STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER - Church in Heights of Guanapo

Thursday, March 04 2010 @ 03:29 PM AST

The Prime Minister (Hon. Patrick Manning): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago begins as follows:
“Whereas the People of Trinidad and Tobago—
(a) have affirmed that the Nation of Trinidad and Tobago is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God…”
It goes on:
“(d) recognise that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values…”
I hasten to point out, it did not say religious values; spiritual values, very significant distinction. It states “spiritual values”; as an importance of the mix that is required to ensure that men and institutions in this country remain free; spiritual values.

These principles are given effect by way of policy in the way governments conduct their business in this country in a number of ways. The first is that in the Prime Minister’s Office, there is a portfolio called Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for Ecclesiastical Affairs. In that capacity, the Prime Minister will meet various religious bodies and religious individuals to deal with matters of a religious nature that affect denominations and so on and so on. In many respects he oversees, as part of the general oversight of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, what takes place, and pays special attention to what takes place with religious bodies in the conduct of their business with the State in their relations with the State, as it relates to the work of other Ministries: the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs and so on.

The second area in which this policy is given effect is in the area of the Ecclesiastical Grant. For years, there has been an Ecclesiastical Grant, where the State gives subventions to religious organizations. This year, the Ecclesiastical Grant is exactly what it has been for the last 10 years. The Roman Catholic Church was given, over the 10-year period, $1,157,240; Hindus, $711,000; and Anglicans, $515,000. This is over the last 10 years. Muslims, $403,000; Presbyterians, $264,400 roughly; Methodists, $101,000; Seventh Day Adventists, $176,000; Spiritual Baptists, $132,000; Orthodox Baptists, $169,400; the Moravian Church, $35,000; Pentecostals, $250,800; Jehovah Witnesses, approximately $48,000; Church of God, $32,000; Stewards, this is Christian Brethren, $8,960 roughly; and Trustees of the Ethiopian Orthodox, $4,808.

You will notice that the quantities are relatively small and that they are given to a restricted number of denominations, because this is the way it has been traditionally.
Within recent times, when there has been a proliferation of denominations all over the country and particularly the development of a number of independent Ministries in the Full Gospel Movement, it has become exceedingly difficult for the Government to have a fair and equitable allocation under the Ecclesiastical Grant and therefore, rather than expose itself to allegations of discrimination, this Government, and I dare say the government that preceded us in office, took the position that the Ecclesiastical Grant will not be touched; it will not be increased in quantity, it will not be added to, because of the difficulty in deciding to whom it should be given in a fair manner, the proliferation incidentally not to Full Gospel Churches, but also in the Islamic and Hindu faith. The general proliferation has led to a situation where the Ecclesiastical Grant has to be rethought and pending, that this Government and the Government that preceded us in office and the one before that, took the position that they would freeze the Ecclesiastical Grant in place—the Ecclesiastical Grant and a portfolio of Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and not the only two areas in the relations between church and State. There are others.

Many of the denominations, as they seek to expand their faith or as they seek to conduct social interventions in the society, or as they seek to undertake a role for the education of the children who are part of their faith, approach the Government for assistance in more ways than one; in many ways. The primary way is by way of land; the approach for land. Over the years, a number of denominations have been the beneficiaries of land from the State.
In 1975, I go back as far as that, Monroe Hindu Cultural Group, which is a branch of the Maha Sabha, got 10,000 square feet of land. On October 11 2007, Alta Garcia Trace, San Francique, Shri Morgan Foundation Limited got for the erection of a temple, 2 hectares of land. This is approved by the Cabinet, that is about 5 acres.

