He was apparently not interested in any discussion on the August 21, 2004 grenade attacks on an AL rally and the assassination of AL leader SAMS Kibria, which he termed as old issues, but he was ready to entertain the BNP tirade against the formation of Rakkhi Bahini and the BAKSAL during the AL rule after 1971. It is not clear why the speaker took such a stand when his sole duty was to maintain neutrality and objectivity.

Similarly, the issue of the police attack on the country's leading shooters only two days back couldn't stimulate discussion when the speaker was presiding over the session. One wonders what could be more relevant than focusing on barbaric police action against an ace shooter. One AL lawmaker's microphone was switched off during the proceedings and the result was great disappointment among the opposition MPs about the speaker's overall handling of the matter.

That brings us back to the opposition's complaint that they are not given sufficient space or time during the parliamentary sessions. No fewer than 169 motions put up by the opposition lawmakers were rejected. And if they are not allowed to speak on point of order either, what is the justification for their presence in parliament? The point that is getting lost amid inexplicable exercise of powers by the Speaker is that if discussion on important issues is forsaken it would be a disservice to the cause of governance.

The opposition lawmakers' position that they are not allowed to speak in parliament or raise issues of their concern is somewhat vindicated by the Speaker's repeated interruptions which, regrettably, come only their way, while the ruling party MPs deliver their speeches more or less unobstructed. Even if it is said for the sake of argument that the Speaker can and should regulate the discussions, the topicality of most of the issues raised at the JS sessions should not be lost sight of.

Finally, the JS session cannot be vibrant, lively and productive if the opposition's voice becomes inaudible.