Parliament Called Upon (Again!) to Work Harder

 

Gordon House
Photo by DJ Miller

Speaking in Parliament this week, Leader of Opposition Business in the Jamaican House of Representatives Delroy Chuck yesterday echoed a sentiment that many non-Parliamentarians have long expressed – that not enough business is being done in the Houses of Parliament.

At the end of a sitting which lasted less than an hour, Chuck said “enough business is not being done in The House, but let us hope that next week will be a full session. Apart from next week, let us make sure that we deal with these Private Members Motions and utilize the sittings of The House in a more fulsome way.”

The Gleaner’s parliamentary affairs column The Gavel also drew attention this week to what it called

“the lacklustre manner in which the Parliament has been attending to the people’s business.”

This came a year after the Gleaner’s editorial which called for an end to the “doziness” in Parliament and expressed the optimistic wish that “with its members having taken their oaths, the legislature will immediately get down to serious work, eschewing its laziness of the past. That is, we expect the House and Senate will sit more often, for longer hours and pass more laws than they did during the life of the last Parliament.”

The editorial writer’s expectations have surely been dashed!

CARIMAC lecturer Fae Ellington and Douglas Orane, former Senator and the chairman of Grace Kennedy, are among those calling for Parliament to sit more frequently, with Orane noting that there is a “direct correlation between the number of times that Parliament meets and the number of bills it is able to pass.”

Parliamentarians argue that they need more resources, including better research facilities . There have also been calls for a new Parliament building which I wrote about in an earlier post here.

We need more sittings of Parliament, better facilities and expanding physical facilities. Maybe even constitutional reform. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot to discuss.

Before all that, however, I would like to see us make better use of the time we have now. Sure, better research facilities would? should? result in more informed debates (assuming they are used).  But can our Parliamentarians, particularly those in the Lower House, really say they are doing all they can at the moment? Can they really say they read the Bills properly (or at all), try to digest and understand them? Reading the Bills and doing some basic research on the Internet would be a good start. The laws and policies of many other jurisdictions can be found online. That can be done from their living rooms and that alone would allow for more informed interventions in the House.

Why can’t they sit longer? Why can’t they have more debates on issues of national importance? Why can’t more of the Private Members’ motions be taken?

More sittings that last less than an hour won’t help solve that problem. I do think we need more sittings. But until we have a commitment from the Parliamentarians to sit longer and work harder, I am not sure that additional sittings will help.

Five Wishes for Better Political Leadership for Jamaica in 2013

Gordon House – seat of Jamaica’s Parliament
Photo by DJ Miller

Here are some qualities I would love to see to a greater extent in our political leaders.

1. Leaders who can see through their orange and green coloured glasses that not everybody criticizing them belongs to a rival political party. Some of us just disagree with your policies or direction. Full stop.  Hell, with barely 50% voter turn-out in the last election, there’s a 50-50 chance that whoever is criticizing you isn’t voting for any of you, anyway.

2. Leaders who take the time to understand the criticism aimed at them. When Jamaicans complain about your pay or perks, it is coming from years of disillusionment at what politicians have done to our beloved country.  You may not have been personally involved, but don’t ever forget that for the sake of power, politicians have torn Jamaica apart with political tribalism and killed our children, our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends with political violence. Whatever you have or have not done individually, memories of the havoc wreaked by your fellows are still fresh.

In addition, you have failed to deliver even moderate sustained prosperity to our nation and you have spectacularly failed to deliver an equitable education system.  When people complain about what seems to you to be a measly sum of, say $4 million, it is coming from Jamaicans, many of whom are struggling to find lunch money or bus fare, who have no option but to use the under-resourced and over-crowded hospitals you have given us while you fly off to Miami for treatment. Some of your critics have to send  children to the ill-equipped schools which is your legacy to us, and many of our children leave school as illiterate and innumerate as the day they started. So instead of responding with arrogance and disdain, how about listening carefully to what people are really saying, and answering in a tone of respect and understanding with a real and empathetic attempt to explain your (sometimes reasonable) position.

3. Leaders with a vision for Jamaica. Vision 2030 or not, very few of us have a sense that there is a targeted vision for Jamaica, that a clear direction has been charted and that we are moving with steady determination towards a real goal. We have no real hope that in our lifetimes, Jamaica will see an economic turnaround that will bring real benefits to all society, not just your friends the rich businessmen. Have you ever really, really listened to I-Octane’s “My Story?”

“Respect to all who sell bag juice
Who sell it to help dem youth
A whole heap a hell dem go through…

Man a suffer too long
Yeh man a suffer too long
Live in a di ghetto too long
Man a suffer too long.”

Listen to it again. One more time. That’s why we need a vision and visionary leaders.