In January 1991, the Platini Crown Trace, Rochard Road was given land in that area; Clarke Road Jamaat of the An Juman Association for the construction of a mosque, one road and eight purchase. This was 1991.
In 1972, Trinidad Muslim League Incorporated, a parcel of land 4 feet by 7 feet.
Mr. Peters: A grave?
Hon. P. Manning: On the grounds of the Jina—it is a grave—Memorial Mosque, Eastern Main Road, St. Joseph, licensed as a private burial ground for the interment of the founder and spiritual head of the league, Al Hagim Murvi Amir Ali whenever the occasion presented itself. In other words, they applied for the land to bury the founder of the organization before he died.
Mr. Speaker, 1960, 10,000 square feet at Sisters Road, Savannah Grande, Sunat ul Jamaat, for the erection of a mosque. That is grave. In 1983, lands in California for the erection of a Hindu Temple and cultural building, two acres of land given by the State; Cabinet decision and a host of other applications that have been satisfied, not just from the Hindus and the Muslims, but from the Christian denomination and a lot of, virtually all, the denominations in Trinidad and Tobago.

2.00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, everybody, when they required land, had come to the State and, in many instances, most of them got. It goes on that the land came, not only directly from the Cabinet, but from state agencies. Take the case of the National Housing Authority, on October 31, 2002, property situated—the Holy Faith Baptist Tabernacle, property situated in La Horquetta, 893.2 square metres; Shiva Dharma Sabha, 1,408.8 square metres, and that is April 19, 1998; October 1990, Greater Malabar Christian Centre, 2,856.3 square metres; Holy Ethiopian Spiritual Temple, one acre, at La Horquetta; the New Testament Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, Malabar, Phase 4, 1,537.7 square metres; Corner Stone Christian Centre, 2,398.6 square metres; Bon Air Full Gospel Baptist Church, 0.20 hectares; the Holy Faith Baptist Tabernacle, 893.2 square metres and, Mr. Speaker, I could go on.
The point I am trying to make is that it has become a practice, not just of this Government, but of many governments that preceded us in office, to make lands available from the State for the construction of places of worship. The lands varied in size based on requirements. It was not just the Government, the Cabinet nor the NHA, but there was also Caroni (1975) Limited.
In fact, a government of which I was a part in the past, became concerned about the way Caroni (1975) Limited was distributing lands in Central and South Trinidad, and to be able to rein that in, when we took a loan using Caroni (1975) Limited lands as security, a debenture was placed on the land with a restriction, and if you wanted to transfer lands from Caroni (1975) Limited it needed Cabinet approval. That was the only way that the Cabinet was able to take some kind of control of what was happening with Caroni (1975) Limited in terms of land. The minute the debenture was paid off, the free-for-all began again. It was a virtual free for all with State lands as it related to denominational bodies.

Mr. Speaker, when the Cabinet took a decision that it would make lands available to the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, all it was doing was acting in accordance with a tradition of long-standing that had become an essential and integral part of the conduct of Government business in its relations between church and state. There is nothing unusual about it. [Desk thumping]
Mr. Speaker, area No. 4, in which there is a relationship between the church and state, is in respect of schools. The number of government assisted schools built or under construction over the period 2000 to the present time is 16 in number. These are schools owned by denominational bodies. The Government built 16 schools for denominational bodies at a cost of $138.1 million with the State putting in $118.05 million, or 85.5 per cent of the cost of the schools. These are schools under the control of denominational bodies built by the State, in this case, the State funding 85.5 per cent of the cost of the building of the school, amounting to $118.5 million; 16 government assisted schools are involved in it. This is at the primary level.

Mr. Speaker, over the period 2005 to present, the Government, in partnership with denominational bodies, constructed eight government assisted secondary schools at a cost of $363.64 million. The Government's contribution was $279.93 million or 76.9 per cent of the cost.
Grants and other financial support provided to—let me also say this. At least, when we were in Government—well, let me go back to 1960. In the year 1960, there was a meeting between the then Roman Catholic Archbishop of Trinidad and Tobago and the then Prime Minister, to come to some kind of arrangement between the Church and the State in education, and the Concordat was arrived at. What it did is demarcated the responsibilities of the Church and the State in education, recognizing that historically the Church had taken up a responsibility in education which the State had refused to do under colonial times. So that arrangement was arrived at.

