The prece­dent be­ing set by Patrick Man­ning re­fus­ing to re­sign as an MP even though he is clear­ly un­able to func­tion in that ca­pac­i­ty and de­spite over a year of ab­sence from the Par­lia­ment is ham­string­ing the Op­po­si­tion, is deny­ing the con­stituents of San Fer­nan­do East prop­er and ad­e­quate rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and is set­ting a dan­ger­ous prece­dent for the fu­ture.

I put to each of you a sup­po­si­tion for the fu­ture where an elec­tion re­sults in a 21 - 20 split.What hap­pens if, in that in­stance, a mem­ber from the rul­ing side suf­fers an equal­ly de­bil­i­tat­ing and in­ca­pac­i­tat­ing ill­ness and ends up away from the Par­lia­ment for an ex­tend­ed pe­ri­od. How will the busi­ness of the Par­lia­ment be done with a 20-20 split? How will a bud­get be passed? Who will be able to chal­lenge that per­son con­tin­u­ing af­ter this abuse by Patrick Man­ning and the prece­dent it sets?

This is not about per­son­al­i­ties or emo­tion but about the very gov­er­nance of our land and whether you are a sup­port­er of Patrick Man­ning or not, if you are a cit­i­zen of T&T you have a moral oblig­a­tion to put coun­try first and ask of Mr Man­ning that he do the right thing and step down.

Phillip Ed­ward Alexan­der

Via e-mail