put out onto the agenda today. The debate was open

very widely: considerations of equity, considerations of which law should be

discussed when, considerations of the type of medicine that this country needs to

solve its current predicament of crime, having been put onto the table.

Indeed, Sen. Oudit pointed out to the fact that human trafficking, which is

associated with kidnapping, because it is an inchoate; it is a connected offence to

kidnapping; it is in fact embodied, one could argue, in section 3 of the parent Act,

which sets out the statutory definition for kidnapping. Human trafficking is

critical legislation, as Sen. Oudit pointed out to us.

We are signatories to international treaties. But, what has this Government

done, as it is associated with this Bill? Do you know, Mr. President, that in

August of this year—[Interruption]

Sen. Oudit: Last year.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi:—a policy paper was sent to the Cabinet to deal with the

legislation on human trafficking, and because it was not dealt with and not

brought forward to Parliament, legislation not passed, connected legislation to this

Bill, Trinidad and Tobago was downgraded by the United States authorities to

Tier two, where we are currently on their watch list! So, instead of dealing with

the real meat of the legislative agenda and proper prioritization of legislation

issues, we come here to deal with placebo legislation, when we would do better to

spend our time dealing with legislation which is in higher ranking of priority. It is

disingenuous of this Government to sing on a soapbox, that we are not paying

attention to the cries of the people, and that is to be had when one appreciates the

context of what was done in this country to address kidnapping for ransom, which

this Bill speaks to.

The People’s National Movement—my learned friend, the hon. Subhas

Panday would know this well, because he brought a Motion on the adjournment in

2008, when he sat in the Lower House asking of the hon. Minister of the National

Security, then Mr. Martin Joseph, the status of the legality of the Special Anti-

Crime Unit of Trinidad and Tobago (SAUTT) and its affairs.

What I was referring to was, in November 2003, after this legislation, the

parent Act for anti-kidnapping was dealt with in July 2003 and proclaimed on

July 26, 2003, recognizing that a real approach to the on-the-ground efficacy of

implementation of legislation had to be had, hearing the cries of the people, the

People’s National Movement legitimately structured an inter-operational task

force, comprising members of the National Security Division, the defence force,

88


under the Defence Act; and also by virtue of Cabinet powers under the

Constitution of this country, section 75 or 73, I think it is, gave directions for the

coordination of a task force. Also, by the coordination, in a third piece of

legislative authority—I am referring to now, to what has preceded the current

police legislation in 2006, and that is its predecessor in 2003—gave birth under

the regulations to the police coordination aspect of SAUTT.

7.35 p.m.

So SAUTT is an inter-agency task force, comprised of members of the defence

force, members of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service and approximately 100

persons on contract, or 200 persons on contract, 100 of whom were English

retirees and trainers, came together and made active use of intelligence—under

the very SIA that we have been debating recently—active use of on the ground

footwork and police work and together with the legislation that the government

had passed, wrestled successfully kidnapping for ransom and kidnapping in

general to the ground. [Desk thumping] Such that we moved from double digits,

60-odd, down to seven, Mr. President, last year.

Now I expected the hon. Minister of National Security to come with statistics,

because legislation requires an appreciation of the context of the statistical

information prevailing in our country. It has been noted in this Parliament before

that you can get statistical information from every country around the world, and

people often wonder why not Trinidad and Tobago. There is statistical

information available, Mr. President, from the very capable people in the Trinidad

and Tobago Police Service, from SAUTT from any agency, the Central Statistical

Office in this country has statistical information. If we were to accept a simplistic

approach—and I mean no disrespect to my learned senior and brother, hon. Brig.

John Sandy—if we were to accept a simple statement that the figure is seven for

this year, I think it cries out for a contextual analysis of how that trended

downward over the years, Mr. President.

I was fortunate to receive some very valuable information, relative to the

extreme success story that Trinidad and Tobago has enjoyed relative to

kidnapping, and kidnapping for ransom specifically. From the Central Statistical

Office one can lift, and it is there if you go to look for it, but I would have thought

that Opposition people would find it harder to find statistics than the Government

which has a vast resource of personnel pulling data for them, not so the case it

seems. But in any event, Mr. President, the Central Statistical Office has a

comparative data on serious crimes reported most recently for January to

November 2009 versus that of 2010. And under the headings of kidnapping and

89


kidnapping for ransom, it is clear that kidnapping in 2009 was at 143, kidnapping

for ransom in 2009 was 8; kidnapping generally in 2010 was at 100, and

kidnapping for ransom was at seven.

The Central Statistical Office also has the detection rate, that is four out of the

seven kidnapping for ransom cases were detected and are being dealt with. If one

does the mathematics, four over seven as a simple ratio—as my SEA son is doing

these days—it is not a hard statistics to see, hard statistical extrapolation to see

that Trinidad and Tobago is enjoying massive success, Mr. President, relative to

the management and control of kidnapping for ransom. And that is specifically

due to the excellent work of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, and in

particular as well the defence force and SAUTT which is a combination of the two.

But you see, Mr. President, the elephant in the room has come back from the

last debate, and what I mean by that is, if one were to consider why I am making a

lot of noise, song and dance, relative to prioritization of legislation, the real

animal to be dealt with in Trinidad and Tobago, is homicide. Homicide is in fact

associated with kidnapping. Homicide was projected on the statistical information

open to this Government at 600 persons, Mr. President.

In 2008, again at the initiative of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, the

defence force through the combinations of SUATT introduced a homicide

investigation bureau and that saw incredible success, Mr. President.

I welcome the hon. Attorney General to the Senate for the day, I am happy to

see him here, his presence brings us much satisfaction.

Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: He was here already.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: I regret I did not see him before. I saw him in the tea room.

But the point is that the statistical information demonstrates that with the

introduction of the homicide investigation bureau at SAUTT, we saw staggering

success, Mr. President, and I wish for the benefit of people in Trinidad and

Tobago believing in their national security services, to tell them some of the

success. Because we must inspire confidence in our people to know that there are

resources in place to seek their best interest and to watch them at night and while

they are working, even if they have to march during the day and suffer from “blue

flu”, the point is there are resources in this country that can deal with the scourge

of homicide, which is in fact connected to kidnapping and therefore relevant to

this debate.

90


Mr. President, I would think that there is great pride in announcing that over

90 per cent of kidnaps have been detected since 2008, statistical information, that

the homicide investigations task force which was formed in 2008 managed to

bring from a predicted figure of 600 murders, a decline down in that position, by

preventative measures relative to homicide, that the model being based upon

international agencies such as the FBI and the equivalent in the United Kingdom,

saw dramatic success because it saw the active training and implementation of

sophisticated techniques relative to surveillance, relative to crime analysis,

relative to CSI analysis. It saw success, Mr. President, in avoiding a great number

of homicides; in bringing the figures down; in actively dealing with the arrest of

over 67 gang members in the period 2008—2010; in seeing homicide drop in

2009 by beginning to creep—remember it started at the end of 2008, we saw an

immediate drop by 2009 to 8 per cent. In the areas that were targeted, there was a

25 per cent drop in other areas and the percentage of gang related homicide

dropped from 70 per cent to 18 per cent.

Those heroes that have been watching our backs, who are afflicted with the

“blue flu”, Mr. President, saw the reduction in those figures. But, Mr. President,

what is relevant to the issue of the prioritization of this piece of legislation is also

what is the Government’s plan relative to the management of crime in this

jurisdiction. I regret to state that the implied plan that one is to glean, because

there is no stated plan, has some poor reference points that do not inspire a lot of

confidence.

Firstly, September 21, 2010, the hon. Prime Minister in a statement relative to

the spying issue, as it was called in this country, dismissed the hon. Brig. Peter

Joseph, who was the acting head of SAUTT. It then dealt with legislation which is

connected—it dealt with surveillance of crimes which was being undertaken by

SAUTT—by making an allegation that SAUTT was in fact the entity that was

spying. Later it was revealed, as the fiasco unfolded, that SAUTT had nothing to do

with it, that instead it was the SIA, and SAUTT has been audited, all of its records

produced and an analysis has been done on the institution itself, and the hon. Brig.

Sandy will know this because he sits on the National Security Council. And right

there, Mr. President, the announcement that SAUTT is to be managed in a different

way, has been made to the nation. But specifics as to how police management and

security and intelligence management have not been provided. So instead we are

left to gaze at fiasco followed by fiasco; SIA first, FIU second and more

particularly, and I am going to come back to this, the eradication of the OPVs, Mr.

President.

91


7.45 p.m.

Those fiascos lead us to see what their policy is and then, Mr. President, I

managed to be given a document which purports to be a review of SAUTT. In

reviewing SAUTT and SAUTT’s dealings with all sorts of crime investigations,

including kidnapping for ransom, Mr. President, recommendations have been

made. These recommendations state, amongst others; that:

SAUTT has a human capacity of 854 officers, made up of 686 personnel from

SAUTT, about 163 from the SIA and five from the CIU. This aggregate strength

is quite diverse and consists of varied elements drawn from a number of

agencies across the national security landscape.

It goes on say:

Given its specialized security and criminal intelligence and training functions,

there is no absorptive capacity to accommodate all 850 employees, hence a

thinning of the herd is ineluctable—(inevitable).

It goes on in the report, Mr. President, to state in summary measures:

SAUTT should formally cease operations as a law enforcement agency on

August 31, 2011. During this period an interim director shall continue.

Cabinet must establish the implementation phase for restructuring of SAUTT.

All service personnel, TTPS, Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (et cetera)

assigned to SAUTT, shall return to their respective agencies and/or units by

May 31, 2011, and under the supervision of an implementation team.

All UK personnel contracted to SAUTT must return to their homeland by March

31, 2011.

They should be notified of this decision before January 31, 2011.

Mr. President, when the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that this

Government is engaged in the dismantling of national security systems, measures,

this is what he was referring to, I would imagine. You have an incredible success

story of dealing in particular as it relates to this Bill, kidnapping for ransom and

kidnapping, generally. You seek to disband it, fracture it, send it back to places

that this Government says are in need of reform; that do not have in the stated

reports, the “absorptive power” to retake these people and so therefore you must

thin the herd. Surely, the people of this country—they say and it has been said in

this debate, that this Government is good at consultation. Where is the

consultation with the broader community as to whether that is desired at this point

in time, when there is a scourge and escalation of homicides in this country?

92


Mr. President, do you know what the theory is, on the ground and in the legal

fraternity relative to this scourge? The surveillance monitoring systems have

been switched off. Nobody can perform duties because they have been given no

guidance. This country is in a desperate state of emergency, Mr. President, as it

relates to crime and as it relates to—not legislation, we could pass all the laws in

the world to deal with crime, crime must be dealt with from ground come up. The

police must monitor, the police must deal with it, and they must be seen to be

dealing with it. The population must have confidence that it is dealing with it,

Mr. President. That indeed was the clarion cry of the then Opposition, as it sat in

2003. It should be a familiar call, because there were four Members of this current

Government, who now serve in this Parliament, who were there.

The hon. Carolyn Seepersad-Bachan made a contribution to this debate in

2003 on the parent Act. The hon. Prime Minister, Mrs. Kamla Persad-Bissessar,

made a contribution to this debate in 2003. The hon. Leader of the Government

Business, Sen. Subhas Panday made a sterling contribution to this debate in 2003,

not supporting the parent Act, I might add. And Sen. the Hon. Mary King, then

sitting as an Independent Senator, made a contribution to this debate. This is not

new news to them, Mr. President.

Also too, and associated with their Government is the very excellent legal

mind of Gillian Lucky, who made excellent criticism of this parent legislation.

None of them supported the legislation. None! They said it was replete with

loopholes, they said that the very definition that the hon. Sen. Lyndira Oudit read

out, section 3 of the parent Act, was so drastic, a disaster, that it would result in a

preference to the victims as opposed to the law-abiding citizens. They refused to

support it, Mr. President. And then we come here today, to hear how excellent the

legislation is.

Mr. President, lest people do not believe me, I have every debate, every word

of the 33 persons who spoke in this debate. I have read them all. I could quote

page after page for you, Mr. President. Remember the theory that I pronounced

earlier in my debates, “recent Government”. Do they not think that people are

going to read their words?

I am very careful about what I say in this Parliament, Mr. President, lest I

have to eat my own words one day. The criticism I will give is constructive

criticism, but it cannot be apposite to the nation’s best interests, to dismantle an

agency such as SAUTT, to not come to the Parliament and deal with legislation

which is of greater priority, not less important, but greater priority, Mr. President,

like the human trafficking legislation for which we have been downgraded, which

93


I thank Sen. Oudit for raising. No, Mr. President, we must stand up and support

our troops on the ground. Job security is the best incentive to performance—131

persons in SIA. What is going to happen?

One hundred English officers who have been training us, who are all SRPs, I

believe, what is going to happen to them? The training that the Trinidad and

Tobago’s Police Service has received from this Government, sorry, from SAUTT

in particular, and the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service and the Trinidad and

Tobago Defence Force, has been sterling. In fact, the statistical appreciation

comparison comes, when the English experience is factored and they for their CSI

training, Mr. President, have to undergo immense expense such that they get

much fewer officers trained than we do in Trinidad. We have had hundreds

passing through—dare I say thousands passing through the training centres

established by SAUTT. In fact, so glowing was the recommendation that the

National Intelligence Agency is recommended to keep that, because they say it

was yeoman service. That did not happen by mistake, Mr. President, that was

calculated, on the ground planning, by the People’s National Movement, and I

salute the last government for that.[Desk thumping]

Mr. President, we need to have a national consultation on crime. That was the

clarion call of the then Opposition as it stood. Members sitting opposite me now,

you want to consult, consult everybody, including the Opposition. It cannot be—

and I will borrow the term again from my heritage, that we “de-Ba’athify” every

institution in Trinidad. Let me explain that. In Iraq when the Americans invaded,

they passed a law saying, any person who is a member of the Ba’ath party, the

ruling party, could not be employed and was to be fired, instantly. They sent

home one million Iraqi soldiers, instantly, with all arms and ammunition. You see

the tragedy is still going. In similar fashion, it cannot be apposite to our best

interest to fire people like Brig. Peter Joseph.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. President, if you wanted to deal with him, debrief him, and let him

transfer the information that he has to his successor, if you do not trust him, lest

you be faced with a lawsuit—“$2m for wrongful dismissal” Mr. President, I read

from today’s Express and it says:

“Sacked former director of the Special Anti-Crime Unit of Trinidad and

Tobago (SAUTT) Brigadier Peter Joseph, has fired back and is seeking close to

$2 million in compensation for what he describes as his wrongful dismissal by

Government.

94


Joseph, a highly decorated military officer who had been selected to head

SAUTT, an intelligence driven unit comprising officers from various protection

services, was terminated on September 21 last year.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar had announced Joseph’s termination

on September 20, moments before she departed Piarco Airport to attend the

United Nations General Assembly in New York, United States.

SAUTT had been named as one of the spy agencies which the Prime Minister

had accused of spying on her while she was in Opposition and also on other

members of society. Her charge was immediately denied by Joseph, who

stated that he had written to Persad-Bissessar ‘to personally reassure her and

the people of Trinidad and Tobago that SAUTT never ‘spied’ on her or any

Member of Parliament’.

On the same day Cabinet took the decision to terminate his services, Joseph

was defending the organization...

Persad-Bissessar subsequently disclosed in Parliament that it was the Security

Intelligence Agency, a spy unit under the Strategic Services Agency, which

had been illegally spying on citizens and in October last year...the director of

that unit, Nigel Clement, was fired.