It was based on a premise that the responsibility for the education of the nation's children rested not with the Church, but with the State. In fact, what the Government was saying in 1960—it was the new PNM Government—was that the State recognizes its responsibility in the education of the nation's children, and had decided to take up the responsibility where, in the past, that responsibility was executed by the church. So they had this Concordat and then subsequently other denominations signed on to it.

Mr. Speaker, when the NAR came into government in 1987, the whole paradigm changed. Whereas the PNM ensured that the lid was kept on it, and introduced systems at the secondary and primary levels to expand the access to education at those levels by way of government schools, the NAR government—the Member for Couva North, the Member for Couva South and the Member for Siparia who was a ranking member and so on—took a slightly different position.

It is very interesting to take note of the fact that in that time, the Early Childhood Care and Education Centres, a decision was taken by the Government to place all Early Childhood Care and Education Centres under the control of Servol. That was the decision they took. In other words, placing it under Servol is an arm of the Catholic Church. I am not casting any aspersions on anybody, but I just want to point out that at that time, Father Jerry Pantin was the head of Servol, the Archbishop of Port of Spain, His Grace, Archbishop Anthony Pantin was the Archbishop of Port of Spain and the Minister of Education was the hon. Clive Pantin. In those circumstances, you had this change. I am not making any comment about the matter. All I am saying is that a miscellany of interpretations has been put on it, but none came from the Member for Couva North, the Member for Couva South or for that matter, the Member for Siparia who was a ranking member of the NAR at that time. I just put that on the Table for the benefit of all. Mr. Speaker, they were not the only ones.

When the UNC came into government in 1995—prior to that, between 1991—1995, in the context of my responsibilities as Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, I took note of what the full gospel churches had been saying to the Government, and what they had been saying is this: Every denomination in the country has primary and secondary schools and they have none. Even though the Concordat exists, and even though there is a position of the State that the responsibility for the education of the nation's children rests with the State and not with the Church, they were lobbying and making representations, especially for a secondary school to be under the control of the full gospel bodies in the country.

Mr. Speaker, the problem was that there are so many independent Minister that you did not know with whom you should deal. So I spent a considerable amount of time, between 1991—1995, trying to bring these churches together in an organization which was eventually formed with 150 of the churches called the Association of Independent Ministers (AIM). That was the name of the organization. We were waiting for that body to settle down before we began discussions with them to see what would be the relationship between the church and the State, in respect of the full gospel bodies. They wanted to intervene in the dispensation of social services and so on.

While we went out of government, the government that came in, the UNC, this is what they did. Instead of treating with the association that was formed, the Association of Independent Ministers (AIM), they selected one body, and the body was Miracle Ministries, the leader of which was in loco parentis with the ruling party—they had a close association, that is how the lawyers put it—and, therefore, it was on considerations other than equity, which is clear to anybody who looks at it, that a decision was taken to give a secondary school to Miracle Ministries. That is the reality of it.
Before that, Miracle Ministries negotiated with Caroni (1975) Limited for seven acres of land. The land came from the State, the seven acres, and then the government, headed by the hon. Member for Couva North, built a secondary school for the particular church, not the body of churches, but for the particular church. The school cost $20.52 million, $14 million of which was funded by the State. This is how they did it.

Mr. Speaker, they went further. In their relations with the Baptist Church, the Shouter Baptists, they gave 25 acres of land to, not the overall Baptist body, but to an arm of it; one of the archdioceses. It turns out that the person who headed that particular archdiocese, was a Senator in the government at the time, appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. So it was not a question of dealing with the Baptist Church or the Baptist faith, but it was a question of dealing with an individual with whom they had a close association. That is how they conducted their business. What did we try to do?
Mr. Speaker, between 1991—1995, what I sought to do was to bring about Baptist unity. You see, long ago, we had taken a decision to construct a Baptist Cathedral for the Baptists. They had asked for it. The problem was, that following the death of Archbishop Griffith, a certain amount of fragmentation took place in the church, and a number of archdioceses arose which raised the question of equity, and with whom we should deal and treat in trying to implement a commitment of the construction of a Baptist Cathedral. So what I sought to do as Prime Minister and Minister with responsibility for Ecclesiastical Affairs between 1991—1995, was to speak with the various archdioceses in such a way as to try to bring together Baptist unity. I strove for Baptist unity for a long time.

