P.U.P. Parliamentarians on Shyne’s Apology to House Speaker

Henry Charles Usher

Political pundits took to social media chiding the Leader of the Opposition, saying that it was a backhanded apology.  In the letter, Shyne Barrow apologizes for the offense that the Speaker of the House took to his words, but that his complaints are still valid.  He also wrote to the Chairman of the Privileges Committee to address comments made by PM John Briceño and Minister Jose Abelardo Mai towards Albert Area Representative Tracy Panton.  Today when the media caught up with two P.U.P. parliamentarians, they shared their opinions on the apology letter issued by the Leader of the Opposition.

Henry Charles Usher, Minister of Constitutional Reform

“I think, as I reminded him in the house, section 38(8), the standing orders are very clear that the conduct of the speaker cannot be questioned unless a proper motion is brought. He is aware of that. I saw him reading the book in the house meeting when the section was pointed out to him so I believe he understands that he should not have done what he did. Sending that email was improper of him; calling into question the conduct of the speaker was improper of him because when you call into question the chair or the speaker, you are calling into question the entire process of the house. So it is good that he sent that apology.”

Francis Fonseca, Minister of Education

“George Price use to always say to us as young students, let not the best be the enemy of the good. So I think the Leader of the Opposition went from a very hard line position of no apology and a very obnoxious and arrogant, in my view, to a position where he is admitting, I believe in his own way, that he erred and that in fact he owes the speaker an apology. So, in my view, we should not bicker over the manner or content of that apology. I certainly accept it as an apology. But of course, it’s not a decision for me to make. Ultimately, the speaker would have to be satisfied that it is an apology in her view. And then the committee, I imagine, the Constitutional and Foreign Affairs Committee Privileges Committee will take a look at it.   But speaking for myself, I am satisfied that he has satisfactorily responded. We have a House Committee meeting on the twenty-third, so certainly, he can table it. I can tell you my position; I saw the letter this morning. I view that as absolutely frivolous and vexation. I see no merit or substance in what he is requesting. This is completely different. Across the aisle, everybody gets a little bit offensive from time to time. In a sense, that’s what we sign up for, the hurly burly of politics. I know some people don’t like it but that’s the reality of politics on the house floor.”