Lee denies Rambally’s claim of being sidelined

DINESH RAMBALLY, Chaguanas West MP, has alleged he was sidelined in the House of Representatives, but opposition whip David Lee flatly denied snubbing any of the UNC’s five rebel/reform MPs.

Reporters approached Rambally at the opening of the law term of the Industrial Court in Port of Spain on September 17, over his letter to the editor likening Opposition Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar to a “bad stepmother” over the recent rearrangement of opposition seats in the House.

Rambally alleged he was not allowed to speak in the debate on Tabaquite MP Anita Haynes-Alleyne’s private motion on education, but said Couva North MP Ravi Ratiram spoke.

Haynes-Alleyne, for her part, told Newsday the UNC had not had her speak at the party’s Sunday briefing on September 1, when former principal Dr Michael Dowlath spoke.

Naparima MP Rodney Charles told Newsday he had not been invited to speak in Parliament, to attend caucus meetings nor at the planning of pre-budget consultations

Lee denied any wrongdoing on all counts, saying he is always very open and has a well-known procedure for allocating speakers in order of them applying to speak in debate.

Rambally: Let me speak in the House

Rambally said he has never broken ranks with the party in his vote in Parliament.

“I continue to liaise, albeit it is not like before, but there is some level of liaison between the chief whip and myself.”

He said his beef with Persad-Bissessar was her allegation the five had left the House during debate on the impasse between Auditor General Jaiwantie Ramdass and Finance Minister Colm Imbert, allegedly missing a chance to vote and topple the Government.

“That is the furthest thing from the truth. We did not know. We were not made aware.”

He said it was ludicrous to suggest they could have got the Speaker’s casting vote to defeat the Government.

“So that is the parting way. But other than that I have continued to abide by the whip.

“Moving forward, I give no guarantees, because I stand on principle.”

He said his priority was for the UNC to have morality, decency, integrity and standards, plus a better party structure.

Rambally said he has never attacked Persad-Bissessar, but had questioned her ability to win the next general election.

“There was nothing personal.”

Newsday asked why no reform/rebel MP spoke in the September 13 Global Forum Bill debate, and whether this was a portent for future debates.

“It is no secret that the five MPs, including myself, have been sidelined from debating in Parliament...I have been asked to debate in matters and I have been turned down. It is no secret that the five of us have been sidelined for a long time, and I have asked for debate.”

Rambally said the five had been prepared to debate the Global Forum Bill. He said he has always made it clear he was always ready to debate on any bill, at any time, amid any line-up of speakers.

Explaining his letter to the press, he said he likened Persad-Bissessar to US President Joe Biden, who had been made to step down as Democratic Party presidential candidate.

He said the alleged sidelining came before the UNC’s internal elections, saying steep changes occurred when Paray and Haynes-Alleyne had called for them.

Looking towards the budget debate, he said, “I definitely have to make my contribution in the budget debate on behalf of my constituents.

“If I am in any way sidelined or prohibited from speaking in the budget debate, it is going to be all hell break loose. So let’s cross that bridge when we get there.”

Haynes-Alleyne

Anita Haynes-Alleyne said she had notified the party executive she was prepared to participate in the back-to-school UNC briefing, but another choice was made (that is, Dowlath).

“So that was my most glaring example.

She said she remains available to the caucus.

“We are preparing for the budget and I remain one of the debaters who has the unique ability to speak on any piece of legislation. I also understand my parliamentary function very clearly which means that while there is a courtesy to go through with a speaking line-up, the way to speak in Parliament is to catch the Speaker’s eye.”

Regarding Dowlath’s appearance at the UNC briefing, she said, “Again, I choose not to assume malice onto the decision-making, but I think it was one of the clearest example of a unique decision taken post internal elections.”

She said she expects to talk after the education minister in the budget debate.

“For me as an individual my interest has always been and will always be a better Trinidad and Tobago. I will use my platform to articulate very clearly the direction I think we ought to be going in, and that is above the question of party politics and more a developmental question. Party politics is just a vehicle.”

Charles: Do they really want unity?

Rodney Charles, via WhatsApp, questioned Persad-Bissessar’s call for unity after the UNC elections.

“I have surprisingly not been invited on occasions to speak in Parliament, nor invited to attend caucus meetings, nor to the planning of pre-budget consultations.”

He hailed Rambally as a legal luminary.

“(If) Dinesh Rambally (is) not invited to speak on Friday (it) will speak volumes on the current decision making processes in my party of which I have been a member for the past 30 years. Let us see what happens on Friday.”

Lee: They’ve been silent by choice

Saying he had not sidelined any MP in the House, Lee said his practice has always been that MPs wishing to talk in a debate would notify him beforehand. He said Rambally had not done so, but later on during the debate had said he wished to speak, but by that time Couva North MP Ravi Ratiram had already got the nod,as he had asked earlier.

Lee noted that private debates ended at 6 pm, so there was limited scope to accommodate MPs. “I did not sideline him.”

Lee said Rambally has been one of the Opposition’s most prolific speakers, especially on legal matters. But he alleged Rambally had stopped attending caucus, even before the UNC internal elections.

Newsday asked if Rambally’s absence was due to some MPs watching him “cut-eye,” making him feel unwelcome.

Lee replied, “No. I don’t believe so. I always have an open dialogue with MP Rambally.”

OnCharles, Lee said the MP has always loved to speak in past debates. “Last Friday in the debate on the Global Forum Bill, he never indicated he wanted to speak.”

He said he never stopped Haynes-Alleyne, the shadow education minister.

Newsday asked if sidelining claims had more credence because they came after the recent rearrangement of seating in the House.

He said in the reshuffle, Haynes-Alleyne was moved from the back to the front bench, across from Education Minister Dr Nyan Gadby-Dolly. Charles was moved from the top of Opposition bench, because next year he would not be seeking re-election as MP.

Lee said in the fourth parliament, after the UNC internal elections, Charles had debated a bill and so his remarks now were disingenuous.

“Last Friday (September 13), in the Global Forum debate, I was very surprised Mr Charles did not indicate to me he wanted to speak.

“I ended up speaking. I left him in the tea room and rushed to respond to the debate.”

Lee said he runs the bench openly and does not “invite” anyone to speak.

“If he had wished to speak, I would have let him.”

Lee said,”I have a very good relationship with the entire five MPs.”

He later issued a statement.

“With our country facing crisis upon crisis due to a failed government, there is no time for petty games, fallacies or pretentious ‘victim syndrome’ when we have a serious job to do in the national interest as opposition parliamentarians.”

The statement said any talk of sidelining “was not only misleading or contrary to the truth, but disdainfully mischievous.”

It added, “No opposition member has ever been refused from (sic) speaking in Parliament after indicating their intent to do so.”

Any MP not contributing has done so on their own decision, not because of the whip, opposition leader or UNC, the statement said.

“If they have opted to remain silent in condemning PNM in Parliament and if they have opted to refuse to stand up against the PNM’s poor governance in the Parliament, that is not a result of the UNC’s parliamentary bench management but their own decision to break the contract made to the UNC voters when they asked to contest on a UNC ticket.”