AS a journalist, I had covered proceedings in the National Assembly for over 20 years (1971-1992), and, except for very rare occasions, I never witnessed what today passes off as “Opposition”: Constant cuss-down, commotion and crude contempt.

Under the leadership of Cheddi Jagan, opposition politics was responsible, constructive and, yes, educational. The public gallery could expect an intellectual treat. Heckling was refined to a calm and fine art that was deployed with surgical effect, especially during the years when Prime Minister Forbes Burnham and opposition front-bencher “Boysie” Ramkarran, traded wits.

Then, even the usually sharp, affable but incisive “Odo” could be floored by an unrelenting “Boysie,” while the latter was on his feet.

Once, Ramkarran and Speaker Sase Narain were exchanging banter over an inscription on the gate of a building on Camp Street that had housed the Ministry of National Mobilisation. They were disputing whether, in Hindi, “chodi” or “chudai ghar” (one of which seemed obscene) fitted the description.

Burnham sauntered into the House and heckled: “Boysie, I know more jokes than you!” Ramkarran calmly responded: “Yes, I agree.” And he slowly pointed in the direction of the ministers on the government front benches, and added: “Because it is you who appointed all of them!”

BEST REPARTEE
It was the best repartee that I have ever heard when there was an exchange of sensible teasing as part of the political culture, even at a tense time. On another occasion, after someone from the government side had stated loosely that we should have laws like those in a named Middle East state, where the hands of thieves were chopped off, Ramkarran quickly quipped:

“Yes, I agree; but Guyana could have the only parliament in the world where the entire front benches would have ministers without hands!”
Forbes would look straight across the aisle at Cheddi and smilingly tease, “Hello Snow Top”, a reference to Cheddi’s crop of gray hair. Or he would, on occasion, hold out his hand and, slowly swirling an imaginary glass of cognac, say, “Cheddi, you have to learn how to live the good life!”

Guyana lost that witty Burnham when he exited the National Assembly to become Executive President. And Parliament was never the same without Cheddi Jagan, who, according to one writer, unenviably commanded facts and figures that he would impart to the House on a wide array of political and ideological topics.

PALE SHADE
The current opposition is a pale shade of that period. Debates now quickly descend into hate speeches; the finesse and the humour have evaporated. Heckling is a babble of boisterous noises.

This brings me to the more recent incident where an opposition MP was named to appear before the Privileges Committee for publicly attacking the office of the Speaker. I moved the motion to send the matter to the investigating committee after House Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland, mentioned that the MP had imputed bias and partisanship.
On July 30, 2018, opposition MP Harry Gill, in a letter published in the Stabroek News, wrote inter alia: “We’re all getting a bit tired of the double standards” of the Speaker, whom he impertinently invited to look at videos on social media “to see how biased he appears.”

He went on to accuse the Speaker of being “unjust”, and showing partisanship and discrimination to “prevent bad news from reaching the media” in order to protect the government from losing office.

FREE EXPRESSION
The opposition claimed that the MP was merely indulging in freedom of expression. My response is that he could claim that right if he had spoken in the National Assembly, where he could be protected by unqualified privilege. But he went outside the protective walls of parliament into an arena where free speech is not absolute, but is subject to exceptions such as defamation for libel and slander.

Had the attacks per se been against the person of the Speaker, I would expect litigation for causing the learned and honourable gentleman loss of reputation. But the attacks were against the Office of the Speaker, the integrity of Parliament, and the sanctity of the constitution, under whose authority the Office of Speaker is established.
Under the Standing Orders, the decisions of the Speaker, like those of a judge, once made, cannot be questioned or disobeyed except by a motion to this effect. The courts are guided by case laws that say that the orders of a court cannot be disobeyed unless they are withdrawn or discharged; disobedience attracts sanction for contempt. A litigant (or lawyer) who has disobeyed an order would normally not be heard until and unless he/she purged his/her contempt.

Instead of helping to purge the contempt, I read that another opposition MP has publicly pleaded justification for the allegations made by his embattled colleague, saying that what Gill said was the truth. The opposition newspaper, Guyana Times, compounded the contempt by publishing an undisguised calumny against the Speaker: “The man certainly holds himself above the law!” And in between unpatriotically describing Guyana as a “shithole country,” known for what it vulgarly describe as “shitholeness”, it falsely and wickedly asserted that a new principle is being pushed about the “Sovereignty of the Speaker!!”

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE
Those contemptuous opposition outbursts do not help, but could put Harry into what was described in a Caribbean calypso as “de piggery”, or parliamentary purgatory. It shows not only senseless arrogance, but crass contempt for our country and our democratic symbols and institutions.

Some years ago, Canadian House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer, had sent a memo to MPs, warning that if they publicly question his impartiality, “you could find yourself on the wrong side of a breach of privilege complaint.” Specific reference was made to allegations of bias against the Speaker, which is punishable for breach of privilege.
Last year, as we were ringing in the season of Christmas, opposition MP Juan Edghill was suspended from the National Assembly after he was named for gross disorderly behaviour. On that occasion, after he had indulged in irrelevant and tedious repetition, he was ordered to take his seat. He blatantly disobeyed the order of the Speaker.

What ensued afterwards was the most shameful episode, where opposition MPs who staged a sit-in, shouted “Rape! Rape!” and alleged that the police had assaulted a female colleague.

The previous month, there was another disorderly display when the PPP tried to shut down an address to Parliament by President David Granger. Many said it was a “day of infamy” as opposition members unfurled placards in the House, clearly to “devide” the nation.

POLITE ENGAGEMENT
Speaker Scotland may appear to be gentle, which is why there have been such sporadic disorderly conduct in the National Assembly. But he would act whenever attempts are made to impugn and undermine the Office of the Speaker.

I was told that the Speaker in Trinidad “don’t mek fun.” Three opposition leaders — Patrick Manning, Keith Rowley and Basdeo Panday — were suspended in 2011, 2015 and 2008, respectively. Panday was sent home for using a laptop in the House without the permission of the Speaker!

In Jamaica, there was a petition for the suspension of an MP who had referred to his colleagues as “garbage.” In Guyana, when opposition MP Edghill last year referred to members of the staff of the Office of the Prime Minister as “parasites”, he walked away in elation that no sanctions would visit him.

It is time that we condemn this type of cavalier opposition behaviour and instead engage politely in our National Assembly as elected representatives of our people.
When Parliament resumes in October, I expect, as Leader of Government in the House, to see full respect for the Office of the Speaker and Parliament.