The political harangue among Members of Parliament during last Friday night’s Finance Standing Committee meeting reflects a troubling escalation in tensions between the ruling United National Congress (UNC) Government and the Opposition People’s National Movement (PNM).
More concerning, however, is that this latest episode extended beyond partisan confrontation and drew a member of the professional parliamentary staff into the fray—with potentially serious consequences.
MP Barry Padarath, Leader of Government Business in the House, made the significant allegation that technicians responsible for the Chamber’s audio/visual operations have adopted “a biased approach,” selectively muting microphones when Government members speak. Such a claim strikes at the very integrity of Parliament’s administrative framework.
Yet, the matter did not end there. Reports indicate that the Couva South MP crossed the Chamber to photograph the staff member responsible for the audio system. This action raises several troubling questions. While Speaker Jagdeo Singh has since indicated that he was unaware of the incident as it unfolded, the more fundamental issue remains: should administrative staff—whose role is to ensure the smooth functioning of proceedings—be subjected to public accusations and potential intimidation?
These concerns are particularly significant given established parliamentary procedures. When disorder arises, the system is designed to shift both audio and visual focus to the presiding officer, enabling the Chairman or Speaker to restore order. Video of Friday’s incident shows Speaker Singh repeatedly appealing for calm and struggling to regain control amid escalating exchanges. His eventual decision to call a “time out” underscores the severity of the disruption.
Against this backdrop, the accusations levelled against parliamentary staff—compounded by the act of photographing one of them—appear not only inappropriate but also a troubling attempt to draw neutral officials into deeply politicised conflict. Such actions risk undermining the professionalism and impartiality upon which the institution depends. There is, therefore, a strong case for an investigation to determine the validity of the claims and the appropriateness of the conduct displayed by the Government MP.
More broadly, the incident signals a worrying trajectory in relations between the Government and the Opposition. With four years still remaining before the next general election, the current level of hostility suggests that the road ahead could be marked by heightened volatility, particularly within the House of Representatives.
The risk is that persistent disorder and partisan theatrics will overshadow Parliament’s core responsibility: to debate policy, scrutinise governance and pass legislation in the national interest.
As former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday often reminded, Parliament is not a “Sunday School”. Indeed, robust debate is an essential feature of democratic governance. However, when debate degenerates into open hostility and unparliamentary conduct, the institution risks losing sight of its purpose. In this particular case, the business to be completed ahead of today’s Mid-Year Budget Review was significantly disrupted and the remainder of the proceedings would have been a tense affair.
Parliament, however, must remain a forum for vigorous yet respectful exchange—not a theatre for disorder. If the current trajectory continues unchecked, the greatest casualty may well be public confidence in the very institution designed to serve the nation.
