Tweet
Opening of historic Parliament
published: Thursday | October 4, 2007
Martin Henry, Contributor
Last Thursday's opening of the new Parliament was of greater historic significance than the ladies' fashion, Mr. Ian Hayles' 'forgetting' to shake hands, and the 'attack' on him in the corridors of Gordon House. In the history of parliaments, those are pretty regular and normal things and, therefore, hardly news. Certainly not news on the scale we have been inundated with.
If we begin on the outside, the security arrangements were a nightmare and if continued as is, it is only a matter of time before there is a major incident. Contending party forces cannot be allowed to gather in such close proximity to the legislative chamber and to each other. Not in today's world. It was pretty obvious that the police had quickly lost crowd control and had to fall back on what little self-control the massing crowds of JLP and PNP supporters had. But suppose things had gotten uglier? The police surely know that many people still think their election was stolen. Suppose 'terrorists' or a psychopath had seized the opportunity offered by such poor crowd control?
Outlived usefulness
Gordon House, as is, where is, has outlived its usefulness. I see my professor, Aggrey Brown, adding his voice from Mona to the calls for a new home for Parliament. His vote is for relocating to Heroes Park, which, over the years, has been a disgracefully maintained piece of 'holy ground'.
Any push for a new Parliament building will have to make its way around the roadblocks mounted by the popular sentiment for government on the cheap. Just look at the excitement raised over the 'burdensome' costs of a big Golding Cabinet and the usual negative popular reaction to any move to raise the chicken feed salaries of parliamentarians and ministers.
I am very decidedly with the minority in favour of grand and gracious space for the nation's legislative chamber [and also for parish council chambers]. But, even more importantly, the necessary technical support for good governance must be put in place. United States members of Congress have personal office space and staff. Our parliamentarians don't even have anywhere to sit and work outside the chamber and don't even have access to a good modern library should they be willing and able to do their own research. And wealth of country is not the sole deciding factor in the difference.
UWI Professor of Government Trevor Munroe, while a senator, had introduced a system of using UWI students as research cadets for Parliament. But, clearly, Parliament, as Prime Minister Golding conceives it, cannot be achieved on a little ad hoc informal arrangement for research and preparation support, and in space and with resources which are now seriously inadequate. Golding would know very well, though, that a good way to get turned out of office, if recounts and court action don't do it, is to appear to the popular (mis)perception to be squandering the people's money to benefit corrupt and tiefing politicians.
Far-reaching house changes
Inside the chamber of Gordon House last Thursday, the numerically weakest governing party and the numerically strongest Opposition ever sat down to do the nation's business. Prime Minister Golding used the opportunity to announce far-reaching changes to the operations of the House. Among these were strengthening the role of Leader of the Opposition, giving the Opposition the chair of several critical committees of Parliament, and unmuzzling backbencher MPs who will now be able to do what they were voted in to do: speak on behalf of the people's interest without having to wait for ages to have their matter on Order Paper come up for mention.
On her part, the Leader of the Opposition has boldly promised to focus a laser beam on the Government. Way to go. That's the constitutional role of the Opposition.
The party numbers in Parliament and Prime Minister Golding's conciliatory tone backed by sweeping action happily suggest a Parliament with an unprecedented and historic balancing of collaboration and challenge, of cooperation and disagreement. We have been waiting for a Parliament like this for 45 years.
Question, as I exit Gordon House: What is the ethical difference, if any, between offering in kind inducement like a post in government to someone to cross the floor, which happens all the while everywhere, and paying them in cash to do so? I especially would like employers who have hired away talent with offers of higher salaries to answer.
Martin Henry is a communication specialist.
published: Thursday | October 4, 2007
Martin Henry, Contributor
Last Thursday's opening of the new Parliament was of greater historic significance than the ladies' fashion, Mr. Ian Hayles' 'forgetting' to shake hands, and the 'attack' on him in the corridors of Gordon House. In the history of parliaments, those are pretty regular and normal things and, therefore, hardly news. Certainly not news on the scale we have been inundated with.
If we begin on the outside, the security arrangements were a nightmare and if continued as is, it is only a matter of time before there is a major incident. Contending party forces cannot be allowed to gather in such close proximity to the legislative chamber and to each other. Not in today's world. It was pretty obvious that the police had quickly lost crowd control and had to fall back on what little self-control the massing crowds of JLP and PNP supporters had. But suppose things had gotten uglier? The police surely know that many people still think their election was stolen. Suppose 'terrorists' or a psychopath had seized the opportunity offered by such poor crowd control?
Outlived usefulness
Gordon House, as is, where is, has outlived its usefulness. I see my professor, Aggrey Brown, adding his voice from Mona to the calls for a new home for Parliament. His vote is for relocating to Heroes Park, which, over the years, has been a disgracefully maintained piece of 'holy ground'.
Any push for a new Parliament building will have to make its way around the roadblocks mounted by the popular sentiment for government on the cheap. Just look at the excitement raised over the 'burdensome' costs of a big Golding Cabinet and the usual negative popular reaction to any move to raise the chicken feed salaries of parliamentarians and ministers.
I am very decidedly with the minority in favour of grand and gracious space for the nation's legislative chamber [and also for parish council chambers]. But, even more importantly, the necessary technical support for good governance must be put in place. United States members of Congress have personal office space and staff. Our parliamentarians don't even have anywhere to sit and work outside the chamber and don't even have access to a good modern library should they be willing and able to do their own research. And wealth of country is not the sole deciding factor in the difference.
UWI Professor of Government Trevor Munroe, while a senator, had introduced a system of using UWI students as research cadets for Parliament. But, clearly, Parliament, as Prime Minister Golding conceives it, cannot be achieved on a little ad hoc informal arrangement for research and preparation support, and in space and with resources which are now seriously inadequate. Golding would know very well, though, that a good way to get turned out of office, if recounts and court action don't do it, is to appear to the popular (mis)perception to be squandering the people's money to benefit corrupt and tiefing politicians.
Far-reaching house changes
Inside the chamber of Gordon House last Thursday, the numerically weakest governing party and the numerically strongest Opposition ever sat down to do the nation's business. Prime Minister Golding used the opportunity to announce far-reaching changes to the operations of the House. Among these were strengthening the role of Leader of the Opposition, giving the Opposition the chair of several critical committees of Parliament, and unmuzzling backbencher MPs who will now be able to do what they were voted in to do: speak on behalf of the people's interest without having to wait for ages to have their matter on Order Paper come up for mention.
On her part, the Leader of the Opposition has boldly promised to focus a laser beam on the Government. Way to go. That's the constitutional role of the Opposition.
The party numbers in Parliament and Prime Minister Golding's conciliatory tone backed by sweeping action happily suggest a Parliament with an unprecedented and historic balancing of collaboration and challenge, of cooperation and disagreement. We have been waiting for a Parliament like this for 45 years.
Question, as I exit Gordon House: What is the ethical difference, if any, between offering in kind inducement like a post in government to someone to cross the floor, which happens all the while everywhere, and paying them in cash to do so? I especially would like employers who have hired away talent with offers of higher salaries to answer.
Martin Henry is a communication specialist.