The Government of Trinidad and Tobago's motion to take independent Senator Dana Seetahal before the Privileges Committee of Parliament over a column she wrote in the Sunday Guardian a week ago entitled PNM out of control is an example of political paranoia.
In attempting to make a case Information Minister Neil Parsanlal suggested that Seetahal was totally out of line to comment on the Speaker's role and even made veiled threats of "penal measures".
The theme of the Senator's column was the acrimonious contributions in the House of Representatives during debate of the Validation Bill to legitimize the Uff inquiry into UDeCOTT and the construction sector, noting that it was a case of the PNM hanging its dirty linen in public and focusing on attacking on one another, instead of dealing with the business at hand.
According to standing orders an MP is not to be offensive or insulting in her/his contribution. And that is one of the key points she made in her column: that instead of focusing on the bill before the House, the PNM was on the warpath, badmouthing one another.
The case Seetahal was making was that the PNM was indeed out of control and that the performance of its members amounted to a breach of standing orders and Parliamentary protocol and a disservice to the nation.
"Not only did the PM ignore or avoid responding to relevant questions on the cost overruns and improper procurement processes by UDeCOTT, but in general the government treated the country with disdain in relegating concerns of citizens as opposition attempts to attack the government," Seetahal wrote.
"The debate on the Validation Bill devolved into name-calling and bad-mouthing, and the fact that this was allowed to happen must surely lie with the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for regulating the conduct of business in the House," she added.
The Senator quoted from Hansard to point that "standing order after standing order was breached, and no one was called to task."
Read the column: PNM out of control
Parsanlal's attempt to make a case against Seetahal is an adverse reaction to an over-sensitive regime that now sees malice in every statement that is critical of its action. This trigger-happy behaviour is a bad omen for democracy.
It is also a dangerous precedent since it is an infringement on free speech and freedom of the press, both of which are enshrined in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago as basic rights.
As a columnist Seetahal has every right to present an opinion, which is what she did. She wrote with professionalism, making fair comments based on what transpired in the people's Parliament. While she was technically not protected by privilege, she needed no such protection since everything was factual.
Her comments about the Speaker are well in line regardless of what the PNM thinks.
It is time that the Manning administration digs its head out of the sand and faces reality that "something is rotten in Denmark".
The media, of which Seetahal identifies herself as a columnist, have a social and moral responsibility to comment on the affairs of state and to act as inspector general of the system on behalf of the people. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of a trust and a disservice to democracy.
If the PNM considers Seetahal's column offensive then it should put its house in order, not shoot the messenger.
Jai Parasram
In attempting to make a case Information Minister Neil Parsanlal suggested that Seetahal was totally out of line to comment on the Speaker's role and even made veiled threats of "penal measures".
The theme of the Senator's column was the acrimonious contributions in the House of Representatives during debate of the Validation Bill to legitimize the Uff inquiry into UDeCOTT and the construction sector, noting that it was a case of the PNM hanging its dirty linen in public and focusing on attacking on one another, instead of dealing with the business at hand.
According to standing orders an MP is not to be offensive or insulting in her/his contribution. And that is one of the key points she made in her column: that instead of focusing on the bill before the House, the PNM was on the warpath, badmouthing one another.
The case Seetahal was making was that the PNM was indeed out of control and that the performance of its members amounted to a breach of standing orders and Parliamentary protocol and a disservice to the nation.
"Not only did the PM ignore or avoid responding to relevant questions on the cost overruns and improper procurement processes by UDeCOTT, but in general the government treated the country with disdain in relegating concerns of citizens as opposition attempts to attack the government," Seetahal wrote.
"The debate on the Validation Bill devolved into name-calling and bad-mouthing, and the fact that this was allowed to happen must surely lie with the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for regulating the conduct of business in the House," she added.
The Senator quoted from Hansard to point that "standing order after standing order was breached, and no one was called to task."
Read the column: PNM out of control
Parsanlal's attempt to make a case against Seetahal is an adverse reaction to an over-sensitive regime that now sees malice in every statement that is critical of its action. This trigger-happy behaviour is a bad omen for democracy.
It is also a dangerous precedent since it is an infringement on free speech and freedom of the press, both of which are enshrined in the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago as basic rights.
As a columnist Seetahal has every right to present an opinion, which is what she did. She wrote with professionalism, making fair comments based on what transpired in the people's Parliament. While she was technically not protected by privilege, she needed no such protection since everything was factual.
Her comments about the Speaker are well in line regardless of what the PNM thinks.
It is time that the Manning administration digs its head out of the sand and faces reality that "something is rotten in Denmark".
The media, of which Seetahal identifies herself as a columnist, have a social and moral responsibility to comment on the affairs of state and to act as inspector general of the system on behalf of the people. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of a trust and a disservice to democracy.
If the PNM considers Seetahal's column offensive then it should put its house in order, not shoot the messenger.
Jai Parasram
No comments:
Post a Comment