There were eight archdioceses at the time. Regrettably, those efforts were not successful and, therefore, we were unable to carry it out then and are still unable to carry it out, but that did not deter hon. Members when they were in government for taking a different course of action. Instead of seeking to pursue the equitable approach, what they did? Twenty-five acres of land was given to an arm of the Baptist faith, headed by somebody who was a Senator in the government at the time, appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. In other words, there was no equity in the matter at all. That is how they did it.

Mr. Speaker, coming back to the question of education, repairs and maintenance of government assisted schools: Between the period 2005—2007, the Government repaired and maintained 334 government assisted primary schools at a cost of $176.2 million; 79 government assisted secondary schools at a cost of $594.2 million—the relationship between Church and State in education. You see the quantities of money! Large quantities of money have been spent by the State on denominational bodies in the country in a number of important areas. In the instant case, what we are dealing here with is government assisted schools and repairs and maintenance to these schools. Annual expenditure on grants to government-assisted schools.
2.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, in fiscal 2008/2009 the Government expended $32.87 million to provide salaries for ancillary staff and maintenance grants at the government-assisted schools, primary schools and at the secondary school level, the figure was $44.28 million. That is the story! And this is not the total story you know, this is part of it.
When for example, the Unemployment Relief Programme (URP) decided and took the decision that it cannot repair but to completely reconstruct the temple built by Siewdas Sadhu in the sea at Waterloo, nobody quarrelled with that.

The URP went and they completely reconstructed the temple in the sea and nobody argued as to where the authority came from; nobody asked the question as to how much cost. It was all right. That was fine.
When, in Carapichaima the Dattatreya Yoga Centre—when the Dattatreya Yoga Centre was building the tallest statue in the Western Hemisphere, an 82 foot statue, of one of the Hindu gods—
Mr. S. Panday: The Hanuman Statue.
Hon. P. Manning: You see, Hanuman Statue—and they could not pay for works done by Coosal and they came to the Government and the Government paid Coosal $2.355 million for works to complete a facility, nobody asked any questions. Nothing was wrong with that. That was quite in order. I was invited to go and when I went to that site—

Dr. Moonilal: You went?
Hon. P. Manning: Yes, I went. I went to the site. It did not make papers. It was not of any significance that the Prime Minister visited the site—the Dattatreya Yoga Centre—where the tallest statue in the Western Hemisphere was built. Nobody asked any questions. Nobody said that he went under the cloak of darkness. Nobody said any such thing, but I went.

Mr. S. Panday: We did not know you went.
Hon. P. Manning: That is the point I am making. Nobody was interested in knowing. That was not significant; there is no political mileage to be gained from that. What do you get from that?
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister went, he discovered that the intricate work of the statue had to be conducted by workers from India, nobody said anything about it. They came from India to do it. Nobody argued. That was in order. That was quite fine. But when the Chinese are building a church for the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, something is wrong with that, or when the Prime Minister—

Mr. S. Panday: A company that has contracts for the Government.
Hon. P. Manning: You could say—listen! [Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: [Inaudible]
Hon. P. Manning: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. When the Prime Minister visits the site of the church for the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, he did not go under the cover of darkness you know; he went with a security detail. Everybody knew he went, and contrary to all that we are reading in the newspapers, the Prime Minister visited that site once, during broad daylight in the year 2005. Just once! And all this talk you are hearing about cars with tint on them, that is how they use it. That is the way they put their arguments across to create an impression that is totally incorrect, absolutely no basis in fact, but which is used, of course, to smear the image, the name, and sully the good name of the Prime Minister. That is what they are trying to do. So we put that to bed also.

