During the session of the Committee of Supply in the National Assembly, the conduct of parliamentarians was unruly. The Honourable Speaker was obviously exasperated and snapped at parliamentarians the words “Shut Up”. Two seasoned journalists have commented on that event. Sulaiman Patel wrote in l’express of July 1, “on ne peut que déplorer l’appauvrissement du discours parlementaire et les comportements répréhensibles de certains élus.” On the use of the words “Shut Up” by the Speaker, Mr. Patel commented, «La présidente de l’Assemblée nationale, excédée, a fini par lâcher un tonitruant «SHUT UP», aussi sonore que désespéré. On la comprend»

Mr. Nad Sivaramen, Director of publication of L’express daily, wrote on July 2, «SHUT UP n’est pas une doctrine.» He added «Shirin AumeeruddyCziffra a aujourd’hui une responsabilité immense. Pour se démarquer de son prédécesseur - probablement le pire speaker de notre histoire, à l’opposé du style de sir Harilal Vaghjee.»

At the sitting of the National Assembly on June 30, the International Day of Parliamentarism, the Speaker stated “Hon. Members, we must strive to maintain the decorum of the House. Je ne veux pas retourner dans les dérives du passé. Let us all commit on this special day to respect the established procedures and decision-making processes of this august Assembly to achieve positive outcomes for our country.”

One of the important duties of the Speaker is to maintain order in the National Assembly. He/She can call members to order for unruly conduct; for the use of unparliamentary language and other matters which may disrupt the smooth running of the business of parliament. Standing Order 48 gives power to the Speaker to order any member or members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Assembly during the remainder of that day’s sitting. The power to maintain order in parliament concerns unruly conduct; unparliamentary language and disruption of the smooth running of the business of parliament.

When a member uses unparliamentary language he/ she is sanctioned by none other than the Speaker. In the National Assembly that was operating under the MSM regime with Speaker Phokeer in the chair, and the worst Speaker to date in our parliamentary history, he used the word “mad” at two members. Since the Speaker himself used the word “mad” at two members nobody could sanction him. The Opposition could have presented a motion of no confidence against him, but it would have been rejected outright.

The current Speaker used the words “shut up.” By any standard the phrase «shut up» is generally considered unparliamentary language. The view has been expressed that “It is an informal and potentially rude way to address someone, and is therefore typically prohibited in formal settings like parliamentary debates. While the term is not often used in parliamentary settings, it’s still considered a breach of conduct according to some sources.”

Should a Speaker apologise formally when he/she has used language that is considered unparliamentary since unparliamentary language is language that that breaks the rules of politeness and good conduct in parliament?

In 2023, in Singapore the Speaker of parliament Tan Chuan-Jin had to apologise for using for using unparliamentary language in his reaction to a speech made by a member of parliament. In his letter he wrote: “I sincerely apologise to the House for the unparliamentary language that I used, and for not respecting the dignity and decorum of the House.

Should a Speaker apologise when he/she uses language which is unparliamentary? In her statement to the House on June 30, the Speaker stated, ‘‘I have now presided the National Assembly for seven months. The elections are behind us. We have had some very interesting sessions, but unfortunately, I lost my temper during the Committee of Supply for obvious reasons.” It is to her credit that the Speaker referred to her loss of temper which was unfortunate according to her. Would that be regarded as a formal apology? The question remains open.