His replacement, Reshmi Ramnarine...”

Then became a spectacular symbol of ineptitude in appointment. How is it

apposite to the country’s best interest to take taxpayers’ money invested in high

ranking professionals and throw it away? You want to fire him and dismiss him,

no problem, but you must have confidence in the officers that serve you, but

firstly, there is a proper method to do it.

Secondly, the nation must receive value for its dollar and, surely, that must

also mean debriefing the person. I have heard the “ah” from my friend, Sen.

Baptiste-Cornelis. I would not go down the line of dealing with my perspective

relative to—

Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: Mr. President, on a point of order.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Mr. President, there is a point of order, and I am going to let

you rule on it. Mr. President, I would not condescend to ask you to rule on that.

Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: Standing Order 35(c).

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: That is Standing Order 35(c). A Minister shall not be

referred to by name, I apologize.

95


Mr. President: Thank you. You can proceed.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: The hon. Minister of Health, Sen. Therese Baptiste-

Cornelis, are you happy?

Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: Yes.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: That was worth interrupting a debate on important issues.

Sen. Baptiste-Cornelis: Yes.

Sen. F. Al-Rawi: For your name? I know you better than that, and I respect

you, through you, Mr. President, as a lady of high integrity and accustomed to

much better standards than that. I am disappointed. She is an excellent manager.

That is a distraction from a real issue.

Mr. President, the country deserves value for its dollar, and that requires that

we keep resources, analyse carefully and make sure that we are making the

correct decisions in true consultation. Dare I say that it is not in our interest to

have done it in the manner in which this Government has?

Mr. President, on the issue of the offshore patrol vessels, it is related to this

Bill—kidnapping—in fact, forcefully taking away including places outside of this

jurisdiction, it is reasonable to assume that one can be ferreted out of the

jurisdiction as the legislation contemplates it.

So, we are an island State small economy. We have 360 degrees of sea and we

are next to Venezuela. The President of Venezuela has retooled his army; all old

weapons are gone. They were not recollected, they are gone. It is accepted that

every pirogue coming out of Venezuela, potentially has the ability to deal with

kidnappers, transporting their victims, importing firearms and ammunition and

bringing in persons under the label of human trafficking. So what does this

Government do? It cancels the offshore patrols vessels. Okay, you had problems

with them and you cancelled them, but what is the replacement for dealing with

the issue of porous borders? [Desk thumping]

I am okay if you tell me the last Government made a mistake; it was not

correct value for money; the guns were not working; we could get back some

money and the British government is not vexed with us. What is the plan to

replace it? Where does it lie? Where is the statement? Where is the inspiring of

national confidence to the citizens of this country who want to be inspired that

their Government is looking after them to say that your porous borders are now

going to be filled by the following measures? None! I am back to the point of

dismantling security services in this country.

96


Mr. President, on the issue of sentencing, the Bill purports to deal with the

sentencing aspects for kidnapping. Sen. Oudit took us on an excursion—an

excellent one and I commend her on her research—of other jurisdictions relative

to how they treat with sentencing for kidnapping. I would like to commend to my

learned friend, a woman whom I have a lot of regard for, Sen. Oudit, The

Trinidad and Tobago Judicial Education Institute Republic of Trinidad and

Tobago Sentencing Handbook. It is a publication of the Trinidad and Tobago

Judicial Education Institute and, in fact, for the first time it codifies how Trinidad

and Tobago legislation, case law and common law have dealt with sentencing

aspects. It is an excellent guide for every criminal practitioner and legislator to

have. In fact, in the foreword, the words of the hon. Chief Justice Mr. Ivor Archie,

in December 2010 states specifically as it relates to sentencing:

“Much criticism of apparently disparate sentencing is prompted by an

incomplete understanding of the circumstances of the crimes and the

offenders, so that critics are often comparing apples with oranges. Thus, an

appropriate sentence for manslaughter may vary from the imposition of a

lengthy term of imprisonment to a bond to keep the peace and be of good

behaviour, with suitable conditions. Experience in other jurisdictions has

shown that mandatory sentencing regimes do not afford the flexibility that is

required to accommodate judicial discretion, and often defeats the purpose of

doing justice in the individual case.”

Mr. President: Hon. Senators, the speaking time of the hon. Senator has

expired.

Motion made, That the hon. Senator’s speaking time be extended by 15

minutes. [Sen. P. Beckles-Robinson]


Sen. F. Al-Rawi: Mr. President, in the judicial handbook there is reference to

R B Spence and Thomas 1983, five criminal appeal cases; there is reference to

Sean Smart v the State, it is a criminal appeal of 2008; there is also reference to

Darryl Samnarinesingh v the State, a criminal appeal of 2006; and then there is

reference to Kellon John v the State, criminal appeal No. 18 of 2004. There is an

analysis which is worthy of reading—and everyone should read it—which shows

that the Judiciary is well capable of handling the issue of sentencing on a

discretionary basis.

97


[MADAM VICE-PRESIDENT in the Chair]

Indeed, in some of these cases, there was sentencing, in fact, for 17 years in

the case of Darryl Samnarinesingh v the State; 18 years plus 18 years in the case

of Sean Smart v the State; in the case of Kellon John v the State there was

sentencing for 30 years to run consecutively with two years imprisonment. In

dealing with the aggravating factors to be considered, firearms and ammunition

were considered to be aggravating factors. The coldness of the mens rea, the

intention to commit the crime is a factor; and whether there were ancillary issues

involving a very unfortunate and unpleasant thing like rape and other sexual

offences are to be considered, but it shows in a pellucid fashion that the Judiciary

is well capable of dealing with sentencing as it relates to the offences of

kidnapping and kidnapping for ransom.

On that point, as it relates to the Bill, it is my humble recommendation that the

replacement of 25 years in the rubric of the law, as it currently exists by natural

life, that there is a discomfort there, because it says not less than natural life.

In fact, it was Sen. The Hon. Subhas Panday who recommended in 2003 that

we should consider sentencing as a maximum of life, and then leave it to the

Judiciary to exercise its discretion. Now, I wish to adopt that submission from my

learned friend, Sen. Panday, because the Judiciary has on the established case law

in criminal appeals in this jurisdiction established its clear ability to do that,

impose heavy sentences where they are required, and to deal with the

circumstances in the context of each case on a case by case basis.

Madam Vice-President, it is also important, because it would provide some

parity between the common law offence of kidnapping and the statutory offence

of kidnapping for ransom, because the common law offence for kidnapping is, in

fact, a sentence at large, meaning you could go up to life, and the statutory

offence will now be not less than life.

Now, albeit that I accept that we may wish to send a clear intention to those

whom we hope to deter, it is accepted worldwide that this type of sentencing is

not really an effective deterrent. I support life imprisonment, but I think it should

be a maximum of life imprisonment and let us trust our Judiciary who have

shown, in particular, at the Court of Appeal level, an intention to implement very

draconian, in a good way, application of existing rules and procedures to ensure

better efficacy and messaging in the system.

Madam Vice-President, if I could in summary state, we do not for one

moment take away from the very laudable statements of Sen. The Hon. Brig.

Sandy in his clarion cry for men to step up to the plate; in his acknowledgement

98


that all laws are important. We do not take exception to the Government keeping

its eye on the offence of kidnapping in general; we do, however, take exception to

an inappropriate prioritization of issues for legislative agenda. I take great

exception to a purported legislative agenda being waved at me across the floor of

this Parliament. I think that it is in everybody’s best interest for that to be

published forthwith. I will wait here tonight while everybody receives that agenda

with dates on it.

We take great exception to no statement of data relative to the considerations

upon which we should consider legislation and, in particular, as it relates to

national security, and the offence of kidnapping for ransom. There is statistical

information which demonstrates the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, the

defence force and SAUTT are excellent bodies that should be treated with

carefully, and SAUTT in particular, because it came under heavy criticism.

There was a tirade of criticisms against SAUTT. There was the allegation that it

operated illegally when it did not. There was the allegation that it should have

legislative clothing and that was agreed to. However, excellent work was done by

those persons, and if that recommendation that I saw is to be accepted by this

Government, we are on the wrong track. We cannot send home nearly 800

persons who are doing effective work—you judge them by their track record on

kidnapping for ransom and kidnapping in general; judge them by the decline that

you have seen in dealing with homicides and the investigative arms; judge them

by the anti-gang identification that they have done and the arrests that they have

made—over 67 persons arrested—and the statistical report from the United

States of America that says that Trinidad and Tobago SAUTT identified

statistically much higher gang prevalence issues than the United States of

America could ever hope to do.

We cannot throw away those valuable resources that we have already paid for.

To put it in simple terms, it is like going to KFC, buying the box of chicken and

chips, paying for it and then dropping it in the bin. [Interruption] Let us, at least

distribute it and analyse it. If it is not good for us let us check the fat content, the

trans-fat and deal with it. We might be starving and we might need it. There must

be some value that we can extract out of it.

8.10 p.m.

Madam Vice-President, I commend all of the debates in 2003, in particular

from the Opposition as it then sat, to this honourable Senate because there was

excellent discussion and I hope that this Government will listen to the call of

99


responsible criticism. Do not take it personally; we are here to advocate best

interest because we cannot trample by way of derogation of rights in the

Constitution, in the manner that we are doing. To move to 120 days may be good,

but it must be exceptionally good; it must fit the Bill of section 13 of the

Constitution such that it is necessary lest it be struck down. Madam Vice-

President, there is case law on that.

We cannot accept a continual move as we saw, for the derogation of rights in

remand positions, we are moving from 10 days as proposed to 28, but, Madam

Vice-President, I could continue for much longer, your eyes are on the clock. I

thank the hon. Senators for listening to me; hopefully they will extract out of my

debate some positive content. I thank the national community for listening.

I wish, if I may through you, Madam Vice-President, express my humble

condolences to a dearly loved uncle of ours who was killed this weekend by a

drunk driver, Ramon Sabga, a wonderful, just and upright man. Trinidad and

Tobago is darker without his presence. I say my prayers for everybody in this

community, in this country. I hope that Brig. Sandy will call me when he is doing

his father-son walkabout, I will walk with all my nephews, we will be there, my

karate class will be there, my swimming club will be there, whoever, we will be

there. We support you, Brig. Sandy, you are an excellent man. I do not want to

see you suffer from Stockholm syndrome, which is that attributed to kidnap

victims when they are led astray by their captors. I express great love and

affection for you, through you, Madam Vice-President, and with those not so few

words, I rest.

Sen. Prof. Harold Ramkissoon: Thank you, Madam Vice President. Thank

you fellow Senators for giving me an opportunity to make a contribution to this

Bill which is another one of Government’s strategies to deal with what seems to

be our perennial problem of crime.

Madam Vice-President, about four weeks ago, I made a contribution in this

august Chamber on the Firearms Bill and I dealt in general with the problem of

crime in the country. The situation to date has not improved markedly, with the

number of murders for January standing, I think, at 46. At this rate the projection

for the year could be again over 500. I think last year it was 486, it dipped below

500, but at this rate it could again be over 500. There are one or two incidents that

have worried a lot of people.

You probably have read about the case where an employee or relatives of an

employee in a foreign mission and an officer attached to an embassy have been

attacked in separate incidents. In addition to that, we are witnessing the spread of

100

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON]

crime in rural areas. Our rural areas are no longer oases of peace and tranquility.

Two villagers as you probably know were attacked in their homes in the rural area

in their sleep. This lawlessness continues in our schools; it is now becoming the

norm where metal detectors are introduced in some of our schools; drugs and

weapons are replacing the books in our school bags.

I once recalled one of our former Prime Ministers, saying to the students that

the future of our nation is in our school bags, I am beginning to wonder, Madam

Vice-President. I also shudder to think that our children and our grandchildren

and future generations will inherit this environment of crime that we are now

witnessing. What is this environment, let me quote from a Sunday Express

column written by Raffique Shah, and this is dated, January 02, 2011:

“Statistics show that in 2010, we experienced an average of 400 robberies a

month, and a similar number of burglaries. Motor vehicle thefts stood at

around 100 a month, general larcenies 300, and rapes 50. Murders averaged

40. Since these are statistics for reported crimes, we can easily double the

numbers for crimes other than murders and vehicle thefts. What these

numbers tell us is that we live in a virtual stage of siege.”

With respect to kidnappings you have heard the figures in this Senate today.

Our Prime Minister has herself admitted that the situation is out of control and

recently summoned an emergency meeting of members of the National Security

Council. We can only hope that that meeting would produce some results in the

near future.

Madam Vice-President, we seem to be losing the battle against crime. Those

of us who have been charged with the responsibility of finding solutions to our

crime problems despite their efforts―and I salute the efforts of the hon. Minister

of National Security, but despite their efforts we do not seem to be making any

progress on any front. As I said in my last contribution, the people are losing

hope. When people lose hope, despair sets in and when despair sets in we are

entering the realm of the unknown.

Madam Vice-President, I want now to turn to the Bill. Given this worrying

and very difficult situation, I will support any relevant, reasonable piece of

legislation. The Bill before us seeks to do two things with respect to kidnappings,

and let me repeat what these two things are. Firstly, to amend the Bail Act to

101


increase the number of days a person charged with kidnapping can be held

without bail from 60 to 120, that is from 2 months to 4 months; and secondly, to

amend the Kidnapping Act so that the maximum penalty for someone convicted

of kidnapping can be increased from 25 years to whatever is left of his or her

natural life.

Now concerning the latter, I have absolutely no problem and fully support it.

Kidnapping is a very, very serious crime. As you have heard in this Senate earlier,

it leaves the victims and their families very traumatized, changes their

personalities and even changes their lives. We note here the confessions of some

of the hostages at the ongoing Commission of Enquiry into the 1990 Attempted

Coup, some of them are still visibly shaken.

A quick check, Madam Vice-President, on Wikipedia reveals that in the USA,

the penalty for kidnapping varies from a very finite number of years to natural

life. In cases where kidnapping results in death, it may lead to the death penalty.

And let us now turn to the first proposal in the Bill.

I do have some concerns with respect to this first proposal; I am not very

comfortable with the idea of holding someone for 120 days or 4 months. By the

very nature of this legislation, it is open to abuse as innocent individuals can be

held under the guise of kidnapping, in prison for 120 days. I ask the following

questions: is it possible to use some electronic means to keep track of them after

the current holding period? Can we not withhold their travel documents? If, as

argued, evidence gathering can take as long as 90 days, can we not expedite the

process? And if we must go with this amendment, can we not add a sunset

clause?

8.20 p.m.

Madam Vice-President, I want to make some general comments, please permit

me to do so. Crime, did not descend upon us overnight and it will not disappear at

sunset. The uphill battle, as we are discovering, will be a long one but it must be

planned and implemented efficiently and effectively.

Admittedly, significant results would be very slow in coming. Having said

that, let me proceed to state that the people in our country want to see some

positive signs with respect to the decline of crime. In this regard, I would like to

suggest that Government sets itself targets and deadlines. For example, a 15 per

cent decrease in crime in 2011, I am sure, will be acceptable to the population at

large. That, I think would be a good start, but we need to set ourselves targets.

102

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. PROF. RAMKISSOON]

In retrospect, our leaders failed us and failed us miserably, in not nipping the

problem in the bud. In my view, a state of emergency should have been declared

years ago. Why was this not done? I do not know. It defies logic.

