[NSG Senate] Senate Chamber: Do We Have Work?

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:22 am

"Order, order. Questions asked must still be replied to, whether here or privately."

"We now begin on the Recognize the Armenian Genocide Act, by Sen. Ahmed Corbor."

OOC: Also can I just say that Recognize the Armenian Genocide Act is very unwieldy and very awkward for a title? This isn't the first time this has happened.

by **Coconut Isle** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:23 am

Why as we, a South East Asian nation suddenly care about this and not more important issues?

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:25 am

"In the name of the over one million people killed during the Armenian Genocide I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote AYE on this bill. The denial of history is not only foolish and arrogant but reckless and unprofessional. Let's stand with the Armenian people in their suffering. " Ahmed said.

by **Ainin** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:27 am

"Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The constitutional convention will conclude before twenty-four hours of debate time have elapsed. This legislature, convened under the PGEA, would therefore become powerless as the PGEA self-repeals upon the completion of the convention."

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:28 am

Ainin wrote:"Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The constitutional convention will conclude before twenty-four hours of debate time have elapsed. This legislature, convened under the PGEA, would therefore become powerless as the PGEA self-repeals upon the completion of the convention."

"The convention has not yet adjourned."

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:28 am

"I will just stop the debate for a moment."

"Using the powers invested in me through the Typographical Errors Correction Act, I shall add a full stop (period) behind the word "Genocide" in Section 1, Article 1.

OOC: Also can I just say that Recognize the Armenian Genocide Act is very unwieldy and very awkward for a title? This isn't the first time this has happened.

"Debate may now continue."

by **Ainin** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:31 am

Nariterrr wrote:
Ainin wrote:"Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The constitutional convention will conclude before twenty-four hours of debate time have elapsed. This legislature, convened under the PGEA, would therefore become powerless as the PGEA self-repeals upon the completion of the convention."

"The convention has not yet adjourned."

will (v.)
IPA: /wɪl/

(auxiliary) Used to express the future tense, sometimes with some implication of volition when used in the first person. Compare: shall

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:31 am

Ainin wrote:"Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The constitutional convention will conclude before twenty-four hours of debate time have elapsed. This legislature, convened under the PGEA, would therefore become powerless as the PGEA self-repeals upon the completion of the convention."

"That is a valid point of order. My apologies to Sen. Corbor, but perhaps this bill would be better debated with a new mandate provided by the people following the re-convening of the Chamber. I thus end debate on this bill early, to be continued during the next session of Parliament, whenever that may be."

"We re-enter time for Free Questions."

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:32 am

Ainin wrote:
Nariterrr wrote:"The convention has not yet adjourned."

will (v.)
IPA: /wɪl/

(auxiliary) Used to express the future tense, sometimes with some implication of volition when used in the first person. Compare: shall

Then I would presume that the Constitution of Elizia would kick in. In that case, I will motion to have the Executive Branch of Elizia Act be placed at the top on the list of Parliamentary business.

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:35 am

(ooc: just want to repost my question to make sure it was seen)

Nariterrr wrote:"Speaking of inactivity, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the Minister of Economic Affairs, The Hon. (Vedastia) has not authored any bill and only sponsored one bill (from what I can tell), and why has the Hon. (Vedastia) not once voted in this Chamber? Also speaking of inactivity, the Foreign Minister has also not been active in the Senate and has, as of yet, not voted on a single bill and has only introduced one bill (which falled) and only sponsored one bill?

Again, speaking of inactivity, the President failed to show for questions last week and this week. It seems like the President has had a tough time selecting his ministers and ensuring an active provincial government. Hasn't he?"

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:43 am

Nariterrr wrote:(ooc: just want to repost my question to make sure it was seen)
Nariterrr wrote:"Speaking of inactivity, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the Minister of Economic Affairs, The Hon. (Vedastia) has not authored any bill and only sponsored one bill (from what I can tell), and why has the Hon. (Vedastia) not once voted in this Chamber? Also speaking of inactivity, the Foreign Minister has also not been active in the Senate and has, as of yet, not voted on a single bill and has only introduced one bill (which falled) and only sponsored one bill?

Again, speaking of inactivity, the President failed to show for questions last week and this week. It seems like the President has had a tough time selecting his ministers and ensuring an active provincial government. Hasn't he?"

"I will only be allowing the first question to the Hon. Louis Kim, as the Hon. Member has already asked one question. The second question to the President exceeds the limit and is just greedy. Stop it."

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:45 am

Tumbra wrote:
Nariterrr wrote:(ooc: just want to repost my question to make sure it was seen)

"I will only be allowing the first question to the Hon. Louis Kim, as the Hon. Member has already asked one question. The second question to the President exceeds the limit and is just greedy. Stop it."

