Leave the laptop; get on with the people's business

It is clear how the political divide in the "laptop affair" will be played out. Prime Minister Patrick Manning has drawn his line in the sand by stating that he won’t tolerate lawlessness in the Parliament; Basdeo Panday has suggested that his expulsion had little to do with his computer and a whole lot to do with Speaker Barendra Sinanan flexing his muscles to whip MPs into following to his rules.

The affair has caused a distraction from the real national issues and the people’s concerns about high food prices and rising crime, to name the top two.

The focus is on whether the Speaker was in fact within the rules of the House. And based on what the relevant Standing Orders say, it appears that he was on firm ground.

But perhaps we need to take a close look at the real issue at hand - the use the computer and the narrow guidelines established by the Speaker in his memo, which was the root cause of the drama that unfolded in Parliament last Friday, with police being called to escort the former Prime Minister out of the House of Representatives.

We live in a modern world and the Trinidad and Tobago Parliament has recognized the relevance of computers and similar electronic devices. A resolution passed only this month allows Senators access to computers and wireless connections to the Internet.

Why then this rigid rule about the circumstances under which a Member of the House may use a laptop computer?

Manning and the speaker are standing firm on the provisions of the Standing Orders, which were written and accepted back in 1961 when we were in the dark ages with respect to modern technology. The portable computer and the Internet didn’t exist then.

Perhaps Speaker Sinanan should have been guided in drafting his memo by Section 91 (1) of the same Standing Orders that states:

"In any matter not herein provided for, resort shall be had to the usage and practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which shall be followed as far as the same may be applicable to this House, and not inconsistent with these Standing Orders nor with the practice of this House."

That is indeed a critical point. It would suggest that since the rules drafted in 1961 did not provide for the use of computers, the matter should be based on what is acceptable in the British Parliament today.

Sinanan, as an experienced Speaker, should know that there is something ethically wrong with cherry picking from the Standing Orders to suit his own convenience.

Had he followed the relevant Standing Order the whole mess would never have developed in the first case because he would have discovered that English MPs are allowed to use laptops, cell phones, blackberries and other similar electronic devices in the Parliament Chamber. The rules in the Parliament of Westminster allow MPs to use their portable devices for a variety of purposes including sharing emails or “doing other work.”

In fact the use of electronic devices is encouraged in the legislative halls of the modern world.

Had Sinanan bothered to keep in touch with reality, he would know that his memo of Feb. 25, 2007 which became the straw to break Panday’s back was retrograde and a denial of a member’s right to information.

Closer to home, Jamaican legislators have been using computers in their Parliament since 2006, so why should a progressive nation such as ours working toward making Trinidad and Tobago a developed nation establish such archaic and backward rules?

Is this a case of the Speaker’s determination to assert his authority or his ignorance of what’s taking place on this planet?

If anyone wants to draw lines then it is clear that Panday disobeyed the rules laid down by the presiding officer of the House.

But for Manning to describe this as “lawlessness” in Parliament is really taking it too far. Perhaps Manning should focus on lawlessness in the land, where homicides this year have crossed 100.

I would not go so far as to say that Panday was right; he was not.

But then, following the Gandhian principle of resistance to an unjust law, he might have a strong case for standing firm against what is obviously an unjust and backward rule. To labour the argument is like trying to solve the riddle of the chicken and the egg.

However, returning to Parliament for the next scene in this drama is not going to solve the problem.

Panday is known for taking national issues directly to the people. And that is where he should be headed to explain why Sinanan’s law is wrong.

To engineer a confrontation next Friday is not going to settle the matter. And it will fall well within the PNM’s agenda of distracting the nation from the issues that affect the lives of the people.

Panday has an obligation to represent his constituents and the citizens. He can do it best not by forcing his arrest and possible imprisonment for contempt of Parliament but by taking on the Manning regime from outside, raising the real national issues and encouraging the people to raise their voices and demand solutions.

That’s what the opposition and Panday need to do; leave the laptop and focus on what really is of importance to the people and the nation.