Inside the Parliament of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4. Leaders who do real work in Parliament. Our Parliaments have been singularly unimpressive. Many in the Lower House are efficient only at warming benches. There is scant attention given to careful scrutiny of the Bills that are brought to the House. Debates are stunningly superficial and often lacking  much evidence of research and thought (save for a very few speakers), and the desk-thumping that passes for participation apparently serves only to wake up the somnolent. I must note that the Upper House has traditionally been light years ahead of the Lower House in this regard. This is why it has been so disappointing to have seen over the years Senate appointments made on the basis of party loyalty only, resulting in Senators who bring little in the way of intellectual rigour to the Upper House. Which brings me to Number 5.

5. Leaders who put Jamaica before party. No, we don’t think all of you do this. In fact, we are sure you don’t put Jamaica first when we see ill-advised appointments, clueless Cabinet ministers, the constant and costly re-invention of the wheel just so that you can say such and such a programme was all yours, the dithering on matters of national importance, the refusal to make hard decisions that will cost you at the polls. So while you spend decades and generations thumping desks in Gordon House, our beloved Jamaica becomes choked with garbage, squatter communities mired in poverty abound, stray dogs roam the streets and our beautiful, bright children lose their way permanently.

There are some politicians whom I think have some or all of these qualities. However, they are usually not the ones in the most senior positions of leadership. But there is some hope.  What do you think? What kind of political leaders do you want to see? Who gives you hope? 

What the Standing Orders (Jamaica) Say About Asking Questions

The uproar which took place recently in the Jamaican Parliament, which of course you would have read about here, actually originated with a question being asked by the Member from North West St. Elizabeth J.C. Hutchinson, of Agriculture Minister Roger Clarke. It has been accepted by all concerned that the Standing Orders of Parliament were breached during the resulting pandemonium (and how!) But what do the Standing Orders actually say?

The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (there are separate Standing Orders for the Senate) have very detailed provisions governing how questions should be asked of Cabinet Ministers.

http://www.japarliament.gov.jm/images/pdf/STANDING-ORDERS-OF-THE-HOUSE.pdf

In the first place, section 14 states that a question can be put to a Minister in relation to any subject within his area of responsibility.

The way in which those questions may be asked, however, is strictly regulated.

Let’s take a look at section 16. This provides that:

-       The right to ask questions is subject to some general rules. The sole judge of the interpretation of those rules is the Speaker.

-       Questions may be asked to get information on a question of fact within the Minister’s portfolio, or to ask for official action.

-       Questions are not to include the names of any persons or any statements of fact, unless they are necessary for the question to be understood.

-       If a question contains a statement of fact, the Member asking the question is responsible for its accuracy.

-       No question can be based on a newspaper report or unofficial publication.

-       Members are not to address the House upon a question, and a question is not to be the pretext for a debate.

-       Each question should only refer to one subject and questions are not to be excessively long.

-       Questions are not to contain arguments, inferences, opinions, imputations, epithets, hypothetical questions or ironical expressions

You can also check out my first post on the Standing Orders.

Next Time – what kinds of questions are not permitted

Related articles

• What’s Wrong With Our Jamaican Parliament? (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

What’s Wrong With Our Jamaican Parliament?

Inside the Parliament of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How is it that some of the legislators  we elected to the Jamaican Parliament  are incapable of disagreeing on thorny issues without getting into a chaotic and abusive shouting match?

Jamaica’s Parliament is probably one of the most ordered places in the country, theoretically at least, in that there is a detailed set of rules (the Standing Orders) that govern almost every aspect of behavior in both Houses of Parliament.

They cover situations ranging from the language to be used (“the English language”) the need for Petitions to the House to be “properly and respectfully worded” to what should happen if two Members rise to speak during a debate (“the Speaker shall call upon the Member who first catches his eye”).

http://www.japarliament.gov.jm/images/pdf/STANDING-ORDERS-OF-THE-HOUSE.pdf

And to make it even more puzzling, many Parliamentarians are lawyers, who are trained to disagree agreeably, to call your opponent in court “mi learned friend” even when you think he’s a pompous ass, and to defer to judges with a polite “Guided, Milady” even while you plan your appeal on the grounds of the judge’s mistakes.

Others are successful professionals in other fields, or business operators, and would never, ever think it okay to respond to critics or opponents in the way we see them do in Parliament.

I wrote a post shortly after the new session of Parliament began, entitled “It’s Not Church!” The crux of my argument was that while we want civility, that can co-exist with lively exchanges, banter and spontaneity.

Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about here. It is clear when someone has lost control or is refusing to exercise any self-control and that, too often, is what we see in the Jamaican Parliament. It is also clear when the comments and shouting have crossed the line into abuse.

http://m.jamaicaobserver.com/mobile/news/Hell-in-the-House—Parliament-ends-sitting-in-confusion–disorder_11881968

Isn’t there something wrong with a display that would result in some of the following comments:

“But this fiasco on TVJ News showing the sectoral debates is EMBARRASSING. Look at these grown – leaders of our country – squabbling.”

