Dear Mr. Speaker,
I write to you with respect to the office you hold and the vital role you play in guiding our parliamentary proceedings. I feel it is my duty to raise an issue that has been a source of continuous controversy and which is now, frankly, absurd: the prohibition of the use of the word “corruption” in parliamentary speech.
This ban, instituted by you some time ago, has always been a subject of concern for those of us who believe in free and open debate. A number of developments have brought its absurdity into sharp focus. One such example is that the Government of Guyana made much ado about an anti-corruption expo it hosted last month—a commendable effort in principle. Yet, under the current parliamentary edict, I and for that matter, Minister Gail Teixeira under whose ministerial auspices the expo was convened, would not be able to properly reference this event in the National Assembly because its very title includes the forbidden word.
Mr. Speaker, this situation borders on the comical. How does one discuss combating corruption without being able to say the word? Should we as MP’s refer to the expo as the “anti- ‘C’ event”? Or perhaps invent euphemisms, like “the battle against dishonesty that shall not be named”? Such linguistic gymnastics is unbecoming of a serious parliamentary discourse and makes us, quite frankly, the subject of further ridicule.
The role of Parliament is to serve as a forum for truth, accountability, and robust debate. To ban words central to these functions—particularly one as pivotal as “corruption”—undermines the dignity and purpose of this august body. It also sends a troubling signal to our citizens: that while the government may host expos and deliver speeches on a so-called battle against corruption, Parliament itself cannot openly discuss the issue.
This is not merely a matter of semantics; it is a matter of principle. If we are serious about addressing corruption in all its forms, we cannot shy away from naming it. Banning the word does not make the sorun go away. Instead, it creates the illusion that we are more concerned with appearances than action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to reconsider this decision. Let us restore to the National Assembly the freedom to engage in meaningful discourse, to name the issues we face, and to work together to resolve them. The citizens of Guyana deserve no less.
Respectfully,
Hon. Amanza Walton-Desir
Member of Parliament