Should we give our parliament a legacy of a secondary institution?

Jan 13, 2019 Letters

Dear Editor,

Some 2600 years ago in the Babylonian Empire, Daniel was thrown in the Lion’s den because of a plot to get rid of him by the King’s scribes. As much as he had wanted to! The king could not change that outcome because whatever was written by the lawmakers in the empire had to be carried out according to the laws of the Medes and Persians. Roll forward to 2019 AD, Civilization at its pinnacle. We are faced with a crises an ancient Civilization would have never entertained. It is beneath contempt that our parliament, being the supreme law making body of the land, having passed a motion of No confidence on a government on the Dec 21, 2018, attested to by the speaker of the House and the Clerk of the house as passed, that the speaker of the house should allow an institution of lesser standing than parliament, to decide on the faith of what he had accepted and professed on as passed, to appease the shenanigans of the Governing politicians. The spirit of the Babylonians would be laughing at our parliament! The Spartans would regret the sacrifice of their lives to offer democracy to the world , if ours is the sum total of what democracy is today!
Dr. Scotland’s statement, “I must tell you Honourable members that the issues, which we now face call us to look outside of the Parliament to find answers… a full, final and complete settlement of these issues by a Court of competent jurisdiction will place beyond doubt any questions which may exist and serve to give guidance to the Speaker and the National Assembly.” Dr. Scotland seeking guidance on a motion he had already passed reeks of collusion. What is passed in the house should remain passed as a matter of principle. Any guidance sought should be for future action. Do we want to leave a legacy of our parliament as a secondary institution that dances to anyone with a perceived grievance? I think not.
Did the clerk of the national assembly continue to take the vote of the remaining MP’s after Charrandass vote? If it happened it wasn’t shown by the media. If it didn’t happen, it echoes the sentiment that everyone present knew that 33 yeses constitute a majority, hence the passing of the motion by the speaker.
Every MP represents a segment of the population based on a mathematical calculation. In this regard Charrandass vote is in no way inferior to the vote of the remaining 64 MP’s. Where is the logic to try to negate his vote on the grounds of dual citizenship when it is alleged that one thirds of the MP’s have dual citizenship. Dual citizenship of MP;s should be a can of worms for the future, not going back to affect the constancy of the assembly.

Rudolph Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News