In my last contribution on January 18, 2011 I urged Government to consider

this approach and following this the Newsday editorial of February 1, this year

had the following to say and I quote from that editorial:

“Trinidad and Tobago may have only two choices. It may have to either

declare a state of emergency or seek to fight crime, small battle by small

battle, in a sustained and continued offensive and with the use of covert

intelligence.”

Instead, what we have witnessed in Trinidad and Tobago over the last seven years

or so, was a number of non-effective crime initiatives, including the hiring of

foreign consultants costing the taxpayers large sums of money. And what, Madam

Vice President, do we have to show in terms of results? Very little! Very little!

To the credit of this Government, they have brought, or are planning to bring,

a number of Anti-Crime Bills to this Senate, that would probably result in good

pieces of legislation. But the question is, of what use is this legislation, be it good

or otherwise, if we do not apprehend the criminals, if we do not catch the

criminals? And even when we catch the criminals, the question is, what are the

chances that they are going to be convicted?

From previous reports our record with respect to conviction is very, very

unimpressive; I believe in general it is less that 35 per cent. And criminals realize

this and once criminals realize this, there is no fear in them, it takes away the fear.

They are repeat offenders, and I will come to repeat offenders in a while.

My learned friend, Sen. Ramkhelawan, and others touched on this: to go hand

in hand with legislation you must have detection of crime and conviction, without

this we are not going to get very far. In other words, enacting crime legislation is

not enough, it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. You must create an

enabling environment. Our battle against crime must be, therefore, multi-pronged.

And fundamental to this, Madam Vice President, is, as I said in my last

contribution in this august Chamber, tackling of our social problems.

My advice to the Government of the day is to inter alia bring together a group

of people, including specialists such as sociologists to come up with a plan of

action with respect to vulnerable youths, poverty and effective rehabilitation

programmes.

103


Let me talk about the programme. The prison inmate population in September

2010, if my figure is correct, was 3,743 of which 1,971 or 53 per cent were repeat

offenders. Now, I do not know if this figure is correct. Okay? At the end 2009 it

was 56 per cent. What this means is that approximately one out of every two

prisoners is a repeat offender. This is very high, Madam Vice-President, and what

it says is that our current rehabilitation programmes are simply not effective.

In the state of California where they have introduced draconian crime

measures, that figure with respect to repeat offenders—the percentage is about

25 per cent. Given our high rate of re-offenders—and my suspicion that we have a

young prison population—makes rehabilitation even more critical in our fight

against crime.

Madam Vice President, let me conclude this brief contribution by stating that

in the final analysis the choice, as I view it, may be between losing some of our

basic rights or, in the short term or in the long term losing our country.

If all fails and it comes to this, then the Government of the day may have no

choice but to swallow its pride and declare a limited state of emergency.

Desperate times call for drastic measures!

This will undoubtedly result in some hardships and inconvenience to our

citizens, disrupt their lives, but it will enable us to flush out known suspects, guns,

drugs, stolen loot; will allow the citizens of this country to sleep at nights without

fear, at least for a short period, and will impress upon the international community

that we are serious about tackling our crime problem. However, if you choose to

go this way, there will be the need for proper intelligence before undertaking such

an exercise.

Madam Vice-President, under no conditions should a substantial number of

criminals, a substantial number of gunmen be allowed to continue to endanger

public safety, terrorize our citizens and destroy our country. This is not

acceptable. I support the Bill and thank you most kindly, Madam Vice-President.

Madam Vice President: Hon. Senators, on the advice of Leader of

Government Business, I wish to suspend the sitting for half an hour so that we all

may take dinner. We will resume at 9.00 p.m.

8.28 p.m.: Sitting suspended.

9.00 p.m.: Sitting resumed.

104


[MR. PRESIDENT in the Chair]

The Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary Education (Sen. The

Hon. Fazal Karim): Thank you very much, Mr. President, for allowing me to

join the debate on a very important amendment to the Bail and Kidnapping Bill.

Let me commence by congratulating our distinguished colleague, the hon.

Minister of National Security, for bringing this amendment. [Desk thumping] I

want to say that his action this evening and his sterling presentation has been

vindicated by Sen. Prof. Ramkissoon and I quote his last few words: “Desperate

times call for drastic measures.” [Desk thumping]

I am not seeing my friend opposite who talks about the seagull; apparently the

seagull has landed but has left very quickly. [Interruption] I wanted to tell him—

in fact before he left he said, “what you do in the dark would soon come to light;

what you do in the dark would come out of the dark one day.” I want to tell him,

he is so correct, Mr. President. As I listened to my very erstwhile colleague on the

other side too, Sen. Al-Rawi, he was talking about ensuring that we get value for

the dollar. I want to agree with them so much in terms of moving from darkness

to light and in terms of moving from expenditure to value.

I just want to remind my friends on the other side that out of the darkness we

are seeing the light with so many things such as: the Brian Lara Stadium in

Tarouba, the Waterfront project in Port of Spain, [Desk thumping] NAPA, “SAPA”

and “TAPA”, north, south and Tobago; the famous Scarborough Hospital cost

overruns, the Chancery Lane Car Park, the $60-odd million spent on the Su

parked up in Chaguaramas, not moving as yet, UTT and EMBD infrastructure,

millions galore and the man cannot be found; the Tamana Intech Park which I am

going to visit tomorrow at two o’clock—OJT, budget of $155 million in 2010 with

an additional $62 million in the year of election, bust the budget; Petrotrin under

forensic audit; Sports Company of Trinidad and Tobago; do not talk about the

Rapid Rail Project; $83 million—and we are talking about crime as Prof.

Ramkissoon has indicated—spent on the Mastrosfki crime report, and what do we

have to show for it—as he was asking? Plenty plans! Plan from Baghdad, plan

from Anaconda, plans galore and still we are talking about people and crime. The

unauthorized tapping of people’s conversations; millions of dollars in cost

overruns. We just need to look at what is around us here, a Red House, a beautiful

building like this from the colonial days being propped up by scaffoldings all

around the Red House. [Desk thumping]

105


If that was not all, we do not know where the assets of Caroni (1975) Limited

have gone; we know about WASA, more scandal in there; T&TEC, the street

lighting unit; RuDeCott, UDeCott and all kinds of “cott” gone down in this place.

It is money galore, and I could not agree more with my colleague on the other

side, Sen. Al-Rawi, we have to ensure that we get value for money.

Mr. President, I want to underscore the importance of the presentation of my

colleague the Minister of National Security, Sen. The Hon. Brig. John Sandy, and

he underscored the principle of this amendment by saying, “this is an initiative to

reduce criminality in the country”. [Desk thumping] He gave us some figures for

2005, 2009 and 2010 and I will just repeat them. From 222 in 2005, 58 for ransom

kidnapping; 147 in 2009, eight for ransom and 112 in 2010, seven for ransom. We

are confident—while one is too much and too many—that under our Minister of

National Security we are going to move expeditiously to eradicate this problem

from this country once and for all. [Desk thumping]

When you listen to the contributions and we are talking about the different

types of kidnappings and we are talking about bail, it is so easy for us who have

never experienced kidnapping with our near and dear ones to talk about these

things outside or in a Parliament, but, Mr. President, when it gets home to you and

you see the reality of that it gets to your heart, you understand the pain, the burden

and the suffering of some of these parents. God forbid that happens to any of us

and I wish it and it is my prayer that we would see the end of that in Trinidad and

Tobago. [Desk thumping]

My colleague, Minister Sandy talked about moving from 60 days to 120 days

and he indicated that that does not deny the right of anyone to obtain bail. He

talked about the fact that these things are so traumatic—and I can tell you very

close to where I live there was a family there who suffered because one of their

children was kidnapped and they found his body up at the rice fields in Caroni.

Sometimes it is even worse when you do not get the body and sometimes it is

even worse when you get the body without a head. All these are the kinds of

things that people have to go through. My colleagues and I on this side, we are

strongly supporting the amendments to this Bill. We are going to make sure—and

we want to ask for the support from all of our colleagues on other side.

Some people are saying that 120 days is a long time, but 120 days could never

be a long time when you talk about the loss of a life of someone who has been

brought up by their parents and could not even see them go to university or get

married and have children or grandchildren. We are talking about disregard of the

106

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. F. KARIM]

offenders, but what about the disregard of the victims? Are we thinking about

those and their families? Some of them never ever recover from that kind of

difficulty and challenge they would have had.

We also talk about the evidence of criminals when they come out as Minister

Sandy was saying, they come out and they look for funds to pay their bail and

they continue a life of crime. We see that happening repeatedly. So, are we just

going to sit back and say that we are going to allow this situation to continue as is,

they go in, they commit their crime, they come back out and they do it again? I

think the time has come for us to say, “enough is enough”. We have to send a

strong signal in the strongest possible way, you do the crime you would do the

time, and that is the principle of this operation. [Desk thumping]

Mr. President, Minister Sandy also spoke about a female who was very brave

to come out and speak about her ordeal. That is now documented into a book. We

also would have read about young persons and one in particular, I recall, who was

buried in a hole and had worms virtually eating out of his body and thank God

that person is still alive, but I could tell you from my relationship and my

encounter with the parents, they never really ever get over that kind of situation,

that trauma.

We understand the psychological effects, and very importantly as well, not

only the psychological effects but the embarrassment that goes with this crime

that people have to live from day to day. Some of the persons who I know in our

country, because of the threat of crime and in some cases the experiences of

kidnapping or attempted experience of kidnapping to their families, had to leave

and flee this country and some of them are running their businesses out of foreign

cities and some of them as we know, and would have read in the newspapers, are

now living in Miami and running their businesses in Trinidad from there.

I also want to indicate that in terms of crime getting very direct to our own

home, one of our colleagues in the Cabinet, he experienced this problem too with

his son. His son was kidnapped and murdered and I know sometimes when he

talks about it he is very emotional and passionate about it. I can tell you that

sometimes when we talk he says, “as a Muslim I wish sometimes that this would

happen—as bad as it would have been—if that had happened in a place called

Saudi Arabia”; one could have understood what would have been the

consequence of that crime. [Desk thumping] I see Sen. Al-Rawi is tapping the

table because he understands what happens in those places.

Sen. Al-Rawi: And I am your brother.

107


Sen. The Hon. F. Karim: Certainly so and I appreciate that. In Saudi Arabia

when the Azan is given—the call to prayer—people simply walk away from their

goods on the streets and go to prayer. They leave it like that and if you see

someone there with a hand chopped off or any other part of their body

dismembered, sometimes that is the evidence of interfering with something that

does not belong to you. I am saying that those are the experiences of other places.

I was also quite surprised when I listened to my colleague, Sen. Hinds, and he

was talking about the mentorship programme—we on this side are extremely

proud of the hon. Minister, Sen. Sandy, of the mentorship programme. [Desk

thumping] We want to congratulate and compliment him for bringing General

Powell to Trinidad to launch that mentorship programme. Even as an educator we

have seen the value of mentorship programmes: in the workplaces you see the

value of mentorship programmes; in the schools you see the value of mentorship

programmes, and sometimes you talk about the fact that these situations happen

because of past experiences or what have you.

The Government of Trinidad and Tobago—of which we are a part—continues

to promote some of the programmes that were inherited, some of them were good.

In fact, I was part of the design for the Multi-Sector Skills Training programme

and that continues to be a programme under my Ministry. I had to correct a

propaganda that the MuST programme was going to be closed down; there is no

such thing about the MuST programme being closed down.

Item II of the 120-day plan of the People’s Partnership Manifesto says, that we

will secure and expand GATE and expand it to vocational training. The MuST

programme; like the retraining programme; like the HYPE programme, all of those

are being secured and they would be expanded.

In talking about the incarceration of persons in prisons and their rehabilitation,

we also have—I think Sen. Prof. Ramkissoon spoke about programmes and I

would come to some of those very shortly—what is called the rehabilitation of

inmates in the prisons and we work in close collaboration with the Ministry of

National Security, where the inmates there are exposed to vocational skills,

whether it is plumbing, or carpentry, or masonry, or woodwork and also to a life-

skills programme which would improve their self-esteem and we see good results

there in terms of the work done. We expect, as well, through the tracer study

when they come out of the prisons to track and see how they perform within the

national community.

108


In addition to that, under my ministry, I am also presenting here to you, the

opportunities we have so that people who may be sometimes looked upon as

dropouts of the secondary school system, or did not complete, or maybe were

seen as failures; there are second, third and fourth chances where people can

access these programmes. All of these programmes have a life-skill component,

they also have a career-enhancement component, they also have career advisory,

and in addition to that, you have mentorship throughout all of those programmes.

The programmes for example, like the Youth Training Employment Partnership

programme (YTEPP), which is conducted both at the centre level and some of the

established secondary schools and very importantly at the community-based level,

so that if there are persons there who are unemployed, rather than turning the idle

hands to a life of crime, these are some of the things that people can access.

So I mentioned the Multi-Sector Skills Training programme (MuST)

programme, the HYPE programme, and through the Ministry of Sport and Youth

Affairs as well we have programmes there; through the Ministry of Community

Development; through the Ministry of Planning, Economic and Social

Restructuring and Gender Affairs we have programmes in there too; we have

programmes through the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs,

the Youth Apprentice programme in Agriculture (YAPA) programme.

While we are creating these institutions of learning and providing

opportunities the Government of Trinidad and Tobago has decided that rather

than focus on one university campus in Tobago with one institution, we will soon

be looking at launching an integrated campus comprising COSTAATT, the

University of the West Indies and the University of Trinidad and Tobago.

9.15 p.m.

Let me also announce that very shortly, in fact, next week Thursday 24th,

greater opportunities are going to be brought to people who want to access tertiary

education to the southern part of Trinidad. And on Thursday 24th at 2.30 p.m., we

expect the hon. Prime Minister will be unveiling the commemorative stone to

signal the construction of the University of the West Indies, Penal/Debe Campus

in South Trinidad. [Desk thumping]

My colleague, Sen. Al-Rawi, talked about the inappropriate prioritization of

the legislation. And let me say to my friend, Sen. Al-Rawi, there could be no

better time to prioritize this legislation. Could you imagine if your child, your

daughter or someone very close to you, has been kidnapped or exposed to these

kinds of crime, how you will feel, how that will hurt you, what you will say about

109


your presence in the Parliament where you are representing the people of this

country? They want to hear less about the definitions of crime. They want to hear

more about what you are going to do about this crime; how you are going to

protect them; how they are going to feel safe, how, when they go to open their

gates tonight to drive in their motor car somebody is not at the gate with a gun to

their head to take away that vehicle.

These are the things that we are talking about. These are the things that when

we talk about, whether it is statutory or common law, we are talking about the

ordinary man in the streets, the citizens of this country who want to live here

safely, who want to invite people to invest with him, to have joint ventures with

him. What is he going to tell them when they tell him that the rate of crime is very

high? And, therefore, I am saying that the time has come, as Sen. Al-Rawi said,

that the country needs to get value for dollar. We need to ensure that we move the

scourge of crime and kidnapping from this country once and for all.

Mr. President, I want to also make mention of the fact that in the contribution

of my friend Sen. Hinds, frequent reference—[Interruption]

Sen. Panday: Do not worry to answer that.