Or this…

“Seriously??? This is our parliament?”

And don’t tell me anything about physical brawls in the South Korean Parliament, eye-popping as those are.

Taiwan knows a thing or two about Parliamentary fights as well.

But you know what? I don’t care what they do in Taiwan and South Korea. We expect more from our legislators, dammit. We’ve seen the destruction,  misery and death that politics has caused to our people and country, and we’re sick of it. We are now demanding better. We’re demanding more.

But while our politicians stand in Gordon House and mouth platitudes about a new way of doing things,  when it really counts, some of them prove to us again and again that they don’t have the slightest idea what those words really mean.

Related articles

• Five provisions of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

Memo to Jamaican Politicians : Long Speeches? Bad Idea!

Public Speaking University (cover shot) (Photo credit: justinplambert)

We have just finished the Budget Debate in the Jamaican Parliament with the predictably, overly long speeches. Later this year, we’ll once again have the political party conferences and the leaders will again deliver speeches that are way too long. I just don’t get it.

The observation that long speeches, in 2012, are a bad idea seems so self-evident it is almost ridiculous to be making it. Almost, but not quite, since you, the politicians, haven’t got the memo yet.

You still seem to harbour delusions that time has stood still since the 1970s when the only broadcast media outlets were JBC and RJR, and Michael Manley was fascinating Jamaicans with his hours of oratory.

IMAGELIBRARY/576 Persistent URL: archives.lse.ac.uk/dserve.exe?dsqServer=lib-4.lse.ac.uk&a… (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not only are today’s politicians no Michael Manley, even Manley would have had a problem holding people’s interest with three- and four-hour speeches today. If he were here  and giving speeches,  I would give him the same advice.

At any given time we all have a million things to do, different media to check and tons of information coming at us. Jamaicans are paying as much attention (probably more attention) to the NBA play-offs,  President Obama’s prospects for re-election, the latest music videos and the Diamond League, as to the ramblings in Gordon House.

Yes, ramblings, I use that word unapologetically. Who has time to listen to self-indulgent ramblings for two or three hours? It’s much more efficient to just check the papers the next day, or the newscasts for the highlights. So, we, the members of the public, really don’t have a problem. We can just turn off the live presentations. And many of us do. So what’s the problem?

Well, I confess to some amount of curiosity. What is the purpose of the speeches? Help me here. Don’t you want people to actually, I dunno, listen to you? While you’re talking? Are you really happy talking to yourself, your fans and the civil servants forced to attend Parliament? Or the green and orange die-hard fans in the National Arena?  I kinda thought the idea was to reach a broader audience. Silly me.

I’m going to go ahead and make these suggestions anyway.

1. Have real speech writers  help with the speech. AND LISTEN TO THEM!!!! Speech writing is actually work, you know. It’s a real job. I’ve heard some of your half-baked presentations by politicians who pride themselves on writing their own speeches. Often, they suck. A professionally written speech ensures structure and flow which will make it easier for people to follow. While I’m listening  (I have to, because of my job) I can just visualize the red ink pen or delete button which need to be used much more extensively.

“It’s always interesting to see how involved the President is with editing his speeches. A few hours before his first nationally televised address to the nation, the President works on edits with aides Carol Browner, David Axelrod, and Jon Favreau in the Outer Oval Office.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) License on Flickr (2011-01-12): United States Government Work Flickr tags: WASHINGTON, DC, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

2. Aim for an hour long speech. Hey, I’d actually suggest half an hour, but I’m sure you think that’s impossible. I would refer you to Barack Obama’s speeches, usually way less than an hour. And he is a hell of a lot better at speaking than anyone we have here.

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Say after me. LONGER IS NOT BETTER.

3. Fifteen minutes of thanking and greeting people is ridiculous. Why should we have to sit and listen to you thank everybody who has supported you in your political career? Take them to lunch instead.

4. Recognise that many of you are simply not interesting speakers, hence, shorter is definitely better. This is where it would be really good to have around you people who tell you the truth about yourselves. Dump the sycophants.

5. Realize that attention spans have gotten shorter. By the time you get to the meat of the speech, you’ve already turned off a lot of people. Forget the young people. Do you think the Twitter generation is hanging around for half an hour for you to really get started? And then for another hour or two? Why on earth would you want to turn off people like that?

6. The longer your speech, the less of it will be captured in subsequent news reports. Most people get their news from TV and radio. Why have such a long speech that most of it gets dumped?

NB Many of these speeches are carried by commercial broadcast media which have to forego regular programming to do so. The abuse of the availability of free airtime with these long-winded speeches may inevitably lead to fewer entities carrying them at all. Then you  really will be talking to yourselves.

