Dear Editor,
IN any democracy, Parliament stands as the ultimate forum for debate, accountability, and national decision making.
It is where elected representatives are expected to demonstrate not only their intelligence and conviction, but also their discipline and respect for the rules that govern the chamber.
When those rules are openly disregarded, the damage goes far deeper than a moment of disorder—it erodes the credibility of the institution itself.
This is precisely why the conduct displayed by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed during the recent Budget Debate should concern every citizen.
The repeated violation of Standing Orders, particularly the well-established prohibition on reading prepared speeches during debates, was not a trivial procedural slip. It was a blatant defiance of the norms that preserve the quality and integrity of parliamentary discourse.
These rules exist for a reason. Parliamentary debate was never meant to be a theatre of scripted monologues; it is supposed to showcase genuine understanding, critical engagement, and the ability to respond intelligently to opposing viewpoints.
When a member insists on reading from a prepared text—especially after being instructed by the Speaker to stop—they are not participating in a debate. They are merely performing.
More troubling was the Member’s continued disregard for the Speaker’s authority. In Westminster style systems like ours, the Speaker’s rulings are final.
They maintain order, uphold fairness, and ensure that Parliament functions as intended. Ignoring the Speaker is not simply rude—it is an attack on the very structure that allows Parliament to operate. Without respect for the Chair, the chamber descends into chaos.
That this behaviour occurred during the Budget Debate makes it even more concerning. The national budget is the most important annual exercise of governance.
It determines how resources will be allocated, how public services will be funded, and what priorities will shape the country’s future.
Citizens deserve serious, substantive contributions from their representatives —not theatrics, not defiance, and certainly not the casual dismissal of rules designed to protect the integrity of the process.
It is worth considering the precedent such conduct sets. If one member can violate standing orders with impunity, what prevents others from doing likewise? Parliamentary disorder does not begin with a shouting match or a walkout—it begins with small acts of rule breaking that go unchallenged.
Today it may be reading a scripted speech; tomorrow it could be open refusal to comply with other procedural directives. A Parliament where rules are optional is a Parliament on unstable ground.
To be clear, vigorous disagreement is not only welcomed but essential in a functioning democracy. Passion in debate is healthy; dissent is necessary; scrutiny is indispensable. But none of these requires the abandonment of decorum or the disregard of established rules.
Democracy does not thrive on disorder. It thrives on discipline, respect, and the shared understanding that no Member—regardless of rank or role—is above the Standing Orders.
The recent incident by Azruddin Mohamed should therefore be a wakeup call. Parliament must reaffirm that its rules are not suggestions but obligations. Its Speaker must be respected, its procedures upheld, and its debates conducted with the seriousness the public deserves.
What happened during the Budget Debate was more than a moment of misbehaviour. It was a reminder that institutions are only as strong as the individuals entrusted to uphold them.
When MPs like Azruddin choose spectacle over substance and defiance over discipline, it is the public—and democracy itself—that ultimately pays the price. Parliament must do better. And the country has every right to expect nothing less.