Sen. The Hon. F. Karim: —frequent reference was made to: what is your

plan? What are you doing? Well, he did indicate that he was unimpressed. I did

not want to tell him that there was a reciprocal statement from us about some of

the things that he would say. But we recall some of the initiatives that were

undertaken in terms of their crime plan. While they had an eye in the sky, the

newspaper reported that the eye in the sky had glaucoma and it could have hardly

seen anything—[Desk thumping]

Sen. Panday: Cataract.

Sen. The Hon. F. Karim: and cataract, at the various car parks in the malls,

such that—a lot of people—all of us—Sometimes you park your vehicle, you go

to a cinema show, you go to a play and you are always wondering whether you

will see that vehicle when you come back out. That was the kind of anxiety and

the stress and the fear. And one of the ways in which they attempted to deal with

the crime situation was to bring a blimp down to Trinidad. The other day I was

looking at the Super Bowl and I was saying that was the place for the blimp, to go

up there and show the world via closed-circuit television, what was happening in

these things.

Mr. President, I want to also indicate that Sen. Al-Rawi gave us some figures

about the nature of the problem in terms of the homicides and murders and I just

want to remind him that the figures we have as well, that in 2002 murders

110


recorded were 171 and 2009 it went to 509. Can we count the number of lives that

have been lost in this country, by murder, by kidnapping, by wastage of valuable

and precious life? You know I did not want to listen—I found it hard, Mr.

President, to record this statement almost verbatim from Sen. Hinds. He said,

“You waste our time with this amendment today.” I found that so very difficult to

accept, especially when we are talking about something as serious, something as

threatening as kidnapping that is all around us.

You look at people in Trinidad who go to the malls with their young children,

they sometimes get “tizick” if they do not see them for a few seconds. They have

to always keep their eyes—in fact, in some cases I see some people have a leash

on their young ones to make sure that they do not go far from them. That is what

we are living in. And I am saying to you that under our Minister of National

Security I am sure we have the confidence that he is going to move to remove this

scourge from this country and we are going to do something about this crime

situation and we are going to do something about kidnapping. [Desk thumping]

Gang behaviour. This amendment resembles and is closely aligned in some

cases to the Bail Bill, the anti-gang legislation; both of them seem to be very

connected. It talks about the trauma and the victim. And it talks about the fact that

we have to ensure that this kind of situation is well corrected. As Prof.

Ramkissoon indicated, what is happening in the school bags of the students,

people are becoming—from very young they are behaving as if they are career

criminals, like if this is an industry as was being said that they must pursue. Well

we want to ensure, through the Ministry of Science Technology and Tertiary

Education, that we have a different kind of career path. We are engaging in

mobile career coaches to take the information throughout the country, in

conjunction with the Ministry of National Security and other Ministries so that we

can present the information. Not only in terms of what is accessible but present

the programmes as well and make them available, so that a better life can be led

and be lived by our citizens.

Mr. President, I want to also indicate—in terms of the plans I think Sen. Al-

Rawi asked us, what are your plans? I want to tell him that very often—I am sure

he is not here on a Friday, except if he listens to the debate, but our Minister of

National Security has presented several times in the Lower House many of the

plans of the People’s Partnership Government in response to the crime situation.

Mr. President, these are some of my short comments and I want to say that I

feel confident and I expect that we will have the support of all of our colleagues

on the other side, as indeed we have the guaranteed support of my colleagues on

111


this side, as we move through this Bill to amend the existing provision to allow a

person to be held for 120 days without bail where he has been charged with the

offence of kidnapping. Very importantly, and I think this is the one that I took

from Sen. Prof. Ramkissoon who was talking about the significance and the

severity of the crime requiring equal and even greater punishment.

Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 3 of the Kidnapping Act by

removing the existing maximum penalty of 25 years and upon conviction

substituting a new penalty of natural life imprisonment. We feel confident that

this will be a deterrent and we all strongly recommend and support the

amendment.

I thank you, Mr. President.

Sen. Shamfa Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to

contribute to this debate on the Bail and Kidnapping Bill. Mr. President, today is

February 15, 2011 and at the last count the murder toll was 56 for Trinidad and

Tobago—0 murders in Tobago, and 56 in Trinidad. At the last sitting, or sitting

last month, Sen. Sandy responded to a question from Sen. Hinds on kidnapping

and crime in this country. He reported that the murder rate has decreased and, Mr.

President, that I think the electorate would beg to differ—and the crimes

including kidnapping, kidnapping crimes I should say, are still high. He reported

50 cases from June last year to December last year.

Mr. President, as Sen. Oudit said earlier, kidnapping is linked to other crimes

like drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal arms trade. Some may even go as

far to say that kidnapping is perpetuated by these crimes. I think that the role that

crime plays in our community we need to take crime more seriously and look at

how we address crime more seriously.

9.25 p.m.

We are located in the Caribbean. We are at that wedge between Latin America

in the south where it is pretty much the source of cocaine and the source of illegal

drugs and North America which is pretty much the primary market for cocaine

and that kind of thing. So we are actually a transit point. So I would like to say

that we are being prone to crimes of kidnapping and drug trafficking and people

trafficking—human trafficking. It comes with the territory; it comes with the

location. It is something I do not think that we could really avoid. We are transit

points; we just have to find ways to treat with it and to control it and to prevent it.

112

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. CUDJOE]

There is also now a demand for sex workers and for trafficking people to get

organs for surgeries and all this is linked to kidnapping. As Sen. Ramkhelawan

said in his contribution earlier, this legislation cannot stand alone. We have to go

the extra mile as it relates to the enforcement and having the measures and the

mechanisms to treat with kidnapping and crime, because standing alone, we could

have the best legislation; we could have the best things written on paper, but if we

do not have the resources and if we do not set up the infrastructure and the

technological support to make this legislation come to life and to really see the

impact that we want to see, then we are wasting time, because we will just have it

on paper and nothing would really be happening.

This Bill seeks to amend the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60 and the Kidnapping Act,

Chap. 11:26 by increasing the amount of time a person can be held with no

evidence for the charge of kidnapping and by changing the existing penalty for

the offence of kidnapping, respectively. How do we make this come to life; how

do we make this work? You would have heard in the contributions before, that

we have some severe challenges in the judicial system. Previous Senators who

have made their contributions would have spoken about low detection rate, low

conviction rate, a backlog in the court system, the unavailability of witnesses and

witnesses failing to come forward, or refusing to come forward, because they fear

that their lives would be threatened, and there is some weakness in the witness

protection programme.

In addition to challenges in the Judiciary, there are problems in the area of law

enforcement and the very quality of policing. In our war against crime much of

the responsibility falls on the police. We depend on the police to go out there and

to do their work, to protect and serve; now we say, to protect and serve with

crime. But as you may know, recently the police have also been saying, “As much

as you depend on us to do our work, we expect to be properly compensated.” As

I speak right now, the police service is having a sickout. We would have read in

the newspapers yesterday and the day before, that they shut down the Attorney

General’s residence, the Prime Minister’s residence; the residence of the Chief

Justice; the courts. The people who hold the parties at Carnival time are all

complaining that the police force is boycotting the fetes. We are in the Carnival

season and I cannot imagine what this country would be without proper police

protection during the Carnival season.

We have other problems in the police service where officers complain that

they are understaffed, but in a recent newspaper article on February 04, the

Commissioner of Police, Dwayne Gibbs said that more cops are not the answer;

113


our problem really is the quality of policing and not so much the quantity of

policing. He said that we have enough police officers to do the job but we need to

find ways in order for them to perform to their full potential.

Some other problems in the police service include poor arrangements in the

administration and there are no proper arrangements for some of the police

officers to go up in the ranks and get their stripes and their stars and better

positions. I could tell from a Tobago perspective, the prison officers in Tobago,

after a certain number of years of service and after giving quality service, there is

an examination that you could take, and if you pass the examination you get to a

higher rank. But on attaining that higher rank, you cannot stay in Tobago; you

have to move to Trinidad to take up that position. Some of the prison officers

have just decided, “I am not going to try to perform to get to that level and I am

not going to take the examination”, because there are no provisions when they

move to Trinidad for them to take their families and they get one return ticket per

quarter to go back to Tobago to visit their families. So that is something we need

to look into.

I was listening to an interview, I think it was on I95, this week and callers

were saying that the local police officers are disgruntled because it seems that the

current system does not allow them to move through the ranks to become a

commissioner of police. I think we had identified before that the process itself for

choosing a commissioner of police is flawed and it is something that we need to

look at.

In the beginning of the People’s Partnership term they would have talked

about building new police stations and upgrading the police stations in the country

and undertaking certain measures to ensure that there is a strong police presence

in the community, to strengthen community policing. Right now I work at the

Division of Planning and Development in Tobago and we recently conducted a

survey in collaboration with the Tobago division of the police service and over 80

per cent of the respondents are calling for more police presence in the community,

more community policing.

Now, this brings the point of, when the People’s Partnership first came into

power [Interruption] Mr. President, is “steups” unparliamentary? I am asking.

Anyway, Mr. President—Mr. President, please. Sen. George will have his time to

talk.

When the People’s Partnership first came into power, they talked about

increasing community policing and improving the police stations in the

communities. At that time the contracts for the Roxborough Police Station and the

114


Old Grange Police Station were already awarded and when the People’s

Partnership came into power—and I have said this over and over in this

Parliament—the People’s Partnership decided that they were going to pull back

those contracts and they were going to review the contracts. To this day there is

no communication. I have asked over and over in this Parliament as to what is

really happening with these police stations.

This brings to the fore that when the police officers do not have the resources

to work with—they are working under poor working conditions; poor

environment, I think right now the Old Grange Police Station is operating in

Carnbee downstairs somebody’s property. I stand to be corrected.

With the police service, just like any other worker, if you do not have the

resources; if you are working in poor work environment; you do not have the

technology to do your job, you tend to get frustrated. The police are also

complaining that they do not have the necessary technology to help them to do

their work. You hear some of them complaining on the radio stations and in

interviews on the TV that if the Government is not taking the opportunity to treat

with crime on the border, then it makes their job harder on land, because if we are

to protect our coastline and we are allowing drugs and guns to come in, then it

makes police work harder.

It is particular for Tobago also. We have a significant number of open ports

that are unprotected as we speak. I remember in the last debate on the Bail Act,

the Minister of Tobago Development made mention of—we had, I think, two

kidnapping cases in Tobago at the end of last year around July/August; coming

close to the end of last year, and the Minister was saying that one of the reasons

she thinks that crime is not solved on time is that Tobago did not have sniffer

dogs. Now, while sniffer dogs are important, I feel like a cry should have been

made—and I am sounding the alarm now—that more work needs to be done.

Sniffer dogs are one thing, but we need to do some work as it relates to the

surveillance systems, the CCTV cameras—

Sen. Panday: The PNM was there for eight years and they did nothing.

Sen. S. Cudjoe:—the strengthening of the secret intelligence. As a matter of

fact, while the call was being made for sniffer dogs, it was a couple days before

those same Members of Parliament were thumping on their little desks telling the

Members of this House, telling the nation that Reshmi Ramnarine was the right

person for Intelligence.

115


In Tobago our situation is a little bit more—I would say we have a special

case in Tobago, because the Tobago House of Assembly in Tobago—we are not

in control of national security.

Sen. Panday: Undermining the Minister of Tobago Development.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: So I think that there a need for Tobago to have some more

say in the policing of Tobago, as to where needs more policing and the strength of

the policing that is needed in specific areas, especially considering that we are

based on tourism and sometimes the tourist areas—depending on what is

happening on the island at the time, you want to have some say as to how your

police system works.

So I just mentioned the lack of resources that our police service is working

under and has been working under for quite some time. I would like to say that

“hell knows no fury like a frustrated policeman, or a batch of them.” [Desk

thumping]

Sen. Panday: Or a frustrated politician.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: Because when a police officer or a batch of police officers is

frustrated, they cause discomfort to others; they abuse their power and the public

complain about police conduct. There are reports that some police officers have

even gone as far as getting involved in crime and in corruption; getting involved

in kidnapping cases and even renting guns to criminals. It has even gone to the

point where the police have exposed witnesses.

So we have to be careful how we treat with this sensitive issue of police

compensation, making sure that the police have the resources that they need to

operate. We could talk day and night about what the PNM did or did not do, but I

would like to say that this is not about what the PNM did or did not do. This is not

a PNM problem; it is not a UNC problem; it is not a COP or TOP problem. Crime, as

I said before, is a national problem, and I would like my Minister of National

Security—

Hon. Senators: Ooooh! [Desk thumping] [Interruption]

Sen. S. Cudjoe:—my Government, my Prime Minister, my Opposition, my

Independents, when we get ready and we come into this Parliament to debate and

to create legislation, we do this for the upliftment of our country, because at the

end of the day we are the Government, we are the Parliament; but what the people

see out there, they say, “Them in Parliament doing this or ‘kicksin’ in

Parliament”.

116


9.40 p.m.

So, Mr. President, the same questions that might be asked of the Members of

the Government Bench are the same questions that people ask of me, and I am in

the Opposition, and I want to be prepared to answer them. Just as they want to

know want is going on, I want to know what is going on; just as they want to be

informed, I want to be informed. I feel that I am responsible for making proper

legislation and taking for this country to a better place.

Mr. President, we have gotten to a point—when police are frustrated and they

abuse their power, you find now that the electorate has lost its confidence in the

police, and the police are held in low esteem by the very people that they are

supposed to be protecting. Recently, we had even Ministers going as far as to

make the burden even heavier by degrading police officers, calling them

unpatriotic— [Interruption]

Sen. Panday: Not true; that is not true.

Sen. S. Cudjoe:—and calling them slackers. If I lie, I lie after the newspapers

and nobody made a request or a call to the newspapers to say that it was incorrect.

Sen. Panday: You will get it tonight.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: All of this contributes to frustrating the police. So when

legislation is laid, we need to make sure that we are not setting up ourselves. So

we would set these high standards, this is what we want to happen, but we have to

put the measures in place in order to ensure that this legislation could really be

brought to life and we are really getting the results that we are trying to get.

We need to make sure that the police are properly consulted and compensated;

we need to look at strengthening the police patrols in strategic areas, opening lines

of communication with the affected communities through community policing;

we need to strengthen our CRIME STOPPERS programmes, strengthen our witness

protection programme; we need to equip the police with additional arms,

ammunition, bullet proof vests, whatever they need to make their job easier.

I was doing some research and the Dominican Republic has a terrible problem

of kidnapping also, and what they have been doing is linking with the National

Security Services in Florida, and they have set up an Anti-kidnapping Unit. If we

can do the same to strengthen our local bodies to operate in that area, I think that

it would be very beneficial to us. As the number of cases for kidnapping is

increasing, as Sen. Ramkissoon said earlier—something should have been done

before, and the sooner we get something done the better.

117


Mr. President, the body, whether it is SAUTT—this Government has a way of

liking to create something new, because they do not want to continue with

something that would have been started under the PNM—or, whatever you want to

call the body, let us say an anti-kidnapping unit, we would like that unit to have

the confidence, and the technical ability, and the work ethic to confront head-on

the high levels of kidnapping within Trinidad and Tobago.

We want a unit that would reduce the incidence of kidnappings by

establishing in the minds of the perpetrators that detection, capture, prosecution

and imprisonment are inevitable outcomes of undertaking kidnappings in Trinidad

and Tobago, and to reduce the number of incidents to a target level to be set by

the Minister.