"I'm confused. We're allowed two questions? I have as of yet only asked one. Could the Speaker clarify?"

by **Argentarino** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:47 am

Tumbra wrote:
Nariterrr wrote:(ooc: just want to repost my question to make sure it was seen)

"I will only be allowing the first question to the Hon. Louis Kim, as the Hon. Member has already asked one question. The second question to the President exceeds the limit and is just greedy. Stop it."

Sayid Kasturi rose for the SLP and addressed the Speaker. "Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Speaking of inactivity, the President failed to show for questions last week and this week. It seems like the President has had a tough time selecting his ministers and ensuring an active provisional government. Hasn't he?" Sayid smiled at his colleagues.

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:49 am

Argentarino wrote:
Tumbra wrote:
"I will only be allowing the first question to the Hon. Louis Kim, as the Hon. Member has already asked one question. The second question to the President exceeds the limit and is just greedy. Stop it."

Sayid Kasturi rose for the SLP and addressed the Speaker. "Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Speaking of inactivity, the President failed to show for questions last week and this week. It seems like the President has had a tough time selecting his ministers and ensuring an active provisional government. Hasn't he?" Sayid smiled at his colleagues.

"If the Hon. Senator has read the Act, the two questions apply to his PARTY, not the INDIVIDUAL SENATOR."

by **Maklohi Vai** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:51 am

Tumbra wrote:
Argentarino wrote:
Sayid Kasturi rose for the SLP and addressed the Speaker. "Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Speaking of inactivity, the President failed to show for questions last week and this week. It seems like the President has had a tough time selecting his ministers and ensuring an active provisional government. Hasn't he?" Sayid smiled at his colleagues.

"If the Hon. Senator has read the Act, the two questions apply to his PARTY, not the INDIVIDUAL SENATOR."

"Mister Speaker, if Senator Corbor wishes to take both of the questions allotted to his party, he may do so. There are no restrictions in the act as to whom from the parties may ask the questions."

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:53 am

Maklohi Vai wrote:
Tumbra wrote:
"If the Hon. Senator has read the Act, the two questions apply to his PARTY, not the INDIVIDUAL SENATOR."

"Mister Speaker, if Senator Corbor wishes to take both of the questions allotted to his party, he may do so. There are no restrictions in the act as to whom from the parties may ask the questions."

"Hon. Kamassi, the point is not who is asking the questions. The point is that the party has already used up both its questions - the first one was addressed to the Hon. Member, and the second one is being addressed to the Hon. Louis Kim. With these two questions, the allocation has already been used up. Hon. Members from the SLP might wish to take note of this fact."

by **Argentarino** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:56 am

Tumbra wrote:
Argentarino wrote:
Sayid Kasturi rose for the SLP and addressed the Speaker. "Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. Speaking of inactivity, the President failed to show for questions last week and this week. It seems like the President has had a tough time selecting his ministers and ensuring an active provisional government. Hasn't he?" Sayid smiled at his colleagues.

"If the Hon. Senator has read the Act, the two questions apply to his PARTY, not the INDIVIDUAL SENATOR."

"Then, Mr. Speaker, let him ask his question, and learn to read legislation! Stop making excuses for the absent government, Mr. Speaker. Your job is to facilitate these discussions and the business of the Chamber according to our legislation. He was allowed to ask two questions for our party, and you've persistently stonewalled the Honorable Senator from asking his second question!"

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:58 am

Tumbra wrote:
Maklohi Vai wrote:"Mister Speaker, if Senator Corbor wishes to take both of the questions allotted to his party, he may do so. There are no restrictions in the act as to whom from the parties may ask the questions."

"Hon. Kamassi, the point is not who is asking the questions. The point is that the party has already used up both its questions - the first one was addressed to the Hon. Member, and the second one is being addressed to the Hon. Louis Kim. With these two questions, the allocation has already been used up. Hon. Members from the SLP might wish to take note of this fact."

"Perhaps the Speaker should note the SLP only asked one question."

by **Tumbra** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 9:59 am

Argentarino wrote:
Tumbra wrote:
"If the Hon. Senator has read the Act, the two questions apply to his PARTY, not the INDIVIDUAL SENATOR."

"Then, Mr. Speaker, let him ask his question, and learn to read legislation! Stop making excuses for the absent government, Mr. Speaker. Your job is to facilitate these discussions and the business of the Chamber according to our legislation. He was allowed to ask two questions for our party, and you've persistently stonewalled the Honorable Senator from asking his second question!"

"Hon. Senator, the fact of the matter is that his question to the President is his third question. His first question was asked at Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:52 pm, Elizia time." (OOC: And can be found as the seventeenth post on page 45)

The question was this.

