A change in status quo?

The Opposition’s Chief Whip immediately objected on a point of order, citing under that same 50 (3) that the move was an infringement of the rights of the minority — the Opposition.

The Speaker, Bridgid Annisette- George, overruled the objection but not before she allowed a rebuttal by Deyalsingh, who claimed there was prior discussion “behind the chair” on the matter. The Speaker then put the question to the House to adjourn debate on the Bill, to which the Opposition strongly objected, and called for a division of votes. The votes were split 16-16.

The proceedings got interesting when the Speaker stated, “So there is a tie and therefore as Speaker I now do my casting vote. I have to vote in favour of the status quo.

We have done this before and therefore I vote yes.” Standing Order 56 (2) states that when the votes are equally divided, the Speaker “shall have and exercise a casting vote, and any reason stated shall be entered in the minutes of proceedings.” It would be quite interesting to see the reason reflected in the minutes because, based on what transpired, according to a YouTube video from the Parliament Channel, the Speaker’s reasoning did not appear to justify her vote.

It is ambiguous as to who the “we” referred when the Speaker stated, “We have done this before,” as a check of the parliamentary records indicate that the casting vote has not been previously exercised in the House by this current Speaker or even her predecessor in the Tenth Republican Parliament.

What is certain, however, is that the Speaker clearly gave as her reasoning before saying “yes,” that she was inclined to vote in favour of the status quo. For almost a minute after this announcement, a veil of confusion loomed over the House, which lifted only after the Speaker repeated her response and the proceedings resumed.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “status quo” as “the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.” By this simple definition, a vote in favour of the status quo would mean to not interrupt the business of the House already under discussion and leave the debate on the Pre-Trial Procedure Bill to carry on. This would have required her to vote “No” against the digressive motion. The Speaker’s decision, however, did not follow from her explanation.

One may reasonably wonder whether this is a case of the Speaker, herself a former Attorney General, simply misinterpreting the meaning of voting in favour of the status quo. Or was the line that defines the strict non-partisan approach expected of a presiding officer of Parliament breached?
RALPH DEONARINE via email