Problem with Mr Speaker

WE BELIEVE it is high time for the Government to begin fulfilling its election manifesto promise with respect to constitution reform. Certainly the need for this change is most annoyingly and consistently demonstrated in the problem of the Speaker of the House of Representatives who, according to the constitution, is appointed by the governing party and whose political loyalties, as a result, are instinctively, and sometimes not unjustifiably, regarded by the Opposition as an unavoidable hindrance to his impartiality.

This situation has made for repeated clashes during debates of the House and we feel it is time for us to have a totally independent Speaker, an experienced and respected professional appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Last Friday’s sitting of the House was again marred by an unseemly confrontation between the Speaker and members of the Opposition which arose out of an attempt by UNC MP Roodal Moonilal to have the flooding situation in the country debated as a matter of urgent public importance. Speaker Barry Sinanan found that it was not enough simply to turn down the request from the Member for Oropouche but, in addition, he rose to deliver a discourse to MPs on “the habit of bringing matters which they know or ought to know” will not qualify as definite matters of urgent public importance.

The Opposition’s reaction to this was instantly hostile, as they viewed the Speaker’s observations as an attempt at pre-empting or censoring their efforts, insisting that “we have a right to do what we do.” Sinanan only exacerbated the Opposition’s anger by suggesting that they were using the Standing Orders as a means of “obtaining maximum publicity” and proceeded to offer the enraged members unsolicited advice as to how they should proceed, suggesting that they could expound on their motions to the press during the tea break.

Kelvin Ramnath who shouted “nonsense!” at this advice became so vociferous that Sinanan ordered him out of the chamber. “I was elected here for four terms. You not going to waste my time to lecture to me, you are nothing but a puppet,” were Ramnath’s parting words. Will the Speaker learn anything from this ugly clash with the Opposition? In the first place, whatever his personal instincts may be, he should not attempt to score political points against the Opposition. His charge that their real intention was seeking maximum publicity and his cynical advice that they should talk to the press instead appear to us quite out of place. In this particular matter, Sinanan’s specific function was to assess the importance of the motion being raised, that is whether the recent widespread flooding in the country, the havoc it has caused, the landslides in which lives were lost, did not amount to a matter of urgent public importance.

In our view it did, and the attempt by the Opposition to debate the issue, to bring to parliament their stand to hold the Government accountable for this destructive situation should have succeeded. It is not the Speaker’s role to protect the Government in any matter, moreso in this case where the widespread damage being done by developers has led to loss of life and property. The Government must be made to answer for the agencies that are clearly not doing their job. The Speaker of the House must maintain impartial control over proceedings and it is not for him to be imputing improper motives to the motions of members. The point we wish to make is that the Speaker must not only exercise this kind of balanced control but he must also be seen to be a person untainted by any political connections or loyalties. Such a change can only come through an upgrading of our constitution and we urge the Government to set this process in train.