Dear Editor,

I am astonished by how individuals who have been elected to govern the country seem to pay more attention to the basic matters.

St Ann South Eastern Member of Parliament Lisa Hanna was labelled as an attention-seeker for just wearing a black, cap-sleeved dress. How does this affect how Parliament discusses issues that affect normal citizens and addresses clarity for topics which people like me seem to want addressed.

Standing Order 84A mentions that the dress of members and other users of the House must at all times reflect sobriety in order to maintain dignity and decorum of the House.

I am in total agreement with rules and regulations, especially in the House of Parliament. I, however, believe that Lisa Hanna was free from the ambush statement made by St Andrew West Rural Member of Parliament Juliet Cuthbert Flynn, who I believe has less experience in affairs of how Parliament should operate.

This simple matter caused an outrage when I am still not completely sure about issues of national importance that affect our country, such as the national identification system; the government moving from donor funding to government funding in regard to HIV treatment and health care services; sexual harassment; or the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In my eyes, these are better things to debate about and emphasise as individuals elected to better manage our country.

In my view, the rules are not specific and leave room for misinterpretations. Standing Order 84A states “… and sleeved business dress”. Lisa Hanna was wearing a black, cap-sleeved dress. Having specific rules will lessen the challenges we now see, and Parliament needs to stick to the agenda and matters at hand.

Tevin Gordon

Human rights advocate and community facilitator

tyquendo@gmail.com