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Church and State also continued in the dispensation of social services. Islamic Home for Children, $280,000. This is spent by the State on it. The Jaya Lakshmi Home, $375,000; Credo Foundation Roman Catholic, $1,5 million; Credo Drop-in Centre for Socially Displaced Boys, $2.6 million; Credo Aylward House, $1.3 million; another children's home—Furnham Place, I think it is called—$280,000; the Cyril Ross, $880,000; Hope Centre, $175,000; Mothers' Union, $300,000, et cetera. For a total of $245,828,503 between 2003—2009. This is what the State paid to religious organizations in their social intervention strategies, designed to impact on the social life of the country. The State took up a liability to the extent of $245 million. Nobody said anything about that. That is fine; it is all on the table.

The NSDP, the Ministry of Community Development, Culture and Gender Affairs—NSDP being carried out; three agencies, SWMCOL, WASA and T&TEC—question answered in the Parliament in 2003; 27 projects, 11 of which were projects involving places of worship—11 of which were that. When SWAHA was building the temple in Diego Martin—I think it is a four-storey temple—and the Government that preceded us and our own Government made contributions to that temple, and the exact figure is not known at this time, in excess of $1 million; nobody had any quarrel with it. Nothing was wrong with it. They spoke about the magnificence of the structure. They were not concerned about how much the Government put in, because it was all right. That is quite all right with them, Mr. Speaker. Then they talk about equity.
I could go on and on in the relationship between Church and State. What emerges from all of this is that there is a virtual free for all in this country in the relation between the Church and the State in a number of ways, one of which is land distribution. We have had to discontinue the policy of land distribution to the Church because the demand was reaching the point that the Government could not supply it. There is a proliferation of churches, not just in the Full Gospel Movement; in Hinduism; in Islam, there is a proliferation of churches and the State is unable to meet the demands that has now emerged in its relations between Church and State to assist churches in the legitimate conduct of their business, remembering that the Constitution talks about the society being founded on the principle of the supremacy of God and on the respect for moral and spiritual values. We had to discontinue because this could no longer be so.

We now take the position that to build a church, is a matter not for the State, but it is a matter for the membership of that church. It is for them to raise money; it is for them to provide the wherewithal, to advance their own faith. It cannot be the responsibility of the State to do that and the State has quietly listened through all from it. It is important that I say that.
Mr. Speaker, let us go to the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ. [Interruption] I want to say from the start—let me get it here. In the year 2005 the Cabinet took a decision to make 0.3 hectares of land at Guanapo Heights available to the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ Church. The note that came to the Cabinet asked for 1.8 hectares. The Cabinet approved 1.3 hectares. This was in September 2005. The date is important, and it is important for the benefit of the Express. [Desk thumping]
When the matter went to Town and Country Planning, Town and Country Planning did not agree to the subdivision of the parcel of land and a note came back to the Cabinet, and by decision of December 07, 2006 Cabinet took a second decision—and I want to point out that the Prime Minister was not present at the Cabinet meetings at which either of these decisions were taken. I was out of the country.