We want this unit to be capable of securing the safe release of kidnapped

victims through investigation and intervention; to actively pursue kidnap gangs

and remove their capability to operate and carry out pre-emptive operations where

possible. We need this unit to establish in the minds of potential kidnappers that

ransoms will not be paid for releases of kidnapped victims; and we want to put in

the minds of kidnappers, that Government and the police will not sanction the

activities of commercial kidnap response companies retained by corporations to

undertake kidnapping negotiations, and ransom payments in response to

kidnapping in Trinidad and Tobago, thereby, cutting a lucrative source of income

for kidnapping gangs.

What the Dominican Republic has invested in is negotiating. So there are

members of that anti-kidnapping group being trained in negotiation, and from the

research done by Amnesty International, what Amnesty International is saying is

that negotiation is the best way to go, because it would help to put in the minds of

the criminals that we are not tolerating ransom. The report speaks about some

successful cases where kidnappers in the Dominican Republic would have given

up themselves and given back the ransom money. So I guess it depends on the

skill of the negotiator. I think that is a route we need to consider.

Some more work needs to be done in increasing the use of technology such as

communication, DNA and forensic testing. We need to invest in technology such

as etrace, which is used to trace firearms, and we need to do some more because

this is not a problem just for Trinidad and Tobago, other Caricom countries are

experiencing similar problems with crime and kidnapping. So I feel there is need

118


for enhanced regional cooperation; regional information sharing as it relates to

criminal activity, not just within the Caribbean but with North America, Europe

and countries that we work closely with. There is also need for regional

cooperation in training and information sharing; all these things are essential in

curbing kidnapping.

In the fight against crime, even in economics, in several areas our Caribbean

brothers and sisters look up to us. Whether we like it or not, they look up to us. A

lot of times we have provided advice to the other countries in the Caribbean on

crime, we have provided services in intelligence cooperation and information

sharing—how to fight crime, how to deal with different problems. They look up

to us, through our ambassadors, through our consul general who goes to the

different countries, who are stationed there to represent us. A World Bank report

spoke specifically to Caricom information sharing and technical cooperation.

Now it is very important that whoever we put in these departments, be

experienced and qualified, not to just treat with national intelligence, but also

regional and international intelligence. Mr. President, the study I am talking about

is Drug Trafficking Exacts Social, Economic Toll which was done by the World

Bank. It is a paper by Mr. Joel Millman which could also be found on Wall Street

Journal online. And it speaks about different embassies, and different consulates,

and different intelligence bodies also cooperating in treating with crime and

treating with issues in the Caribbean. So when you put people in offices and in

positions to treat with this kind of issue, we have to make sure that they do not

just meet the standards on a national level, but also on a regional level.

This week in the Jamaican news they bashed Trinidad and Tobago, because it

is said that a consul general was sent from Trinidad and Tobago to represent us in

Jamaica, and the qualification of that person is that he was a pipefitter.

Sen. Panday: Mr. President, on a point of order. I hate to—35(1), I could

tolerate her much more, but 35(1).

Mr. President: What I would say, Senator, is that you are repeating territory

that has been canvassed already, and perhaps you can move on to other areas to

deal with this debate on the Bill.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: Sure! Much obliged, Mr. President. Much obliged! The point

I was making as I referred to the report, is that whoever we put in charge of our

defence force, our national security, our SIA, our FIU, whoever we put in charge,

whoever are our ambassadors sent abroad to treat with national issues, we need to

119


make sure that those people are qualified to treat with these issues. And it

befuddles me why this People’s Partnership Government would send a pipefitter

to Jamaica to be a—

Sen. Hinds: A pipefitter?

Sen. Panday: You see news with that? [Crosstalk]

Sen. S. Cudjoe: The person they said is a pipefitter. That is the news coming

from Jamaica, that the person is a pipefitter. I do not know how that person could

help us treat with crime in Trinidad and Tobago and provide advice to Jamaica in

this whole issue of technical cooperation or regional cooperation, as it relates to

crime, Mr. President. So these are things that we need to look at.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. President, these are things that the Government should consider. It is not

just about laying the legislation. It is not just about bringing strong legislation to

the Senate. If we do not have the infrastructure to back us up, if we do not have

human resources in the right places, doing the right things, at the right time, in the

right way, properly educated, experienced and qualified to carry out these

functions, then as Sen. Hinds said before, we are wasting time.

On that note, I hope that the Minister would clear it up when he closes. I am

befuddled as to why we are debating this amendment to the Bail Act, while it is

also being debated in the joint select committee. [Desk thumping] Some of what

we proposed here, in this legislation, contradict with Parts II and III of some of the

recommendations that are being brought in the joint select committee. So at the

end, there is going to be conflict, and I hope the Senator could help me by

clarifying that as he closes.

Mr. President, fighting crime is too important for us to be half stepping on it.

If we are going to do something; if we are going to do it, we need to do it all or

not do it at all. Crime is too important for us. From a Caribbean perspective, I

would like to say that the expansion of criminal activity undermines investment in

the region, and it hinders the recovery of the tourism sector. The economic

consequences of the crime surge have been dire for Trinidad and Tobago,

especially for Tobago, which depends on an image of a tropical paradise. High

crime level threatens the industry and, year after year, the social and economic

120


cost of crime is increasing. Crime has even gone as far as scaring investors from

our shores. So, this is serious business and, as Sen. Ramkhelawan said earlier,

laying the legislation is not enough. We have to make sure that we have the

proper enforcement and proper programmes to go along with it.

You see, Mr. President, this Government came into power on a lot of

promises. They promised all kinds of things that they probably had no intention of

delivering. Everyday there is some kind of misinformation, misunderstanding, or

some kind of mischief being made. They had all the answers to crime before they

got into Government and the electorate trusted them on that. Their manifesto

speaks about the good things that they would have done to treat with crime—page

12, item 13; page 12, item 14; page 35 and the list goes on and on. I would not

even waste the time to go into them. This Senate knows them very well, and the

electorate knows them too.

This Government also came into power on the whole promise of negotiation

and consultation. Now, negotiations with the police officers are out the door, the

whole OPV idea is out the door, and I am saying, we have gotten to the point

where the Government has decided that they are not going to go through with the

OPV transaction for whatever reason. But what is the alternate plan? We still have

our borders unprotected, still open to drug trafficking, kidnapping and human

trafficking. So what is the alternate plan? This People’s Partnership Government

has dismantled the SIA, emasculated the FIU. As it relates to crime, their

credibility is out the door, and by bringing this legislation and saying that the PNM

was soft on crime and that kind of thing, what are you doing to back it up? It is a

whole lot of talk, a whole lot of sod turning, a whole lot of launching of

programmes, but what are you really doing? [Interruption]

Sen. Panday: Launching programmes.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: It seems that when the Opposition voice their opinions and

give ideas, it is like they do not want to hear them. They want us to come here and

say, “You are right! You are right! Everything that you are doing is right.” That

is not the way it works. “You cannot want to play mas’ and fraid powder.”

Mr. President, there was a recent poll—also this week on I95, another poll

was done, where people called—[Interruption]

Sen. George: PNM station.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: I hear something, Mr. President—[Laughter and crosstalk]

the station saying that the People’s Partnership is not concerned about crime. This

is what the people are saying about crime and the way in which the People’s

121


Partnership is dealing with crime. They are not concerned about crime, they are

only concerned about employing their friends and giving their friends and family

a piece of the pie.

Mr. President, crime is not their business. They gave it to the Commissioner

of Police. Let the “Hot Shot Top Cop”—[Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: Highest paid in the Western Hemisphere.

Sen. S. Cudjoe:—highest paid in the Western Hemisphere, Commissioner of

Police deal with that. Let him deal with that. We came to this Senate several times

and begged them for a crime plan. At the end of the day, let Mr. Ewatski and Mr.

Gibbs deal with that. When the electorate turned up the heat on this Government,

they called Mr. Ewatski and Mr. Gibbs and “roughed them up”. [Crosstalk and

interruption]

Sen. Panday: What? Who tell you that?

Sen. S. Cudjoe: The idea is, we give you a big job, we give you big money,

you do the work. No resources, no proper technology, no OPVs, no secret

intelligence and a disgruntled police service. [Crosstalk]

Sen. Hinds: Mr. President?

Sen. S. Cudjoe: Mr. President, I cannot hear myself.

Sen. Hinds: That is right.

Mr. President: Senators, would you give Sen. Cudjoe an opportunity? [Desk

thumping]

Sen. S. Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your protection. On

top of all of this lack of resources, this is what they gave to the Commissioner of

Police and his dear friend, Deputy Commissioner, a disgruntled police service.

How could Mr. Gibbs, the million-dollar man, speak, how could he direct the

guys that would have worked and come through the ranks? They do not want to

hear him. So when they are misbehaving now—[Interruption]

Sen. Panday: What?

Sen. S. Cudjoe: I am telling you what is happening. I am telling what I have

listened to. I am telling you what I heard. [Desk thumping] It is like they get set

up. [Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: Put that in your pipe.

122


Sen. S. Cudjoe: Just the way Sen. Brig. Sandy got set up, just the way Miss

Reshmi Ramnarine got set up, these Commissioners of—[Interruption]

Sen. Abdulah: Would the Senator give way for a moment?

Sen. Hinds: No!

Sen. S. Cudjoe: No! No way! Today is February 15, 2011, the day after

Valentine’s Day and they had a bad Valentine.

Sen. Abdulah: The system that set up Commissioner Gibbs was your system.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: No! No! No way! No way on February 15th. [Crosstalk]

Mr. President: Proceed.

Sen. Al-Rawi: It is a long sentence. You will give way at the end of the

sentence.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: I will give way at the end of the sentence. It is a long

sentence—semicolon. I will tell you something, Mr. President—[Interruption]

Sen. George: What goes around comes around.

Hon. Senator: We heard that one already.

Sen. Hinds: Mr. President, I cannot hear the speaker. I cannot hear my

colleague.

Mr. President: Continue, Sen. Cudjoe.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. President. [Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: The seagulls are making a lot of noise, Mr. President.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: You see, they like to come to the Parliament, “buss mark”

and throw things for people, and when it is time for them to get it back they do

not like it. [Desk thumping] Let me continue. I will continue to say that according

to the people who have been calling the station, it seems like these two guys were

set up—the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Just

the way that Sen. Brig. Sandy got set up, just the way that Reshmi Ramnarine got

set up, I will give you an example.

I remember in treating with the SIA—[Crosstalk] Mr. President, come on.

Mr. President: Senators, please allow Sen. Cudjoe to complete her

contribution. [Desk thumping]

123


Sen. S. Cudjoe: Thank you, Mr. President. I remember looking at an

interview on TV where the hon. Prime Minister was asked about—this was around

the same time when Minister Volney—[Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: Disrespected the Chief Justice.

Sen. S. Cudjoe:—said that the Israelis came from Israel. We brought two

Israelis all the way from Israel to tear up the SIA files—not to go to town and buy

a shredder. We sent for two Israelis to tear up the files, and at that time the

electorate turned up the heat on the Government. I remember looking at an

interview on TV where the hon. Prime Minister was asked: where are the files?

The Commissioner of Police was sitting right there when the Prime Minister said

that the Commissioner of Police has the files. He said, “No, not me. I have never

seen those things.” Now, that is because he understands the importance of secret

intelligence. He understands the importance of the SIA and how that kind of

business works.

So, while the electorate might look at Ewatski and Gibbs and think that they

are being set up and they are fools, I am telling you that they might have been

pushed in a corner, but Ewatski and Gibbs are no fools.

In closing, sometime last week or the week before on the news, the Deputy

Commissioner said that he and Mr. Gibbs are dedicated to working on this whole

issue of crime, but the efforts have lacked political will. They are not getting the

support from the Government.

Sen. Hinds: He said that?

Sen. S. Cudjoe: He said that on the news, Mr. President. Straight out the

mouth. I looked at it. I looked at it on the seven o’clock news and I went back at

the ten o’clock news and looked at it again—that it lacks political will.

Sen. Panday: Your TV is not working good.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: They are not getting the support of the Government.

Sen. Hinds: They cannot.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: So they put that in their hands and let them treat with it. So

while it is one thing to bring this legislation where you are adding 60 more days

and thinking that it will treat with crime, that will not treat with crime. You have

to back it up with the programmes, with the measures—[Interruption]

Sen. Panday: Mentoring.

124


Sen. S. Cudjoe: Mentoring programmes.

Sen. Panday: Right.

Sen. S. Cudjoe: I commend Sen. Brig Sandy on that. [Desk thumping] I hope

to see the same programmes in Tobago. Let me wind up. As a young person—

[Interruption] I have time and an extra 15 minutes—I have been paying attention

and have been listening and asking the young people also, and the concern is that

since the introduction of the Anti-Gang Bill and the Bail Bill, the legislation that

would have treated with the anti-gang and the whole crime package—the concern

is that the measures are being put on to extend the amount of time spent in jail, to

increase the penalties, that kind of thing, and young people are asking: what

preventative measures do you have in place? You are waiting for us to get to a

criminal level and then give us a long time in jail, what are you doing to protect us

from getting to that point in the first place?

I heard only about the mentoring programmes; are there other programmes

that do the same thing? Please inform us, and you could probably create a little

brochure or something that is youth friendly so that the young people could know

what is going on. Bring it on the legislative agenda. Let the people talk about it,

because you see all kinds of other things in the papers and you do not see that.

The young people are asking questions and it seems unfair.

Mr. President when that anti-gang legislation was first brought in the House of

Representatives, there was a little section in the news talking about, “the nation is

getting ready to build more prisons because there are going to be more people

going to jail because of this legislation,” and it does not sit well. That is the

message that is being sent. So as a young person—I heard other young people

talking about it. We have this programme in Tobago where young people get

together, go on Channel 5 and discuss youth issues. Young people all over are

talking about it. Okay, you are planning to spend public funds to do all of this and

to put more young people in prison, you are talking about building a bigger prison

system, what is being done to protect us from getting there? So young people are

thinking that you are setting them up to put them in this big jail that you are about

to bring.

So, Mr. President, as I have said before, if the Minister could tell us that in

closing, fine. I hope that the Government would bring some kind of youth friendly

programme or brochure or something so that we can treat with that. Because

while you penalize and put the bigger ones behind bars, there are younger

criminal minds coming up, and if you think that the people you have now are bad,

125


the young ones that are coming up are more advanced in using technologies, they

know how to break the law, they know how to do things without getting caught.

When you put on all these years and make the legislation more draconian to give

more punishment, when somebody makes up their mind to go and commit a

crime, or if you get somebody angry enough to commit a crime, that person is not

thinking, “Oh, I am going to go to jail. Maybe I should not do this because I am

going to go to jail for 60 years or 25 years.” That person is not thinking about

that.

10.05 p.m.

All they know is that they are angry and they are going to commit this crime

and then they are also thinking that you will have to first catch me to jail me. With

a low detection rate and a low conviction rate, people are not thinking that they

are going to get caught. So, we have to do something in that regard. As much as

we bring the legislation to the House, we have to treat with detection; we have to

treat with enforcement. We also have to put much, much more focus on

preventative measures. And with that, Mr. President, I thank you.

Sen. Elton Prescott SC: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you,

Members of the Senate. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate

on this Bill. And I trust that at this late hour, my contribution might wake up some

of us and whatever I say will be taken into account by the powers that be once

again.

