Latest update October 28th, 2026 3:48 AM
Parliamentary Debates
The debate over the annual Budget is the most extensive one on the Parliamentary calendar – lasting for almost two weeks. It is an occasion for the crux of Governmental operations – its income and expenditure details – to be scrutinised most thoroughly.
It therefore offers parliamentarians from both sides of the house an opportunity to demonstrate to the nation their suitability and fitness for the task to which they have been elected.
It is a task that carries the very highest responsibility, since they would be literally debating the future of our country – especially at a time when our small and fragile economy is being buffeted by the global financial firestorm.
For many years now, however, the standards of the debates in the National Assembly have been steadily deteriorating, both in content and in form. The beginning of the present Budget debate has only confirmed that, if anything has changed, it may be for the worse.
We seriously question why some parliamentarians wanted debates to be broadcast live. The citizenry would only be exposed in greater (and excruciating) detail to the mediocrity which passes for debate in the highest law-making forum in the land.
Maybe the sponsors of the broadcast motion really wanted to shake up their fellow parliamentarians for malingering on the job, but we doubt this – most parliamentarians seem oblivious to their banal performances.
Earlier this month the eminent legal luminary Doodnauth Singh, SC, retired from the profession and his most recent position as Attorney General, after fifty years of service in courts all across the Caribbean.
He is known for his fierce adherence to standards, which he would have understood after his vast experience are the very foundation of all credible institutions.
He did not disappoint even as he was being showered with praise for his accomplishments and service to his nation.
Reminding his colleagues that Parliament was “the highest court of the land …where the people’s business is to be debated”, he bluntly informed them that he was “disappointed” at the way that business was conducted. Rather than the “civilised and decent” atmosphere that is the standard, Parliament too often descends into the stridency and vulgarity of a “fish market”. And this is the truth that is painfully apparent to even a casual visitor to the proceedings of Parliament.
As the venerable legal practitioner noted in the resonant tones that have riveted juries in so many jurisdictions, “heckling is an art” – it is grounded in wit rather than invective and hectoring. And it is not that Guyanese did not have exposure to high-level heckling – Forbes Burnham was a master of the art.
But it is obvious that the art has been lost on this present generation of legislators – as have so many other accomplishments.
Mr Singh also implied that the allowed present length of most presentations is too much, and ought to be severely truncated if they are to ever be thrust onto a population that already has too many burdens to suffer.
It appears that parliamentarians are unaware that Standing Order 38 of the Assembly prohibits a member of the Assembly from reading his or her speech except with the permission of the Speaker.
At the most, the order allows a member to read extracts from books or papers in support of the member’s argument, and the member may also refresh his or her memory by referring to notes.
Nowadays almost every parliamentarian, including Ministers, routinely read their speeches in their entirety. It makes for a most depressing listening experience, since the illuminations and spontaneity of extemporaneous speaking have given way to monotonous droning.Some cannot even pronounce words from texts that were obviously prepared for them. No wonder even Ministers resort to playing cards on laptops.
We suspect that our most informed Speaker has allowed the practice of members reading their speeches because he suspects, with good reason, that to insist on enforcing Standing Order 38 would reduce the Assembly to silence.
Starting from this Budget debate, we would wish that he will reconsider his stand – it might compel his charges to begin thinking on their feet. And at long last some thought might go into the debate.
If it does not work, then we all know that while “speech is silver, silence is golden”.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.