Dear Editor,
Much praised is given to MP Lloyd Richardson for supporting the budget. On the contrary, I really do not see what is commendable about his gesture; even if he did not endorse the financial statement it would have passed anyway. What is amazing though is to see how some persons are dazzled by his decision to back the budget. The reaction to his choice truly reveals how shallow these persons think, and how easily they are fooled by disguised intentions.
If one backtracks a little, the recent developments that surrounded the budget will pinpoint exactly where MP Lloyd Richardson’s heart is. Despite the MP’s show in Parliament on Thursday last, no one will convince me that his decision was totally sincere. When I reflected on the process of his final judgment, it is obvious that he was unwilling to give a clear indication of his decision from the onset. If this was not the case why would an MP of the National Alliance have to beg him to support the budget?
What transpired after that was a continuous pursuit to get MP Lloyd Richardson to commit himself. Eventually, the MP made it clear that he will only meet with a coalition member if either the UP leader or his deputy is present. What does this action indicate? Does it really signify that he is in favour of the budget and that his decision is completely independent?
In addition, during the drive to Point Blanche MP Lloyd Richardson was not man enough to let the prime minister know beforehand that they would be joined by UP leader Theo Heyliger. Instead, he gave the prime minister a directive and surprised him when they got to the specific destination. Both ministers and the UP leader gave conflicting accounts of what took place. MP Lloyd Richardson is only one who has not made a statement. Why is that?
MP Lloyd Richardson displayed the same behaviour as he did when he jumped ship from the National Alliance in 2014. Back then the MP also drove around with the leader of the NA, but did not have the balls or the respect to let him know that he will be joining the UP Party. In fact, when it was rumoured that he was going to leave the NA and was questioned by the leader, he assured him that he was still on board with the National Alliance. Then he wants to convince the public that he stands by his word?
Guaranteed, if the UP leader was present MP Lloyd Richardson would have never voted for the budget. The only reason why he did was because he had a little bit of freedom. In retrospect, just the week before he refused to sign in for the budget. Besides, throughout the meeting his face and body language displayed the anguish of a man who was wrestling with his conscience. He too supported his colleagues’ desire and voted to postpone the same budget.
Furthermore, MP Lloyd Richardson informed this public that he supports the budget because the Minister of Finance Richard Gibson assure d him that he will take his demands into consideration. If the MP sincerely believed in the philosophy of the budget he would have never placed any demands in exchange for his vote.
It is laughable and sometimes scary to watch a parliamentarian command a guest to address him or her differently, other than a Member of Parliament. It was just plain stupidity and ignorance to hear MP Rudolphe Samuel interrupt Julio Romney, to address him as Dr. Rudolphe Samuel. Truly, “When ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise.”
The irony of the situation is that the MP is dealing with someone who really has a PhD, which the MP has not achieved as yet. Dr. Romney also has several other degrees, many more than MP Rudolphe Samuel. This kind of attitude is what is stifling the progress of Parliament. When he made the remark, both the Chairlady and the presenter were stunned at his juvenile behaviour.
During the first part of the budget, MP Leona Marlin-Romeo demanded that the Minister of Finance Richard Gibson respond to her as a minister and not as an attorney. Wow!
Does the Chairlady of Parliament demand any member to address her according to her position? She is much more brilliant than that. In fact, even those who disrespect themselves and the public continuously do not get her attention at all. She just lets them wallow in the mud and bring more embarrassment to themselves.
What is missing in Parliament is honesty and maturity; persons who can think independently and remain humble, regardless of their status or possession of a degree.
Joslyn Morton