Mr. President, may I start by enquiring of the Minister of National Security,

what does he regard as the Mission Statement of that ministry with regard to

matters of crime. We are not hearing anything along those lines but instead we are

getting a tinkering with the laws, with people’s constitutional rights and no clear

objectives in sight. [Desk thumping] It must be wrong to suggest that the Minister

of National Security is just a super Commissioner of Police who is required to do

the policing. Because we have heard from time to time that the ministry is

involved in the preservation of the peace within the society generally, and that

certainly does not only include policing. So I should like before the end of this

debate to hear an articulation of how does the ministry or the Minister see its

mission in relation to matters of crime. Is incarceration regarded by the Minister

as an instrument of deterrence or is it punishment, or worse, is it merely just that

we deprive people of their liberty so that the populace gets the impression that

work is being done, to provide them with some solace?

126

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. PRESCOTT SC]

As a member of society, I do not get the impression that we are concerned to

provide a resolution, but more to provide a panacea or as someone had said earlier

on, to provide a placebo. It does not go down well with the population to be

hearing these bits and pieces of legislation coming forward, all under the umbrella

of crime and crime prevention and crime eradication, when in fact, it is merely a

gradual enhancement of existing measures with no hope that they will resolve any

issue whatsoever. [Desk thumping]

This particular move to amend the Bail Act—and I want to deal with that

first—does not provide the plaster that we want for the sore that exists in this

society. That is the view that I have and that is the view that I wish Members will

take away from this exercise today.

Mr. President, the next question I have for the Minister is: to what does the

ministry attribute the current statistics for kidnapping? I am hearing seven

bandied around for the current data. And so if the thing, the instrumentation, the

mechanism, whatever it may be that has brought us to this very low and

encouraging figure of seven is enforcement, which I suspect it is, then fine, let us

work towards enforcement. I am sure the answer is not because we have greater

prison sentences or because we have refused to grant people bail. [Desk

thumping] If all we had to do was to refuse to grant people bail, then we would

have no kidnapping. I do not accept that that is so. But if that is what the ministry

perceives, I would urge them to think again about it, it is not going to help.

Mr. President, may I just invite the attention of the Minister, through you, to

one of our constitutional provisions, if only to provide a marker. And I am

referring to section 5(2)(f) which says:

“(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), but subject to this Chapter and to

section 54, Parliament may not—

(f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right—

(iii) to reasonable bail without just cause;”

Now we are not accusing the Government of seeking to remove the person

from society without just cause, but we already have a provision in the law which

allows, or rather, which prohibits the accused person from making an application

for bail, a successful application for a period of 60 days.

Has the Minister given this Parliament any material on which to chew, which

would satisfy us that by expanding that period to 120 days, we are now going to

make the potential criminal any more afraid to pursue his dastardly objectives? It

127


is not going to deter him, is it? Has it been established, Mr. President, to your

satisfaction or to the satisfaction of this House, that there are data out there that

demonstrate that a longer period of incarceration, after you are charged and

without bail, has the effect that this Minister wants to achieve? And I only say

Minister because it is the Minister I have to direct it at. I am sure it is not a matter

entirely for the Minister, I am sure the Government must take the full credit for

whatever he does and I better leave it at the word “credit”. If there is any credit to

be had from this activity, it is the Government’s credit; and equally, it is to the

Government’s discredit, if what we are being asked to do, has no value

whatsoever. Mr. President, in short, to move from 60 days to 120 days, we ought

to expect to be provided with data that demonstrate that this is not just some

arbitrary increase in figures. [Desk thumping]

In the Constitution also, I am sure that most of us are familiar with it—section

13—we know that this further deprivation of a person’s liberty is expected to be

shown to be reasonably justifiable in a society that has a proper “respect”—I think

is the word it uses—a proper respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

And the individual here includes not only those of us who sit in this House but

those who are out there planning to perfect their approaches to crime. They, too,

have a right to expect that when they are arrested and charged, that they may

present their application for bail and that a judicial officer will listen to it and

would make a determination.

10.15p.m.

I stand squarely behind the judicial officers in this society and their capacity

to make a fair determination of everybody’s right to bail. Judicial officers do it

every day. You may achieve the same end, if you say to the judicial officer,

“These are very serious crimes. These are very heinous crimes.” He will refuse

bail, using the criterion that is to be applied now and he may refuse bail for more

than 120 days. Each time you come up, he will say “No” until he is satisfied that

you are no longer a flight risk or a threat to the potential victim or witnesses, a

threat to the administration of justice. Judges do it all the time. I am quite certain

that we all have confidence in the Judiciary, and if we do not, it is about time that

we start thinking again about it. The reason why we have the separation of

powers, the reason why we stand firmly in our democracy is because we have a

Judiciary that we can trust.

Our judicial officers are trained and they are practiced in the art of what they

do. There may be those who have a cynical view about individual members of the

Judiciary, but they are prepared and well equipped to do precisely what this piece

128


of legislation is attempting to do. We cannot allow the Parliament, the

Legislature, to take away from the Judiciary that confidence that the public has in

it and its power to make a determination about people’s liberty. I can put it no

better than that at this time.

If I may, therefore, move forward, I would urge that the Minister should look

upon his task as being one to encourage and to create in this society, an

environment characterized by public confidence in the protective services, in their

capacity to detect and to bring to justice, so that enforcement will be the hallmark

of what they do, not just the police, but all of those who are engaged in the

protection of the society. It is the function of the Ministry to encourage and to

create that environment. If more people had greater confidence in the police

service, kidnappings would go down, because invariably you would know the

culprit. Very often, there is somebody who knows that something is going on next

door, a hole is being dug or a box is brought in, in the dead of the night. But the

person does not have the confidence to call upon some authority figure and say, “I

am wary of what is transpiring in my neighbour’s yard.” It appears that there

used to be a time when people could do that.

I come from a rural community, so I know you could go and call the inspector

and chances are that the inspector would know exactly what to do and he would

know who to believe, which neighbours are credible and which are not, which

neighbours are too inquisitive and ought not to be taken seriously. Life has

changed, we appreciate that, but we can find ourselves in a position where we are

confident that the protective services are doing their job and that confidence will

breed a further confidence in how the Government is doing its job, and it will

lead, I trust, to a resolution of some of the difficulties we are faced with today.

Mr. President, you might have gathered from this that I am not satisfied that we

have been told enough to make a determination to move from 60 days to 120

days, as is proposed in clause 2 of the Bill.

May I just turn my mind briefly to the Kidnapping Act, because I accept, as I

suspect many Members here do, that kidnapping is a very heinous crime. We have

heard all the stories. There are those that could make your “stomach boil”, if I

may use that kind of term, and so, the maximum sentence is probably what we

need to be looking at. I am satisfied and Sen. Cudjoe made reference to it a

moment ago, criminal activity is not yet a mature industry. It is not about to die. It

is continuing to improve. And so, those who use crime as a means to reward

themselves are not going to be deterred by a threat of imprisonment for the

remainder of their natural life. The thing that deters the criminal, I suspect, is the

129


greater chance of being caught and being brought to justice, and if we therefore

go back to where I started, look at our mission statement, determine that it is the

enhanced confidence in the protective services generally that one needs to work

with; it is not any more cars or more policemen coming out onto the beat, unless

they are seen and they are seen to be effective.

I know that I still feel a sense of trepidation when I see a true, true policeman

on the road. My first thought is, do I have my driver’s permit with me? Is my seat

belt on? And, am I within the speed limit? I take chances like everybody else,

“but is because I know I eh go” get caught. I say that with tongue-in-cheek. I say

that expecting to be covered by privilege. [Laughter]

Mr. President, the Minister did—[Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: I thank the Senator for giving way. I think I heard the Senator to

have said that he feels a sense of trepidation when he sees a true, true policeman.

Would the hon. Senator be kind enough to indicate what he mean by a “true, true

policeman”?

Sen. E. Prescott SC: Mr. President, if you permit me, I will give my young

friend a lesson when we are out of the Chamber.

I want to wind up. My congratulations are extended to the Minister in relation

to his invitation to us to join with him in his mentoring programme. Before I go

further, the Senator used the words Colts and Malvern. I do not know if you are of

the age to be familiar with those names, but I was particularly pleased to hear you

mention Malvern; the club over which I preside. We are celebrating our 70th

anniversary next year. I do not know what has become of Colts. [Desk thumping]

I may have cause to call upon the Minister early in 2012.

Mentoring is something that I have been privately working at, and I have

observed that many men my age and younger, feel a deep sense of duty towards

other men. The role of men in the society, regrettably, has been allowed to be

devalued. Somebody needs to protect them and to project them. The persons who

have traditionally done it, their mothers, are no longer equipped or inclined to do

it, and so it is other men who must do it. Men look for their role models among

other men. Men who do not, are not qualified. Maybe if I say that differently, we

might get the point. If you are looking for your role models among anything other

than a man, chances are that is what you would become.

The mentorship programme, however, has this difficulty; that unless we are

trained in areas of psychology and mediation, or some other form of dispute

resolution and conflict situations, the enthusiasm with which a man will come to a

130


mentorship programme would wane rapidly. Because, invariably, there is an age

gap between the mentee and the mentor and what is reflected in it is not so much

the numbers, but the societal differences between the older more mature man and

the young man of today. The experiences are so greatly different. I trust Minister

that, and it is only because I have not been paying attention, that your mentorship

programme starts with a full and complete training of all of us who are

enthusiastic about it. Do not screen me, I have my bad ways. Train me and I

might be able to provide some assistance. When I say “I”, I mean those men who

are likely to find that their best value towards other young men is the engaging in

mentorship.

Mr. President, if you would permit me to end where I started, I would like the

Minister to revisit his current progress in the ministry and start with an assessment

of what is his mission, and he may find that what is being proposed in clause 2 in

particular, and in clause 3, are not the resolutions to the issues that face us.

I imagine that at the end of the day, we would all have to provide support for

the Government on these changes of numbers, but those are some messages or

warnings that I would wish to offer.

Thank you very much.

Sen. Danny Maharaj: Thank you very much Mr. President. It is indeed an

honour to be able to contribute tonight in this debate relating to a Bill to amend

the Bail Act, Chap. 4:60, and the Kidnapping Act, Chap. 11:26.

Mr. President, I would first take the opportunity to reply to some of the issues

raised during the course of the debate, and then further raise some pertinent points

and in totality not be very long.

The contribution by Sen. Hinds—when he spoke, what really struck me was

that he asked a question, “What is the problem?” He could not understand the

reasoning and the rationale for bringing legislative proposal here today. He could

not understand that. “What is the problem?” he said. “What is the problem?” That

is typical PNM policy. Only when there is a problem, then you deal with it. Only

when kidnapping becomes an issue and becomes rampant and explodes in the

society, oh yes, we need to deal with this now. What is the problem?

There is something called foresight. There is something called futuristic

thinking. There is something called planning, and this is what this Government is

about. We are dealing with the issues now, so there would be no problem in the

future. If we had that type of ability, previously when the PNM was there in its

131


early formation, then these issues of the heavy crime rate and incidence of serious

crime in Trinidad and Tobago, probably would not have manifested themselves as

they did.

It is a very serious thing. So, I think the approach of this Government is the

right approach. It is a proactive approach. It is not a reactive approach; waiting to

see something before your eyes and then say: “Let us deal with it.” Let us think

about the future down the road.

The comments—he was very proud when he tracked the movement of

kidnappings over the last decade, especially to say that we have conquered,

essentially, the issue of kidnappings. Crime is still the number one issue and a

burning issue in Trinidad and Tobago and we must not go to sleep on the issue of

kidnapping, because it might rear its ugly head in a real way and a significant

way, again, if we shift our attention away from it.

We must strengthen the legislation, and I agree with all the speakers who

indicated that making laws and strengthening laws cannot be the approach alone

to solving crime. .

It is impossible and a multifaceted approach is definitely necessary and this is

the approach of this Government which I will demonstrate.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. President, my good friend Sen. Al-Rawi also indicated that he believed—

in his own thinking—that instead of this legislative proposal being brought

forward, there were other issues of greater priority. Mr. President, there are 10

years of very important issues which have not really been dealt with, that this

Government has to keep on finishing the business of a government that left in a

rush, sorting out unfinished business. So we understand there are a number of

important issues, and this is why we are here at 10.31 p.m.—in the night—

finishing the business.

Mr. President, I want to go further and in relation to the Constitution which

entrenches fundamental rights, we will all come to appreciate that a Constitution,

while there is a level of entrenchment, must have—as our Constitution has— the

ability to adapt to deal with the needs of a population. I would like to quote

former Attorney General, John Jeremie from the House of Representatives,

Hansard, of Friday, December 16, 2005, on the Bail (Amdt.) (No. 2) Bill, in

which he said:

132

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. MAHARAJ]

“The Constitution of this republic is the supreme law, but it is law and it is

made by this Parliament. Any law which is not consistent with the

Constitution is void, but the Constitution does not and cannot cripple us and

our society, to paralysis, there is ample recognition in the Constitution itself

that as we the people face difficulty, we can agree together to meet our every

challenge; this is the essence of a real democracy.”

Mr. President, we have that challenge today in Trinidad and Tobago, we have

that challenge of crime and I have always described crime as a social monster. This

Government is cognizant of the deadly and dangerous social monster that is crime, that

has been able to grow, mature and develop especially over the last decade, and the

stats will indicate that. So it has become more difficult to deal with this adult

manifestation that is hardened, and entrenched in all different aspects of our society,

and agreed, we must attack this monster with full force. And this Government is intent

on slaying that monster called crime, Mr. President. [Desk thumping]

When one looks at the Bills brought to this Parliament thus far, it is clear that

this Government is focused on strengthening our legislation to ensure that we take

a tough stance on crime, but furthermore, I want to indicate that the issue of

kidnapping has destroyed families, ruined communities and has left a deep scar in

our social consciousness.

But what about the multifaceted approach? So we understand strengthening

the law, but, Mr. President, if you look at our budget document “facing the issues,

turning the economy around”, within this, it is clearly outlined and clearly

stated—and they asked about our plan. We understand that the protective services

must be developed, must be updated, must be modernized so as to deal with the

issue of detection and apprehension. This is why we see where it is stated that this

Government will implement the National Security Operation Centre (NSOC). This, Mr.

President, will be a special unit focused on intelligence gathering through a

comprehensive electronic database. So essentially, officers who are on mobile

patrol must have the capacity in a very responsive way to get information relating

to vehicle number of a person through a person’s driver’s licence, to access

information about a person so we have COMSTAT. We are going to put this data

together to have it readily accessible to the police service who are on mobile

patrol, so we can have a faster response relating to data collection and data

dissimilation to the troops on the streets.

Mr. President, we also discussed the whole idea of the GPS tracking system

especially when individuals are released from prison so we could monitor their

operations. And with this whole network, this whole restructured system—

133


because we cannot work with the old system, obviously it was not working—we

must streamline the different agencies to have it responding effectively so when a

call is made and a crime is reported, there must be a minimal time response in

place, be it 10 minutes, to respond on site to the location of that crime. These are

the strategies we are developing, these are the strategies that will be implemented,

because half of the problem is lack of equipment, lack of the technology to go out

there and effectively have the opportunity to apprehend the criminals.

Mr. President, we talked about deploying police officers who are tied up in

administrative work in offices who should be out on the street, going after the

criminals. That deals with the whole strengthening of the protective system.

10.40 p.m.

Furthermore, Mr. President, we understand the judicial system must also

become more efficient, so this is why, it is also stated and we have created a

Ministry of Justice, a special ministry to deal with that issue. And furthermore, it

is said that we would establish a special criminal court to provide swift justice and

I quote, Mr. President:

The court will treat with firearm, kidnapping, narcotic offences and it is meant

to relieve the case burden on the Magistrates’ Court.

