Dear Editor,
I wish to thank the Parliament of Guyana and its sponsors for carrying live coverage of the sessions in the National Assembly. Many of us in the diaspora can now follow what is taking place live and it’s both informative and of concern. Apart from witnessing those who are prepared for parliamentary debate and those not so prepared, we can also see live those who sleep through the most spirited debates and of course, like true Guyanese, we have choice names for them.
Although there are many who argue that the governing administration is not doing enough to change the culture of corruption, what is evident from the bills presented is that there is a framework being put in place, and a restructuring of the administrative regulations that will make it more difficult for the corrupt to feel comfortable and for those susceptible to corruption to be enticed. This is a slow process and one that requires patience.
There is some concern with the broadness of the language in some bills, language that gives law enforcement wide powers to arrest and detain citizens without due process. It must be remembered that former President Bharrat Jagdeo used the 1980 constitution as if he was a monarch. It is imperative therefore for bills to be so written that the rights of the people cannot be abused whether the present government is in office or out of office.
Many parliamentarians on both sides of the House have stood out in their presentations and nimbleness of rebuttals, namely, Mr Basil Williams, Mr Khemraj Ramjattan and Mr Carl Greenidge for the government benches. There was greater expectation from the opposition, after Mr Jagdeo was selected by the People’s Progressive Party as its opposition leader, Ms Gail Teixeira told the press that the government was afraid of Mr Jagdeo. Mr Jagdeo has been nothing but a damp squib. Instead of debating the issues he is competent on, he raves like a know it all, explaining how international ratings work or how Transparency International reach their rankings, rather than the content of the Bills. He also appears to be content with frequent heckling of Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo. His underperformance has been overshadowed by Mr Anil Nandall, Bishop Juan Edgill and General Secretary Clement Rohee. Indeed, Mr Rohee should have been leader of the opposition. He seems to always be prepared, speaks to the issue, and can inject humour into his presentations. He also appears to have the respect of other members on both sides.
Ms Teixeira has demonstrated her excellent knowledge of the Standing Orders and has used it to good effect, sometimes too exuberantly, in reminding the Speaker of his newness or lack of experience. This may have served the opposition adversely as fair debate becomes a challenge. There are many instances where a government member called a point of order during an opposition member’s rebuttal claiming that they are being misquoted; the Speaker without hesitation asked for a withdrawal from the opposition member, and no argument would suffice. On one occasion Mr Williams quoted from the President’s speech to the House, and he was reminded by the Speaker that he should not use the President’s name to score political points in keeping with the Standing Orders. During Mr Nandlall’s rebuttal he referenced the President, quoting the language that was accepted as part of the Minister’s presentation; he was immediately reminded by the Speaker of the same Standing Order. Maybe the parliamentary nights are too long.
Yours faithfully,
K G Branch