Mr. S. Panday: Poor thing.
Hon. P. Manning: The Prime Minister was not present! But hear the second decision—in the interest of time—it agreed to rescind the decision recorded in subparagraph (b) of Minute No. 2542—that is the decision of 2005:
(a) pertaining to the grant of an institutional lease of the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ in respect of a parcel of state land comprising 0.3 hectares known as Lot 104, Heights of Guanapo, Arima, County of St. George;
(b) to the grant of an institutional lease of the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ in respect of the entire parcel of state land mandated by Town and Country Planning, comprising three acres, three roods, 16 perches known as Lot No. 4—and it gives the address;
(c) that a survey order be issued by the Director of Surveys to facilitate the survey of the parcel of land in order to confirm the size thereof. There was a doubt as to the exact size of the land, and therefore the Cabinet decision said that a survey should be done to determine what the exact figure was—it goes on;
(d) upon receipt of the survey planned, the matter be referred to the Valuation Division for determination of an appropriate rental fee;
(e) that Mrs. Annette Williams whose standard agricultural lease in respect of a portion of state land referred to at (b) above was terminated, and who continues to occupy the said parcel of land, be officially informed of decision at (b) above—in fact, it was not Mrs. Annette Williams, it was a squatter on the land;
Hon. Member: What date is that letter?
Hon. P. Manning: December 07, 2006.
(f) In connection with (e) above, a quick notice—Cabinet decision—be issued to the occupants to the effect that failure on their part to comply therewith will result in legal action to have them removed—Cabinet decision, to say a quick note on them—and if they do not want to operate in accordance we will then take legal action to have them removed.

It goes on to say:
“on completion of the matters referred at (c) to (f) above the lease in favour of church be vetted by the Attorney General.”
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the church chose not to have a confrontation with the squatter and instead was able to arrange for a friend of the church to make a monetary contribution to the squatter to ensure that things remained on even keel. That is what happened. That is what happened! When I was in Tobago and we were building the Claude Noel Highway, the State had an arrangement, whereby we had to clear the properties so the highway could be constructed.
There were people living on the properties who would not move and they were not prepared to accept what the State was offering, therefore what happened was the contractor went and entered into an arrangement with them privately, paying sums considerably in excess of what the State would have paid, but it had the effect of getting the site cleared and we were able to complete the highway.

What happened in this case was a benefactor approached individuals, paid them a sum of money to have them go. What you are seeing in the papers today about this money was paid and they want more money, all it is, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt to extract more money from somebody. That is all it is! They should have gotten no money in the first place. That was the Cabinet decision. They were illegally on the land and the Cabinet said that they should be served a quick notice, and if they do not want to move, let them know that legal action would be taken. That is what it is.
So for being humane and for being a benevolent landlord as it were, paid them a sum of money to try to get them to go in peace—church, it is involved, we do not want any noise—we are now witnessing the spectacle of allegations to suggest that something was improper with that. Nothing was wrong with it! So those were the decisions.

The approvals that were applied for—first of all, because Town and Country Planning objected to the 0.3 hectares and the subdivision of the land, it proves Town and Country Planning had been in discussion on the construction of this church since 2005. When the application was made and the approval was not granted, it was not granted because Town and Country Planning was not aware of the Cabinet decision of 2007 where it was not just 0.3 hectares, but a considerably larger—it was the entire parcel of land and Town and Country Planning taking the position that they were not going to approve construction on land that did not belong to the individual who made the application. That is the position they were taking. So, it was on a false premise. It was made on a false premise and therefore Town and Country Planning took that course of action.

2.30 p.m.
As it now turns out, Mr. Speaker, this Cabinet Note has been drawn to the attention of the Town and Country Planning. They are now in a position to conduct the business properly.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out from the very onset, that the church that is being built is not being built with state funds; [Desk thumping] that the building constructed does not belong to the Prime Minister; [Desk thumping] that the church is owned by the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ; that neither the Prime Minister nor any Member of the Government gave any instruction to UDeCott regarding the construction of the church, most importantly. [Desk thumping]
Let me deal with the other question of the Head of the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ going everywhere with the Prime Minister in all of his travels. Mr. Speaker, the gross inaccuracy of that statement has already been dealt with years ago in the Benny Hinn matter, and it need not detain us at this time. Suffice it to say, it is grossly inaccurate, and I do not propose to spend any more time on that.

