A.J. Nicholson, the leader of government business in the Senate, began a push on an issue last week that The Gavel is encouraging him to stick to and never backtrack.
Mr Nicholson said he wanted to see changes to the Standing Orders to ensure that questions tabled in Parliament are directed at the relevant minister and no other, unlike the current practice.
His colleagues on the government benches applauded him for his insight. We do as well.
From his pronouncement, it was understandably clear that loquacious Opposition Senator Robert Montague was not in agreement.
Notwithstanding, we hope that Mr Nicholson carries through with his stated intention to propose amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament as this is in keeping with good order and practical common sense.
Any amendment in this regard to the Standing Orders should help to minimise nonsensical gamesmanship being paraded by members of whichever party who occupy the Opposition benches.
Mr Nicholson said he planned to suggest that the Standing Orders Committee of Parliament consider whether there should not be an amendment to the Standing Orders that would stipulate that questions be put to relevant ministers in the House of Representatives.
The Senate leader submitted his case quite lucidly and succinctly that it cannot be fair and certainly does not make sense and serves no useful purpose that questions on education, for example, be put to the agriculture minister.
It, therefore, makes eminent sense that information ought properly to be sought from the minister with responsibility for the relevant portfolio as the minister on the floor cannot necessarily answer follow-up questions simply because the issue is outside his expertise.
In these interesting times, this practical suggestion failed to resonate with Mr Montague.
Or, perhaps, he just had to object. Mr Montague does not revel in silence, neither does he like to be silenced.
Political gamesmanship in the parliamentary opposition is arriving at a new high.
After languishing in a state of protracted somnolence, Opposition members in both Houses of Parliament appear to have found a new lease on life.
In doing so, they sometimes appear to throw good order out the door.
Not only do they jump to speak at every chance they get these days, they also speak out of turn in the free-for-all environment - a situation that has caused confusion on just which Opposition member speaks on what.
So there was grim silence for two years and now there is a mad rush to make a statement.
Mr Montague, a frontbencher on the Opposition side of the Upper House, is clearly no exception, but in so behaving, he brought foolhardiness to the Senate in spectacular fashion on Friday.
Now Mr Montague is one of the incessant sotto voce commentators - really a euphemism for rambunctious crosstalkers - in the Chamber of Parliament.
On this specific occasion, his intervention elicited memories of a rejoinder of P.J. Patterson, when the latter was finance minister in 1991.
Responding to then Opposition member Anthony Johnson, who had risen to "seek elucidation" on a matter and proceeded to a lengthy ramble, Patterson quipped: "Some people have something to say, others have to say something."
Far too often, successive leaders of government business in the Senate have been subjected to being all ministers to all Opposition members.
In most instances, the Senate leader seeks responses from the relevant minister, usually from the House of Representatives, but then come the follow-up questions and the Senate Leader is at sea.
The Senate Leader should not be subjected to this ignominy as he is not the minister with intimate knowledge of all issues. It simply cannot be fair.
But then again, it has long been discovered that the questions that are asked of ministers by Opposition members are not always intended to elicit genuine responses.
There is often not even a veiled attempt to conceal the obvious goal of either embarrassing
Such an attitude reflects a wanton disregard for the Jamaican people and moreso the supposed inviolability of the legislature.
It is for this reason that follow-up questions by Opposition members, which should be sought to clarify or elucidate on answers previously tendered, are so poorly phrased.
These follow-up queries are, for the most part, mini speeches and lengthy pontifications that are at times longer than the
Send feedback to email@example.com.