Having looked at the re-run of the debate on the parliament channel on the Dangerous Dogs Bill, I must confess my surprise over the walkout by the PNM. The Attorney General was clearly engaging Mr Deyalsingh in some amusing, lively and colourful crosstalk when they were debating dangerous dogs on the night of Valentines.
I remember when Ken Valley said Amrika Tiwary was a “UNC judge” after she delivered a judgment against his government, he was at pains to point out that crosstalk was an essential feature of our parliament. Without such humour, he said, parliament would be boring and” un-Trinidadian”. Indeed, no one will look at the parliament if it wasn’t entertainingly informative.
I agree with Ken Valley. Picong and spicy, good-nature jabs are a part and parcel of our political culture. It is reflected in the liberty calyposonians take in their biting and stinging commentaries.
Deyalsingh was trying to shout down the AG when he started his contributions by demanding he apologise to “Krystal”. Given his vociferous agitation, Ramlogan inquired: “Who is Krystal? Who is Krystal? Is she your ex-girlfriend who has been deprived of your services on Valentines night?”
To me, this is a good political jab (and Lord alone knows Ramlogan has had his fair share of these from the PNM) and the walkout was childish. Deyalsingh needs to develop a sense of humour and a thicker skin if he is to last in politics. Perhaps he should take a page from Kristel Ramnath’s book and relax as she has treated the matter with the right dose of amusement while remaining focused on the issues in the law on dangerous dogs.