Nariterrr wrote:"Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak for the majority of opposition members in this Senate. The majority of us have noted, even within your own government, that you have been sitting around doing nothing. It really is shameful. The majority of bills have as of yet come from members of the opposition and I can only count a few that have come from the Government, if any. I understand that this is a lame duck period and things will really start rolling when we adjourn the convention, but you have demonstrated a lack of leadership. I can only think of one member of your government, the Hon. John Chui, who is actually doing good work, and I commend him for that. But the lack of productivity is insane. Not to mention that your government has been unable to get your own members to go out and vote. The Opposition has surpassed you in the polls and so have we. You are now in third place and you have VERY high unfavorable.

In short, can the Government answer why it has been so inactive, and why should we support the government?

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:00 am

Tumbra wrote:
Argentarino wrote:"Then, Mr. Speaker, let him ask his question, and learn to read legislation! Stop making excuses for the absent government, Mr. Speaker. Your job is to facilitate these discussions and the business of the Chamber according to our legislation. He was allowed to ask two questions for our party, and you've persistently stonewalled the Honorable Senator from asking his second question!"

"Hon. Senator, the fact of the matter is that his question to the President is his third question. His first question was asked at Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:52 pm, Elizia time." (OOC: And can be found as the seventeenth post on page 45)

The question was this.

Nariterrr wrote:"Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak for the majority of opposition members in this Senate. The majority of us have noted, even within your own government, that you have been sitting around doing nothing. It really is shameful. The majority of bills have as of yet come from members of the opposition and I can only count a few that have come from the Government, if any. I understand that this is a lame duck period and things will really start rolling when we adjourn the convention, but you have demonstrated a lack of leadership. I can only think of one member of your government, the Hon. John Chui, who is actually doing good work, and I commend him for that. But the lack of productivity is insane. Not to mention that your government has been unable to get your own members to go out and vote. The Opposition has surpassed you in the polls and so have we. You are now in third place and you have VERY high unfavorable.

In short, can the Government answer why it has been so inactive, and why should we support the government?

Actually no, that was a joint question on a related topic. And even so, I didn't get an answer for the second part.

by **The Sarian** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:09 am

"Mr Speaker, why must the honourable" Sa Ri An put every contempt into the word that she could muster, "gentleman always want to be the centre of attention? He's disrupting the house and really doing his bills no favour whatsoever."

by **Ainin** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:09 am

Argentarino wrote:
Tumbra wrote:
"If the Hon. Senator has read the Act, the two questions apply to his PARTY, not the INDIVIDUAL SENATOR."

"Then, Mr. Speaker, let him ask his question, and learn to read legislation! Stop making excuses for the absent government, Mr. Speaker. Your job is to facilitate these discussions and the business of the Chamber according to our legislation. He was allowed to ask two questions for our party, and you've persistently stonewalled the Honorable Senator from asking his second question!"

"Mr. Speaker, this is an absolute outrage! The member's malicious attack on the chair is an infamous and chilling assault on a foundation of parliamentary democracy. I petition the Chair to hold the honourable gentleman in contempt of Parliament under Section 2a of the Obstruction of Justice Act."

by **The Symplegades** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:12 am

Coconut Isle wrote:Why as we, a South East Asian nation suddenly care about this and not more important issues?

"Because, the Armenian Genocide was a great loss of life and a tragedy, and we must recognize it in order to further our reputation in the world for defense of human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities and racial minorities. Additionally, this small bill does not detract any time or great effort from 'more important issues' it simply says what needs to be said"

by **Nariterrr** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:14 am

Ainin wrote:
Argentarino wrote:"Then, Mr. Speaker, let him ask his question, and learn to read legislation! Stop making excuses for the absent government, Mr. Speaker. Your job is to facilitate these discussions and the business of the Chamber according to our legislation. He was allowed to ask two questions for our party, and you've persistently stonewalled the Honorable Senator from asking his second question!"

"Mr. Speaker, this is an absolute outrage! The member's malicious attack on the chair is an infamous and chilling assault on a foundation of parliamentary democracy. I petition the Chair to hold the honourable gentleman in contempt of Parliament under Section 2a of the Obstruction of Justice Act."

"You obviously didn't read your own bill -"

Contempt of Parliament shall be defined as:
i. Violating the dignity and authority of Parliament,
ii. Knowingly violating the rules of the Parliament in an egregious or contemptuous fashion,
iii. Intently obstructing the business of Parliament without valid cause,
iv. Intimidating or threatening a member of Parliament.

The Hon. Member did nothing of what you are accusing him of. You are disrupting the busniess of this chamber.

by **The Symplegades** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:16 am

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that we delay discussion of the Honorable Gentleman's possible infractions until after we have conclude our debate on the Armenian Genocide Recognition bill"

[NSG Senate] Senate Chamber: Do We Have Work?

Who is online