Dear Editor,
Permit me to express thoughts of concern to the Chairlady of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams, with the expectation that she will give them some consideration. To commence: Whenever ministers fail to prepare themselves to deliberate matters of interest to the people in parliament, they always cover up their lackadaisical attitude by submitting answers in writing, or not at all. How long will they be permitted to continue this nonchalant behaviour, while the people are left uninformed?
Just recently, my cousin Russell A. Simmons also communicated his disapproval of ministers presenting their responses in writing. What does it require of them to be responsible to the people, when they are called upon to represent the population? Are they not matured enough, or possess the intellectual capacity to understand that they were appointed to manage the people’s financial statement? If these ministers are consistently refusing to have an open dialogue with the population, then fire them!
However, looking deeper into the matter, this apathetic attitude is twofold: First, these ministers were not appointed on their own merit and so it’s easy for them to refuse the expertise of civil servants who are capable of guiding them through the process and in the proper direction. Second, ministers’ rebellious behaviour is a reflection of Parliament. Is it not a fact that the majority of MPs show up to work whenever they feel like; and when they do, it leaves an open question as to why they got into politics?
Accountability attracts accountability, and when there are no consequences for one’s action, the desire for change is only a dream. Until parliament get serious with the “People’s Business” by setting the example of what they wish to see, ministers will continue to display their undesirable behaviours. Until MPs settle down and work as a body in the interest of the people, then and only then can they collectively penalize the minister who refuses to come to parliament to answer to the people!
Resolve: the people deserve the courtesy of having a meeting convened at a later date to disclose responses to the inquiries (those that are not deemed as confidential) that were presented to parliament in writing.
There are times when deliberations are ongoing with several adjournments in between; whether on the same day, on subsequent days, or months after the initial phase. However, the public have no knowledge of what was debated prior to the meeting being reconvened. The same thing occurs if someone tuned in late; which makes it challenging at times to get the full scope of what was discussed before.
Resolve: it would be helpful if each minister or invited guest gives a brief summary after his or her presentation. Likewise, it makes good communication sense if the Chairlady delivers a short synopsis at the end of every meeting. This format not only sets the tone to engage the public more into the discussions, but it further expresses the need to be responsible and accountable to the people.
The criteria to select Members of Parliament to attend the various scheduled conferences abroad are unknown. Gone are the days when parliamentarians are selected on the basis of party politics, or merely on a rotation system. Due to this lack of clarity, the public have no knowledge of what to expect of MPs prior to their departure nor upon their return. How do the public analyze their performance when there are no briefings and how does Parliament measure its return investment of each attendee?
What if parliament creates a biweekly walk-in session for the public to have a casual discussion or question-and-answer hour with all 15 parliamentarians together? After all, it’s the “People’s House” and the people have the right to know!
Joslyn Morton
