1 month ago
3
FLASHBACK: Former prime minister Stuart Young addressed the media at Balisier House, Port of Spain, after the PNM lost the April 28 general election. On June 30, the Senate passed a bill that requires a prime minister to serve for at least one year to be entitled to a prime minister’s pension, disqualifying Young from collecting it. - Photo by Jeff K MayersGOVERNMENT secured the necessary votes it needed from independent senators to pass the Prime Minister’s Pension Amendment Bill 2025 in the Senate on June 30.
The bill amends the Prime Minister’s Pension Act Chapter 2:51 to require a person to serve at least one year as Prime Minister to qualify for the $87,000 monthly pension.
This means Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West MP Stuart Young, SC, who was prime minister from March 17 to April 30 will no longer be entitled to the prime minister’s pension.
The bill, which needed a three-fifths majority (19 votes) for passage, was passed with 20 senators voting for it.
That number included all 15 government senators and five independent senators – Deoroop Teemal; Michael de La Bastide, SC; Alicia Lelite-Etienne; Courtney McNish; and Francis Lewis.
The remaining four independent senators (Anthony Vieira, SC; Candice Jones-Simmons; Dr Desiree Murray; Zola Phillips) and the six opposition senators abstained on the vote.
The bill was passed against a background of questions being raised about the independence of the nine independent senators.
Earlier in the sitting, Senate President Wade Mark said all senators had “the inalienable right to speak and vote freely, guided by conscience and without undue influence.”
At a news conference on June 29, UNC PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo claimed the independent senators could vote against the bill.
Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives Barry Padarath, at the same briefing, called for the independent senators to support the legislation.
Before the Senate passed the bill, Opposition Senator Dr Amery Browne claimed there were attempts during the earlier debate to influence senators to vote a particular way on the legislation.
He claimed posts on different social media platforms “appear designed to pressure and intimidate members (senators) in the course of their deliberation and contemplation on how they would vote on matters.”
Browne reaffirmed the opposition’s commitment to the Constitution and democracy.
“We will have no hesitation in standing in the defence of others who might be menaced or pressured.”
Browne also claimed there was a group of public officials resorting to social media to undertake and present their own analysis of the Senate’s debate on the bill.
In his contribution, Opposition Senator Faris Al-Rawi signaled the PNM’s attempt to abstain when the Senate was called to vote on the bill.
During the committee stage on the bill, government senators rejected separate proposals from Murray and Browne.
They proposed to either remove clauses two and five of the bill or have them altered.
Clause two proposed the bill come into force on March 10, “thereby giving it retroactive effect.”
Clause five proposed that a person serve at least one year as prime minister to be eligible to receive a pension under the Prime Minister’s Pension Act.
In her proposal to remove Clause 10, Murray said was unwise to have the perception the bill was targeting one person.
“I believe that it is in the best interest...in the public good to not have that perception and I am proposing that clause two be deleted.”
In his earlier contribution, Browne repeated the PNM’s support for overall amendment to the prime minister’s pension legislation and its concerns about the bill being retroactive from March 10.
He said he tried to find out why government regarded this date as significant to the legislation’s operationality.
Browne called on government “to put the cards on the table and expand the framing of this measure.”
He identified the war in Syria and a ban in British Columbia on alcohol imports from the US, as two events related to March 10.
“I did not see any trigger there.”
Browne said, “I do note that seven days...exactly seven days later there was a development in the politics of Trinidad and Tobago.”
He called on government say whether the bill is connected “to developments that took place on the 17th of March.”
Port of Spain North/St Ann’s West MP Stuart Young was sworn in a prime minister on that day. He succeeded Dr Keith Rowley who resigned as prime minister on March 16.
Browne asked if this is so, “Why go back one week?”
He also asked, “What is the logic? What is the intelligence behind this particular drafting?
In a Facebook post on June 27, Young said, “This bill specifically targets me as former prime minister. The bill’s retroactive application to March 10, 2025, is constitutionally illegal as it is ‘ad hominem’ (a law that targets a specific individual).” Murray also proposed to remove “March 10” from the bill and replace it with “July 23.”
She reminded senators July 23, 1969, was the date on which the Prime Minister’s Pension Act was first established.
“There is a perception in the public domain that there is ad hominem.”
Murray said she understood an explanation given by Attorney General John Jeremie in his contribution to the debate, that this was not so.
But she added, “In order to alleviate that perception and assuage some of the difficulty some people have with that date (March 10) making the amendment retroactive to 23rd July, 1969, would help with that perception of bias.”
Murray said her proposed amendment “would then apply to all former prime ministers of the independent nation and subsequently the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.” Jeremie welcomed Murray’s proposals.
But he disagreed that the bill targeted any specific person.
“It does not impoverish anyone.”
He also repeated the government’s position that the legislation was not prejudicial to anyone.
“That is not the case.”
Jeremie said government did not introduce the question of prejudice into the debate on the bill at any time.
Murray said her proposals to amend clause five dealt with concerns that if a prime minister demitted office due to illness or injury after serving in office for less than a year.
She asked if the bill, in its current form, could deny that person, his or her spouse or children from benefiting from a prime minister’s pension.
In acknowledging but rejecting these proposals, Jeremie said cabinet has the ability to approve ex-gratia payments to former prime minister and other former government officials in certain circumstances.
He suggested this could also be an opportunity to look at legislation which governs pensions for government ministers and other legislators. Jeremie added that prime ministers are drawn from this pool of people.
Browne’s proposals, which were similar to Murray’s, were also rejected by government during committee deliberations on the bill.
In concluding debate on the bill earlier in the sitting, Minister in the Ministry of Finance Dr Kennedy Swaratsingh said he would leave legal analysis on this matter to Jeremie.
He repeated this was a matter which government maintained “this is not right, let us fix it.”
Swaratsingh recalled in a previous life, he loved to read documents from the Vatican.
“One of the institutions that has of course been slow to change, is the church.”
He said the Vatican documents suggest the Catholic Church must always seek to be relevant to the people it serves.
Swaratsingh added the parallel can be drawn with legislation and when it is time for it to be updated
‘This legislation that was cast in 1969, is urgent need of updating.”
Swaratsingh said both the PNM and UNC were aware of such matters, in their respective tenures in government.
He added consistency is key.
“To be consistent is to make sure, that what we ourselves want for ourselves, we must also want for other people.”
Referring to an earlier comment from Browne about government putting its cards on the table regarding its intentions behind the bill, Swaratsingh said one card which the UNC can lay on the table is that “this government is for the working class.”
English (US) ·