Mr. S. Panday: Let us hear it.
Hon. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, where the head of that church goes is her business. It has nothing to do with us. When anybody travels at taxpayers’ expense, you need a Cabinet decision to do that. There is no Cabinet decision authorizing any payment for the head of the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ to travel to any part of the world. There is no Cabinet decision, and therefore, as Head of the Cabinet, I am in a position to say that no state funds are involved in the following travel of the head of that church. [Desk thumping] No state funds are involved.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution guarantees you freedom of association. The Constitution of this country guarantees you freedom of religious beliefs, and everybody is free to pursue the belief, to which everybody is free, and everybody is free to be advised as he or she sees fit spiritually by whom he or she wishes. [Desk thumping]

In the Roman Catholic Church, Roman Catholics consult with their priest for spiritual guidance constantly. Nothing is wrong with that. [Desk thumping]
When the Member for Siparia, or the Member for Fyzabad, or the Member for Oropouche East for that matter, consulted with their pundit or their guru for spiritual advice, nobody says anything wrong with that.
When the Leader of the Opposition, emeritus, the Member for Couva North, goes to India and consults with his Holiness, Sai Baba, for spiritual guidance, the head of a faith that is different from the faith to which he belongs, nothing is wrong with that. [Desk thumping] Nobody says anything wrong about it. Nobody says anything about that. But when the Prime Minister decides that he would seek spiritual advice from whoever he wishes, the first thing they say is obeah—[Interruption]

Mr. S. Panday: Witchcraft.
Hon. P. Manning:—seer woman, prophetess. Prophetess is meant to be a disparaging statement. That is what it was meant to be. [Desk thumping]
Mr. Speaker, it is tantamount to religious persecution of the Prime Minister. [Desk thumping] That is what it is tantamount to persecution. Not only that, the Prime Minister is consulting somebody who is an ordained pastor in the Full Gospel Movement and who is a born again Christian. [Desk thumping] It is time the Full Gospel Movement in this country, that the born again Christians in this country, stop accepting this denigration of their faith, [Desk thumping] and particularly, by people who know none of the beliefs or have no idea of the premises of which those beliefs were arrived at in the first place. [Desk thumping] You get up and say something about the Hindus and you will find out. You make that mistake. You get up and say something about the Muslims.

Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, Salman Rushdie, remember him, he wrote a book called Satanic Verses, he said, he made certain statements that certain arms of Islam found to be offensive. Do you know what they did? They put a price on his head, and Rushdie has not resurfaced since then. He has not seen the light of day since then. I am not advocating that in Trinidad and Tobago. I am not advocating that at all, but this persecution of the Full Gospel Movement has to come to an end. [Desk thumping]
Mr. Maharaj SC: Amen. [Laughter] Amen and amen.
Mr. B. Panday: The second crusade has begun.

Hon. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the media in trying to get to the bottom of it was going all over the place. Listen carefully to what I am about to say. Two days ago, two journalist from a media house in this country went up to Guanapo Heights and interviewed a lady whom they met there, who heads an arm of the church that at one time was with the Lighthouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, but there was a split in the church, and after the interview, they had a spiritual experience, the likes of which they never had before—

Mr. S. Panday: A spirit lash?
Hon. P. Manning: I will say it again, the likes of which they never had before. The media will be the first to tell you that the public has a right to know.
Mrs. Sinanan Ojah-Maharaj: Exactly.
Hon. P. Manning: And I agree with that. I am calling on those two journalists who I will not name at this time—nor would I name the media house—to report totally, completely, accurately and faithfully, exactly what happened in that experience. I will let them know, I know all about it. [Desk thumping] I know all about it, so I am in a position to audit what they say.
Mr. Speaker, I am giving them one week in which to do it. [Desk thumping] I am giving them one week in which to do it. I will tell you this much about it. It put the fear of God in their hearts. I am sure that they are now rethinking their position on all of this. I am sure they are now rethinking it, but I would leave that.

