Dear Sir,

I was rather surprised to read Arthur Foulke's column To The Point in your edition of Tuesday June 27 in which he criticised the Prime Minister and the PLP for attempting to have Senator Bernard Nottage address the House in session on the issue of the recent cluster of malaria cases in Exuma. He either specifically accused or implied that the PLP consistently abused and ignored the rules of the House, set bad examples for the youth by their disregard for time (a criticism with which I concur), he accused them of grandstanding, political chicanery, and of being prepared to destroy the parliamentary convention. After reading the column I was left wondering whether Sir Arthur Foulkes followed the proceedings of the House when he served as High Commissioner in London. If he did, he would have witnessed, as I did, some of the most egregious abuses of the parliament and its conventions during the two terms of the Hubert Ingraham administration. Let me cite but a few.Mr Foulkes mentioned that the Prime Minister manipulated the system by proroguing parliament after four years only so that Governor-General Arthur Hanna could preside over an opening. Well blow me down! There has been no greater abuse, manipulation and politicising of, or disrespect for the rules and conventions of the democratic institutions of this nation than the treatment meted out to former Governor-General, Sir Clifford Darling following the FNM's victory in 1992. In case Sir Arthur does not remember, let me remind him. Hubert Ingraham and the FNM sent Sir Clifford far away from The Bahamas on a forced and unwanted vacation, at the people's expense, simply to allow Sir Kendal Isaacs to preside over the opening of parliament. This was a blatant and deliberate politicising and disrespect for a time-honoured and valued national tradition. At the very least they should have paid for the vacation from the coffers of the FNM since it was such a partisan political exercise. How could Sir Arthur criticise the legitimate prorogation and reading of the speech from the Throne by a constitutionally appointed Governor-General.

A. D. Hanna and not even acknowledge the bastardisation of that Office by Hubert Ingraham and the FNM? Mr Ingraham, after the terrible defeat at the polls in 2002, and before he unveiled his intended plot against Tommy Turnquest and Dion Foulkes, offered regret for this unpardonable action. I wonder if Sir Arthur remembered how Hubert Ingraham impulsively adjourned the House after only a few minutes of its convening because he could not get the then opposition PLP to give its consent to introduce some matter. He not only adjourned the House after a few minutes but he adjourned it to only minutes later. The House then was forced to meet for a new sitting that very same morning. And Sir Arthur talks about abusing the rules and conventions of parliament!

I was most surprised that Sir Arthur took such a mean spirited swipe at the Speaker of the House. Maybe he could say if the former Speaker of the House, Rome Italia Johnson, broke the rules, conventions and traditions of the House when she was permitted on two occasions to step down from the Speaker's chair and make contributions to debates from the floor of the House. Now here new ground was broken. Under no circumstance in the Westminster system is it ever permitted for a sitting Speaker to engage in debates in the House. I know of no other jurisdiction where this political chicanery has ever been or would ever be allowed.But the essence of Sir Arthur's column was to criticise the fact that the Government attempted to have Senator Nottage address a sitting of the House from the bar of the House.

Sir Arthur wrote: "Mr Christie knows that it is, and should continue to be a rare honour for anyone who is not a member to address the House in session." He goes on to say that it is a privilege reserved for heads of state and other distinguished persons, I suppose that Sir Sidney would qualify under the latter since he was invited by the FNM to address the House in session. Sir Arthur then went on to make a statement that is quite curious. He wrote that: "Under no circumstance should a minister of Government who sits in the Senate be allowed to address the elected branch of parliament in session."

There is no rule or convention to prevent such an occurrence. Sir Arthur was right in that it would require the unanimous consent of the House to permit it. There was apparently a verbal agreement the day before between the two House leaders but that agreement was withdrawn by Hubert Ingraham whom Sir Arthur claimed was protecting the rules of the House.

This by a man, a 20-year member of the house, a party leader and a prime minister who during his term in office showed very little regard for conventions. Why would the FNM not allow Senator Nottage to address the House in session over an issue that had national and international implications? The recent outbreak of malaria had the potential to compromise the public health and to severely damage the nation's number one industry.

Yours, etc.,

CYNTHIA DALEY