Time for a new Parliament building but…

Our Parliamentarians have been saying for years that we have outgrown Gordon House, the seat of the Jamaican Parliament, and that we need to expand or build a new Parliament. Member of Parliament for St. Andrew North Western Derrick Smith has been the latest person to raise the issue, prompted by concerns that the Member of Parliament who represents East Portland, Lynvale Bloomfield, who is recuperating from a hip injury, would have no way to get into Gordon House, as shamefully, access to the building for the disabled continues to be a problem.

Even without visiting the library or the inner rooms, visitors to Parliament would be aware of the inadequacy of the facilities. After a few hugely uncomfortable and inconvenient visits to Gordon House, due to the tiny, cramped press gallery, I have stopped trying to go, and follow developments instead on PBCJ. The visitors’ gallery is nearly as bad.

The history of Gordon House explains, in part, its current inadequacy.

The website of the Jamaican Parliament explains that Jamaica’s first House of Assembly met for the first time on January 20, 1664 in Spanish Town. The Assembly later began to meet in Kingston. In 1872 the government bought a house called Hibbert House, which later came to be known as Headquarters House, to house the legislature. A new building was provided in 1962 and named after George William Gordon, an  Assemblyman, now a national hero.

The Oliver Clarke-led Parliamentary Salaries Committee looked at this issue in 2003, as part of their examination of working conditions for Parliamentarians and concluded that:

“priority must be given to the building of a new Parliament”

noting that Gordon House was never intended to become the permanent home of the Houses of Parliament as it had been built as the Council Chamber and Municipal Offices for the Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation (KSAC).

The Committee outlined the following difficulties:

1. Inadequate space for the Staff and the Members;
2. “Virtually non-existent” research facilities with a “small library over-flowing its confines;”
3. Only two conference rooms, one for the Government members and one for the Opposition;
4. No private space for MP’s to communicate with their constituents;
5. “Extremely small” and inadequate  offices for the Prime Minister, the Leader of Government’s Business in the House and the Leader of the Opposition;
6.  “… no accommodation given in respect of access and equipment for persons with a physical disability”

The Committee also cited the 1972 Ashenheim report which, 30 years earlier, had concluded that the conditions in the Parliament building were:

“in many respects deplorable, due we are told that it was conceived and constructed some twelve years ago as a temporary home for the Legislature.”

The Committee stated forthrightly that:

“It is not too much to say that if such accommodation were provided by a private company for the lowest class of its workers it would have the Trade Unions threatening the most drastic action in default of immediate improvement.”

In 2008, then Governor General Sir Kenneth Hall told the nation in his throne speech that steps were being taken to acquire land around Gordon House for its expansion.

The government’s intention to build a new building for Parliament was reiterated by former Prime Minister Bruce Golding in 2009.

Wouldn’t it be a great birthday present in this, our fiftieth year of Independence, to give ourselves a modern, useful Parliamentary building accessible to all our citizens? The 2003 construction price was estimated at $65 million. So yes, it would be great. But with our continuing high debt burden, the IMF negotiations and associated strictures, with ten places to put every dollar, with ill-equipped schools and hospitals, pothole-ridden roads and an inadequately resourced police force,  can we afford to spend this money (in today’s dollars)? Or is it time to accept that this is an investment in our country that we now have to make?

It’s Not Church!

Church HDR (Photo credit: I_am_Allan [been gone for a few weeks])

In a recent interview with Karl Samuda and Omar Davies about the behaviour in Parliament, they both indicated that  it was generally accepted that the conduct over the past few years had crossed the line. At the same time, Mr. Samuda said that they didn’t want Parliament to sound like church, a sentiment Dr. Davies agreed with.  I have to join them in that.  (Let’s not get caught up in the church analogy, they meant that Gordon House should continue to be a lively and dynamic forum.)

The backlash against the vulgar outbursts in Parliament and crassness on the political platforms has resulted in some expecting the Parliamentarians to sit as docile and demure as school children under the watchful eye of a stern teacher. I got a call yesterday, for example, from someone complaining that government MPs were “heckling” the Opposition Leader during his speech. It seems to me if you are addressing the Parliament and suggest that your time on the Opposition benches will be brief, expecting  the government MPs to sit on their hands and be silent is asking a bit much. In addition, I don’t want to see us lose the colour and vitality that are evident wherever Jamaicans gather. So I was a bit taken aback, for example,  at the negative reaction to Bobby Montague’s references to programmes called Audi and Prado or whatever, given that he was on the party platform and clearly jokingly making fun of the PNP’s JEEP.

English: 2010 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Mountain. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We need to strike a balance….wit, hilarious one-liners, ( RIP Danny Buch.), cut and thrust of debate  and sharp, even  brilliant ripostes on the one hand, but civility on the other. We can do it.