Mr. B. Panday: That happened to me in some—[Inaudible] [Laughter]
Hon. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, just before I close, I want to refer to the duplicity of the hon. Members opposite and how they conduct their business. I received a letter on February 19, 2010, listen to how the letter goes:
"Hon Prime Minister.
Re: Lower Mc Bean Mandir Extension of premises.
I write to you for your intervention because all other avenues have failed to resolve this problem.
For over 15 years the residents of Lower Mc Bean have been occupying about three (3) acres of land adjacent to the Lower Mc Bean Mandir on which they have extended facilities for the residents of the area."
You know what they are saying here. That the mandir is built here; there is a parcel of land owned by the State next door; the mandir has extended facilities to the people on land that they do not own, so they squat on the land; and a letter is being written to me now, asking me to regularize this. The person writing it says, they have written to every known authority seeking to regularize the occupancy without success or so much as a reply.
"I am appealing to you to use your good offices to have this matter dealt with."
Mr. Speaker, we might very well do it, but understand what we are being asked to do. The mandir is on a parcel of land, there is a parcel of state land next to it, the mandir has squatted on the State land and used it for community purposes, and now we are being asked not to convert that land for a community purpose, but to make the land available to the mandir. You would not believe who signed this letter? The letter is signed by one, Basdeo Panday, the Member for Couva North. [Desk thumping]
Hon. Member: What?

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, this is not permitted, and may I ask you to please—
Hon. P. Manning: I am winding up now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. B. Panday: Anyway, I want to thank you very much.
Hon. P. Manning: We will probably regularize it. We will probably do that.
Mr. B. Panday: Thank you so much.
Hon. P. Manning: Mr. Speaker, let me say a few things about myself to this country and to this Parliament. I grew up in a Christian home. My mother used to sing in two choirs: the choir in the St. Clement’s Anglican Church and the choir in the St. Paul's Anglican Church. We had a piano at home and during the week early on mornings, she would get up and practise the hymns that they would sing on Sunday. So the way our house was laid out, you would have to hear it. I know nearly all the hymns in the hymn book. In that way, she used that method to impart to us a spiritual environment and to expose us to a spiritual environment, and impart other spiritual values on our lives, and particularly, when she would call the family together for us to pray together. We are a family that prayed together. This is how I grew up. [Desk thumping] I grew up with a deep spiritual background. On Sunday, I go to Sunday school. I go to Sunday school on Sunday, [Desk thumping] and during the holidays, I will attend two Bible schools: one on Drayton Street in San Fernando, a Baptist Bible school; and the other in the Church of the God, which was on a site now occupied by Skiffle Bunch. The pan side has replaced a church. But that is the environment in which I grew up, and that my life has been indelibly shaped by all of those experiences.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to this national community and to this House that I do not drink—[Interruption]

Hon. Member: Again!
Hon. P. Manning:—I do not smoke and I am taking very careful note, all that you are seeing—when the Member for Chaguanas West gets up and gives an impression that is not correct, all of that is in the context of an election that they see coming, and they see the avalanche coming at them. [Desk thumping] They see it. They have campaigned on a platform of change, and the only change that we are seeing—because that is the basis of the allegations—is a greater level of political nastiness. That is what we are seeing. [Desk thumping]
I am a man of strong spiritual beliefs.
Hon. Member: You are a born again.

Hon. P. Manning: I will attend any church of my choice. That is my right. I would pursue the faith of my choice. That is my right, as it is the right of anybody else. [Desk thumping] I will consult whom I wish for spiritual advice. That is my right. [Desk thumping] And I will not be deterred by the slings and arrows of hon. Members opposite for whatever reason. I will stay strong in my faith, and I will bring to the conduct of the Government of this country exactly the principles on which this Constitution is founded, the moral and spiritual values that guarantee the freedom of Trinidad and Tobago.
Thank you very much. [Desk thumping]

----------------
CREDITS: Photo courtesy the Office of the Prime Minister

Comments (0)

Breaking News
http://news.bn.gs/article.php?story=20100304152917601