Order! Order!! Order!!!

By G.A. Dwyer Astaphan

Speaker of the National Assembly, Mr. Curtis Martin, certainly had his hands full during the just concluded three-day debate on the Value Added Tax (VAT) Bill.

But instead of making the several declarations, as he did, that it was he who was in charge of proceedings, I thought that he should simply have applied the rules strictly and consistently by disciplining some members. That would have sent the right message to everybody, and it would have brought the House to order.

God knows, he had an abundance of opportunities to do so, given the many breaches of the Rules, and the many instances of disrespect and disregard towards the Speaker and the Parliament.

But he did not act as I thought he should. Yet while he must take some responsibility for the shenanigans of some members, it was those members themselves were the real culprits.

It was evident that certain Government members were intent upon distracting, frustrating, taunting and derailing Opposition members. The perpetrators were, by their conduct, disrespecting the voters of this nation which we love to refer to as “our proud little nation”.

That kind of conduct poses a severe threat to free speech and to democracy. And it shamed this nation deeply, while it did little to improve people’s understanding of, or allay their anxieties in relation to VAT.

I take no comfort in the foolish excuse that the conduct in Parliaments elsewhere is far worse, that members ‘box off’ each other, and so on. One step behind decadence is one step too close to it.

Every Opposition member faced this barrage, perhaps with Mr. Vance Amory receiving the least of it.

The chatter, the snickering, the cross talk and the interruptions were so severe and obnoxious that radio listeners could be forgiven if they believed, if only for a moment, that they were hearing the sounds of a downtown Basseterre street corner on a Friday afternoon rather than to their Parliament; denied, as they were, of a fair and clear chance to listen to a debate on legislation that would have a critical impact on their lives.

And I know that the perpetrators disturbed the Speaker, because he has been trying earnestly to improve the level of participation in the Parliament and to generate greater listenership among the public to its proceedings on radio.

It was utterly outrageous and disgraceful. And the perpetrators got away with it.
The ring leader was the Prime Minister himself, aided and abetted by some characters who are yet to realize that natural stupidity cannot be concealed by artificial intelligence.

The Prime Minister even went so far as to invite the Speaker to discuss the Rules. Perhaps he felt that the Speaker needed to be taught a lesson, whether on the Rules or otherwise.

The Speaker should have disciplined him then and there, and at other times during the debate, for behaviour which only reinforced the view that Dr. Douglas is unqualified to lead the nation out of the malady of social torpor, crime, corruption and fiscal and administrative recklessness that is afflicting us.

What redemption can there be for a man who says in public that the sugar industry would close only over his dead body then he goes into Parliament and vehemently denies having said that?

What won’t he say, and what won’t he deny?

What do we do about a leader who, when accused by Mr. Shawn Richards in Parliament of squandering the country’s resources, replies “Ah good!”?

What chance do we have of getting full accountability, freedom of information legislation, integrity in public life legislation, a new culture of transparency, and a true, open democracy under a leader who says that he would present the findings of the committee looking into the statutory corporations “when I feel like”?

And as he wound up the debate, he reminded the nation that when the OECS Economic Union is established next year, “personal income tax going be in that, you know”! As if the OECS Union must be blamed when personal income tax is introduced in our Federation next year; just like he is already blaming the private sector for the price increases that will come with VAT. He is always blaming other people when things go wrong, even before things go wrong.

A man who had received so much trust from so many people, and who has, over the years, dashed and desecrated the dreams and the hopes of so many people, with  the numbers growing each and every day. A man who knows how to get power and to keep it, but not a man who knows how, or even cares, to properly use that power and to abide by the sacred responsibilities which come with it.

A man who takes his sidekicks into Parliament to mock and disrespect the Speaker, the members opposite, and the nation.

The nation’s dream turned into the nation’s nightmare!

I don’t believe that many of you have read the rules of our Parliament. So I will share the relevant ones with you now, in order that you might assess the conduct of members during the debate of the VAT Bill (and in the future) on the basis of knowledge.

The rules  can be found in the Standing Orders (see SRO Number 31 of 1961) made under the Constitution and Elections Act, Chapter 162 of the Laws of St.Kitts & Nevis.

Rule 41 speaks to interruptions. It states that:
“No member shall interrupt another member except by rising to a point of order when the member speaking shall resume his (or her) seat and the member interrupting shall simply direct attention to the point which he (or she) desires to bring to notice and submit to the Speaker or Chairman for decision”.

(No speech, no rebuttal, no long story. Just bring the point of order and leave it to the Speaker to decide whether your point of order is accepted or not. End of story).

Rule 42 deals with the contents of speeches. It states as follows:

“1. Reference shall not be made to any matter which is sub judice (under judicial deliberation) in such a way as might in the opinion of the Chair prejudice the interests of parties thereto.

(So if a member on his or her feet raises such a matter, another member can properly rise on a point of order, bring it to the Speaker’s attention, and sit down for the Speaker to accept or refuse the point of order).

2. It shall be out of order to attempt to reconsider any specific question upon which the House has come to a conclusion during the current session except upon a substantive motion for rescission.

3. It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about members of the House.
4. Members shall be referred to by the names of the electoral district for which they have been elected.

5. No member shall impute improper motives to any other member of the House.

6. The name of Her Majesty or the Governor-General shall not be used to influence the House.

7. The conduct of Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family shall not be called into question.

8. The conduct of the Governor-General, members of the House, and judges of the Supreme Court shall not be raised except upon a substantive motion moved for the purpose.”

Rule 43(1), which deals with the scope of debate, states that:

“Debate upon any motion, bill or amendment shall be relevant to such motion, bill or amendment, except in the case of a motion for the adjournment of the House.

Rule 44 states:

“1. It shall be out of order to anticipate a bill by discussion upon a motion dealing with the subject matter of that bill.

2. It shall be out of order to anticipate a bill or a notice of motion by discussion upon an amendment or a motion for the adjournment of the House.

3. In determining whether discussion is out of order on the grounds of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Chair to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time”.

Meanwhile, how is a member to conduct himself when he or she is not on his or her feet or rising on a point of order?

The answer is found in Rule 46 which states that:

 “A member present in the House during a debate;
   1. shall enter or leave the House with decorum;
   2. shall not read books, newspapers, letters or other documents save such as relate to the  business before the House;
   3. shall maintain silence while another member is speaking and shall not interrupt, except in accordance with these         Standing Orders (that is, on a point of order); and
   4. shall otherwise conduct himself in a fit and proper manner.

Rules 47 and 48 deal with the enforcement of the Rules, the former vesting in the Chair the responsibility to ensure that the Rules of Order are observed, and the latter empowering the Chair to expel for the rest of the day’s sitting a member whose conduct the Chair deems grossly disorderly, and if the Speaker considers such punishment to be inadequate, then he or she can seek to have that member “named” which means that the Speaker will put the question to the House to have that member suspended. No seconder is required and no amendment or adjournment or debate allowed on the motion...just the vote.

Examine these rules and come to your own conclusions.

Are you satisfied and comfortable with what you heard in Parliament this past week? Or are you insulted and outraged by it?

And what kind of leadership do you, your family and your nation want and deserve today, and going forward?

These questions are for you to answer, not for anyone to answer for you. In coming to your answer, don’t be afraid of where your reasoning and your heart take you. And don’t be afraid to stand up, to speak out, and to take appropriate, lawful action.
You, the People, have the real power, and this is your country.