The showdown two Fridays ago between Leader of the Opposition, Basdeo Panday, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Barendra Sinanan, represented a continuation of Panday’s philosophy of civil disobedience, which he espoused after he was removed as prime minister following the 18–18 tied general election result in December 2001.
There was absolutely no reason why he should not have answered the Speaker when first called upon to respond to the issue of whether he would be using his laptop computer during the debate that was about to take place or not.
Unfortunately, the initial portrayal of this issue revolved around the use of laptop computers in Parliament as opposed the real issue of disrespect for the Chair.
Lack of civility
It was clear from the outset of this Parliament that Messrs Panday and company were out to disrespect Speaker Sinanan when 13 of the 15 UNC MPs refused to shake his hand after they took their oaths of allegiance at the opening of Parliament last December.
Panday took the lack of civility on that occasion to an even greater depth when he pulled out his handkerchief to wipe his hand after a handshake with Prime Minister Manning.
The mindset that drives that kind of behaviour is not inconsistent with what occurred in the Parliament two Fridays ago when he was clearly ignoring the Speaker, at first, when asked about his intentions for the use of the laptop computer during the debate.
This type of behaviour does not endear itself to the wider population who find it abhorrent and unbecoming of someone who aspires once more to hold the office of prime minister.
It will be interesting to see how many UNC MPs will be prepared to join Mr Panday in bringing their laptops to Parliament to engage in civil disobedience on the next occasion (this column is being written prior to the sitting of the House of Representatives on April 4).
It should be noted the Speaker has not singled Mr Panday for any special treatment as the Minister of Sports, Gary Hunt, complied with the Speaker’s query about his use of the laptop during the debate.
Additionally, it has also been reported that the MP for Oropouche East, Dr Roodal Moonilal, has on previous occasions obtained the permission of the Speaker to use his laptop during debates.
The image of the Parliament is quite a favourable one insofar that it has been revealed that all parliamentarians have been provided with laptops that will aid them in the performance of their duties.
It is a real pity the laptops may now be used, not as instruments to do the people’s business, but as toys in a puerile game of civil disobedience.
Based on the comments that were made last week by some UNC parliamentarians, one would imagine their caucus will spend some time discussing how to use the laptops in a manner to embarrass the Speaker at the next sitting. If this is going to be the case, then what we have on our hands is a crisis of leadership in the main opposition party.
Being rude, intemperate and impatient have become the hallmarks of the UNC opposition and it does not augur well for any serious discussion of the nation’s business in Parliament.
An important debate on food prices that would have been led by the Opposition was scuttled by Panday’s inability to comply with a simple request from the Speaker. If the UNC caucus thinks that is good leadership then they need to have their heads examined.
All of the preparation that would have gone on for this debate will now be lost as another Private Members’ Day will not arise until the fourth Friday in April.
Another commentator suggested last week it was all part of a plot by the PNM to get around the debate on food prices. I strongly disagree with that viewpoint primarily because no one could have predicted that Panday was going to be using his laptop and refuse to answer the Speaker’s simple question.
There was no plot. Panday failed his colleagues with his behaviour, whether they want to see it that way or not. Where the argument about the plot comes into the picture is over the question of the adjournment of the House in the face of grave disorder. The spectacle of Panday being bodily ejected from the precincts of the Parliament is what could have occurred. The Speaker acted responsibly to adjourn the House because it was apparent that Panday was not prepared to move.
Failed leadership
This recalled another incident earlier in 2007 when he attempted to reclaim his seat after it had already been declared vacant in accordance with the Constitution. When the Court of Appeal quashed Panday’s conviction and sentence for failing to declare his UK bank account to the Integrity Commission, he tried to reclaim his seat.
What he came up against was his own failure of leadership several months before to have the UNC caucus agree to move a motion in the House to have his tenure extended. By not moving that motion his seat had to be declared vacant by Speaker Sinanan who no longer had any authority to continue the extensions that he had been granting Panday in order to pursue his appeal. The UNC misread the constitutional significance of its blunder back then.
Fast forward to today and it seems that not much has changed. The UNC made a blunder about their calculations over purging the party of Winston Dookeran and then had to beg him to come back afterwards. They looked awful at the opening of Parliament with their civil disobedience against Speaker Sinanan in refusing to shake hands and now the puerility of laptop defiance looms.
Hopefully, the Opposition will back away from this and focus on real issues.
__________________________________________
Originally published in the Trinidad Guardian - April 6, 2008.
- Dean of Faculty of Social Science, University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad
- Senior Lecturer & Head, Department of Behavioural Sciences
- Academic Co-ordinator, Summer Programmes
No comments:
Post a Comment