House in session — silence please

“The country is flooded. What are we staying here to talk about?” Siparia MP Kamla Persad-Bissessar pithily remarked two weeks ago after House Speaker Barendra Sinanan unhesitatingly dismissed the Opposition’s petition to debate the daily inundations sinking Trinidad and Tobago. Flooding, according to Sinanan, was not a definite matter of urgent public importance. One had to agree with Kamla. What subject could have been more pressing or “politically correct” for the Parliament’s consideration than the floods which had washed away people, crops, houses and furniture and which were a constant threat to health, life, and livelihood? Conducting any other business when many of the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago were knee deep in dirty water would have been an insult to these, and an Opposition that sat silently through any such mockery of congress, a waste of the people’s votes. When should the flooding be debated? During Carnival season when people were feteing under the dry January sun and didn’t want to hear about rain?

Sinanan could cite as much precedent as he wanted — his ruling would always be viewed by many as designed to shield a Government that could ill afford a debate on flooding early in the afternoon when the press corps was in the Chamber and at an hour which would give reporters ample time to meet their deadlines. Not when the Opposition was certain to score huge political points. Sinanan, covering himself in precedent, ensured he thwarted — come hell or high water — what he saw as the UNC’s bid to “obtain maximum publicity.”  In the process he thwarted us, the flooded. Sinanan’s decree has given us another piece in a political puzzle that’s nearly complete, one that is revealing a Government arrogantly indifferent to the suffering of its constituents. “Hold strain,” we are condescendingly told, “2020 coming. We in the PNM know what we are doing. Just look at how we building and building.” When it’s not seeking to placate us the Government is promising us the sun, moon and the stars by saying TT has a good chance of getting the FTAA headquarters, that we are poised for this and that. Plenty talk, plenty spin and PR. But when the flooding begins, no one can find the relevant ministers to answer any questions because they aren’t in office or are in a meeting or are abroad. When you open the paper, you see the Prime Minister on yet another trip in his bid to increase his regional profile. “Ask us a question, you get a useless press release” is the PNM communication game.

All this double talk when the people who put these characters in office are struggling to keep their heads above the putrid rising floodwaters.
Then the Speaker hits the citizens of the country the final slap in the face and turns down a legitimate appeal for the flooding crisis to be aired in the only place other than the voting booth where the administration can be truly called to account, brought to book: the Parliament.  While we the people go under, Sinanan offers lofty lectures on what qualifies as a definite matter of urgent public importance. Well thanks, Mr Speaker, but no thanks. We really don’t give a hoot about precedent; what we want is a Government that is truly accountable. But you won’t let that happen, will you? Sinanan’s ruling on the flooding motion is also ironic in the extreme because it comes from a man who sat on the Opposition benches from 1995 to 2000 when PNM MPs would rise at every sitting under Standing Order (House rule) 12 to raise “definite matters of urgent public importance,” the majority of which were completely insignificant. But this did not deter PNM members. Indeed, everyone knows and accepts that Opposition MPs use this particular Standing Order to air their concerns, as in explaining why an issue should qualify, they get to state their case. No one thus, from any party, has the right to lecture on definite matters of urgent public importance, certainly not Sinanan. Not when his deputy is Hedwige Bereaux, an MP who must have held the record for rising under this Standing Order when in Opposition.

One Thursday afternoon, September 27, 2001, Bereaux sought to convince UNC Speaker Dr Rupert Griffith that there was so pressing a situation in his constituency, the House needed to discontinue its business of debating tax collection orders, crucial to the passing of Budget 2001/2002. A commentary I wrote about that astounding day stated: “Bereaux rose to the usual accompanying sniggers from the Government backbenchers and announced in his booming voice, ‘Mr Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12 (1) and (2), I hereby ask leave to move the adjournment of the House at its sitting on Thursday 27th September 2001 in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit.’ The MP then paused before revealing the compelling matter: “the dilapidated condition of the roads in La Brea and in particular Lodge Street, La Brea.” In my column I observed that Government backbenchers were soon laughing loudly and they had been joined in their mirth by their front bench peers and that Bereaux’s PNM colleagues were also chuckling, the mischief and humour of the occasion not escaping them either. “As the PNM MP advanced his case,” I noted, “the chortles in the Chamber grew louder. But it was when Bereaux finally declared his reasons why the issue of La Brea’s roads was of public consequence that the House was unable to contain itself. ‘Mr Speaker,’ Bereaux said, ‘quite recently a resident of La Brea, Ramchan Pulchan drowned while swimming in a pothole on Lodge Street, La Brea. This pothole still exists and constitutes a health and safety hazard to the population and particularly children.’”

I can still recall Bereaux standing reading his piece about his deadly potholes. I remember that Griffith did not laugh. However, neither did he lecture the PNM man or chide him for raising the “urgent” issue of roads in La Brea. He calmly turned down Bereaux’s ridiculous request. It was one of Griffith’s few good moves. Why seek to censure an MP for seeking the interests of his constituents, even if his petition is unsound? A representative certainly should never be chastised for raising an issue of genuine import, which is what Sinanan did to the UNC. And really, as Kamla said, what else besides the flooding was there for the House to talk about?

suz@itrini.com