Dear Editor,
One may think that in the year 2026, the decorum of Parliament would have risen to a level that captures the attention of the entire community – an institution where Members of Parliament (MPs) are viewed as a model for our youth to emulate. Instead, the population has gotten this low-level, boring and disrespectful discourse every time they are given the opportunity to dialogue with the ministers.
These lawmakers boasted that they are leaders in this country and that they represent the people. Well, others may feel that way, but none of them represent me. All they do is bark all day. Nothing of substance is coming from this group of MPs. Their modus operandi is to insult, and try to corner and frustrate every minister who is called to explain the same information that they have requested.
As long as that minister is not giving the information that they want to hear, they either walk out, go on their phone, skinned back in the chair and disappear (mentally), or they take pleasure in calling a minister a liar. I wonder when these “representatives” and “leaders” look back at their behaviour in a few years from now, what will be their honest reaction and justification for such distasteful representation.
During my entire life, I have watched political proceedings of four countries – United States, Holland, St. Maarten and Anguilla (2024). Never in my life have I seen such disrespect towards these political officials, who are summoned to answer questions. Yes, there are times when the answers presented are inadequate or do not reflect what was expected. Even so, there is an art to which one can respond to these types of circumstances.
The way I see it, out of the 15 parliamentarians, there are only three of them who I consider to be intellectually prepared, to have a meaningful discussion.
They are: MPs Raeyhon Peterson, Ludmila de Weever and Sarah Wescot-Williams. It’s a pity that the first two MPs speak so very little, but when they do, their background knowledge and analytical skills allow them to communicate with a sense of purpose – there is no expression of bitterness or satire.
Undoubtedly, Chairlady Sarah Westcot-Williams is faced with the challenge to maintain not just order, but that constant battle to guide individuals who are not willing to learn – MPs, who are hell bent on tugging in the opposite direction, but expect to get a different outcome. It is such a sad state of affairs to see how “representatives” of the people behave like toddlers.
On a different note, why would MPs walk in front of a presenter when the possibility is there for them to walk at the back? The conduct is not just being impolite to the speaker, but to the viewers as well. Just as concerning, when I look back at the attendance in Parliament of previous years, MPs had a purpose to attend meetings in “The People’s House”.
Nowadays, it depends on which minister is presenting; they come out in full force, either to insult or just to grandstand. They are so absent-minded because they are forever on their phones, monitoring Facebook comments, and that is why they cannot deliver anything of substance. MPs who are prepared for deliberations have their information ready prior to the meetings and they make minor adjustments, as the proceedings progress.
For an MP to ask over 40 questions in one round is just ridiculous and only portrays their insensitivity towards the ministers who have to stand for such a long time, and to their colleagues who have to sit without a bathroom break or even to stretch their legs. Up until now, these MPs have not mastered the art of how and when to interject. So, they strive on disrupting the flow of the presentation every single time. Sometimes, I wonder if they have ADHD.
Another sign of immaturity and complacency, is that they watch each other to see who signed in to speak. Is this the behaviour of a leader or a follower? In the past, the cameraman used to capture a wider section of the room whenever a meeting was held. He took the viewers into the hall by highlighting the important aspects of the meetings. Now, the viewers are left to guess.
The question hour would be more effective if ministers are called to debate a topic without prior knowledge of specific questions. This would force (in a good way) ministers to be more in tune with their respective ministries, create a more trusting and working relationship with both parties involved, break the monotony of responding to prepared questions and it will also allow the public to digest the information in a concise and simple manner.
It seems painful for someone who is tall to be hunching over a computer or piles of paper, especially during a long presentation. Would Parliament consider getting an adjustable lectern for that specific purpose? All that it requires is to remove the chair to the back for that period of time. Having a lectern allows more comfort and flexibility to the presenter.
As I conclude, it’s important to know that true leaders can only inspire when their actions are embedded in their character.
Joslyn Morton
