In schools, learners are expected to be in uniform, the clergy are supposed to be in their cassock or maybe clerical attire, while barristers are expected to be in robes.
Flouting these rules results in disobedience, and may attract penalties of any kind depending on the set rules and regulations.
As the same is expected in the Parliament, a new trend seems to emerge from some of the members of Parliament who have so far expressed their temerity by dressing on their choice.
Babu Owino mid this year walked into the parliament building clad in lawyers' attire just seventeen weeks later Honourable member of the legislative arm, Boni Khalwale surprised the senate house when he joined the session attired in informal clothes that doesn't match the parliament's set of standard.
The two representatives who sit in different houses faced the same results of ejection out of the respective houses.
While Honourable Babu Owino was rightfully dressed but contextually incorrect, his counterpart whom he shares with the same characteristics of daring, Mr. Boni Khalwale perhaps might be assumed to be jogging for a convivial, prejudice as it may sound, but their intents are within themselves.
By the surprise of their actions, these two lawmakers are not first MPs neither are they new inductees in the parliament.
The Kenyan legislators are some of the highest paid servants in the job circle and the majority live a lavish life evidenced in their opulence nature and therefore they should not lie to the public and their colleagues that they are usually in a quandary to decide which attire to put on and what-not-to.
They may have a view of this as a peccadillo and worth to be pardon-me moment and business goes on as normal, but how can a member of Parliament fail to adhere to the Norma which he is used if it is not to create moments of mirth and divert attention from the main business of the day? Should we assume that some of our representatives are intentionally making little mistakes so as to brand the Speaker and other members who discuss their issues as nit-pickers? At least, the PR stunts should be well left at the parliamentary gates.
This behavior is akin to that of a learner who intentionally fails to put on school uniform and puts on a conspicuous one so that the master on duty will easily notice and send him back home, he might be irked by being sent back home to put on the school uniform but inadvertently he desires have been fully satisfied.
Sometimes their retaliations are so serious that they tend to create mirth within the house before they leave, nagging , whining blame-game, engaging in a ping-pong kind of conversation but in the real sense, "a happy client".
In the holy books, Peter was testing waters when he knew he had no faith but insisted on walking on water but later he failed when he nearly drowned before Jesus, his master would rescue him. Defying the odds and setting your own standard to be unique is not an act of nobility howsoever one is preponderance. Testing master's faith should not be the end goal while in real sense you are incognizant with the repercussions that come along with the actions.
Photo courtesy: Dreamstime
Obedience is a virtue and leaders are primarily demanded to possess it rather than coming to the public to justify the wrongdoing so as to gain sympathy or maintain relevance.
BY GLEN DON
THANK YOU FOR READING
Comments
Post a Comment