So we are seeing now this multifaceted approach to deal with the crime issue

from the Judiciary to the protective services to the strengthening of the law and

we are seeing the dots being connected. I want to assure the last Senator who

spoke, Sen. Prescott SC, I agree with him. We cannot just deal with making laws

and strengthening laws and not deal with the issue of the protective services, not

with the issue of the Judiciary. But as I have indicated here, this Government is

taking a holistic approach and in moving in that direction we understand that we

need to come together and become more efficient as we revamp the criminal

justice system. We need to overhaul the criminal justice system and the entire

system needs to become more efficient, because if one aspect of the system is

working splendidly and other aspects are deficient, overall the country would be

suffering. So we are moving full steam ahead in all different sectors from creating

new courts to updating the service and to strengthening laws.

Mr. President, kidnapping has not only detrimental effects to the victim, their

families—and we all know how painful those things are—but furthermore, it

affects the economy, it correlates at times to capital flight out of a country, where

business people and people that are financially well off, leave the country.

Mr. President, it relates to foreign investment and we are saying this Government

134

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. MAHARAJ]

is taking the no-holds-barred approach to dealing with kidnappers. We are saying

no mercy on kidnappers and we are saying we are going to win this battle and we

are asking for your vote for the good citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.

Mr. President, clause 3 of the Bill:

“The Kidnapping Act is amended in section 3(1), by deleting the words

“twenty-five years” and substituting the words “the remainder of his natural

life”.

Mr. President, this country is developing its educational system, from

kindergarten to primary school, secondary school, UWI, UTT and all the other

training facilities, to build our human capital. And I want to ask Senators this very

serious question: when someone takes so many years to educate themselves, to

come out to society, “gain a work” or start a small business, to grow, to be

creative, to be innovative, to build themselves and further expand and grow

towards being successful and then when they reach a point of success, they are

now snatched, taken away, beaten, brutalized and at times even murdered; what is

the incentive for the young people of this country?

This legislation is indicating that we are taking up their fight in advance and

we are saying no mercy on the kidnappers, because we are not going to allow

anybody or anything to stifle the creativity and the innovativeness of the people of

Trinidad and Tobago. We are going to clear this path. Mr. President, I would like

to congratulate the Minister of National Security for bringing this Bill here today.

The issues also relate to tourism. So the crime issue and the kidnapping issue

are issues that relate to all different aspects of our society and inhibit a full thrust

forward, as we go into the future. This Bill is very important, it is pertinent, it is

relevant, and I say to everyone, give your support. Thank you, very much,

Mr. President.

Sen. Embau Moheni: Mr. President, thank you for affording me the

opportunity, just to make a few comments with regard to this important piece of

legislation. As small as it may be or as it is appears to be, it is part of the

Government’s package of measures and approaches to ensure that this society

could be a more crime-free one. Legislation when introduced oftentimes serves

different purposes. This Bill, first of all, is going to be part of the Government’s

whole approach to sending a clear message to the society, as well as to those

individuals who may be so inclined as to be engaged in criminal activity, that this

Government is serious and this Government has the will to tackle crime head-on.

135


Sen. Prescott SC made a comment that he believes that what is going to reduce

crime is the possibility or a greater possibility of being caught. I do agree with

that and I know that criminals who believe or who see a great possibility of being

caught, that that is going to serve as a deterrent, and I believe that is even more

support for the Bill. Because when you are given 120 days, you are given more

time to provide a foolproof case to ensure that that criminal does not get back out

on the streets. In addition to that, we have to recognize that putting a piece of

legislation in place is not only for the present moment, that legislation is being put

in place to ensure that down the road, the crime-fighting institutions, the police, et

cetera, would be in a better position to apprehend and remove criminals from the

streets of this country.

Implementation is also critical. In other words, after the legislation is passed,

we have to put measures in place to ensure that these measures can be

implemented. If you are talking about criminal activity, if you are talking about

national security, it has to go beyond the measures that may be instituted by the

law enforcement agencies. In other words, it has to be a collective effort, coming

from the various ministries, various departments and various individuals within

the society.

10.50 p.m.

Today, we are discussing these measures as a result of the years of a failed

regime that could not survive half of its last term in office. [Desk thumping]

When you are talking about crime and national security, you have to take into

consideration the environment in which we live. While law enforcement measures

are necessary, to me this is only a plaster on the sore. It is only dealing with the

symptoms and not with the disease itself. We have to go deeper than this and

recognize that the social, economic and political environment which the People’s

Partnership Government inherited from a failed regime, is responsible for us

debating this issue here tonight. [Desk thumping]

As far as I could see, those on the other side are determined to perpetuate the

very attitudes that have us here today.

Sen. Panday: Take that!

Sen. E. Moheni: Sen. Hinds comes to this Chamber week after week and

talks about—[Interruption]—seagulls. That is his favourite—the UNC government

giving $1,000 to the police and so on. This is not a UNC Government; this is the

People’s Partnership Government.

Sen. Panday: Take that! [Desk thumping]

136


Sen. E. Moheni: His statement is a disrespect to NJAC; a disrespect to the

COP; a disrespect to MSJ; and a disrespect to the TOP in Tobago. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Panday: Take that!

Sen. E. Moheni: What the goodly Senator may be doing innocently is

perpetuating—

Sen. Panday: No!

Hon. Senators: No! [Crosstalk] Deliberate!

Sen. E. Moheni: Deliberate? All right! He is perpetuating the same attitude

of fragmentation and division that this country has been subjected to under the

PNM regime for years. [Desk thumping]

It is really sad that inasmuch as he may want to gain political mileage and

political points, he fails to recognize that the People’s Partnership Government,

by bringing together NJAC, UNC, COP, TOP and MSJ, has offered this country an

opportunity that we never had before to establish true national unity [Desk

thumping] which I believe is anathema for the PNM. [Desk thumping and

crosstalk] What those on the other side have to realize is that while they are in

Opposition, they do not just have to oppose for opposing sake.

Mr. President, national unity is important as part of the package presented by

the People’s Partnership Government in its efforts to create a new environment as

part of our way forward, which includes the eradication of crime. You also have

to take into consideration the question of an environment of justice. When I talk

about justice here, I am not just talking about the judicial system and the law

enforcement agencies, but I am talking about that sense of justice that our people

would like to have and to know that when they go to a government department

they would be treated fairly, regardless of which political party they belong to.

[Desk thumping]

Under the PNM regime over the years, what we have seen is the inculcation of

a whole philosophy and attitude of exclusion and discrimination, rather than one

of inclusion and a greater sense of fair play. In the absence of fair play, you would

expect crime to run riot in any society. When people believe that the system is not

going to give them that sense of fairness and justice, then they are going to seek

other ways and means of trying to obtain that justice. What we are about is the

question of good governance, something that has been alien to this country for far

too long.

137


We are talking about introducing legislation that could galvanize our

population and give them a greater sense of confidence in the legal system, the

judicial system and the law enforcement agencies by creating that new

environment. Notwithstanding what I have been hearing coming from the goodly

Senator on the other side about PR, it is a necessary tool for any institution or any

Government. [Desk thumping] There is a line that this People’s Partnership

Government is determined not to cross, and that is the line that they on the other

side have been crossing all the time and are still determined to cross, and that is

moving from PR to propaganda. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Al-Rawi spoke about the question of priority. He said that this piece of

legislation which is tackling kidnapping shows the wrong priority, because as far

as he is concerned kidnapping is on the decline.

Sen. Al-Rawi: I said that there were more important things.

Sen. E. Moheni: Yes, I know. As long as kidnapping still exists and, it does,

this legislation is important and it is a priority. [Desk thumping] Kidnapping is too

traumatic, not only to the individual and their families, but sometimes to the entire

community and nation. It is a priority and it remains a priority until it is

eradicated. [Desk thumping]

I share the concerns of Sen. Prescott SC that yes the possibility of abuse does

exist, but you cannot have abuse if there is no kidnapping. You cannot arrest

someone for kidnapping if there is no kidnapping, and this legislation is going to

reduce kidnapping and, therefore, reduce the possibility of there being the abuse

the Senator spoke about.

Sen. Panday: High philosophy!

Sen. E. Moheni: Crime is also related to the sense of values that exist in the

society, and this People’s Partnership Government has been given a Herculean

task to pull this country back from where it was. It is sad to hear the comments

and the attitudes coming from the other side. It is as if they believe that they are

out on recess, and are waiting on the bell to come back in. What they do not

realize is that they have already been expelled so there is no coming back in.

[Desk thumping]

For years, on the one hand, we have had people crying out for life; crying out

for justice and crying out for peace, and while all of that was happening, we were

seeing the wanton squandermania and wastage of the people’s resources,

corruption and so forth. This People’s Partnership Government is determined to

address that imbalance that we have been subjected to over the years.

138

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. MOHENI]

I would lend my support to the measures that were introduced by our Minister

who I know is determined to take the battle against crime and the battle against

kidnapping head-on. [Desk thumping]

Sen. Hinds: Senator, would you give way?

Sen. E. Moheni: It is too late. This People’s Partnership Government is

prepared to do more than put plasters on the sore. We are prepared and

determined to eradicate the sore completely.

Thank you very much. [Desk thumping]


Subhas Panday): Mr. President, first of all, I want to congratulate the hon.

Minister of National Security for bringing this piece of legislation, and to merely

reiterate what the last speaker said, and that is the hon. Minister intends to fight

crime head-on.

Mr. President, I was here together with Sen. Hinds in 1994, 2005, 2006, 2007,

2008 and 2009 when all the amendments were made. I had decided not to speak

on this matter, however, I thought it necessary to clear up some mischief that was

created today in this Senate.

Sen. Al-Rawi quoted from a document which he did not name; and you

quoted from a document without giving any citation. When you pretended to

quote from that document or when you purportedly quoted from that document,

you tried to create hysteria in this country. What is more frightening and what is

more dangerous with what you have done, you read it into the record of Hansard.

You must be much more responsible, Senator. You come here and speak in

highfalutin language and look what you have done! Look what you have done!

Look what you have created here!

Sen. Al-Rawi: Are you imputing improper motives?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: No. You said here today—hear what you said!

You said that 800 members of SAUTT to be sent home. Why did you not quote

from the document? You have created mischief.

Sen. Al-Rawi: Is it true?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: No! That is not true! I have been told to repeat it;

that is not true. [Desk thumping] I am going to repeat it a third time for you to

hear and for all your PNM lackeys to hear and PNM mischief makers to hear, that is

not true.

139


11.05 p.m.

As a matter of fact, do you know what you have done? You have created so

much distress in the hearts of people who are working at SAUTT. We got a text

from a member saying “is that true”. The answer is no. You know how you have

hurt so many people in SAUTT? I am putting this on record, I am putting paid to

the lie which you have said on behalf―

Sen. Al-Rawi: Point of order.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: of the inaccuracy―

Mr. Chairman: Taken. I will ask the Senator to withdraw.

Sen. Al-Rawi: Mr. President, sorry, you have ruled? Sorry.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I said that I have taken the point of order and I have

asked the Senator to withdraw.

Sen. Al-Rawi: Thank you, Mr. President.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Yes, and I have done it Sir, unreservedly. But to

indicate that he did the most improper thing tonight, may I speak on behalf,

tonight, of the hon. Minister―because what we have decided in this Government

is that many good points were raised on the other side. Sen. Al-Rawi spoke for an

hour and not more than two minutes of it was relevant―[Desk thumping]―not

him. Sen. Prescott SC, we took what you said on board. Sen. Ramkissoon, we took

what you said on board. My dear sister, from Tobago, Sen. Shamfa Cudjoe, your

contribution was much better than the person sitting on your left. We took what

you said on board and the hon. Minister would like to assimilate and make sure

that we respond to it at the appropriate time when he replies on the next occasion.

Mr. President, another mischief that was created by Sen. Hinds―but that is

typical, we do not hold him in mind for that―was when he quoted; he was much

more―he exhibited much more propriety than Sen. Faris Al-Rawi, when he

quoted. [Interruption]

Sen. Al-Rawi: Mr. President, on a point of order again. That is a naked

statement of improper motive not exhibiting―35(1). I mean surely, the Leader of

Government Business knows the Standing Orders better than that. [Desk

thumping] Should I be highfalutin with them again?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: When Sen. Hinds quoted and said―[Interruption]

Sen. Al-Rawi: No, Mr. President, point of order, I cannot let that stand on the

record. He is imputing improper motives and I will not tolerate it.

140


Mr. President: What was the improper motive, can you remind me, Senator?

Sen. Al-Rawi: Regrettably, because the blood is in my head, the words have

fallen fast from my lips, but he stood openly and―he has imputed improper

motives. I will get the record on it. He has stood to say that I was improper. What

is that you have said? I have told―[Crosstalk]

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: I retract from a statement which my friend could

not remember.

Sen. Al-Rawi: I chose not to remember it but I thank him for apologizing.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you, Mr. President. Sen. Hinds, and I

would not say that it was done with any malice, I think Sen. Hinds―it is typical

of him and a part of this character. He quoted and he said Prime Minister, Kamla

Persad-Bissessar―and this is the important part―and National Security Minister,

Brig. John Sandy, have condemned the sick-out action by the police saying that 5

per cent is all that can be offered at this stage.

Sen. Hinds: Mr. President, I do not recall.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: What did he say?

Sen. Hinds: I said no such―Let me get the Hansard.

Mr. President: That must have been a different quotation he made. I do not

recall that one.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: “Sandy described the officers…”, it is said.

Sen. Hinds: What is the source?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Daily Express February 14, 2011.

Sen. Hinds: You are quoting from the Daily Express?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Yes. You did not quote from this?

Sen. Hinds: Me? Go in Hansard and you will see for yourself.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Okay, well in any event, I withdraw it, but it came

from the other side.

“Sandy described the officers who stayed off the job as the ‘lazy ones’ and the

‘slackers’ within the service who often did little in the fight against crime.”

Sen. Al-Rawi: Who was the author?

141


Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Akile Simon. That was mentioned in the House

coming from the other side here tonight. [Crosstalk] It was quoted, yes and we

are saying that is not true. [Crosstalk] That is the point. [Crosstalk] I put in

quotation marks, “That is not true.” Hold on a minute. [Interruption] Point of

order?

Mr. Chairman: If I may Senator―just to indicate, what I will accept,

certainly the last part that the Senator has quoted was mentioned here tonight by

way of quotation and I do not think that he is referring to the fact that there is

anything improper relative to you, but tonight I understand him to be saying that

that statement is not true. I therefore accept the statement from the Senator as

made in this House and therefore I would not question and I do not think

Members should question whether the accuracy of what he is saying relative to

the truth of that statement should be a matter for debate.

Hon. Senator: That is correct.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much, Mr. President, and we want

to indicate here tonight―you could throw the blame wherever you want. My duty

here tonight is to say that Minister Sandy never made that statement. That the

Minister is a very responsible Minister, a senior Minister in the Government and

he knows fully well that what is taking place now are negotiations and the

Minister nor the Ministry of National Security is a part of the negotiating team

and hence he will not make any kind of statements that will prejudice the

negotiations. What the Minister of National Security is concerned with, is the

security of the country. You accept that? Thank you very much. No! Okay! Go

ahead!

