By James McCall
My intention is neither to bore nor overwhelm you with commentary on the recent sitting of the National Assembly when we saw a display of the most despicable behaviour of adults charged with the leadership of a country. The sad thing is that it continued unabated despite the efforts of the Speaker to calm things down, leading me to believe that he ought to have taken the bull by the horns and brought some order to the august body. If he had taken the kind of action that I think he should, it may have cost him his job but he would have been able to walk away with the degree of respectability that he has effectively denied himself by failing to do so. This is not about him, though.
While there were offenders on both sides of the aisle, the main culprits were the gentlemen and lady on the government side who continuously snickered, rose on innumerable points of order and engaged in cross-talk that made a total mockery of the oft-repeated and probably mandated axiom, “…this honourable house…”.
The matter being discussed was the introduction, in just over two months, of Value Added Tax (V.A.T.) which purports to replace some 12 taxes, and is slated to come on stream at a rate of 17 percent, threatening or promising to impact the lives of residents of this fair land one way or the other. One assumes that this issue was serious enough to have warranted an equally serious approach to a debate that could have cleared up many a doubt and fear that existed in the minds of the people but there was no such thing coming from the participants. To agree with a former member, Mr. G A Dwyer Astaphan, the fiasco robbed the public of the opportunity of hearing a good debate.
Despite the presence of television cameras, microphones and other paraphernalia that should have given them some modicum of an indication that the proceedings were being broadcast to the nation - and the rest the world for that matter, the silly behaviour went on and on.
It is okay to score points for the benefit of one’s supporters but not in the midst of an opposing member’s discourse. An old poem entitled “Desiderata” or “Strive To Be Happy” advises that we should: “…LISTEN TO OTHERS, EVEN THE DULL AND IGNORANT. THEY TOO HAVE THEIR STORY…” In refusing to listen we are either going to miss the essence of what is being said or we are endeavouring to ensure that what is being said does not get heard. In a situation such as a debate in the National Assembly, there is always going to be ample opportunity to rebut anything that one does not agree with.
My reason for saying that this is not about the Speaker is that, while he is there to apply the rules and ensure that things are gone about in orderly fashion, when we consider that the persons sitting on the benches are supposedly the crème de la crème of our society, the application of the rules should not be necessary, given that the 11 elected and three nominated members are people who would have risen to the top and should have had certain principles govern their behaviour in a setting such as this, but that was not the case.
In examining the membership of the House, each person has had the benefit of some form of tertiary education; some, on multiple occasions, have earned degrees in various disciplines. They have done significant work across the nation, many of them having had some levels of responsibility and would certainly not have tolerated the kind of behaviour which they demonstrated in the House from any of their employees or underlings. For example, if a teacher presided over a class in which the students did what members of the House did, that teacher would not have a good review from his principal. To take the argument further, if he/she were a principal and allowed that kind behaviour in a staff meeting, he/she would have presided over mayhem and, in the process, lost moral authority.
Like any other institution of learning, a university addresses the adults attending, and furnishes them with a code of conduct to which they all adhere or face expulsion. For example, the Mona Campus of the University of the West Indies, in a document entitled “Faculty of Social Sciences General Code of Conduct”, delineates a six-point guideline by which students and faculty, without exception, are to govern themselves. It may be found at: http://www.mona.uwi.edu/socsci/docs/FSS%20General%20Code%20of%20Conduct%2020071025.pdf. The point I am making is that, in an institution of learning, one is not only instructed in the discipline of his/her choice but has to abide by certain rules which can only add to his/her sense of discipline once he/she leaves that institution.
Another example is the tradition in our society in which neither lawyers nor doctors advertise in any way, shape or form, in that advertising brings their “…noble…” professions into disrepute. As far as I know, this has never happened. I spent the first 50 years of my life in St. Kitts-Nevis and have always had an interest in the printed page. I have never seen an advertisement by either a doctor or lawyer. At some stage, I edited and managed one of the newspapers in St. Kitts and never had either a doctor or lawyer approach me with anything even remotely resembling an advertisement. They have all managed to adhere to this rule. Strangely enough though, among the membership in the house, are doctors and lawyers.
Anyone who fails to adhere to rules is characterised as a rebel. In light of their behaviour, therefore, are we to consider the offending members of the National Assembly as Honoured Rebels?
.jpg)