Dear Editor,
I HAVE long believed that qualifications are not a true marker of intelligence or a person’s profession reliable enough as an indicator of character or integrity. As a young Guyanese I am appalled by the level of immaturity and insincerity of so-called political champions, displayed in our National Assembly. This I can speak on as I hardly miss any session, viewing online of course, though when compared to the British Parliament there are some similarities. Often, however, the display in the house is regrettable. The recent no confidence motion brought on by the opposition has caused me great discomfort, and reaffirmed my reasons for hardly reading from certain publications or viewing the various evening news, as too many are reporting with a political bias, and the thirst for truth so as to liberate Guyanese to be intelligent voters, is stifled by sensation and political opportunity. Although I do champion-on, so as to build my tolerance for all opinions.

I have read the Guyana Bar Association’s remarks and felt that the only thing missing from their writ was, “As supporters of the PPP/C,” it would have been better for the association to remain silent than to respond and focus on only one element, article 106 of the constitution, without considering other facts. Although, one news agency described this disgraceful piece as, “rubbishing the claims of Mr. Hughes.” Of particular note, however, is the claim that an interpretation contrary to the views of the opposition, all parties salivating for the election, and the Guyana Bar Association, would lead to instability.

This I find to be rubbish, and I dare suppose that it is a tactic used to instill fear in volatile citizens and a call to arms of the opposition supporters. The Guyana Bar Association must remember that the PPP/C had about 202,000 votes in 2015, which I would equate to be about 26 to 27.5 per cent of our population, this does not mean that they are insignificant, but the majority always rule, though about 40 per cent either can’t vote or is cool with whatever others decide.

This tactic of the main opposition is familiar to me. In 2015, when parliament was prorogued, I sat in the visitors benches and listened to every presentation that day. Later that evening, an MP and a political activist of the then minority government, were parading on a television station playing clips of the sessions. Their main piece was one with Mr. Ramjattan speaking about the prorogation being a provocation for supporters, they played snippets and then said that Mr. Ramjattan was making a plea to his party’s supporters to take up cutlasses etc. I called in right away and was labeled a PNC supporter. At the time I was about to join the PPP/C, because I met Mr. Ramotar and had felt that perhaps his administration was not getting positive publicity, and so only one-sided information was being presented. I knew I couldn’t stifle my conscience and be a part of a lying bunch of people. I have integrity and that cannot be bought.

The remarks by Dr. Jagdeo and Mr. Ramkarran are obviously politically motivated, one is hoping to make the government look bad, the other just want to get back at his old party. Dr. Jagdeo says the government must resign immediately, Mr. Nandlall says the speaker’s decision cannot be changed, Mr. Ramkarran says that the vote is valid. I must point out a few things, and since I have only my CSEC with six subjects and no legal training, I invite Mr. Nandlall and Mr. Ramkarran to clarify for the nation these items I have taken from the ‘Glossary of Parliamentary Procedures,” from the Parliament’s website.

Firstly are the terms: Party vote, free vote, and vote of conscience; which are defined as follows: “Party vote – A division on a question during which Members follow the instructions of their respective whips,’ so as to reflect the official positions of their parties. The Speaker calls first the yeas, then the nays and the votes are taken. Free vote or conscience vote – Non-procedural term, meaning a vote during which party discipline is not imposed on individual Members. This occurred in 1996 for the first time during the second and third reading of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. The second time it occurred was on the vote on the constitutional amendment addressing anti-discrimination which included sexual orientation.” If my interpretations are true, in our PR system, there’s no free vote or conscience vote on a no-confidence motion. Could this be the reason why article 153 of our constitution applies?

Secondly I wish to look at the terms, speaker’s ruling or decision, and resolution. Decision – (1) (Of the Speaker): A ruling on the procedural acceptability of some matter before the House which, unless otherwise specified, serves as a precedent to govern future

proceedings. Such rulings are final; they may not be debated or appealed. (2) (Of a chair): A ruling on the procedural acceptability of some matter before a committee which may serve as a precedent in future committee proceedings. A Chair’s ruling may be appealed to the committee or, if delivered in Committee of the Whole, to the Speaker. Resolution – 1) A motion adopted by the House in order to make a declaration of opinion or purpose. A resolution does not have the effect of requiring that any action be taken. 2) A decision of the House giving a direction to any committee, Members or officers, or regulating its proceedings. 3) An order of the House to a committee instructing it to consider some matter or defining the scope of its deliberations. It may form a part of the Standing Orders or be specially adopted to deal with an issue as it arises. Now, I hope you understand that I am presenting all of this information because sections of the media are reporting that the speaker’s ‘ruling’ is final. This was not a ruling but the speaker informing the house, as is his duty, that the resolution was carried since 33 persons voted in its favour.

Thirdly, and the final definition I wish to pull from the mentioned document is the term: rescind a resolution, which means, “To cancel the effect of a resolution previously adopted by the House. A motion to rescind does not deal a second time with a question already decided during the session.” Note that the coming sitting will be a new sitting and hence to move such a motion would be legal, and could be carried by the simple majority of 33.

I love this country and truth be told I am politically aligned but I will not try to blindside my party or risk making my country unstable, so as to launch my independent campaign. I trust that open-minded Guyanese would find this useful, and please, take everything in the news with a grain of salt and a dash of black-pepper. Take notes on what is being said and research for yourself, all of the information is readily available. Watch parliament sessions using the parliament’s webpage and be more involved, listen to the politicians but promise none your blind loyalty and please, let us make anti-corruption normal.
Regards,
Trevon Andre Chichester