Sen. Hinds: Thank you very, very much. He is a great gentleman. Since you

placed such emphasis on clarifying the statement coming from the Minister as

being untrue, is it untrue that you said there was nothing wrong with the

appointment of Reshmi Ramnarine?

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Mr. President, I do not want to defy the Standing

Orders, but he is much more foolish than I thought he was, but I withdraw it―I

withdraw it. I said―[Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: Mr. President―

Mr. President: I will ask him to withdraw it.

Sen. Hinds: Mr. President, that is absolutely improper. I am capable of even

stronger adjectives but I would never do that in this honourable House. I call on

him to withdraw that.

142


Mr. President: I will do the same.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Most humbly. So, Mr. President, what has

happened is a mischief is being created in the country in which no wage

negotiations are taking place. We believe that there are parties who are

conducting those wage negotiations. We believe that there is a process and the

Government, the Ministry of National Security does not intend to interfere with

that process. Furthermore, I remember Brig. Sandy as saying, that he went out last

night and what he said is that he hopes that good sense prevails. What is wrong

about that?

Sen. Hinds: It is not me. It is Akile Simon of the Express. There are quotation

marks where they are quoting the Minister.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Well, I am saying this is the fittest place to clear

it.

Sen. Hinds: You have well-paid publicists, pay them to―let them put out a

statement correcting it. [Desk thumping]

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Mr. President, everyone knows the Minister of

National Security, everyone knows the character of the Minster of National

Security, everyone knows the uprightness of the Minister of National Security and

hence a statement like this is placed in the papers merely to create confusion, to

encourage the police to look for targets. The Minister of National Security is the

person who is in control of the police service and when you, the Express or

anybody comes and says the Minister says that you all are slackers, et cetera, what

they are doing, they are trying to drive a wedge between the Government and the

Police Service Association.

11.15 p.m.

We are saying on this side, we are not a part of that. I am not on that! So,

Mr. President, we believe like the Minister has indicated in all his life, he believes

in the line of command. [Crosstalk] And, Mr. President, this Minister—it is

another paper again? Okay. This Minister has always treated the police with

dignity. There is no need for any police officer to hold our Minister of National

Security in mind and say, he is on that side, and the police on the other side.

We all are here to serve the country. The Minister of National Security, the

Government and the police, we all work in the interest of the people. The Minister

of National Security has shown his concern about the police officers. This

Minister of National Security has been touring the country. Sen. Cudjoe, the

143


Minister was in Tobago talking to the police, talking to the Immigration, talking

to prison officers, finding out what their problems are, so that he, as a Minister,

could use whatever resources and influence he has to assist police officers. Why

are they driving a wedge between the Minister and the police officers?

Recently, the Minister went to the prisons, the Minister went to West End and

the Minister continues to meet the police on a regular basis. What is the reason for

that? The reason for that is to find out what the police officers’ problems are and

try to deal with them.

So, Mr. President, I thought it was very important that we clear the air and to

exonerate the Minister from all those negative headlines; and to tell those people,

who are doing this—I would not say wickedness, because Sen. Hinds might jump

up and say it is he I am talking about—to let them know that they are indeed

making the job of the Minister extremely difficult. Everybody came here today

and said they want to see the Government succeed. They want to see the Minister

succeed. They want to see the Minister deal with crime. Yet while you are saying

that you want to help the Minister or you are wishing the Minister to put a handle

and deal with crime, you are driving a wedge to make sure that it does not happen.

This is the problem we are having. And when crime rises, those who create

the confusion, it affects them also; but most of all it affects every single person in

Trinidad and Tobago. All the persons you talk about, that we care about, Sen.

Hinds, when we perpetuate this kind of misinformation we do the country no

good. And we thought that today, that you said that Brig. Sandy was your mentor,

that he coached you, that you owe your upbringing to him, one would have

thought that, today, that decency would have prevailed.

Sen. Hinds: Mr. President, I did not go that far. I did not go that far.

Mr. President: I imagine that it is not a point of order you are raising.

Sen. Hinds: Could you tell the Senator if he is quoting me, to quote me

accurately. I owe my upbringing to the Almighty God and my parents. And I

indicated that I was a member of the Cadet Force and part of my training was

provided by the Brigadier when he was a sergeant in the regiment. And I also

indicated that he was one of the people who in my neighborhood I looked up to

and admired. [Desk thumping] But I also indicated that based on the company that

he now keeps, I have some difficulty with that.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Thank you very much, and that is what I am

saying, that if you held him in such high esteem, why are you showing the papers

144

Bail and Kidnapping Bill Tuesday, February 15, 2011 [SEN. THE HON. S. PANDAY]

up like this all the time? Ingratitude! Why are you showing the papers up all the

time? Trying to humiliate him! That is the person who you said you owe

something to?

I thought that decency would have demanded that you would have taken that

paper and said, I see this, I cannot believe it, it is not true, I know the Brigadier

since I was a young boy, and he would never do such a thing, and I condemn

those who wrote this nonsense in the papers! [Desk thumping] So therefore, that

is why I—[Interruption]

Sen. Hinds: How is it that he did not defend you so forcefully when you said

that Reshmi Ramnarine’s appointment was correct? He apologized, the Prime

Minister apologized; nobody defended you like that.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: As I said, I would apologize if you all apologize

for the wickedness that you all did Stephen Williams. You all are the only

government that brought a motion before the Parliament to appoint a

Commissioner of Police and voted against it. And you know what you said about

Stephen Williams? Apologize first and then I would apologize after! Imbert said

that Stephen Williams no good! Stephen Williams never managed a division.

And you know what your former Prime Minister said, “You cannot trust him, he

is too young”. And you all came to the Parliament, and you all made a decision

before you came to the Parliament, brought a motion to appoint a Commissioner

of Police and voted against it. Shame PNM! “Buss” PMN file! And you want me to

apologize?

Mr. President: Well, I think you are going off a little track but I suspect that

you set him on that track [Laughter] [Desk thumping]

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: I am merely responding, Mr. President. Mr.

President, having cleared the air on those issues, and those statements which have

been attributed to the hon. Minister of National Security, and which are totally

untrue, the Minister and the Ministry of National Security pledge our support to

the police, pledge to assist as much as we can, within our remit, to ensure that we

deal with crime. Mr. President, I shall continue on the next occasion.

ADJOURNMENT


Subhas Panday): Mr. President, I beg to move that this Senate do now adjourn

to, be adjourned to Tuesday, 22 February at 1.30 p.m. On that date, or before we

go, we do not want to drop a guillotine, but having regard to the fact

145

Adjournment Tuesday, February 15, 2011

that all the persons who wanted to speak, have spoken, on that day if I have to

conclude I may have a short conclusion, followed by the wrapping up by the hon.

Minister in which we hope—no, no, no, we are saying the guillotine dropping, we

are dropping the guillotine. [Interruption] He will respond and take into

consideration all the issues which were raised. This is the Government that we

have. Yes.

Mr. President, on February 22, 2011 is Private Members Day, and the Motion

which is on the Order Paper, Sen. Subhas Ramkhelawan had indicated that he

would like Sen. Beckles-Robinson, to deal with Motion No. 1. [Interruption] No,

I am saying that it is Private Members Day, we are giving Private Members’ Day

and you have no say in that! You also have no say in what motion will be

debated. And I have discussed with the hon. Senator, who indicated that he would

like to have his Motion, No. 1 debated.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

Mr. President: The date again, Senator. The date to which you would like to

adjourn; I did not catch the date to which you want to adjourn.

Sen. The Hon. S. Panday: Mr. President, I sincerely apologize to you: on

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 1.30 p.m.


Senate adjourned accordingly.

Adjourned at 11.25 p.m.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following question was asked by Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson:

Visitors to Tobago

(Details of)


annual breakdown of visitor arrivals from the top twenty (20) countries to Tobago

over the last five (5) years?

The following reply was circulated to Members of the Senate:

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Dr. Rupert Griffith): Annual visitor

arrivals are collated and disseminated by the Central Statistical Office (CSO). Prior

to March 2007, this data was collected from the Trinidad and Tobago

Immigration Arrival Card which allowed the CSO to identify visitors to Trinidad

alone, Tobago alone, as well as visitors to both islands. In March 2007, the

146

Written Answers to Questions Tuesday, February 15, 2011

harmonized Immigration/Customs Card was adopted by CARICOM countries in

preparation for the 2007 ICC Cricket World Cup. This new Immigration/Customs

Card does not allow the relevant statistics to be so disaggregated by the CSO. As

arrival statistics were only available for the first few months of 2010, the response

covers the period 2005 to 2009.

The detailed annual breakdown of visitor arrivals from the top twenty (20)

countries to Tobago over the period 2005-2009 follows:-

TOBAGO 2005 TOBAGO 2006

United Kingdom 1 37,686 United Kingdom 1 33,902

United States of

America

2 17,187 United States of

America

2 19,852

Germany 3 6,825 Canada 3 7,087

Canada 4 5,680 Germany 4 5,286

Austria 5 2,899 Netherlands 5 2,353

Netherlands 6 2,276 Barbados 6 1,529

Barbados 7 1,998 Sweden 7 1,527

Sweden 8 1,238 Denmark 8 1,080

Grenada 9 883 Austria 9 1,045

147



Switzerland 10 765 Guyana 10 865

Norway 11 672 Switzerland 11 781

Denmark 12 631 Norway 12 688

Guyana 12 631 Ireland 13 597

Ireland 14 536 Grenada 14 561

Italy 15 454 Jamaica 15 462

France 16 445 France 16 458

Jamaica 17 429 Italy 17 456

Venezuela 18 390 Venezuela 18 451

St. Lucia 19 357 Antigua and

Barbuda

19 343

Antigua and

Barbuda

20 308 St. Lucia 20 334

Total 82,290 Total 79,657

148



United Kingdom 1 31,842 United Kingdom 1 22,707

United States of

America

2 10,720 Germany 2 3,245

Germany 3 3,738 United States of

America

3 1,789

Canada 4 3,083 Netherlands 4 946

Netherlands 5 1,922 Barbados 5 879

Sweden 6 1,780 Sweden 6 801

Barbados 7 1,291 Norway 7 607

Denmark 8 906 Denmark 8 569

Norway 9 831 Grenada 9 369

Guyana 10 593 Switzerland 10 361

Ireland 11 550 Ireland 11 328

Switzerland 12 526 Antigua and

Barbuda

12 293

Austria 13 426 Austria 13 273

Grenada 14 422 Canada 14 272

St. Lucia 15 377 Italy 15 233

Italy 16 330 France 16 182

France 17 316 St. Lucia 17 120

Antigua and

Barbuda

18 295 Jamaica 18 61

Venezuela 19 261 Guyana 19 42

Jamaica 20 229 Venezuela 20 35

Total 28,596 Total 34,112

149


TOBAGO 2009

United Kingdom 1 19,165

United States of America 2 3,303

Germany 3 1,954

Sweden 4 688

Norway 5 603

Netherlands 6 400

Switzerland 7 394

Antigua and Barbuda 8 386

Denmark 9 382

Barbados 10 373

Canada 11 340

Ireland 12 282

Austria 13 271

Italy 14 256

Grenada 15 229

France 16 178

St. Lucia 17 100

Guyana 18 50

Jamaica 19 21

Venezuela 20 15

Total 29,390

150


The following question was asked by Sen. Pennelope Beckles-Robinson:

Visitors to Trinidad

(Details of)


annual breakdown of visitor arrivals from the top twenty (20) countries to

Trinidad over the last five (5) years?

The following reply was circulated to Members of the Senate:

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Dr. Rupert Griffith): Annual visitor

arrivals are collated and disseminated by the Central Statistical Office (CSO). Prior

to March 2007, this data was collected from the Trinidad and Tobago

Immigration Arrival Card which allowed the CSO to identify visitors to Trinidad

alone, Tobago alone, as well as, visitors to both islands. In March 2007, the

harmonized Immigration/Customs Card was adopted by CARICOM countries in

preparation for the 2007 ICC Cricket World Cup. This new Immigration/Customs

Card does not allow the relevant statistics to be so disaggregated by the CSO. As

arrival statistics were only available for the first few months of 2010, the response

covers the period 2005 to 2009.

The detailed annual breakdown of visitor arrivals from the top twenty (20)

countries to Trinidad over the period 2005-2009 follows:

TRINIDAD ONLY

2005

TRINIDAD ONLY

2006

United States of

America 1 149,661

United States of

America 1 152,838

Canada 2 41,908

Canada 2 42,639

Barbados 3 33,121

Barbados 3 29,682



Guyana 5 21,517

Guyana 5 22,937

Grenada 6 18,591

Grenada 6 14,248

St. Vincent and

Grenadines 7 12,274

St. Vincent and

Grenadines 7 12,010

151


TRINIDAD ONLY

2005

TRINIDAD ONLY

2006

Venezuela 8 9,580

Venezuela 8 9,523

St. Lucia 9 8,428

St. Lucia 9 8,566

Jamaica 10 7,308

Jamaica 10 8,333

Antigua and

Barbuda 11 4,305

Antigua and

Barbuda 11 4,493

Suriname 12 2,689

Suriname 12 2,974

United States

Virgin Islands 13 1,718

India 13 2,134

Netherlands 14 1,672

Colombia 14 2,038

Dominica 15 1,659

Dominica 15 2,021

St Kitts and

Nevis 16 1,590

France 16 1,857

Colombia 17 1,561

United States

Virgin Islands 17 1,792

France 18 1,476


Puerto Rico 19 1,420


India 20 1,398

Bahamas 20 1,664

Total

347,581

Total

348,272

152


TRINIDAD ONLY

2007

TRINIDAD ONLY

2008

United States of

America

1 164,089 United States of

America

1 188520

Canada 2 45,400 Canada 2 53,492

Guyana 3 24,643 Guyana 3 25,051

United Kingdom 4 24,509 Barbados 4 17,981

Barbados 5 20,106 United Kingdom 5 12,634

Venezuela 6 12,101 Venezuela 6 12,214

Grenada 7 9,827 Jamaica 7 8,552

St. Vincent and

Grenadines

8 8,651 Grenada 8 8,158

Jamaica 9 7,564 St. Vincent and

Grenadines

9 7,933

St. Lucia 10 5,516 St. Lucia 10 4,934

Antigua and

Barbuda

11 3,459 Suriname 11 3,362

Suriname 12 3,173 Antigua and

Barbuda

12 2,916

India 13 2,567 Colombia 13 2,300

Colombia 14 1,865 France 14 2,104

France 15 1,852 Puerto Rico 15 1,989

Puerto Rico 16 1,626 India 16 1,957

United States

Virgin Islands

17 1,624 Bahamas 17 1,948

China 18 1,591 Brazil 18 1,738

Dominica 19 1,486 United States

Virgin Islands

19 1,559

Bahamas 20 1,287 Mexico 20 1,479

Total

342,935

Total

360,822

153


TRINIDAD ONLY 2009

United States of America 1 169,076

Canada 2 41,646

Guyana 3 18,675

Barbados 4 13,591


Venezuela 6 10,486

Jamaica 7 6,972

St. Vincent and Grenadines 8 6,642

Grenada 9 5,775

St. Lucia 10 3,934

Suriname 11 2,825

Colombia 12 2,249

China 13 1,862

France 14 1,815

Antigua and Barbuda 15 1,745



India 18 1,693

Mexico 19 1,482

Dominica 20 1,096

Total 305,462

154


the parliamentary debates · the parliamentary debates official report in the first session of the...

Documents